116 / 274
以實質選擇權觀點探討探索性與利用性活動對公司績效之影響：中介效果模型
116
converts existing resources into real options, thereby allowing them to realize future
opportunities. Exploitation is defined as a process in which a firm waits to exercise its
“options” until such time as the environmental conditions are more likely to generate a high
rate of return. As such, exploration involves the creation of options that a firm can strike
when there is less uncertainty and the environment is more favorable (Kogut and Kulatilaka,
2001). Under such circumstances, the firm can choose to exercise those options that are “in
the money” and allow the remainder to expire (McGrath and Nerkar, 2004). In other words,
exploration offers firms more investment options early on, the benefits of which they can
exploit later. Based on ROR, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Prior exploration has a positive effect on exploitation.
As in the case with financial options, the “exercise price” of a real option is the amount
of money that should be invested to exploit a future opportunity. In the context of technology
development, exercising a real option most often involves a capital expenditure for
equipment and facilities as a way to realize the potential gains from the option. If conditions
are clearly unfavorable, the firm may decide to stop its commitment to the opportunity
created by the exploration and confine its losses to the initial irreversible investment, just as
an investor might choose not to strike a financial option and lose only the cost of the option.
However, holding these options per se cannot generate profits. To reap profits, the firm must
make more commitments, that is, exercise some of its options. This commitment is viewed
as exploitation and given the capital budgeting process of the firm, this exploitation should
subsequently lead to better performance. Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Exploitation is positively related to firm performance.
Previous research has yielded mixed results on the relationship between exploration and
performance. Some studies found a positive relationship between the two (Isobe, Makino,
and Montgomery, 2004), whereas others found no consistent relationship but high variability
in profits (March, 1991; He and Wong, 2004). According to ROR, firms that made
investments to explore their opportunities are the ones most likely to seize an opportunity to
grow. Previous exploration expands the selection pool for later exploitation and also
improves a firm’s “absorptive capability” (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990) to fully exploit a
favorable opportunity. Therefore, we argue that the more a firm engages in exploration, the
more likely it is to apply its existing knowledge in creative ways that allow it to capitalize on
new trends and increase its returns. Hence, we combined hypotheses 2 and 3 as follows: