跨国技术联盟特征对合作创新绩效的影响研究
|
摘要
跨国技术联盟是经济知识化和经济全球化的必然产物，是经济技术创新国际化和跨国战略联盟发展两种趋势的综合统一体，其发展趋势越来越多的集中于合作创新方面。跨国技术联盟合作创新的兴起，使全球经济竞争的格局发生着巨大转变，为企业国际化的发展战略创造了前所未有的战略机遇。
跨国技术联盟是企业联盟的一种，是大型跨国企业为合理配置资源、保持竞争优势、协同规避风险而以各种方式结成的，以技术合作、技术交流、技术创新为主的合作关系。这就决定了它的合作目标、合作范围、合作管理、合作诉求，都与其它合作甚至其它类型的联盟不同。合作目标方面，跨国技术联盟与普通企业和联盟只以生存为目的创新不同，它着眼于持续竞争力的获得，并面向国际市场。合作范围方面，跨国技术联盟的合作更集中于技术层面，并且由于合作企业本身就具有一定的实力，所以联盟的知识更多的涉及高精尖技术、全球范围内的领先技术。管理方面，跨国技术联盟是多个大型跨国企业的组合，需要均衡各方利益，随时应对突发事件，使得联盟的管理较其它合作模式更为复杂。合作诉求方面，每一联盟成员都想尽量缩短磨合期，以最小成本，在最短时间内，取得最多、最有价值的成果，同时还要实现联盟整体的竞争优势即成员的共赢。
跨国技术联盟是一个特殊的联盟形式，联盟内组织学习的每一个环节都更大程度的受到联盟特征的影响。企业为缔结跨国技术联盟而挑选合作伙伴的重要条件之一就是资源的互补性和彼此能够给予对方的技术支持，联盟成立后关系稳固的首要前提是联盟成员间是否能够树立互信的合作态度。在组织学习中，联盟成员间学习方式、交流频率和沟通方式的差异直接影响到知识在联盟内的流动，而联盟竞争战略的制定、任务的下达和完成效率都取决于成员之间价值取向、发展目标、管理理念的相似程度。这些都是联盟成员在联盟缔结期间表现出的关系特质，也就是属于跨国技术联盟的更有针对性的联盟特征。
在跨国技术联盟这样一个规模巨大的组织里，联盟成员之间通过有效组织学习实现自身技术创新，是关系到联盟是否能够卓有成效运转的关键因素之一。本研究通过系统的文献梳理，具体分析跨国技术联特征、联盟组织学习、联盟合作创新绩效等研究要素的含义，从联盟成员的嵌合性、联盟成员的相似性、联盟成员的互动性三个层面分析跨国技术联盟特征，从知识获取、知识整合、知识利用三个维度分析跨国技术联盟组织学习。在此基础上详细分析了要素之间的相互影响，并构建理论模型。以问卷形式收集数据并使用统计软件LISREL8.80和SPSS21进行数据处理，进行实证检验，得出了跨国技术联盟特征通过组织学习影响联盟合作绩效的结构方程模型及相关路径系数。最后得出的结论有：
(1)跨国技术联盟特征对知识获取有正影响，其中包括联盟成员的相似性对知识获取有显著的正影响、成员的嵌合性对知识获取有显著的正影响、联盟成员的互动性对知识获取有显著的正影响。
(2)跨国技术联盟特征对知识整合有正影响，其中包括联盟成员的相似性对知识整合有显著的正影响、联盟成员的嵌合性对知识整合有显著的正影响、联盟成员的互动性对知识整合有显著的正影响。
(3)跨国技术联盟特征中只有联盟成员的相似性对知识利用有显著的正影响。
(4)组织学习三个环节都对跨国技术联盟合作创新绩效有影响，其中包括知识获取对合作创新绩效有显著的正影响、知识整合对合作创新绩效有显著的正影响、知识利用对合作创新绩效有显著的正影响。
(5)组织学习三个环节间的相互影响，其中包括知识获取对知识利用有显著的正影响、知识整合对知识利用有显著的正影响。
(6)跨国技术联盟特征对联盟合作创新绩效的影响，其中包括联盟成员的嵌合性对联盟合作创新绩效有显著的正影响、联盟成员的互动性对联盟合作创新绩效有显著的正影响。
(7)组织学习的中介作用，其中包括知识获取和知识整合对联盟特征影响合作创新绩效起中介作用、知识利用对联盟特征中的成员相似性影响合作创新绩效起中介作用。
本文的创新点主要体现在以下几个方面：
第一，针对跨国技术联盟这一特殊联盟形式，基于联盟成员在联盟缔结期间表现出的关系特质，将联盟特征划分为联盟成员的嵌合性、联盟成员的互动性、联盟成员的相似性。具体含义为，联盟成员的嵌合性指在跨国技术联盟内联盟伙伴之间的信任程度、联系的紧密程度以及技术互补和支持的程度，联盟成员的互动性指在跨国技术联盟内联盟伙伴之间交流、沟通、互动的频率，联盟成员的相似性指跨国技术联盟内联盟伙伴之间在技术水平、经营策略、公司文化、组织结构等方面的相似程度。
第二，将跨国技术联盟特征、组织学习、合作创新绩效整合在一个理论框架中，建立了跨国技术联盟特征影响组织学习进而影响联盟合作创新绩效的相互关系模型，使研究更具有针对性。
第三，本研究立足跨国技术联盟的理论基础，通过对相关影响要素的理论研究和实证检验，提出并验证了跨国技术联盟成员相似性、嵌合性、互动性通过组织学习对联盟合作创新产生正影响，为今后跨国技术联盟合作创新实证研究的发展提供了新的思路，使研究成果更具有现实指导意义。
第四，从知识管理的角度分析跨国技术联盟组织学习，提出并验证了组织学习从知识获取、知识整合、知识利用三个层面对合作创新绩效产生正影响。同时对知识获取、知识整合、知识利用对联盟特征和合作创新绩效的中介作用进行了验证。
Multinational technical alliance is the result of economic globalization andknowledge-based economy inevitably. And it is the comprehensive entity of twotrends of multinational strategic alliance development and economic technologicalinternational innovation. The developping trend of multinational technical alliancefocuses on the cooperation innovation. The rising of multinational technical alliancecooperative innovation change the pattern of global economic competition and offerthe strategic opportunity for the development strategy of enterpriseinternationalization.
Continuous innovation is the essential choice of the enterprise survival anddevelopment under the uncertainty increasing global competition environment. Thenew enterprise who can learn and integrate knowledge in a global context will havecompetitive edge in future development and superior resources to make thetechnological innovation come true. In order to speed up the pace of the cooperativeinnovation, the enterprise must to rapid accumulation of knowledge, technology, etc.Through organizational learning alliance partners for new skills and knowledge, theenterprise can change and improve the structure, technology, experience and level oforiginal knowledge quickly, and change the original competitive strategy of theenterprise, to develop more competitive products to increase the vitality of enterprises.The need and process of knowledge in innovation and innovation come frominner-enterprise as well as the innovative network of enterprises. It puts forward anew challenge for the innovative enterprise knowledge creation, knowledge sharingand knowledge management. On the other hand the role of knowledge in such aninnovative enterprise is influenced by many factors.
With the expansion of enterprise and development, the purpose of multinationaltechnology alliance change from reduce of the enterprise cost and share the risk of theenterprise to organization learning innovation. Technological innovation has been the foundation of the development of the enterprise that alternative cost control andquality control in the fierce market competition environment. Companies rely on theinnovation ability of oneself is difficult in the modern society that developingdifficulty increasing, technology increasingly complex. But it is hard to promote theinnovative ability of alliance members if just consider the matter from the two anglesof reduce costs and risks about transnational technology alliance. Multinationaltechnical alliance can promote the bidirectional flow of knowledge and techniquebetween enterprises and improve the ability of technology innovation. In this way, thecooperative innovation performance will be improved.
Multinational technology alliance is a kind of enterprise alliance. The objectivesof multinational technology alliance are rational allocation of resources, keeping thecompetitive advantage and collaborative risk aversion. The main relationship ofmultinational technology alliance is technical cooperation, technical exchanges andtechnical innovation. So the objectives, scope, management, and demands of thecooperation are different from the other types of alliance. From the point ofcooperation objectives, multinational technology alliance pays attention to sustainablecompetitiveness and faces the international market. It’s different from generalenterprises and alliances who innovate only for the purpose of survival. From thepoint of cooperation scope, multinational technology alliance concentrates on thetechnical level. The enterprises in the multinational technology alliance have certainstrength. So the alliance has more advanced technology and lead-edge technologies ina global context than other alliance. From the point of cooperation management,multinational technology alliance has to balance the interests of all parties in order toready to deal with emergencies. The multinational technology alliance is acombination of several large multinational companies, so the management of it ismore complicated than that in other modality for co-operation. From the point ofcooperation demands, everyone in the multinational technology alliance wants toshorten the period and acquire the more valuable achievements in shorter time. In thisway, the multinational technology alliance will have sustainable competitiveness.
Multinational technology alliance is a special form of alliance. Every singledetail of organizational learning in the multinational technology alliance is influencedby the characteristics of multinational technical alliance. The degree ofcomplementary resources and the support that can give each other are the important conditions for enterprises choosing partners. The primary premise of the stablerelationships is whether alliance members can set up the mutual trust cooperationattitude after establishing a coalition. The differences of learning style,communication frequency and communication mode between alliance members havedirect influence on the flowing of knowledge in the multinational technology alliance.The decision of competitive strategy, the task order and the efficiency of the completedepend on the similarity of the value orientation, development goals and managementconcept. These are the relationship properties between alliance members during thealliance to conclude. We call them the characteristics of multinational technicalalliance.
One of the key factors of efficient functioning is technological innovation fromorganizational learning by alliance members in a huge organization just asmultinational technology alliance. Based on the systematic literature review, thearticle analyzes the implication of characteristics of multinational technical alliance,alliance organizational learning and cooperative innovation performance. The articleidentifies three influencing factors of characteristics of multinational technicalalliance as chimerism, similarity and interactivity, and identifies three influencingfactors of organizational learning as knowledge acquisition, knowledge integrationand knowledge exploitation. The article establishes a theory model about theinfluence of the characteristics of multinational technical alliance on cooperativeinnovation performance.
Using the data from questionnaires examines the theory model and hypotheses.Carry on analysis on the data using software SPSS21and LISREL8.80, and thenmake discussion on the results. The results of empirical test indicate that, of the26hypothesis,18have passed, while8have not. Regarding to the hypothesis which havepassed, we discuss their significance.
There are several innovation points in this paper:
(1) This particular union forms for multinational technology alliance, based onthe alliance members to conclude the alliance during the show the relationshipbetween the characteristics. The article identifies three influencing factors ofcharacteristics of multinational technical alliance as chimerism, similarity andinteractivity. Chimerism is the degree of trust and the degree of close of the alliancemembers in the multinational technical alliance. Similarity is the degree of similar of technical level, business strategy, corporate culture, and organization structurebetween the alliance members in the multinational technical alliance. Interactivity isthe frequency of the communication and interaction between the alliance members inthe multinational technical alliance.
(2) The article establishes a theory model about the influence of thecharacteristics of multinational technical alliance on cooperative innovationperformance. This study based on the theoretical basis of multinational technologyalliance, through to the related influence factors of theoretical research and empiricaltest, come to the conclusion, the chimerism, similarity and interactivity of alliancemembers positively impact the cooperative innovation performance throughorganizational learning.
(3) The article identifies three influencing factors of organizational learning asknowledge acquisition, knowledge integration and knowledge exploitation from theview of knowledge management. Organizational learning have mediation role for thecharacteristics of multinational technical alliance and cooperative innovationperformance.
跨国技术联盟是企业联盟的一种，是大型跨国企业为合理配置资源、保持竞争优势、协同规避风险而以各种方式结成的，以技术合作、技术交流、技术创新为主的合作关系。这就决定了它的合作目标、合作范围、合作管理、合作诉求，都与其它合作甚至其它类型的联盟不同。合作目标方面，跨国技术联盟与普通企业和联盟只以生存为目的创新不同，它着眼于持续竞争力的获得，并面向国际市场。合作范围方面，跨国技术联盟的合作更集中于技术层面，并且由于合作企业本身就具有一定的实力，所以联盟的知识更多的涉及高精尖技术、全球范围内的领先技术。管理方面，跨国技术联盟是多个大型跨国企业的组合，需要均衡各方利益，随时应对突发事件，使得联盟的管理较其它合作模式更为复杂。合作诉求方面，每一联盟成员都想尽量缩短磨合期，以最小成本，在最短时间内，取得最多、最有价值的成果，同时还要实现联盟整体的竞争优势即成员的共赢。
跨国技术联盟是一个特殊的联盟形式，联盟内组织学习的每一个环节都更大程度的受到联盟特征的影响。企业为缔结跨国技术联盟而挑选合作伙伴的重要条件之一就是资源的互补性和彼此能够给予对方的技术支持，联盟成立后关系稳固的首要前提是联盟成员间是否能够树立互信的合作态度。在组织学习中，联盟成员间学习方式、交流频率和沟通方式的差异直接影响到知识在联盟内的流动，而联盟竞争战略的制定、任务的下达和完成效率都取决于成员之间价值取向、发展目标、管理理念的相似程度。这些都是联盟成员在联盟缔结期间表现出的关系特质，也就是属于跨国技术联盟的更有针对性的联盟特征。
在跨国技术联盟这样一个规模巨大的组织里，联盟成员之间通过有效组织学习实现自身技术创新，是关系到联盟是否能够卓有成效运转的关键因素之一。本研究通过系统的文献梳理，具体分析跨国技术联特征、联盟组织学习、联盟合作创新绩效等研究要素的含义，从联盟成员的嵌合性、联盟成员的相似性、联盟成员的互动性三个层面分析跨国技术联盟特征，从知识获取、知识整合、知识利用三个维度分析跨国技术联盟组织学习。在此基础上详细分析了要素之间的相互影响，并构建理论模型。以问卷形式收集数据并使用统计软件LISREL8.80和SPSS21进行数据处理，进行实证检验，得出了跨国技术联盟特征通过组织学习影响联盟合作绩效的结构方程模型及相关路径系数。最后得出的结论有：
(1)跨国技术联盟特征对知识获取有正影响，其中包括联盟成员的相似性对知识获取有显著的正影响、成员的嵌合性对知识获取有显著的正影响、联盟成员的互动性对知识获取有显著的正影响。
(2)跨国技术联盟特征对知识整合有正影响，其中包括联盟成员的相似性对知识整合有显著的正影响、联盟成员的嵌合性对知识整合有显著的正影响、联盟成员的互动性对知识整合有显著的正影响。
(3)跨国技术联盟特征中只有联盟成员的相似性对知识利用有显著的正影响。
(4)组织学习三个环节都对跨国技术联盟合作创新绩效有影响，其中包括知识获取对合作创新绩效有显著的正影响、知识整合对合作创新绩效有显著的正影响、知识利用对合作创新绩效有显著的正影响。
(5)组织学习三个环节间的相互影响，其中包括知识获取对知识利用有显著的正影响、知识整合对知识利用有显著的正影响。
(6)跨国技术联盟特征对联盟合作创新绩效的影响，其中包括联盟成员的嵌合性对联盟合作创新绩效有显著的正影响、联盟成员的互动性对联盟合作创新绩效有显著的正影响。
(7)组织学习的中介作用，其中包括知识获取和知识整合对联盟特征影响合作创新绩效起中介作用、知识利用对联盟特征中的成员相似性影响合作创新绩效起中介作用。
本文的创新点主要体现在以下几个方面：
第一，针对跨国技术联盟这一特殊联盟形式，基于联盟成员在联盟缔结期间表现出的关系特质，将联盟特征划分为联盟成员的嵌合性、联盟成员的互动性、联盟成员的相似性。具体含义为，联盟成员的嵌合性指在跨国技术联盟内联盟伙伴之间的信任程度、联系的紧密程度以及技术互补和支持的程度，联盟成员的互动性指在跨国技术联盟内联盟伙伴之间交流、沟通、互动的频率，联盟成员的相似性指跨国技术联盟内联盟伙伴之间在技术水平、经营策略、公司文化、组织结构等方面的相似程度。
第二，将跨国技术联盟特征、组织学习、合作创新绩效整合在一个理论框架中，建立了跨国技术联盟特征影响组织学习进而影响联盟合作创新绩效的相互关系模型，使研究更具有针对性。
第三，本研究立足跨国技术联盟的理论基础，通过对相关影响要素的理论研究和实证检验，提出并验证了跨国技术联盟成员相似性、嵌合性、互动性通过组织学习对联盟合作创新产生正影响，为今后跨国技术联盟合作创新实证研究的发展提供了新的思路，使研究成果更具有现实指导意义。
第四，从知识管理的角度分析跨国技术联盟组织学习，提出并验证了组织学习从知识获取、知识整合、知识利用三个层面对合作创新绩效产生正影响。同时对知识获取、知识整合、知识利用对联盟特征和合作创新绩效的中介作用进行了验证。
Multinational technical alliance is the result of economic globalization andknowledge-based economy inevitably. And it is the comprehensive entity of twotrends of multinational strategic alliance development and economic technologicalinternational innovation. The developping trend of multinational technical alliancefocuses on the cooperation innovation. The rising of multinational technical alliancecooperative innovation change the pattern of global economic competition and offerthe strategic opportunity for the development strategy of enterpriseinternationalization.
Continuous innovation is the essential choice of the enterprise survival anddevelopment under the uncertainty increasing global competition environment. Thenew enterprise who can learn and integrate knowledge in a global context will havecompetitive edge in future development and superior resources to make thetechnological innovation come true. In order to speed up the pace of the cooperativeinnovation, the enterprise must to rapid accumulation of knowledge, technology, etc.Through organizational learning alliance partners for new skills and knowledge, theenterprise can change and improve the structure, technology, experience and level oforiginal knowledge quickly, and change the original competitive strategy of theenterprise, to develop more competitive products to increase the vitality of enterprises.The need and process of knowledge in innovation and innovation come frominner-enterprise as well as the innovative network of enterprises. It puts forward anew challenge for the innovative enterprise knowledge creation, knowledge sharingand knowledge management. On the other hand the role of knowledge in such aninnovative enterprise is influenced by many factors.
With the expansion of enterprise and development, the purpose of multinationaltechnology alliance change from reduce of the enterprise cost and share the risk of theenterprise to organization learning innovation. Technological innovation has been the foundation of the development of the enterprise that alternative cost control andquality control in the fierce market competition environment. Companies rely on theinnovation ability of oneself is difficult in the modern society that developingdifficulty increasing, technology increasingly complex. But it is hard to promote theinnovative ability of alliance members if just consider the matter from the two anglesof reduce costs and risks about transnational technology alliance. Multinationaltechnical alliance can promote the bidirectional flow of knowledge and techniquebetween enterprises and improve the ability of technology innovation. In this way, thecooperative innovation performance will be improved.
Multinational technology alliance is a kind of enterprise alliance. The objectivesof multinational technology alliance are rational allocation of resources, keeping thecompetitive advantage and collaborative risk aversion. The main relationship ofmultinational technology alliance is technical cooperation, technical exchanges andtechnical innovation. So the objectives, scope, management, and demands of thecooperation are different from the other types of alliance. From the point ofcooperation objectives, multinational technology alliance pays attention to sustainablecompetitiveness and faces the international market. It’s different from generalenterprises and alliances who innovate only for the purpose of survival. From thepoint of cooperation scope, multinational technology alliance concentrates on thetechnical level. The enterprises in the multinational technology alliance have certainstrength. So the alliance has more advanced technology and lead-edge technologies ina global context than other alliance. From the point of cooperation management,multinational technology alliance has to balance the interests of all parties in order toready to deal with emergencies. The multinational technology alliance is acombination of several large multinational companies, so the management of it ismore complicated than that in other modality for co-operation. From the point ofcooperation demands, everyone in the multinational technology alliance wants toshorten the period and acquire the more valuable achievements in shorter time. In thisway, the multinational technology alliance will have sustainable competitiveness.
Multinational technology alliance is a special form of alliance. Every singledetail of organizational learning in the multinational technology alliance is influencedby the characteristics of multinational technical alliance. The degree ofcomplementary resources and the support that can give each other are the important conditions for enterprises choosing partners. The primary premise of the stablerelationships is whether alliance members can set up the mutual trust cooperationattitude after establishing a coalition. The differences of learning style,communication frequency and communication mode between alliance members havedirect influence on the flowing of knowledge in the multinational technology alliance.The decision of competitive strategy, the task order and the efficiency of the completedepend on the similarity of the value orientation, development goals and managementconcept. These are the relationship properties between alliance members during thealliance to conclude. We call them the characteristics of multinational technicalalliance.
One of the key factors of efficient functioning is technological innovation fromorganizational learning by alliance members in a huge organization just asmultinational technology alliance. Based on the systematic literature review, thearticle analyzes the implication of characteristics of multinational technical alliance,alliance organizational learning and cooperative innovation performance. The articleidentifies three influencing factors of characteristics of multinational technicalalliance as chimerism, similarity and interactivity, and identifies three influencingfactors of organizational learning as knowledge acquisition, knowledge integrationand knowledge exploitation. The article establishes a theory model about theinfluence of the characteristics of multinational technical alliance on cooperativeinnovation performance.
Using the data from questionnaires examines the theory model and hypotheses.Carry on analysis on the data using software SPSS21and LISREL8.80, and thenmake discussion on the results. The results of empirical test indicate that, of the26hypothesis,18have passed, while8have not. Regarding to the hypothesis which havepassed, we discuss their significance.
There are several innovation points in this paper:
(1) This particular union forms for multinational technology alliance, based onthe alliance members to conclude the alliance during the show the relationshipbetween the characteristics. The article identifies three influencing factors ofcharacteristics of multinational technical alliance as chimerism, similarity andinteractivity. Chimerism is the degree of trust and the degree of close of the alliancemembers in the multinational technical alliance. Similarity is the degree of similar of technical level, business strategy, corporate culture, and organization structurebetween the alliance members in the multinational technical alliance. Interactivity isthe frequency of the communication and interaction between the alliance members inthe multinational technical alliance.
(2) The article establishes a theory model about the influence of thecharacteristics of multinational technical alliance on cooperative innovationperformance. This study based on the theoretical basis of multinational technologyalliance, through to the related influence factors of theoretical research and empiricaltest, come to the conclusion, the chimerism, similarity and interactivity of alliancemembers positively impact the cooperative innovation performance throughorganizational learning.
(3) The article identifies three influencing factors of organizational learning asknowledge acquisition, knowledge integration and knowledge exploitation from theview of knowledge management. Organizational learning have mediation role for thecharacteristics of multinational technical alliance and cooperative innovationperformance.
引文
[1] Adner, R.Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem [J].Harvard business review,2006,84(4):98-107.
[2] Afuah, A.Innovation management: Strategic, implementation, and Profits [M].London: Oxford University Press,1998:13-15.
[3] Allee, V. Tenets of knowledge [J]. Executive Excellence,1998,15(9),4-6.
[4] A. M. Khan, V. Manopichet. Innovative and Noninnovative Small Firms:Typesand Characteristics [J].Management Science.1989, May:597-606.
[5] Anderson U, Forsgren M, Holm U. Subsidiary embeddedness and competencedevelopment in MNCs-amulti-level analysis [J]. Organization Studies,2001,22(6):1013-1034.
[6] Appleyard, M. M. How does knowledge flow? Inter-firm patterns in thesemiconductor industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal.1996,17, WinterSpecial Issue:137-154.
[7] Argote, L.&Ingram, P. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantagein firms [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000,182(1):150-169.
[8] Argyris C., Schon D. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective[M], Boston: Reading, MenloPark: Addison-Wesley,1978.
[9] Badaracco J. L.The Knowledge Link：How Firms Compete through StrategicAlliances [M]. Boston: Harvard Business School Press，1991.
[10] Barrett F.J., Peterson R.Appreciative Learning Cultures: DevelopingCompetencies for Global Organizing [J].Organization Development Journal,2000,18(2),10-21.
[11] Bartlett, C.A., Ghoshal, S. Managing across Borders.the Transnational Solution,MA [M]. Boston: D.Edition,2002.
[12] Bernard L. Simonin，Ambiguity and the Process of Knowledge Transfer inStrategic Alliances, Strategic Management Journal.1999,20(7):595-623.
[13] Bischi GI，Dawidb H，Kopel M. Spillover effects and the evolution of firmclusters ［J］. Journal of Economic Behavior＆Organization，2003，50(1):47-75.
[14] Boer, M., Bosch, F. A. J. and Volberda, H. W. Management OrganizationalKnowledge Integration in the Emerging Multimedia Complex [J]. JournalofManagement Studies.1999,36(3):379-398.
[15] Boisot, M. Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in theinformationeconomy [M].NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress,1998.
[16] Bouroche M A. Technology Exchange in the Information Age-A Guide toSuccessful Cooperative R&D Partnerships [J]. Journal society of ResearchAdministrators，1999，31:37-40.
[17] Branstetter L，Sakakibara M. Japanese Research Consortia: A MicroeconometricAnalysis of Industrial Policy [J]. Journal of Industrial Economics，1998，46(2):207-233.
[18] Brockhoff, K. Competitor technology intelligence in German companies [J].Industrial Marketing Management,1991,(20):91-98.
[19] Brown J. R., Cobb, A. T.&Lusch, R. F. The roles played by inter-organizationalcontracts and justice in marketing channel relationships [J]. Journal of BusinessResearch.2006,59(2):166-175.
[20] Butler C. Problems in global strategic alliance management for Europeandefence manufacturing firms［J］. Management Decision，2008，46(2):330-341.
[21] Cangelosi, V.E., Dill, W.R. Organizational learning: observations toward atheory.Administrative Science Quarterly [J],1965,(10):175-203.
[22] Cardinal, L. B. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: Theuse of organizational control inmanaging research and development [J].Organization Science,2001,12(l),19-36.
[23] Casta er, J. Diversification as learning: The role of corporate exploitation andexploration under different environmental conditions in the US Phone industry,1979-2002[D]. A Ph. D. Thesis of the University of Minnesota.2002.
[24] Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. An empirical investigation of organizational learningthrough strategic alliance between SMEs [J]. Journal of StrategicMarketing.2005,13(March):3-16.
[25] Chesbrough, H.The era of open innovation [J].MITS loan.Management Review,2003, Spring:35-41.
[26] Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M.H.&Wang, E. G. Understanding knowledge sharing invirtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitivetheories [J]. Decision Support Systems,2006,42:1872-1888.
[27] Choung, Y., Hwang, H.&Choi, J.et al. Transition of Latecomer Firms fromTechnology Users to Technology Generators: Korean Semiconductor Firms [J].World Development.2000,28(5):969-982.
[28] Chung-Jen Chen. The effects of knowledge attribute, alliance characteristics,and absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer Performance [J]. R&DManagement,2004,34(3):311-321.
[29] Chung, L.H., Gibbons, P.T.&Schoch, H.P. The influence of subsidiary contextand head off icestrategic management style on control of MNCs: Theexperiencein Australia [J].Accounting Auditing&Account ability Journal,2000,13(5):647-666.
[30] Cohen W., Levinthal D. Fortune favors the prepared firm [J]. ManagementScience,1994,40(2):227-251.
[31] Cooke P, Clifton N. Social capital, Firm embeddedness and Regionaldevelopment [J]. Regional Studies,2005,39(8):1065-1077.
[32] Crossan M., Lane H. and White R. An organizational learning framework:Fromintuition to institution [J]. Academy of Management Review.1999,24:522-538.
[33] Cyert R M， Goodman P S. Creating effective University industry alliances:An organizational learning perspective [J]. Organizational Dynamics，1997，25(4):45-57.
[34] Cybert R.M. and March, J. G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm [A].New Jersey:Prentice-Hall,1963.
[35] Das, T. K.&Teng B-S. Between trust and control: developing confidence inpartner cooperation in alliances [J].AcademyofManagementReview.1998,23(3):491-512.
[36] Davenport, T.H.&Prusak, L.Working knowledge [M].Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.1998.
[37] Demsetz, H. The Theory of the Firm Revisited [J]. Journal of Law Economicsand Organization,1988,4(l):141-162.
[38] Dixon, N.M.Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what theyknow [M].Boston: Harvard Business School Press,2000.
[39] Doz I，Prahalad C E.Transaction cost economic：The governance contractualrelations [J]. Journal of Law and Economic,1979,(12):233-261.
[40] Drucker, P. The discipline of innovation [J].Harvard Business Review,2002,80(8):95-101.
[41] Dulaimi, M. F., Ling, F. Y. Y.&Bajracharya, A. Organizational motivation andinter-organizational interaction in construction innovation in Singapore [J].Construction Management and Economies.2003,21:307-318.
[42] Dussauge, P., Garrette, B.&Mitchell, W.(2000). Learning from competingpartner: Out come sanddurations of scale and linkalliances in Europe, NorthAmerica and Asia [J]. Strategic Management Journal,21:99-126.
[43] Easterby Smith, M, Lyles, M．A, Tsang, W．K. Interorganizational knowledgetransfer: Current themes and future prospects [J]. Journal of ManagementStudies,2008,45:2200-2380.
[44] Eisenhardt, K.&Santos, F. Knowledge-Based View: A New View of Strategy[M].London: Handbook of Strategy and Management,2003.
[45] Eisenhardt, K. M.&Martin J.A.Dynamic capabilities: What are they?[J].Strategic Management Journal,2000,21:1105-1121.
[46] F. Langerak. An Appraisal of Research on the Predictive Power of MarketOrientation. European Management Journal.2003,Vol.21(4):447-464
[47] Fosfuri A, Tribo J.Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacityandits impact on innovation performance Omega [J]. Omega,2008,36(2):173-187.
[48] Fritsch, M.&Lukas, R. Who cooperateson R&D.[J]. Research Policy,2001,30:297-312.
[49] Gallouj, F.&Weinstein, O. Innovation in services [J]. Research Policy,1997,26:37-66.
[50] Gann, D.&Salter, A. Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: theconstruction of complex Products and systems [J]. Research Policy.2000,29:955-972.
[51] Garbarino, E.&Johnson, M. S. The different roles of satisfaction, trust andcommitment in customer relationship [J]. Journal of Marketing,1999,63(2):70-87.
[52] Garud, R.&Nayyar, P. R. Transformative Capacity: ContinualStructuring byIntertemporal Technology Transfer [J].StrategicManagement Journal1994,15(5):365-386.
[53] G.Hamel.Competition for competence and inter-partner learning withininternational strategic alliances [J]. Strategic manage.1991,12(1):83-103.
[54] Ghoshal, S.&Moran, P.Bad for Practice: A critiqueoftransaction costtheory [J].Academy of Management Review,1996,21:13-47.
[55] Girma, S.Geographic proximity, absorptive capacity and Productivity spilloversfrom FDI: athreshol dregression analysis [J].Oxford Bulletin of Economics&Statistics,2005,67(3):281-306.
[56] Gose, J.&Park, S. H., Inter-organizational links and innovation: the case ofhospital services [J]. Academy of Management Journal.1997,40(4):673-696.
[57] Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure: The problemofembeddedness [J]. American Journal of Sociology.1985,91(3):481-510.
[58] Grant，R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm [J]. StrategicManagement Journal.1996,17:109-122.
[59] Gulati, Ranjay, Alliance and networks [J]. Strategic Management Joumal.1998,19:293.
[60] Gupta, A. K.&Govindarajan, V. Knowledge flows within multinationalcorporations [J]. Strategic Management Journal.2000,21(4):473-496.
[61] Hagedoorn. J, Cloodt.M. Measuring innovative performance：Is there anadvantage in using multiple indicators [J], Research Policy,2003,(32):1365-1379.
[62] Hagedoorn, J. Understanding the cross-level embeddedness of interfirmpartnership for mation [J].Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3):670-680.
[63] Hamel G. Competition for competence and inter-Partnerl earning withininternational strategic alliance [J]. Strategic Management Joumal,1991,(12):83-103.
[64] Hansen, M. T. Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing inmultiunit companies [J]. Organization Science.2002,13(3):232-248.
[65] Harrigan, K. R. Joint ventures and competitive strategy [J].StrategicManagement Journal.198,(9):141-158.
[66] Hedberg B., How organizations learn and unlearn.In: Nystrom, P.&Stabuck,W (eds.), Handbook of organizational design Oxford [M]. London: OxfordUniversity Press,1981.
[67] Henderson， R.M., Clark K.B. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration ofexisting product technologies and the failure of established firms [J].Administrative Science Quarterly.1990,35:9-30.
[68] Holt, K. Product Innovation Management [M]. London: Oxford, ButterworthHenemann, Harper Business,1988:15-20.
[69] Huang，H. F., Kao，H. P., Chu，Y. Y. An empirical study on knowledgeintegration, technology innovation and experimental practice [J]. ExpertSystems with Applications.2008,35:177-186.
[70] Huber G.P., Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and theLiteratures [J]. Organization Science.1991,2(1),88-115.
[71] H.W.Volberda,Van Den Bosch, A.J.Frans, Boer De Michieal. ManagingOrganizational Knowledge Integration in the Emerging Multimedia Complex[J].Journal of Management Studies.1999,36(3):379-398.
[72] Inkpen, A.C&Currall S.C.The nature, antecedents, and consequences of jointventure trust [J]. Journal of International Management.1998,4(l): l-20.
[73] Inkpen A C. Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategicalliances [J]. Academy of Management Executive,1998,12(4):69-80.
[74] Ingham M， Mothe C. How to learn in R&D partnerships?[J]. R&Management，1998，28(4):249-261.
[75] J.Downs Timothy. Changing the Culture of Under development andUnsustainability. Journal of Environment Planning and Management.2003,43(5):601-621.
[76] Johncantwell.Technological Innovation and Multinational Corporations[M].London: Basil Blachwell Ltd.,1989.
[77] John Hagedoorn, Albert N. Link, Nicholas S. Vonortas. Research partnerships[J]. Research Policy,2000,(29):567-586.
[78] Kalaignanam K, Shankar V, Varadarajan R. Asymmetric new Productdevelopment alliances: win-win or win-lose partnerships?[J]. ManagementScience,2007,53(3):357-374.
[79] Kapasuwan S., Linking Organizational Leaning and Network Characteristics:Effects on Firm Performance [M].Washington. D.C.: Doctor Thesis byWashington State University,2004.
[80] Kogut B.Joint ventures.heoretical and empirical perspectives [J].StrategicManagement Journal，1988,(9):319-332.
[81] Kogut B. The Network as Knowledge: Generative Rules and the Emergence ofStructure. Strategic Management Journal.2000,21(2):405-425
[82] Kogut, Bruce, Zander, Udo. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilitiesand thereplication of technology [J]. Organization Science,1992,3(3):383-396.
[83] Lane PJ, Koka BR, Pathak S. The reification of absorptive capacity: a criticalreview and rejuvenation of the construct [J]. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4):833-863.
[84] Lane, P. J.&Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and inter-organizationallearning [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19:461-77.
[85] Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E.&Lyles, M. A. Absorptive capacity, learning andperformance in international jointventures [J].Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(12):1139-1161.
[86] Liang, C.J.&Wang, W.H. Integrative research into the financial servicesindustry in Taiwan: Relationship bonding tactics, relationship quality andbehavior alloyalty [J].Journal of Financial Services Marketing,2005,10(l):65-83.
[87] Lichtenthaler U. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and thecomplementarity of organizational learning processes [J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2009,52(4):822-846.
[88] Liebeskind, J., Oliver, A., Zucker, L&Brewer, M.Socialnetworks, learning, andflexibility: sourcingscientific knowledge in new bio technology firms [J],Organization Science,1996,7(4):425-443.
[89] Lui, S. S., Ngo, H. Y&Hon, A. H. Y. Coercive strategy in inter-firmcooperation: mediating roles of interpersonal and inter-organizational trust[J].Journalof Business Research.2005.59(4):466-474.
[90] Luo, Y．D．Structuring interorganizational cooperation: The role of economicintegration in strategic alliances [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2008b,29(6):617-637.
[91] Lynn, G. S., Reilly, R. R.&Akgun, A. E. Knowledge Management in NewProduct Teams: Practices and Outcomes [J]. IEEE Transactions on EngineeringMnagaement.2000,47(2):221-231.
[92] Malhotra, A., Gosain, S.&EI Sawy,0. A. Absorptive capacity configurations insupply chains: gearing for Partner-enabled market knowledge creation [J], MISQuarterly.2005,29(l):145-187.
[93] March, J.(1991).Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning [J].Organization Science,2:71-87.
[94] March J.G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning [J].Organization Science,1991，2(1):71-87.
[95] March, J.G.&Simon, H. Organizations [M]. Newyork, Johnwiley,1958.
[96] Marshall, N.&Brady, T. Knowledge management and the politics ofknowledge: illustrations from complex Products and systems [J].EuropeanJournal of Information Systems.2001,10:99-112.
[97] Maryam Alavi，Amrit Tiwana. Knowledge integration in virtual teams: thepotential role of KMS [J]. Journal of the American Society for InformationScience and Technology.2002，53（12）1029-1037.
[98] Mavondo, F.T.&Rodrigo, E.M. The effect of relationship dimensionsoninterpersonal and inter-organizational commitment in organizations conductingbusiness between Australia and China [J].Journal of Business Research.2001,52(2):111-121.
[99] M. E. Porter and M. B. Fuller. Coalitions and global strategy. In M. E.Porter(ed)，Competition in global industries [M]. Boston：Harvard BusinessSchool Press，1986:321.
[100] M. E. Porter. Competitive strategy [M]. New York: Competitive advantage.1985.
[101] Miyazaki, K. Search, Learning and Accumulation of TechnologicalCompetences: The Case of Optoelectronics [J].Industrial and CorporateChange.1994,3(3):631-654.
[102] Moran, P. Structural vs. relational embeddness: social capital and managerialperformance [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26:1129-1151.
[103] Morgan, R. M.&Hunt, S. D. The commitment-trust theory of relationshipmarketing [J]. Journal of Marketing.1994,58(July):20-38.
[104] Nielsen, B.B.The role of knowledge embeddedness in the creation of synergiesin the strategies alliances [J].Journal of Business Research.2005,58:1194-1204.
[105] Nieto M, Quevedo P. Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledgespillovers, and innovative effort [J]. Technovation,2008,25(10):1141-1157.
[106] Nika M, Lgor P. Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influenceoninnovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model[J].Technovation,2009,29(12):859-872.
[107] Nonaka, I. The Knowledge Creating Company. Harvard Business Review,1991,69（6）:96-104
[108] Norman, P. M. Knowledge acquisition, knowledge loss, and satisfaction in hightechnology alliances [J]. Journal of Business Research,2004,57:610-619.
[109] Nummela, N. Looking through a prism-multiple perspective to commitment tointernational R&D collaboration [J]. Journal of High Technology ManagementResearch.2003,14:135-148.
[110] Oshri, I.&Newell, S. Component sharing in complex products and systems:challenges, solutions, and practicalimplications [J].IEEET ransactions OnEngineering Management.2005,52(4):509-521.
[111] Parkhe, A. Strategic alliances structuring: a game theoretic and transaction costexamination of inter-firm cooperation [J]. Academy of ManagementJoumal.1993,36(4):794-829.
[112] Pavlou, P.&elSawy, O. From IT Leveraging Competence to CompetitiveAdvantage in Turbulent Environments: The Case of New Product Development[J],2006,17(3):198-227.
[113] Peter JL, Jane ES, Marjorie AL. Absorptive Capacity, Learning andPerformance in International Joint Ventures [J]. Strategic Manage ment Journal,2001,22(12):1139-1161.
[114] Pinto, M.&Pinto, J. Project team communication and cross-functionalcooperationinnew program development [J]. Journal of Product InnovationManagement,1990,7(3):200-212.
[115] Richardson,G. B. The organization of industry [J]. Economic Journal. R1972,(82):21-29.
[116] Rigby, D.&Zook, C. Open-market innovation [M].Boston: Harvard BusinessReview,2002.
[117] Ring, P. S.&Van de Ven, A. H. Structuring cooperative relationships betweenorganizations [J]. Strategic Management Journal.1992,13(6):483-98.
[118] Riusala, K.&Suutari, V. International knowledge transfer through expatriates[J]. Thunderbird International Business Review,2004,46(6):743-770.
[119] R. M. Henderson, K. B. Clark. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration ofExisting Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms.Administrative Science Quarterly.1990,Vol.35:9-30
[120] Rochford, L. Generating and screening new productideas [J].IndustrialMarketing Management,1991,20(4):287-296.
[121] Rochford, L.&Rudelius, W. New product development process [J].IndustrialMarketing Management,1997,26(1):67-84.
[122] Ruckman K. Technology sourcing acquisitions: What they mean for innovationpotential ［J］. Journal of Strategy and Management，2009，2(1):56-75.
[123] Santoro, M.D.&Gopalakrishnan, S.The institutionalization of knowledgetransfer activities within industry-university collaborative ventures [J]. Journalof Engineering and Technology Management.2000,17:299-319.
[124] Sawers, J．L, Pretorius, M．W, Oerlemans, L．A．G． Safeguarding SMEsdynamic capabilities in technology innovative SME large company partnershipsin South Africa [J]．Technovation,2008,28(4):171-182.
[125] Shah, R．H, Swaminathan, V． Factors influencing partner selection in strategicalliances: The moderating role of alliance context [J]．Strategic ManagementJournal,2008,29(5):471-494.
[126] Sierra MCDL.Managing Global Alliances: Key Steps for SuccessfulCollaboration [M]. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley Publishing Sundbo,1998.
[127] Sinkula, Baker W., Noordewier T., A Framework for market-basedorganizational learning: linking value, knowledge and behavior [J].Journal ofthe Academy of marketing science.1997,25:305-318
[128] Sivadas，E.，Dwyer，F. R. An examination of organizational factors influencingnew product success in internal andalliance based processes [J]. Journal ofMarketing，2000，64(l):31-49.
[129] Slater S.F. and Narver J.C., Market Orientation and the Learning Organization[J].Journal of Marketing,59(4),1995,63-74.
[130] Smith, K., Collins, C.&Clark, K. Knowledge creation capability, and the rateof new product introduction in High-Technology Firms [J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2005,48(2):346-357.
[131] Sobrero, M.&Roberts E. B. Strategic management of supplier-manufacturerrelations in new product development [J]. Research Policy.2002,31:159-182.
[132] Somaya, D.&Teece, D. Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and the GrowthMechanism of the Free-Market Enterprise [M], Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress Princeton, NJ,2007.
[133] Spender, J. C&Grant, R. M. Knowledge and the firm: overview [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,1996,17:5-9.
[134] Speneer, J. W. Firm’s knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovationsystem: Empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry [J].StrategicManagement Journal,2003,24(2),217-233.
[135] Sporleder, T. L.&Moss L. E. knowledge management in the global foodsystem: Network embeddedness and social capital [J]. American Journal ofAgricultural Eeonomics.2002,84(5):1345-1352.
[136] Stock GN, Greis NP. Absorptive capacity and new product development[J].Journal of High Technology Management Research,2001,12(1):77-91.
[137] Stuart, T.&Podolny, J. Local search and the evolution of technologicalcapabilities, Strategic Management Journal.1996,17(51):21-38.
[138] Subramaniam, M.&Venkatraman, N. Determinants of transnational newproduct development capability: Testing the influence of transferring anddeploying tacit overseas knowledge [J].Strategic Management Journal.2001,22(4):359-378.
[139] Teece, D., Pisano, G.&Shuen, A. Dynamic Capability and StrategicManagement [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7):509-533.
[140] Tiwana, A． Does inter firm modularity complement ignorance A field study ofsoftware outsourcing alliances [J]． Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(11):1241－1252.
[141] Tsai WP. Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks: effects ofnetwork position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation andperformance [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5):996-1004.
[142] Tsang, W. K. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international jointventures in a transition economy: Learning-by-doing and learning myopia [J].Strategic Management Journal,2002,23:835-854.
[143] Utterback, J.The Process of Technological Innovation within the Firm [J]. TheAcademy of Management Journal,1971,14(l):75-55.
[144] Uzzi, B.&Lancaster, R. Relational embeddedness and learning: the case ofbank loan managers and their clients [J], Management Science.2003,49(4):383-399.
[145] Vaaland, T.&Hakansson, H. Exploring inter-organizational conflict in complexprojects [J]. Industrial Marketing Management.2003,32:127-138.
[146] Van den Bosch, F., Volberda, H.&De Boer, M.Co-evolution of Firm AbsorptiveCapacity and Knowledge Environment: Organizational Formsand CombinativeCapabilities [J], Organization Science,1999,10(4):551-568.
[147] Verona, G&Ravasi, D. Unbundling dynamic capabilities: an exploratory studyof continuous Product innovation [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2003,12:577-606.
[148] Victor J G, Antonia RM, Francisco J L. Effect of Technology AbsorptiveCapacity and Technology Poractivity on Organizational Learning Innovationand Performance: An Empirical Examination [J]. Technology Analysis&Strategic Management,2007,19(4):527.
[149] Williamson, O. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discretestructural alternatives [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1991,(36):269-296.
[150] Winborg, J.&Landstrom, H. Financial bootstrapping in small businesses:Examining small business smanagersre source acquisition behaviors [J]. Journalof Business Venturing,2001,16(3):235-254.
[151] W. M. Cohen, D. A. Levinthal. Absorptive Capacity: a New Perspective onLearning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly.1990,(35):128–152
[152] Wu, X., Zhang, W.&Ma, R.Disruptive Innovationin Developing Countries: TheCase of China [C].IEEE International Engineering ManagementConference(IEMC),2005,9:11-13.
[153] Wuyts, S., Stremersch, S., van Den Bulte, C.&Franses, P.H. Verticalmarketingsystems for complex products: a triadic perspective [J]. Journal of MarketingResearch.2004,41, November:479-87.
[154] Yang, J. Knowledge integration and innovation: Securing new productadvantage in high technology industry [J].Journal of High TechnologyManagement Research.2005,16(l):121-135.
[155] Yashino, Michael Y. And U.S.Rangan. Strategic alliance-an entrepreurialapproach to globalization [M]. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,1995.
[156] Yeoh, P L. Realized and potential absorptive capacity: Understanding their antedents and performance inthe sourcing context [J]. Journal of Marketing Theoryand Practice,2009,17(1):21-36.
[157] Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E.&Sapienza, H. J. Social capital, knowledge acquisition,and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,2001,22:587-613.
[158] Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E.&Tontti, V. Social capital, knowledge, and theinternational growth of technology-based new firms [J]. International BusinessReview.2002,11:279-304.
[159] Yoon, E.&Grary, L. New industrial product performance: The effect of marketcharacteristics and strategy [J].Journal of Innovation Management,1995,3:134-144.
[160] Zack, M. Developing a knowledge strategy [J]. California Management Review,1999,41(3),125-143.
[161] Zahra SA, George G.Absorptive capacity:a review, reconceptualization, andextension [J]. Academy of Management Review2002,27(2):185-203.
[162] Zahra, S., Sapienza, H.&Davidsson, P. Entrepreneurship and DynamicCapabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda [J]. Journal ofManagement Studies,2006,43(4):917-954.
[163] Zirger, B.J.&Maidique, M.A. A model of new product development: Anempirical test [J]. Management Science,1990,2:867-883.
[164]宝贡敏,徐碧祥.国外知识共享理论研究述评[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2007,13(2):43-49.
[165]毕克新,朱娟和冯英浚.中小企业产品创新研究现状和发展趋势分析[J].科研管理,2005,26(2):7-16.
[166]陈菲琼.企业知识联盟的理论与实证研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2001.
[167]陈国权，马萌.组织学习的过程模型研究[J].管理科学学报.2000,(9):15-23.
[168]陈劲,童亮和周笑磊.复杂产品系统创新的知识管理:以GX公司为例.科研管理,2005,26(5):29-34.
[169]陈琛，国际战略联盟特征对FDI技术溢出与企业创新绩效的影响研究[D]，吉林大学管理学院，2011.
[170]陈铁军,基于知识整合能力的自主新产品创新模式研究一以万向系统有限公司为例[J],科技管理研究,2007(7):20-23.
[171]陈艳艳.知识吸收能力对企业技术能力的影响研究[D].长沙:中南大学,2009.
[172]程海.技术联盟的模式与机制探索[M].沈阳：东北大学出版社.2006.
[173]戴勇,朱桂龙.以吸收能力为调节变量的社会资本与创新绩效研究——基于广东企业的实证分析[J].软科学,2011,25(1):80-85.
[174]邓颖翔,朱桂龙.吸收能力在创新过程中的中介作用研究—来自珠三角企业的经验证据[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2009,(10):85-89.
[175]窦红宾,王正斌.网络结构、吸收能力与企业创新绩效——基于西安通讯装备制造产业集群的实证研究[J].中国科技论坛,2010,(5):25-30.
[176]杜静，魏江.知识存量的增长机理分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理.2004（1）：24-27.
[177]傅家骥.技术经济学[M]，北京：清华大学出版社,1998.
[178]高忠仕.知识转移、知识搜索及组织学习绩效关系研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2008.
[179]高巍，倪文斌.学习型组织知识整合研究[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报（社会科学版）.2005，（3）:86-91.
[180]郭晓川.企业网络合作化技术创新及其模式比较[J]，科学管理研究.1998,(10):108-114.
[181]胡树华.产品创新管理(下)[J].价值工程,1998,(2):16-17.
[182]简兆权,吴隆增,黄静.吸收能力、知识整合对组织创新和组织绩效的影响研究[J].科研管理,2008(1):80-86.
[183]蒋樟生,胡珑瑛.不确定条件下知识获取能力对技术创新联盟稳定性的影响[J].管理工程学报，2010(4)：41-47.
[184]金鑫.面向分布式创新的知识共享机制研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2009.
[185]李东红.企业技术联盟研发：风险与防范[J].中国软科学,2002，（10）61-69.
[186]李新春.产品联盟与技术联盟[J].中山大学学报（社会科学版），1998（1）：90-96.
[187]梁艳欣.技术联盟的知识共享机制研究[D].大连:大连理工大学,2008.
[188]林东清.知识管理理论与实务[M].北京:电子工业出版社,2005:268-273.
[189]刘汉蓉.障碍因素对企业合作创新绩效的影响—基于重庆市的实证研究[J].改革与战略，2006，(5):152-155.
[190]刘学，庄乾志.合作创新的风险分摊和利益分配[J].科研管理.1998，19（5）：31-35.
[191]刘振彪,刘朝阳.技术联盟形成机理实证分析[J].科技进步与对策,2005,(4):93-95.
[192]罗伟,唐元虎.国内外合作创新述评[J].科学管理研究.2000，18(4)：14-19.
[193]马庆国.管理统计:数据获取、统计原理与SPSS工具与应用研究[M].北京:科学出版社,2002:27-42.
[194]迈克尔·波特.竞争优势[M].北京：华夏出版社，1997.
[195]潘宏亮,晨杨.吸收能力、关系网络对创新绩效和竞争优势的影响关系研究[J].图书馆理论与实践,2010,(10):34-38.
[196]裴学敏.知识资产与合作创新过程研究[D].西安：西安交通大学，博士学位论文，1999.
[197]戚永红.多角化过程中的知识利用与知识开发及其对企业绩效的影响—以我国信息技术类上市公司为例[D].杭州:浙江大学,2004.
[198]任皓，邓三鸿.知识管理的重要步骤——知识整合[J].情报科学.2002（6）:155-158.
[199]宋文娇.基于跨国技术联盟的合作创新研究[D].长春：吉林大学管理学院，2007.
[200]苏敬勤，王延章.合作技术创新理论及机制研究[M].大连:大连理工大学出版社，2002.
[201]苏中锋，谢恩，李垣．基于不同动机的联盟控制方式选择及其对联盟绩效的影响—中国企业联盟的实证分析[J]．南开管理评论，2007（5）：4-11.
[202]孙冰,刘希宋.企业产品创新状况评价指标体系的构建[J].科研管理,2002,23(4):47-51.
[203]汤建影，黄瑞华．研发联盟企业间知识共享的影响因素分析[J]．科技管理研究，2005（6）：63-66.
[204]唐晓云.跨国技术联盟的反竞争性与竞争政策[J].世界经济研究.2003,（1）:54-57.
[205]陶锋.吸收能力、价值链类型与创新绩效:基于国际代工联盟知识溢出的视角[J].中国工业经济,2011,(1):140-150.
[206]童亮.基于跨组织合作联结的复杂产品系统创新知识管理机制研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2007.
[207]万君康,杨群.产品开发中的知识管理[J].科研管理,2005,26(3):111-115.
[208]王德禄.知识管理的IT实现[M].北京:电子工业出版社,2003.
[209]王国顺,杨昆.社会资本、吸收能力对创新绩效影响的实证研究[J].管理科学,2011,24(5):23-36.
[210]王辉.论我国企业的跨国技术联盟战略[A].企业经济.2007,(1):10-13.
[211]王立生.社会资本、吸收能力对知识获取和创新绩效的影响研究[D].杭州:浙江大学管理学院,2007.
[212]王琳.新产品开发过程中R&D与市场营销整合[J].中国科技信息.2007（20）：143-145.
[213]王晓耘，江贺涛，梁玲夫.软件企业显性知识整合的实证研究[J].情报杂志.2007（6）：54-57.
[214]魏江,刘锦和杜静.自主性技术创新的知识整合过程机理研究[J].科研管理,2005,26(4):15-21.
[215]吴隆增,许长青,梁娉娉.吸收能力对组织学习和组织创新的影响—珠三角地区高科技企业的实证研究[J].科技管理研究,2008,28(5):135-138.
[216]吴晓冰，集群企业创新网络特征、知识获取及创新绩效关系研究[D]，杭州：浙江大学，2009.
[217]吴晓波,章威和裘丽萍.新产品开发中RD营销界面集成度的实证研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008,35(4):154-62.
[218]幸理.企业合作创新研究[D].武汉：武汉理工大学，2006.
[219]徐二明,张晗.企业知识吸收能力与绩效的关系研究[J].管理学报.2008.5.6:841-848
[220]许强.基于知识转移的母子公司关系管理研究[D].杭州：浙江大学,2003.
[221]薛求知,关涛.跨国公司知识转移:知识特性与转移工具研究[J].管理科学学报.2006.9.6:64-72
[222]詹勇飞.知识有机整合的过程与绩效研究—新产品开发的实证[D].天津：天津大学管理学院，2009.
[223]张昌松，鲁若愚，阎虹等大学--企业合作创新选择因素分析[J].软科学，2002，(1):85-88.
[224]张公一.基于跨国技术联盟的合作创新机理研究[D].长春:吉林大学,2010.
[225]张坚.企业技术联盟的自组织演化模型[J].系统工程,2006,(5):57-60.
[226]张倩.基于知识管理的企业学习型组织模式研究[D].哈尔滨.哈尔滨工程大学.2005
[227]张庆普，单伟.企业知识转化过程中的知识整合[J].经济理论与经济管理.2004，（6）：47-51.
[228]张睿.技术联盟组织间知识转移过程和影响因素研究[D].哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学,2009.
[229]赵修卫.组织学习与知识整合[J].科研管理.2003,5:52-57.
[230]郑景华，王怡舜和汤宗益.知识整合创新能力对组织创新绩效影响之研究[D].台北：台湾屏东科技大学，1994.
[231]钟书华.技术联盟：类型、效益与成本分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理，1998，（8）：24-28.
[232]周晓.组织学习对组织创新的影响研究[D].哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学,2007.
[233]朱廷柏.企业联盟内的组织间学习研究[D].济南:山东大学,2006.
[234]朱秀梅.知识溢出吸收能力对高技术产业集群创新的影响研究[D].吉林:吉林大学管理学院,2006.
[235]朱晓峰.知识管理研究综述[J].情报理论与实践.2003，（5）：406-408.
[2] Afuah, A.Innovation management: Strategic, implementation, and Profits [M].London: Oxford University Press,1998:13-15.
[3] Allee, V. Tenets of knowledge [J]. Executive Excellence,1998,15(9),4-6.
[4] A. M. Khan, V. Manopichet. Innovative and Noninnovative Small Firms:Typesand Characteristics [J].Management Science.1989, May:597-606.
[5] Anderson U, Forsgren M, Holm U. Subsidiary embeddedness and competencedevelopment in MNCs-amulti-level analysis [J]. Organization Studies,2001,22(6):1013-1034.
[6] Appleyard, M. M. How does knowledge flow? Inter-firm patterns in thesemiconductor industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal.1996,17, WinterSpecial Issue:137-154.
[7] Argote, L.&Ingram, P. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantagein firms [J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000,182(1):150-169.
[8] Argyris C., Schon D. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective[M], Boston: Reading, MenloPark: Addison-Wesley,1978.
[9] Badaracco J. L.The Knowledge Link：How Firms Compete through StrategicAlliances [M]. Boston: Harvard Business School Press，1991.
[10] Barrett F.J., Peterson R.Appreciative Learning Cultures: DevelopingCompetencies for Global Organizing [J].Organization Development Journal,2000,18(2),10-21.
[11] Bartlett, C.A., Ghoshal, S. Managing across Borders.the Transnational Solution,MA [M]. Boston: D.Edition,2002.
[12] Bernard L. Simonin，Ambiguity and the Process of Knowledge Transfer inStrategic Alliances, Strategic Management Journal.1999,20(7):595-623.
[13] Bischi GI，Dawidb H，Kopel M. Spillover effects and the evolution of firmclusters ［J］. Journal of Economic Behavior＆Organization，2003，50(1):47-75.
[14] Boer, M., Bosch, F. A. J. and Volberda, H. W. Management OrganizationalKnowledge Integration in the Emerging Multimedia Complex [J]. JournalofManagement Studies.1999,36(3):379-398.
[15] Boisot, M. Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in theinformationeconomy [M].NewYork: OxfordUniversityPress,1998.
[16] Bouroche M A. Technology Exchange in the Information Age-A Guide toSuccessful Cooperative R&D Partnerships [J]. Journal society of ResearchAdministrators，1999，31:37-40.
[17] Branstetter L，Sakakibara M. Japanese Research Consortia: A MicroeconometricAnalysis of Industrial Policy [J]. Journal of Industrial Economics，1998，46(2):207-233.
[18] Brockhoff, K. Competitor technology intelligence in German companies [J].Industrial Marketing Management,1991,(20):91-98.
[19] Brown J. R., Cobb, A. T.&Lusch, R. F. The roles played by inter-organizationalcontracts and justice in marketing channel relationships [J]. Journal of BusinessResearch.2006,59(2):166-175.
[20] Butler C. Problems in global strategic alliance management for Europeandefence manufacturing firms［J］. Management Decision，2008，46(2):330-341.
[21] Cangelosi, V.E., Dill, W.R. Organizational learning: observations toward atheory.Administrative Science Quarterly [J],1965,(10):175-203.
[22] Cardinal, L. B. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: Theuse of organizational control inmanaging research and development [J].Organization Science,2001,12(l),19-36.
[23] Casta er, J. Diversification as learning: The role of corporate exploitation andexploration under different environmental conditions in the US Phone industry,1979-2002[D]. A Ph. D. Thesis of the University of Minnesota.2002.
[24] Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. An empirical investigation of organizational learningthrough strategic alliance between SMEs [J]. Journal of StrategicMarketing.2005,13(March):3-16.
[25] Chesbrough, H.The era of open innovation [J].MITS loan.Management Review,2003, Spring:35-41.
[26] Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M.H.&Wang, E. G. Understanding knowledge sharing invirtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitivetheories [J]. Decision Support Systems,2006,42:1872-1888.
[27] Choung, Y., Hwang, H.&Choi, J.et al. Transition of Latecomer Firms fromTechnology Users to Technology Generators: Korean Semiconductor Firms [J].World Development.2000,28(5):969-982.
[28] Chung-Jen Chen. The effects of knowledge attribute, alliance characteristics,and absorptive capacity on knowledge transfer Performance [J]. R&DManagement,2004,34(3):311-321.
[29] Chung, L.H., Gibbons, P.T.&Schoch, H.P. The influence of subsidiary contextand head off icestrategic management style on control of MNCs: Theexperiencein Australia [J].Accounting Auditing&Account ability Journal,2000,13(5):647-666.
[30] Cohen W., Levinthal D. Fortune favors the prepared firm [J]. ManagementScience,1994,40(2):227-251.
[31] Cooke P, Clifton N. Social capital, Firm embeddedness and Regionaldevelopment [J]. Regional Studies,2005,39(8):1065-1077.
[32] Crossan M., Lane H. and White R. An organizational learning framework:Fromintuition to institution [J]. Academy of Management Review.1999,24:522-538.
[33] Cyert R M， Goodman P S. Creating effective University industry alliances:An organizational learning perspective [J]. Organizational Dynamics，1997，25(4):45-57.
[34] Cybert R.M. and March, J. G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm [A].New Jersey:Prentice-Hall,1963.
[35] Das, T. K.&Teng B-S. Between trust and control: developing confidence inpartner cooperation in alliances [J].AcademyofManagementReview.1998,23(3):491-512.
[36] Davenport, T.H.&Prusak, L.Working knowledge [M].Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.1998.
[37] Demsetz, H. The Theory of the Firm Revisited [J]. Journal of Law Economicsand Organization,1988,4(l):141-162.
[38] Dixon, N.M.Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what theyknow [M].Boston: Harvard Business School Press,2000.
[39] Doz I，Prahalad C E.Transaction cost economic：The governance contractualrelations [J]. Journal of Law and Economic,1979,(12):233-261.
[40] Drucker, P. The discipline of innovation [J].Harvard Business Review,2002,80(8):95-101.
[41] Dulaimi, M. F., Ling, F. Y. Y.&Bajracharya, A. Organizational motivation andinter-organizational interaction in construction innovation in Singapore [J].Construction Management and Economies.2003,21:307-318.
[42] Dussauge, P., Garrette, B.&Mitchell, W.(2000). Learning from competingpartner: Out come sanddurations of scale and linkalliances in Europe, NorthAmerica and Asia [J]. Strategic Management Journal,21:99-126.
[43] Easterby Smith, M, Lyles, M．A, Tsang, W．K. Interorganizational knowledgetransfer: Current themes and future prospects [J]. Journal of ManagementStudies,2008,45:2200-2380.
[44] Eisenhardt, K.&Santos, F. Knowledge-Based View: A New View of Strategy[M].London: Handbook of Strategy and Management,2003.
[45] Eisenhardt, K. M.&Martin J.A.Dynamic capabilities: What are they?[J].Strategic Management Journal,2000,21:1105-1121.
[46] F. Langerak. An Appraisal of Research on the Predictive Power of MarketOrientation. European Management Journal.2003,Vol.21(4):447-464
[47] Fosfuri A, Tribo J.Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacityandits impact on innovation performance Omega [J]. Omega,2008,36(2):173-187.
[48] Fritsch, M.&Lukas, R. Who cooperateson R&D.[J]. Research Policy,2001,30:297-312.
[49] Gallouj, F.&Weinstein, O. Innovation in services [J]. Research Policy,1997,26:37-66.
[50] Gann, D.&Salter, A. Innovation in project-based, service-enhanced firms: theconstruction of complex Products and systems [J]. Research Policy.2000,29:955-972.
[51] Garbarino, E.&Johnson, M. S. The different roles of satisfaction, trust andcommitment in customer relationship [J]. Journal of Marketing,1999,63(2):70-87.
[52] Garud, R.&Nayyar, P. R. Transformative Capacity: ContinualStructuring byIntertemporal Technology Transfer [J].StrategicManagement Journal1994,15(5):365-386.
[53] G.Hamel.Competition for competence and inter-partner learning withininternational strategic alliances [J]. Strategic manage.1991,12(1):83-103.
[54] Ghoshal, S.&Moran, P.Bad for Practice: A critiqueoftransaction costtheory [J].Academy of Management Review,1996,21:13-47.
[55] Girma, S.Geographic proximity, absorptive capacity and Productivity spilloversfrom FDI: athreshol dregression analysis [J].Oxford Bulletin of Economics&Statistics,2005,67(3):281-306.
[56] Gose, J.&Park, S. H., Inter-organizational links and innovation: the case ofhospital services [J]. Academy of Management Journal.1997,40(4):673-696.
[57] Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure: The problemofembeddedness [J]. American Journal of Sociology.1985,91(3):481-510.
[58] Grant，R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm [J]. StrategicManagement Journal.1996,17:109-122.
[59] Gulati, Ranjay, Alliance and networks [J]. Strategic Management Joumal.1998,19:293.
[60] Gupta, A. K.&Govindarajan, V. Knowledge flows within multinationalcorporations [J]. Strategic Management Journal.2000,21(4):473-496.
[61] Hagedoorn. J, Cloodt.M. Measuring innovative performance：Is there anadvantage in using multiple indicators [J], Research Policy,2003,(32):1365-1379.
[62] Hagedoorn, J. Understanding the cross-level embeddedness of interfirmpartnership for mation [J].Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3):670-680.
[63] Hamel G. Competition for competence and inter-Partnerl earning withininternational strategic alliance [J]. Strategic Management Joumal,1991,(12):83-103.
[64] Hansen, M. T. Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing inmultiunit companies [J]. Organization Science.2002,13(3):232-248.
[65] Harrigan, K. R. Joint ventures and competitive strategy [J].StrategicManagement Journal.198,(9):141-158.
[66] Hedberg B., How organizations learn and unlearn.In: Nystrom, P.&Stabuck,W (eds.), Handbook of organizational design Oxford [M]. London: OxfordUniversity Press,1981.
[67] Henderson， R.M., Clark K.B. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration ofexisting product technologies and the failure of established firms [J].Administrative Science Quarterly.1990,35:9-30.
[68] Holt, K. Product Innovation Management [M]. London: Oxford, ButterworthHenemann, Harper Business,1988:15-20.
[69] Huang，H. F., Kao，H. P., Chu，Y. Y. An empirical study on knowledgeintegration, technology innovation and experimental practice [J]. ExpertSystems with Applications.2008,35:177-186.
[70] Huber G.P., Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and theLiteratures [J]. Organization Science.1991,2(1),88-115.
[71] H.W.Volberda,Van Den Bosch, A.J.Frans, Boer De Michieal. ManagingOrganizational Knowledge Integration in the Emerging Multimedia Complex[J].Journal of Management Studies.1999,36(3):379-398.
[72] Inkpen, A.C&Currall S.C.The nature, antecedents, and consequences of jointventure trust [J]. Journal of International Management.1998,4(l): l-20.
[73] Inkpen A C. Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategicalliances [J]. Academy of Management Executive,1998,12(4):69-80.
[74] Ingham M， Mothe C. How to learn in R&D partnerships?[J]. R&Management，1998，28(4):249-261.
[75] J.Downs Timothy. Changing the Culture of Under development andUnsustainability. Journal of Environment Planning and Management.2003,43(5):601-621.
[76] Johncantwell.Technological Innovation and Multinational Corporations[M].London: Basil Blachwell Ltd.,1989.
[77] John Hagedoorn, Albert N. Link, Nicholas S. Vonortas. Research partnerships[J]. Research Policy,2000,(29):567-586.
[78] Kalaignanam K, Shankar V, Varadarajan R. Asymmetric new Productdevelopment alliances: win-win or win-lose partnerships?[J]. ManagementScience,2007,53(3):357-374.
[79] Kapasuwan S., Linking Organizational Leaning and Network Characteristics:Effects on Firm Performance [M].Washington. D.C.: Doctor Thesis byWashington State University,2004.
[80] Kogut B.Joint ventures.heoretical and empirical perspectives [J].StrategicManagement Journal，1988,(9):319-332.
[81] Kogut B. The Network as Knowledge: Generative Rules and the Emergence ofStructure. Strategic Management Journal.2000,21(2):405-425
[82] Kogut, Bruce, Zander, Udo. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilitiesand thereplication of technology [J]. Organization Science,1992,3(3):383-396.
[83] Lane PJ, Koka BR, Pathak S. The reification of absorptive capacity: a criticalreview and rejuvenation of the construct [J]. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4):833-863.
[84] Lane, P. J.&Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and inter-organizationallearning [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19:461-77.
[85] Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E.&Lyles, M. A. Absorptive capacity, learning andperformance in international jointventures [J].Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(12):1139-1161.
[86] Liang, C.J.&Wang, W.H. Integrative research into the financial servicesindustry in Taiwan: Relationship bonding tactics, relationship quality andbehavior alloyalty [J].Journal of Financial Services Marketing,2005,10(l):65-83.
[87] Lichtenthaler U. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and thecomplementarity of organizational learning processes [J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2009,52(4):822-846.
[88] Liebeskind, J., Oliver, A., Zucker, L&Brewer, M.Socialnetworks, learning, andflexibility: sourcingscientific knowledge in new bio technology firms [J],Organization Science,1996,7(4):425-443.
[89] Lui, S. S., Ngo, H. Y&Hon, A. H. Y. Coercive strategy in inter-firmcooperation: mediating roles of interpersonal and inter-organizational trust[J].Journalof Business Research.2005.59(4):466-474.
[90] Luo, Y．D．Structuring interorganizational cooperation: The role of economicintegration in strategic alliances [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2008b,29(6):617-637.
[91] Lynn, G. S., Reilly, R. R.&Akgun, A. E. Knowledge Management in NewProduct Teams: Practices and Outcomes [J]. IEEE Transactions on EngineeringMnagaement.2000,47(2):221-231.
[92] Malhotra, A., Gosain, S.&EI Sawy,0. A. Absorptive capacity configurations insupply chains: gearing for Partner-enabled market knowledge creation [J], MISQuarterly.2005,29(l):145-187.
[93] March, J.(1991).Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning [J].Organization Science,2:71-87.
[94] March J.G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning [J].Organization Science,1991，2(1):71-87.
[95] March, J.G.&Simon, H. Organizations [M]. Newyork, Johnwiley,1958.
[96] Marshall, N.&Brady, T. Knowledge management and the politics ofknowledge: illustrations from complex Products and systems [J].EuropeanJournal of Information Systems.2001,10:99-112.
[97] Maryam Alavi，Amrit Tiwana. Knowledge integration in virtual teams: thepotential role of KMS [J]. Journal of the American Society for InformationScience and Technology.2002，53（12）1029-1037.
[98] Mavondo, F.T.&Rodrigo, E.M. The effect of relationship dimensionsoninterpersonal and inter-organizational commitment in organizations conductingbusiness between Australia and China [J].Journal of Business Research.2001,52(2):111-121.
[99] M. E. Porter and M. B. Fuller. Coalitions and global strategy. In M. E.Porter(ed)，Competition in global industries [M]. Boston：Harvard BusinessSchool Press，1986:321.
[100] M. E. Porter. Competitive strategy [M]. New York: Competitive advantage.1985.
[101] Miyazaki, K. Search, Learning and Accumulation of TechnologicalCompetences: The Case of Optoelectronics [J].Industrial and CorporateChange.1994,3(3):631-654.
[102] Moran, P. Structural vs. relational embeddness: social capital and managerialperformance [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26:1129-1151.
[103] Morgan, R. M.&Hunt, S. D. The commitment-trust theory of relationshipmarketing [J]. Journal of Marketing.1994,58(July):20-38.
[104] Nielsen, B.B.The role of knowledge embeddedness in the creation of synergiesin the strategies alliances [J].Journal of Business Research.2005,58:1194-1204.
[105] Nieto M, Quevedo P. Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledgespillovers, and innovative effort [J]. Technovation,2008,25(10):1141-1157.
[106] Nika M, Lgor P. Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influenceoninnovation output: Cross-cultural validation of the structural model[J].Technovation,2009,29(12):859-872.
[107] Nonaka, I. The Knowledge Creating Company. Harvard Business Review,1991,69（6）:96-104
[108] Norman, P. M. Knowledge acquisition, knowledge loss, and satisfaction in hightechnology alliances [J]. Journal of Business Research,2004,57:610-619.
[109] Nummela, N. Looking through a prism-multiple perspective to commitment tointernational R&D collaboration [J]. Journal of High Technology ManagementResearch.2003,14:135-148.
[110] Oshri, I.&Newell, S. Component sharing in complex products and systems:challenges, solutions, and practicalimplications [J].IEEET ransactions OnEngineering Management.2005,52(4):509-521.
[111] Parkhe, A. Strategic alliances structuring: a game theoretic and transaction costexamination of inter-firm cooperation [J]. Academy of ManagementJoumal.1993,36(4):794-829.
[112] Pavlou, P.&elSawy, O. From IT Leveraging Competence to CompetitiveAdvantage in Turbulent Environments: The Case of New Product Development[J],2006,17(3):198-227.
[113] Peter JL, Jane ES, Marjorie AL. Absorptive Capacity, Learning andPerformance in International Joint Ventures [J]. Strategic Manage ment Journal,2001,22(12):1139-1161.
[114] Pinto, M.&Pinto, J. Project team communication and cross-functionalcooperationinnew program development [J]. Journal of Product InnovationManagement,1990,7(3):200-212.
[115] Richardson,G. B. The organization of industry [J]. Economic Journal. R1972,(82):21-29.
[116] Rigby, D.&Zook, C. Open-market innovation [M].Boston: Harvard BusinessReview,2002.
[117] Ring, P. S.&Van de Ven, A. H. Structuring cooperative relationships betweenorganizations [J]. Strategic Management Journal.1992,13(6):483-98.
[118] Riusala, K.&Suutari, V. International knowledge transfer through expatriates[J]. Thunderbird International Business Review,2004,46(6):743-770.
[119] R. M. Henderson, K. B. Clark. Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration ofExisting Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms.Administrative Science Quarterly.1990,Vol.35:9-30
[120] Rochford, L. Generating and screening new productideas [J].IndustrialMarketing Management,1991,20(4):287-296.
[121] Rochford, L.&Rudelius, W. New product development process [J].IndustrialMarketing Management,1997,26(1):67-84.
[122] Ruckman K. Technology sourcing acquisitions: What they mean for innovationpotential ［J］. Journal of Strategy and Management，2009，2(1):56-75.
[123] Santoro, M.D.&Gopalakrishnan, S.The institutionalization of knowledgetransfer activities within industry-university collaborative ventures [J]. Journalof Engineering and Technology Management.2000,17:299-319.
[124] Sawers, J．L, Pretorius, M．W, Oerlemans, L．A．G． Safeguarding SMEsdynamic capabilities in technology innovative SME large company partnershipsin South Africa [J]．Technovation,2008,28(4):171-182.
[125] Shah, R．H, Swaminathan, V． Factors influencing partner selection in strategicalliances: The moderating role of alliance context [J]．Strategic ManagementJournal,2008,29(5):471-494.
[126] Sierra MCDL.Managing Global Alliances: Key Steps for SuccessfulCollaboration [M]. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley Publishing Sundbo,1998.
[127] Sinkula, Baker W., Noordewier T., A Framework for market-basedorganizational learning: linking value, knowledge and behavior [J].Journal ofthe Academy of marketing science.1997,25:305-318
[128] Sivadas，E.，Dwyer，F. R. An examination of organizational factors influencingnew product success in internal andalliance based processes [J]. Journal ofMarketing，2000，64(l):31-49.
[129] Slater S.F. and Narver J.C., Market Orientation and the Learning Organization[J].Journal of Marketing,59(4),1995,63-74.
[130] Smith, K., Collins, C.&Clark, K. Knowledge creation capability, and the rateof new product introduction in High-Technology Firms [J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2005,48(2):346-357.
[131] Sobrero, M.&Roberts E. B. Strategic management of supplier-manufacturerrelations in new product development [J]. Research Policy.2002,31:159-182.
[132] Somaya, D.&Teece, D. Entrepreneurship, Innovation, and the GrowthMechanism of the Free-Market Enterprise [M], Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress Princeton, NJ,2007.
[133] Spender, J. C&Grant, R. M. Knowledge and the firm: overview [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,1996,17:5-9.
[134] Speneer, J. W. Firm’s knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovationsystem: Empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry [J].StrategicManagement Journal,2003,24(2),217-233.
[135] Sporleder, T. L.&Moss L. E. knowledge management in the global foodsystem: Network embeddedness and social capital [J]. American Journal ofAgricultural Eeonomics.2002,84(5):1345-1352.
[136] Stock GN, Greis NP. Absorptive capacity and new product development[J].Journal of High Technology Management Research,2001,12(1):77-91.
[137] Stuart, T.&Podolny, J. Local search and the evolution of technologicalcapabilities, Strategic Management Journal.1996,17(51):21-38.
[138] Subramaniam, M.&Venkatraman, N. Determinants of transnational newproduct development capability: Testing the influence of transferring anddeploying tacit overseas knowledge [J].Strategic Management Journal.2001,22(4):359-378.
[139] Teece, D., Pisano, G.&Shuen, A. Dynamic Capability and StrategicManagement [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7):509-533.
[140] Tiwana, A． Does inter firm modularity complement ignorance A field study ofsoftware outsourcing alliances [J]． Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(11):1241－1252.
[141] Tsai WP. Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks: effects ofnetwork position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation andperformance [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5):996-1004.
[142] Tsang, W. K. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international jointventures in a transition economy: Learning-by-doing and learning myopia [J].Strategic Management Journal,2002,23:835-854.
[143] Utterback, J.The Process of Technological Innovation within the Firm [J]. TheAcademy of Management Journal,1971,14(l):75-55.
[144] Uzzi, B.&Lancaster, R. Relational embeddedness and learning: the case ofbank loan managers and their clients [J], Management Science.2003,49(4):383-399.
[145] Vaaland, T.&Hakansson, H. Exploring inter-organizational conflict in complexprojects [J]. Industrial Marketing Management.2003,32:127-138.
[146] Van den Bosch, F., Volberda, H.&De Boer, M.Co-evolution of Firm AbsorptiveCapacity and Knowledge Environment: Organizational Formsand CombinativeCapabilities [J], Organization Science,1999,10(4):551-568.
[147] Verona, G&Ravasi, D. Unbundling dynamic capabilities: an exploratory studyof continuous Product innovation [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2003,12:577-606.
[148] Victor J G, Antonia RM, Francisco J L. Effect of Technology AbsorptiveCapacity and Technology Poractivity on Organizational Learning Innovationand Performance: An Empirical Examination [J]. Technology Analysis&Strategic Management,2007,19(4):527.
[149] Williamson, O. Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discretestructural alternatives [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1991,(36):269-296.
[150] Winborg, J.&Landstrom, H. Financial bootstrapping in small businesses:Examining small business smanagersre source acquisition behaviors [J]. Journalof Business Venturing,2001,16(3):235-254.
[151] W. M. Cohen, D. A. Levinthal. Absorptive Capacity: a New Perspective onLearning and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly.1990,(35):128–152
[152] Wu, X., Zhang, W.&Ma, R.Disruptive Innovationin Developing Countries: TheCase of China [C].IEEE International Engineering ManagementConference(IEMC),2005,9:11-13.
[153] Wuyts, S., Stremersch, S., van Den Bulte, C.&Franses, P.H. Verticalmarketingsystems for complex products: a triadic perspective [J]. Journal of MarketingResearch.2004,41, November:479-87.
[154] Yang, J. Knowledge integration and innovation: Securing new productadvantage in high technology industry [J].Journal of High TechnologyManagement Research.2005,16(l):121-135.
[155] Yashino, Michael Y. And U.S.Rangan. Strategic alliance-an entrepreurialapproach to globalization [M]. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,1995.
[156] Yeoh, P L. Realized and potential absorptive capacity: Understanding their antedents and performance inthe sourcing context [J]. Journal of Marketing Theoryand Practice,2009,17(1):21-36.
[157] Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E.&Sapienza, H. J. Social capital, knowledge acquisition,and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,2001,22:587-613.
[158] Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E.&Tontti, V. Social capital, knowledge, and theinternational growth of technology-based new firms [J]. International BusinessReview.2002,11:279-304.
[159] Yoon, E.&Grary, L. New industrial product performance: The effect of marketcharacteristics and strategy [J].Journal of Innovation Management,1995,3:134-144.
[160] Zack, M. Developing a knowledge strategy [J]. California Management Review,1999,41(3),125-143.
[161] Zahra SA, George G.Absorptive capacity:a review, reconceptualization, andextension [J]. Academy of Management Review2002,27(2):185-203.
[162] Zahra, S., Sapienza, H.&Davidsson, P. Entrepreneurship and DynamicCapabilities: A Review, Model and Research Agenda [J]. Journal ofManagement Studies,2006,43(4):917-954.
[163] Zirger, B.J.&Maidique, M.A. A model of new product development: Anempirical test [J]. Management Science,1990,2:867-883.
[164]宝贡敏,徐碧祥.国外知识共享理论研究述评[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2007,13(2):43-49.
[165]毕克新,朱娟和冯英浚.中小企业产品创新研究现状和发展趋势分析[J].科研管理,2005,26(2):7-16.
[166]陈菲琼.企业知识联盟的理论与实证研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2001.
[167]陈国权，马萌.组织学习的过程模型研究[J].管理科学学报.2000,(9):15-23.
[168]陈劲,童亮和周笑磊.复杂产品系统创新的知识管理:以GX公司为例.科研管理,2005,26(5):29-34.
[169]陈琛，国际战略联盟特征对FDI技术溢出与企业创新绩效的影响研究[D]，吉林大学管理学院，2011.
[170]陈铁军,基于知识整合能力的自主新产品创新模式研究一以万向系统有限公司为例[J],科技管理研究,2007(7):20-23.
[171]陈艳艳.知识吸收能力对企业技术能力的影响研究[D].长沙:中南大学,2009.
[172]程海.技术联盟的模式与机制探索[M].沈阳：东北大学出版社.2006.
[173]戴勇,朱桂龙.以吸收能力为调节变量的社会资本与创新绩效研究——基于广东企业的实证分析[J].软科学,2011,25(1):80-85.
[174]邓颖翔,朱桂龙.吸收能力在创新过程中的中介作用研究—来自珠三角企业的经验证据[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2009,(10):85-89.
[175]窦红宾,王正斌.网络结构、吸收能力与企业创新绩效——基于西安通讯装备制造产业集群的实证研究[J].中国科技论坛,2010,(5):25-30.
[176]杜静，魏江.知识存量的增长机理分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理.2004（1）：24-27.
[177]傅家骥.技术经济学[M]，北京：清华大学出版社,1998.
[178]高忠仕.知识转移、知识搜索及组织学习绩效关系研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2008.
[179]高巍，倪文斌.学习型组织知识整合研究[J].哈尔滨工业大学学报（社会科学版）.2005，（3）:86-91.
[180]郭晓川.企业网络合作化技术创新及其模式比较[J]，科学管理研究.1998,(10):108-114.
[181]胡树华.产品创新管理(下)[J].价值工程,1998,(2):16-17.
[182]简兆权,吴隆增,黄静.吸收能力、知识整合对组织创新和组织绩效的影响研究[J].科研管理,2008(1):80-86.
[183]蒋樟生,胡珑瑛.不确定条件下知识获取能力对技术创新联盟稳定性的影响[J].管理工程学报，2010(4)：41-47.
[184]金鑫.面向分布式创新的知识共享机制研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2009.
[185]李东红.企业技术联盟研发：风险与防范[J].中国软科学,2002，（10）61-69.
[186]李新春.产品联盟与技术联盟[J].中山大学学报（社会科学版），1998（1）：90-96.
[187]梁艳欣.技术联盟的知识共享机制研究[D].大连:大连理工大学,2008.
[188]林东清.知识管理理论与实务[M].北京:电子工业出版社,2005:268-273.
[189]刘汉蓉.障碍因素对企业合作创新绩效的影响—基于重庆市的实证研究[J].改革与战略，2006，(5):152-155.
[190]刘学，庄乾志.合作创新的风险分摊和利益分配[J].科研管理.1998，19（5）：31-35.
[191]刘振彪,刘朝阳.技术联盟形成机理实证分析[J].科技进步与对策,2005,(4):93-95.
[192]罗伟,唐元虎.国内外合作创新述评[J].科学管理研究.2000，18(4)：14-19.
[193]马庆国.管理统计:数据获取、统计原理与SPSS工具与应用研究[M].北京:科学出版社,2002:27-42.
[194]迈克尔·波特.竞争优势[M].北京：华夏出版社，1997.
[195]潘宏亮,晨杨.吸收能力、关系网络对创新绩效和竞争优势的影响关系研究[J].图书馆理论与实践,2010,(10):34-38.
[196]裴学敏.知识资产与合作创新过程研究[D].西安：西安交通大学，博士学位论文，1999.
[197]戚永红.多角化过程中的知识利用与知识开发及其对企业绩效的影响—以我国信息技术类上市公司为例[D].杭州:浙江大学,2004.
[198]任皓，邓三鸿.知识管理的重要步骤——知识整合[J].情报科学.2002（6）:155-158.
[199]宋文娇.基于跨国技术联盟的合作创新研究[D].长春：吉林大学管理学院，2007.
[200]苏敬勤，王延章.合作技术创新理论及机制研究[M].大连:大连理工大学出版社，2002.
[201]苏中锋，谢恩，李垣．基于不同动机的联盟控制方式选择及其对联盟绩效的影响—中国企业联盟的实证分析[J]．南开管理评论，2007（5）：4-11.
[202]孙冰,刘希宋.企业产品创新状况评价指标体系的构建[J].科研管理,2002,23(4):47-51.
[203]汤建影，黄瑞华．研发联盟企业间知识共享的影响因素分析[J]．科技管理研究，2005（6）：63-66.
[204]唐晓云.跨国技术联盟的反竞争性与竞争政策[J].世界经济研究.2003,（1）:54-57.
[205]陶锋.吸收能力、价值链类型与创新绩效:基于国际代工联盟知识溢出的视角[J].中国工业经济,2011,(1):140-150.
[206]童亮.基于跨组织合作联结的复杂产品系统创新知识管理机制研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2007.
[207]万君康,杨群.产品开发中的知识管理[J].科研管理,2005,26(3):111-115.
[208]王德禄.知识管理的IT实现[M].北京:电子工业出版社,2003.
[209]王国顺,杨昆.社会资本、吸收能力对创新绩效影响的实证研究[J].管理科学,2011,24(5):23-36.
[210]王辉.论我国企业的跨国技术联盟战略[A].企业经济.2007,(1):10-13.
[211]王立生.社会资本、吸收能力对知识获取和创新绩效的影响研究[D].杭州:浙江大学管理学院,2007.
[212]王琳.新产品开发过程中R&D与市场营销整合[J].中国科技信息.2007（20）：143-145.
[213]王晓耘，江贺涛，梁玲夫.软件企业显性知识整合的实证研究[J].情报杂志.2007（6）：54-57.
[214]魏江,刘锦和杜静.自主性技术创新的知识整合过程机理研究[J].科研管理,2005,26(4):15-21.
[215]吴隆增,许长青,梁娉娉.吸收能力对组织学习和组织创新的影响—珠三角地区高科技企业的实证研究[J].科技管理研究,2008,28(5):135-138.
[216]吴晓冰，集群企业创新网络特征、知识获取及创新绩效关系研究[D]，杭州：浙江大学，2009.
[217]吴晓波,章威和裘丽萍.新产品开发中RD营销界面集成度的实证研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008,35(4):154-62.
[218]幸理.企业合作创新研究[D].武汉：武汉理工大学，2006.
[219]徐二明,张晗.企业知识吸收能力与绩效的关系研究[J].管理学报.2008.5.6:841-848
[220]许强.基于知识转移的母子公司关系管理研究[D].杭州：浙江大学,2003.
[221]薛求知,关涛.跨国公司知识转移:知识特性与转移工具研究[J].管理科学学报.2006.9.6:64-72
[222]詹勇飞.知识有机整合的过程与绩效研究—新产品开发的实证[D].天津：天津大学管理学院，2009.
[223]张昌松，鲁若愚，阎虹等大学--企业合作创新选择因素分析[J].软科学，2002，(1):85-88.
[224]张公一.基于跨国技术联盟的合作创新机理研究[D].长春:吉林大学,2010.
[225]张坚.企业技术联盟的自组织演化模型[J].系统工程,2006,(5):57-60.
[226]张倩.基于知识管理的企业学习型组织模式研究[D].哈尔滨.哈尔滨工程大学.2005
[227]张庆普，单伟.企业知识转化过程中的知识整合[J].经济理论与经济管理.2004，（6）：47-51.
[228]张睿.技术联盟组织间知识转移过程和影响因素研究[D].哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学,2009.
[229]赵修卫.组织学习与知识整合[J].科研管理.2003,5:52-57.
[230]郑景华，王怡舜和汤宗益.知识整合创新能力对组织创新绩效影响之研究[D].台北：台湾屏东科技大学，1994.
[231]钟书华.技术联盟：类型、效益与成本分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理，1998，（8）：24-28.
[232]周晓.组织学习对组织创新的影响研究[D].哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学,2007.
[233]朱廷柏.企业联盟内的组织间学习研究[D].济南:山东大学,2006.
[234]朱秀梅.知识溢出吸收能力对高技术产业集群创新的影响研究[D].吉林:吉林大学管理学院,2006.
[235]朱晓峰.知识管理研究综述[J].情报理论与实践.2003，（5）：406-408.