知识集聚与不确定环境下企业技术创新的组织模式研究
|
摘要
知识经济时代最典型的两大特征是知识集聚与环境不确定性,知识密集型企业采取什么样的组织模式,才能在配置技术创新资源时,既有效地获取、利用知识集聚效应所带来的知识资源,又规避潜在的不确定性,已经成为今天技术创新研究与实践共同面临的紧迫课题。因此,本文基于知识集聚研究、技术创新的组织模式研究及模块性组织研究,围绕“知识集聚与不确定环境下企业技术创新的资源如何配置才更有效率”这一核心问题,构建起企业技术创新的模块化组织方式的分析框架,并通过三个子研究对这一问题进行了探讨。
研究一,通过案例研究方法对组织模块性能否帮助企业实现灵活地选择多种技术创新策略进行了分析。现有关于企业技术创新的研究过多地把目光聚焦于企业之间的技术创新合作,而相对忽视了企业组织自身应该采取什么样的组织方式,才能更有利于企业走出边界去与外面的企业合作进行创新的问题,后者对于企业跨越边界、采取有效的技术创新组织模式将产生决定性影响。因此,作者通过对三家企业进行解释性的嵌入式多案例研究,发现组织模块性的提高有利于企业走出边界与其他机构进行合作,增强了企业适应不确定环境所需的动态能力,也为企业灵活地选择多种技术创新策略提供了结构基础。通过分析,作者还识别了这种模块化的组织模式所具有的三个典型特征。
研究二,通过基于蒙特卡罗模型的仿真设计,对环境动态性对组织结构影响企业创新的关系进行了分析。战略管理与组织理论的文献普遍把效率与柔性看成是组织不可兼得的两个属性：组织结构的规则化程度太低,会导致组织缺乏效率；而规则化程度太高,则会导致组织缺乏柔性。作者基于数学建模,对动态环境下组织结构与创新绩效之间的关系进行了计算机仿真模拟,发现组织基于对环境的正确认知而建立起来的规则体系,能够帮助企业在不确定环境中同时实现较高的效率与柔性,并进一步指出这种规则体系的建立过程,就是模块性组织的设计规则的形成过程。
研究三,通过统计分析方法,对知识集聚与不确定环境下组织模块性与知识基础对企业技术创新的影响机制进行了实证检验。基于对225家高技术企业进行问卷调查与统计分析,结果表明：动态能力是企业创新活动的能力基础,而组织模块性和知识基础分别是企业动态能力的结构基础和认知基础,动态能力在组织模块性和创新绩效、知识基础和创新绩效之间具有中介作用。知识集聚与不确定性主要调节动态能力对创新绩效的影响；知识集聚对企业知识基础的形成具有重要意义,而提高组织模块性则是企业应对环境不确定性的有效途径之一。
在此基础上,本文系统地归纳了上述三个子研究的结论,并总结了本文所取得的理论进展：(1)通过论证模块化的组织模式能够帮助企业在不确定环境中获取较高的动态能力,并灵活地选择多种创新策略,对技术创新的组织模式研究进行了补充与拓展；(2)通过分析规则的双重作用,对战略管理与组织理论中关于动态环境中企业的效率与柔性问题以及不确定环境下企业的最优结构问题进行了反思与验证,指出设计规则的形成使得企业能够以模块化的组织模式配置创新资源,在动态环境中兼顾效率与柔性；(3)知识集聚与不确定环境下组织模块性与知识基础通过动态能力影响企业创新的综合性理论模型,对关于组织模块性影响企业创新的研究、知识基础影响创新的研究以及国内的自主创新研究,都具有重要的借鉴意义。
上述理论进展也为知识密集型企业的技术创新实践提供了新的思路：企业为复杂的创新项目建立清晰的设计规则,不仅为灵活运用多种创新策略提供了结构基础,也能够完善自身的知识基础,获得适应环境变化所需的动态能力,最终提高知识集聚与不确定环境中的创新绩效。
最后,本文总结了研究局限及有待进一步解决的问题。
In the era of knowledge economy, the two most typical features are knowledge agglomeration and environmental uncertainty. The two most typical features of knowledge economy era are knowledge agglomeration and environmental uncertainty. It has been an urgent task for both technological innovation researches and practices to explore an organizational pattern that can help them effectively achieve and use the knowledge resources brought by knowledge agglomeration, and avoid potential uncertainty when knowledge-intensive firms are allocating innovation resources. Therefore, based on the researches about knowledge agglomeration, organizational pattern of technological innovation and modular organization, this paper conducted a comprehensive framework, and confirmed it with three studies, focusing on the core theme that which way is more efficient to allocate innovation resources in the environment of knowledge agglomeration and uncertainty.
Study one analyzed whether organization modularity can help firms get the flexibility to choose from various technological innovation strategies through a case study. The existing researches on firms'technological innovation paid too much attention on the cooperation between them, but neglected the question about what kind of organizational pattern they should take to make the inter-firm cooperation successfully, which plays an important role on firms crossing organization boundary and adopting effective organizational pattern for technological innovation. Based on an embedded explanatory multiple case study of three companies, we found that organizational modularity can help the firms cross the organization boundary to cooperate with others, enhance the their dynamic capabilities needed to adapt to the uncertain environment, and provide a structural basis for the their flexibility to choose from a variety of technological innovation strategies. This study also identified three typical features of this modular organizational pattern.
Study two analyzed the relationship between organization structure and firms' innovation under environmental dynamism based on the Monte Carlo model. In most strategic management and organization theory literature, organization usually can't get efficiency and flexibility simultaneously:the organization with too little rules will result in its inefficiency, while too many rules will lead to the lack of flexibility. Through mathematical model and simulation program on the relationship between organization structure and firms'innovation in dynamic environment, we found the rules system based on the correct understanding of dynamic environment can help organization achieve high efficiency and flexibility simultaneously in uncertain environment, and the process of constructing this rules system is exactly the formation process of the design rules of the modular organization.
Study three empirically analyzed the mechanism that organizational modularity and knowledge base affect firms'technological innovation in the environment of knowledge agglomeration and uncertainty. Based on the questionnaire and empirical analysis on 225 high-tech enterprises, the results show that:the dynamic capabilities are the capability base of firms'innovation activities, and organizational modularity and knowledge base are the structural and knowledge foundation of dynamic capabilities, dynamic capabilities plays mediating roles between organizational modularity and innovation performance, knowledge base and innovation performance. Knowledge agglomeration and environmental uncertainty moderate the relationship between dynamic capabilities and innovation performance; knowledge agglomeration is significant for the formation of firms'knowledge base, and increasing the level of organizational modularity is an effective way for firms responding to the environmental uncertainty.
On this basis, the paper systematically summarized the conclusions of the three sub-studies, and the theoretical progress:(1) complemented and expanded the researches on the organizational pattern of technological innovation by demonstrating the modular organizational pattern can help firms achieve high dynamic capabilities and the flexibility to choose from a variety of innovation strategies in uncertain environment; (2) rethought and confirmed the problem of firms'efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environment, and the optimal structure in uncertain environment in strategic management and organizational theory through analyzing the dual role of rules, pointed out that the formation of design rules help firms allocate innovation resources with modular organizational pattern, and achieve efficiency and flexibility simultaneously in dynamic environment; (3) the comprehensive theoretical model of organization modularity and knowledge base impacting firms'innovation through dynamic capabilities in the environment of knowledge agglomeration and uncertainty, was significant to the researches on organization modularity impacting firms'innovation, knowledge base impacting firms'innovation and firms'independent innovation.
These theoretical progress also provides a new way for knowledge-intensive frims'technological innovation practice:establishing design rules for complex innovation projects, can provide a structural basis for the flexibility to choose from a variety of innovation strategies, improve their own knowledge base, achieve dynamic capabilities needed to adapt to environmental changes, and ultimately improve their innovation performance in in the environment of knowledge agglomeration and uncertainty.
Finally, we summarized the limitations and future directions.
研究一,通过案例研究方法对组织模块性能否帮助企业实现灵活地选择多种技术创新策略进行了分析。现有关于企业技术创新的研究过多地把目光聚焦于企业之间的技术创新合作,而相对忽视了企业组织自身应该采取什么样的组织方式,才能更有利于企业走出边界去与外面的企业合作进行创新的问题,后者对于企业跨越边界、采取有效的技术创新组织模式将产生决定性影响。因此,作者通过对三家企业进行解释性的嵌入式多案例研究,发现组织模块性的提高有利于企业走出边界与其他机构进行合作,增强了企业适应不确定环境所需的动态能力,也为企业灵活地选择多种技术创新策略提供了结构基础。通过分析,作者还识别了这种模块化的组织模式所具有的三个典型特征。
研究二,通过基于蒙特卡罗模型的仿真设计,对环境动态性对组织结构影响企业创新的关系进行了分析。战略管理与组织理论的文献普遍把效率与柔性看成是组织不可兼得的两个属性：组织结构的规则化程度太低,会导致组织缺乏效率；而规则化程度太高,则会导致组织缺乏柔性。作者基于数学建模,对动态环境下组织结构与创新绩效之间的关系进行了计算机仿真模拟,发现组织基于对环境的正确认知而建立起来的规则体系,能够帮助企业在不确定环境中同时实现较高的效率与柔性,并进一步指出这种规则体系的建立过程,就是模块性组织的设计规则的形成过程。
研究三,通过统计分析方法,对知识集聚与不确定环境下组织模块性与知识基础对企业技术创新的影响机制进行了实证检验。基于对225家高技术企业进行问卷调查与统计分析,结果表明：动态能力是企业创新活动的能力基础,而组织模块性和知识基础分别是企业动态能力的结构基础和认知基础,动态能力在组织模块性和创新绩效、知识基础和创新绩效之间具有中介作用。知识集聚与不确定性主要调节动态能力对创新绩效的影响；知识集聚对企业知识基础的形成具有重要意义,而提高组织模块性则是企业应对环境不确定性的有效途径之一。
在此基础上,本文系统地归纳了上述三个子研究的结论,并总结了本文所取得的理论进展：(1)通过论证模块化的组织模式能够帮助企业在不确定环境中获取较高的动态能力,并灵活地选择多种创新策略,对技术创新的组织模式研究进行了补充与拓展；(2)通过分析规则的双重作用,对战略管理与组织理论中关于动态环境中企业的效率与柔性问题以及不确定环境下企业的最优结构问题进行了反思与验证,指出设计规则的形成使得企业能够以模块化的组织模式配置创新资源,在动态环境中兼顾效率与柔性；(3)知识集聚与不确定环境下组织模块性与知识基础通过动态能力影响企业创新的综合性理论模型,对关于组织模块性影响企业创新的研究、知识基础影响创新的研究以及国内的自主创新研究,都具有重要的借鉴意义。
上述理论进展也为知识密集型企业的技术创新实践提供了新的思路：企业为复杂的创新项目建立清晰的设计规则,不仅为灵活运用多种创新策略提供了结构基础,也能够完善自身的知识基础,获得适应环境变化所需的动态能力,最终提高知识集聚与不确定环境中的创新绩效。
最后,本文总结了研究局限及有待进一步解决的问题。
In the era of knowledge economy, the two most typical features are knowledge agglomeration and environmental uncertainty. The two most typical features of knowledge economy era are knowledge agglomeration and environmental uncertainty. It has been an urgent task for both technological innovation researches and practices to explore an organizational pattern that can help them effectively achieve and use the knowledge resources brought by knowledge agglomeration, and avoid potential uncertainty when knowledge-intensive firms are allocating innovation resources. Therefore, based on the researches about knowledge agglomeration, organizational pattern of technological innovation and modular organization, this paper conducted a comprehensive framework, and confirmed it with three studies, focusing on the core theme that which way is more efficient to allocate innovation resources in the environment of knowledge agglomeration and uncertainty.
Study one analyzed whether organization modularity can help firms get the flexibility to choose from various technological innovation strategies through a case study. The existing researches on firms'technological innovation paid too much attention on the cooperation between them, but neglected the question about what kind of organizational pattern they should take to make the inter-firm cooperation successfully, which plays an important role on firms crossing organization boundary and adopting effective organizational pattern for technological innovation. Based on an embedded explanatory multiple case study of three companies, we found that organizational modularity can help the firms cross the organization boundary to cooperate with others, enhance the their dynamic capabilities needed to adapt to the uncertain environment, and provide a structural basis for the their flexibility to choose from a variety of technological innovation strategies. This study also identified three typical features of this modular organizational pattern.
Study two analyzed the relationship between organization structure and firms' innovation under environmental dynamism based on the Monte Carlo model. In most strategic management and organization theory literature, organization usually can't get efficiency and flexibility simultaneously:the organization with too little rules will result in its inefficiency, while too many rules will lead to the lack of flexibility. Through mathematical model and simulation program on the relationship between organization structure and firms'innovation in dynamic environment, we found the rules system based on the correct understanding of dynamic environment can help organization achieve high efficiency and flexibility simultaneously in uncertain environment, and the process of constructing this rules system is exactly the formation process of the design rules of the modular organization.
Study three empirically analyzed the mechanism that organizational modularity and knowledge base affect firms'technological innovation in the environment of knowledge agglomeration and uncertainty. Based on the questionnaire and empirical analysis on 225 high-tech enterprises, the results show that:the dynamic capabilities are the capability base of firms'innovation activities, and organizational modularity and knowledge base are the structural and knowledge foundation of dynamic capabilities, dynamic capabilities plays mediating roles between organizational modularity and innovation performance, knowledge base and innovation performance. Knowledge agglomeration and environmental uncertainty moderate the relationship between dynamic capabilities and innovation performance; knowledge agglomeration is significant for the formation of firms'knowledge base, and increasing the level of organizational modularity is an effective way for firms responding to the environmental uncertainty.
On this basis, the paper systematically summarized the conclusions of the three sub-studies, and the theoretical progress:(1) complemented and expanded the researches on the organizational pattern of technological innovation by demonstrating the modular organizational pattern can help firms achieve high dynamic capabilities and the flexibility to choose from a variety of innovation strategies in uncertain environment; (2) rethought and confirmed the problem of firms'efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environment, and the optimal structure in uncertain environment in strategic management and organizational theory through analyzing the dual role of rules, pointed out that the formation of design rules help firms allocate innovation resources with modular organizational pattern, and achieve efficiency and flexibility simultaneously in dynamic environment; (3) the comprehensive theoretical model of organization modularity and knowledge base impacting firms'innovation through dynamic capabilities in the environment of knowledge agglomeration and uncertainty, was significant to the researches on organization modularity impacting firms'innovation, knowledge base impacting firms'innovation and firms'independent innovation.
These theoretical progress also provides a new way for knowledge-intensive frims'technological innovation practice:establishing design rules for complex innovation projects, can provide a structural basis for the flexibility to choose from a variety of innovation strategies, improve their own knowledge base, achieve dynamic capabilities needed to adapt to environmental changes, and ultimately improve their innovation performance in in the environment of knowledge agglomeration and uncertainty.
Finally, we summarized the limitations and future directions.
引文
[1]Agarwal, R., Croson, R., et al. The role of incentives and communication in strategic alliances:An experimental investigation. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(4):413-437.
[2]Aiken, M.& Hage, J. Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. American Sociological Review.1968,33(December):912-30.
[3]Aken, J. E.& Weggeman, M. Managing learning in informal innovation networks:Overcoming the daphne-dilemma. R&D Management,2000,30(2): 139-149.
[4]Alcacer, J.& Chung, W. Location strategies and knowledge spillovers. Management Science,2007,53(5):760-776.
[5]Alexander, C. Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1964.Almeida, P.& Kogut, B. Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science,1999, 45(7):905-917.
[6]Almirall, E.& Casadesus-Masanell, R. Open versus closed innovation:A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review,2010, 35(1):27-47.
[7]Amabile, T. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO:Westview Press,1996.
[8]Amin, A.& Cohendet, P. Organisational learning and governance through embedded practices. Journal of Management and Governance,2000,4(1): 93-116.
[9]Amin, A.& Cohendet, P. Organizational learning through embedded practices. Mimeo UK,1999.
[10]Anders, B. Working with distant researchers-distance and content in university-industry interaction. Research Policy,2010,39(10):1311-1320.
[11]Anderson, P. Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science,1999,10:216-232.
[12]Argyres, N.S. The impact of information technology on coordination:Evidence from the B-2 "stealth" bomber. Organization Science,1999,10(2):162-173.
[13]Arias, J. T. G. Do networks really foster innovation? Management Decision, 1995,33(9):52-56.
[14]Arora, A.& Fosfuri. A wholly owned subsidiary versus technology licensing in the worldwide chemical industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 2000,31(4):555-572.
[15]Arvanitis, S., U. Kubli, et al.,2008. University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland:What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy,37(10):1865-1883.
[16]Audretsch, D. B.& Feldman, M. P. R&D Spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review,1996,86(3): 630-640.
[17]Audretsch, D. B.& Lehmann, E. E. Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy,2005,34(8):1191-1202.
[18]Autio, E., Hameri, A.-P., et al. A framework of industrial knowledge spillovers in big-science centers. Research Policy,2004,33(1):107-126.
[19]Avadikyan, A., Llerena, P., et al. Organisational rules, codification and knowledge creation in inter-organisation cooperative agreements. Research Policy,2001,30:1443-1458.
[20]Baba, Y.& Walsh, J. P. Embeddedness, social epistemology and breakthrough innovation:The case of the development of statins. Research Policy,2010, 39(4):511-522.
[21]Badaracco, J. The knowledge link:How firms compete through strategic alliances. Harvard Business Press,1991.
[22]Baker, T.,& Nelson, R. E. Creating something from nothing:Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly,2005,50:329-366.
[23]Baker, W. E.& Sinkula, J. M. Does market orientation facilitate balanced innovation programs? An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2007,24(4):316-334.
[24]Baldwin, C. Y.& Clark, K. B. Design rules:The power of modularity. The MIT Press,2000.
[25]Baldwin, C. Y.& Clark, K. B. Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review,1997,75(5):84-93.
[26]Baldwin, C. Y. Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms. Industrial & Corporate Change,2008,17(1): 155-195.
[27]Baptista, R.& Swann, P. Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 1998,27(5):525-540.
[28]Barnes, T. J.& Gertler, M. S. The new industrial geography:Regions, regulations and institutions. Psychology Press,1999.
[29]Baron, R.& Kenny, D. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality Social Psychology.1986,31(6):1173-1182.
[30]Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., et al. Don't go it alone:Alliance network composition and startups'performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21:267-294.
[31]Baum, C. F. An introduction to modern econometrics using stata. College Station, Texas:StataCorp Publishers,2006
[32]Becattini, G. The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy,1990:37-51.
[33]Berger, P. L.,& Luckmann, T. The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday,1967.
[34]Besen, S. M.& Farrell, J. Choosing how to compete:Strategies and tactics in standardization. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,1994,8(2):117-131.
[35]Bigley, G.,& Roberts, K. Structuring temporary systems for high reliability. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44:1281-1300.
[36]Bingham, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., et al. What makes a process a capability? Heuristics, strategy, and effective capture of opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,2007,1:21-47.
[37]Blau, P. M. Bureaucracy in modern society. New York:Random House,1956.
[38]Blind, K.& Thumm, N. Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies:Empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy,2004, 33(10):1583-1598.
[39]Boudreau, K. Open platform strategies and innovation:Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science,2010,56(10):1849-1872.
[40]Bower, J. L.& Christensen, C. M. Disruptive technologies:Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review,1995,73(1):43-53.
[41]Bradach, J. L. Using the plural form in the management of restaurant chains. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42:276-304.
[42]Breschia, S.& Lissoni, F. Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001,10(4):975-1005.
[43]Brown, J. S.& Duguid, P. Knowledge and organization:A social-practice perspective. Organization Science,2001,12(2):198-213.
[44]Brown, S. L.& Eisenhardt, K. M. The art of continuous change:Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42:1-34.
[45]Brusoni, S.& Prencipe, A. Unpacking the black box of modularity: Technologies, products and organizations. Industrial & Corporate Change, 2001,10(1):179-205.
[46]Brusoni, S. The limits to specialization:Problem solving and coordination in modular networks. Organization Studies,2005,26(12):1885-1907.
[47]Bunnell, T. G.& Coe, N. M. Spaces and scales of innovation. Progress in Human Geography,2001,25(4):569-589.
[48]Burgelman, R. A. A process model of strategic business exit:Implications for an evolutionary theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17: 193-214.
[49]Burns, T.& Stalker, G. M. The management of innovation. London:Tavistock, 1961.
[50]Burt, R. Structural holes:The social science of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1992.
[51]Camagni, R. On the concept of territorial competitiveness:Sound or misleading? Urban studies,2002,39(13):2395-2411.
[52]Capello, R.& Faggian, A. Collective learning and relational capital in local innovation processes. Regional Studies,2005,39(1):75-87.
[53]Carayannopoulos, S.& Auster, E. R. External knowledge sourcing in biotechnology through acquisition versus alliance:A KBV approach. Research Policy,2010,39(2):254-267.
[54]Carroll, G. R.,& Harrison, J. R. Organizational demography and culture: Insights from a formal model and simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998,43:637-667.
[55]Cebon, P., O. Hauptman, et al. Product modularity and the product life cycle: New dynamics in the interactions of product and process technologies. International Journal of Technology Management,2008,42(4):365-386.
[56]Ceci, F.& Iubatti, D. Personal relationships and innovation diffusion in SME networks:A content analysis approach. Research Policy,2012,41(3):565-579.
[57]Chan, P. S.& Heide, D. Strategic alliances in technology:Key competitive weapon. SAM Advanced Management Journal,1993,58(4):9-17.
[58]Chang, Y.-C., Yang, P. Y., et al. The determinants of academic research commercial performance:Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy,2009,38(6):936-946.
[59]Chen, E. L., Katila, R., et al. All the right moves:Competitive interaction, temporary advantage, and fi rm performance. Stanford Technology Ventures Program Working Paper,2009.
[60]Chesbrough, H. W.& Teece, D. J. Organizing for innovation:When is virtual virtuous? Harvard Business Review,2002,80(8):127-135.
[61]Chesbrough, H. W.& Teece, D. J. When is virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation. Harvard Business Review,1996,74(1):65-73.
[62]Chesbrough, H. W. Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management,2004,47(1):23-26.
[63]Chesbrough, H. W. Open innovation:The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press,2003b.
[64]Chesbrough, H. W. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,2003a,44(3):35-41.
[65]Chesbrough, H.W. Toward a dynamics of modularity. In:A. Prencipe, A. Davies and M. Hobday (Editors), The Business of Systems Integration. Oxford, U. K.:Oxford University Press,2003c:174-198.Clark, K. Project scope and project performance:The effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management Science,1989,35(10):1247-1262.
[66]Cohen, J., Cohen, P., et al. Applied regression/correlation analysis for behavioral science. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,2003.
[67]Cohen, M. D., March J. G., et al. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly,1972,17:1-25.
[68]Cohen, W. M.& Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1): 128-152.
[69]Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,1988,94(1):95-120.
[70]Collis, D J. Research Note:How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(S1):143-152.
[71]Cravens, D. W., Piercy, N. F., et al. New organizational forms for competing in highly dynamic environments:The network paradigm. British Journal of management,1996,7(3):203-218.
[72]Crevoisier, O. The innovative milieus approach:Toward a territorialized understanding of the economy? Economic geography,2004,80(4):367-379.
[73]Cuervo-Cazurra, A.& Annique Un, C. Why some firms never invest in formal R&D. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(7):759-779.
[74]D'Este, P. How do firms'knowledge bases affect intra-industry heterogeneity? An analysis of the Spanish pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy,2005,34: 33-45.Dahl, M. S.& Pedersen, C.φ. R. Knowledge flows through informal contacts in industrial clusters:Myth or reality? Research Policy,2004.33(10): 1673-1686.
[75]Das, T. K.& Teng, B. S. Instabilities of strategic alliances:An internal tensions perspective. Organization Science,2000,11(1):77-101.
[76]David, C. M., Joanne, E. O., et al. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue):77-91.
[77]Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., et al. Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly,2009,54(3): 413-452.
[78]Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K.M., et al. Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review,2007,32(2):480-499.
[79]Deeds Charles, W. L.& David, L. Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development:An empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing,1996,11(1):41-55.
[80]Desrochers, P. Geographical proximity and the transmission of tacit knowledge. The Review of Austrian Economics,2001,14(1):25-46.
[81]Dewar, R. D.& Dutton, J. E. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations:An empirical analysis. Management Science,1986,32(11): 1422-1433.
[82]DiMaggio, P. J.,& Powell, W. W. The iron cage revisited:Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,1983,48:147-160.
[83]Duysters, G., G. Kok, et al. Crafting successful strategic technology partnerships. R&D Management,1999,29(4):343-351.
[84]Dyer, J. H.& Nobeoka, K. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network:The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(3):345-367.
[85]Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A, et al. Dynamic capabilities:Current debates and future directions. British Journal of Management,2009,20(sl):S1-S8
[86]Eisenhardt, K. M.& Bhatia, M. M. "Organizational complexity and computation." In J. A. C. Baum (ed.), Companion to Organizations. Oxford: Blackwell,2001.
[87]Eisenhardt, K. M.& Martin, J. A. Dynamic capabilities:What are they? Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(10-11):1105-1121.
[88]Eisenhardt, K. M. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal,1989,32:543-576.
[89]Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Bourgeois, L. J. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments:Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal,1988,31:737-770.
[90]Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Sull, D. Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review,2001,79 (January-February):107-116.
[91]Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Tabrizi, B. Accelerating adaptive processes:Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995,40:84-110.
[92]Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., et al. CROSSROADS——Microfoundations of performance:Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science,2010,21(6):1263-1273
[93]Emery, F. L.,& Trist, E. L. The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations,1965,18(February):21-32.
[94]Ernst, D. Limits to modularity:Reflections on recent developments in chip design. Industry and Innovation,2005,12(3):303-335.
[95]Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., et al. Managing external knowledge flows:The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy,2009,38(1):96-105.
[96]Estades, J.& Ramani, S. V. Technological competence and the influence of networks:A comparative analysis of new biotechnology firms in France and Britain. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,1998,10(4):483-495.
[97]Ethiraj, S. K.& Levinthal, D. Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Science,2004,50(2):159-173.
[98]Ethiraj, S. K., Levinthal, D., et al. The dual role of modularity:Innovation and imitation. Management Science,2008,54(5):939-955.
[99]Evans, JSBT. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology,2008,59(1):255-278.
[100]Feldman, M. P. Location and innovation:The new economic geography of innovation, spillovers, and agglomeration. The Oxford handbook of economic geography,2000:373-394.
[101]Feldman, M. P. The New economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration:A review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,1999.8:5-25.
[102]Feller, I., Ailes, C. P., et al. Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry:Evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy.2002,31.(3):457-474.
[103]Fleming, L., Sorenson, O., et al. Complexity, networks, and knowledge flow. Research Policy,2006,35:994-1017.
[104]Fosfuri, A.& Tribo, J. Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega,2008,36(2): 173-187.
[105]Frenken, K. A fitness landscape approach to technological complexity, modularity, and vertical disintegration. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,2006,17(3):288-305.
[106]Galunic, C. D.& Eisenhardt, K. M. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(6):1229-1249.
[107]Garud, R.& Kumaraswamy, A. Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management Journal,1995, 16(S1):93-109.
[108]Gavetti, G. Cognition and hierarchy:Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities' development. Organization Science,2005,16(6):599-617.
[109]Gell-Mann, M. The quark and the jaguar:Adventures in the simple and the complex. New York:W.H. Freeman,1994.
[110]Gertler, M. S. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 2003,3(1):75-99.
[111]Gibson, C.,& Birkinshaw, J. The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal,2004, 47:209-226.
[112]Gilbert, C. Unbundling the structure of inertia:Resource vs routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48:741-763.
[113]Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure:A theory of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,1985,91(3):481-510.
[114]Granovetter, M., Nohria, N., et al. Networks and organizations:Structure, form and action, networks and organizations. Harvard Business School Press, 1992.
[115]Grant, R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Special Issue):109-122.
[116]Groen, A. J.& Linton, J. D. Is open innovation a field of study or a communication barrier to theory development? Technovation,2010,30(11-12): 554-554.
[117]Gulati, R.& Gargiulo, M. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology,1999,104(5):1439-1493.
[118]Gulati, R. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal,1998, 19(4):293-317.
[119]Gulati, R. Social structure and alliance formation patterns:A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly,1995,40(4):619-652.
[120]Hagedoorn, J.& Duysters, G. External sources of innovative capabilities: The preferences for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies,2002,39(2):167-188.
[121]Hamel G., Doz., Y. L., et al. Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard Business Review,1989,67(1):133-139.
[122]Hamel, G. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12(S1): 83-103.
[123]Hannan, M. T.& Freeman, J. H. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology,1977,82:929-64.
[124]Hansen, M. T. The search-transfer problem:The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999,44:82-111.
[125]Hargadon, A.,& Sutton, R. I. Technology brokering and innovation in a product developmenfirm. A dministrative Science Quarterly,1997,42: 716-749.
[126]Hatch, M. J. Jazz as a metaphor for organizing in the 21st century. Organization Science,1998,9:556-557.
[127]Hawley, A. Human ecology. Pp.328-37 in David L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York:Macmillan, 1968.
[128]He, Z. L.& Wong, P. K. Exploration vs. exploitation:An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science，2004,15(4):481-494.
[129]Helfat, C. E, Finkelstein, S., et al. Dynamic capabilities:Understanding strategic change in organizations. Blackwell:London,2007.
[130]Helfat, C. E.& Eisenhardt, K. M. Inter temporal economies of scope. organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(13):1217-1232.
[131]Henderson, R. M.& Clark. K. B. Architectural innovation:The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35:9-30.
[132]Hill, C. W. L.,& Rothaermel, F. T. The performance of incumbentfi rms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 2003,28:257-274.
[133]Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., et al. Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy,2010,39(5):662-673.
[134]Hoetker, G. Do modular products lead to modular organizations? Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(6):501-518.
[135]Fu, X. How does openness affect the importance of incentives for innovation? Research Policy,2012,41(3):512-523.
[136]Inkpen, A. C.& Beamish, P. W. Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 1997,22(1):177-202.
[137]Inkpen, A. C.& Dinur, A. Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science,1998,9(4):454-468.
[138]Inkpen, A. C.& Tsang, E. W. K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review,2005,30(1):146-165.
[139]Jaffe, A. B., M. Trajtenberg, et al. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1993,108:577-598.
[140]Jaffe, A. B., M. Trajtenberg, et al. Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: Evidence from a survey of inventors. American Economic Review,2000,90(2): 215-218.
[141]Jansen, J. J., et al. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 2005,48(6):999-1015.Kash, D. E.& Rycroft, R. Emerging patterns of complex technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2002,69(6):581-606.
[142]Jaworski, B. J.& Kohli, A. K. Market orientation:antecedents and consequences. The Journal of marketing,1993,57(3):53-70.
[143]Katila, R.,& Ahuja, G. Something old, something new:A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal,2002.45:1183-1194.
[144]Kauffman, S. The origins of order. New York:Oxford University Press, 1993.
[145]Keeble, D.& Wilkinson, F. Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional clusters of high technology SMEs in Europe. Regional Studies,1999,33(4):295-303.
[146]Kogut, B.& Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities. and the replication of technology. Organization Science,1992,3(3):383-397.
[147]Lam, A. Embedded firms, embedded knowledge:Problems in collaboration and knowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies, 1997,18(6):973-996.
[148]Langlois, R. N.& Robertson, P. L. Networks and innovation in a modular system:Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries. Research Policy,1992,21(4):297-313.
[149]Langlois, R.N. Modularity in technology and organization. Journal of economic Behavior & Organization,2002,49(1):19-37.
[150]Langton, C. Life at the edge of chaos,1992. In C. Langton, J. Farmer, S. Rasmussen, and C. Taylor (eds.), Artficial life Ⅱ:Santa Fe institute studies in the sciences of complexity,10:41-91. Santa Fe:Addison-Wesley.
[151]Larson, A. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings:A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly,1992, 37(1):76-104.
[152]Lawson, B.& Samson, D. Developing innovation capability in organizations. International journal of innovation management,2001,5(3): 377-400.
[153]Lee, C.-Y. The differential effects of public R&D support on firm R&D: Theory and evidence from multi-country data. Technovation,2011,31(5): 256-269.
[154]Leiblein, M. J. The choice of organizational governance form and performance:Predictions from transaction cost, resource-based and real option theories. Journal of Management,2003,29(6):937-961.
[155]Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal.1992. 13(S1):111-125.
[156]Leveque, F., Bonazzi, C., et al. Dynamics of cooperation and industrial R&D:first insights into the black box Ⅱ'. R. Coombs; A. Richards:PP Saviotti e V. Walsh, Technological collaboration:The dynamics of cooperation in industrial innovation. Cheltenham/Gr-Bretanha, Edward Elgar,1996.
[157]Levinthal, D. A.& March, J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(S2):95-112.
[158]Lhuillery, S.& Pfister, E. R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects:Empirical evidence from French CIS data. Research Policy,2009, 38(1):45-57.
[159]Li, H.Y., Zhang, Y., et al. Entrepreneurial strategy making and performance in China's new technology ventures:The contingency effect of environments and firm competences. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 2005,16:37-57.
[160]Lichtenthaler, U. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management Journal,2009,52(4):822-846.
[161]Malmberg, A.& Maskell, P. The elusive concept of localization economies. Environment and Planning A,2002,34(3):429-449.
[162]Malmberg, A. Beyond the cluster:Local milieus and global connections. Remaking the global economy:Economic-geographical perspectives,2003: 145-162.
[163]March, J. G. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1):71-87.
[164]March, J. G.& Olsen, J. P. Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway:Universitetsforlaget,1976.
[165]Martin, J. A.,& Eisenhardt, K. Rewiring:Cross-business-unit collaborations and performance in multi-business organizations. Academy of Management Journal,2010,53(2):265-301.
[166]Maskell, P.& Malmberg, A. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1999,23(2):167-185.
[167]Maskell, P. Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001,10(4):921-943.
[168]Mesquita, L. F., J. Anand, et al. Comparing the resource-based and relational views:Knowledge transfer and spillover in vertical alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 2008,29(9):913-941.
[169]Meyer, J. W.& Rowan, B. Institutionalized organizations:Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology,1977.83(2): 340-363.
[170]Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., et al. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal,2007, 50(2):307-326.
[171]Miller, D.,& Friesen, P. H. Momentum and revolution in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal,1980,23:591-614.
[172]Mintzberg, H.,& McHugh, A. Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly,1985,30:160-197.
[173]Moon, C. L. Technological capacity as a determinant of governance form in international strategic combinations. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,1998,9(1):35-53.
[174]Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., et al. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Special Issue): 77-91.
[175]Nicholls, N. C. L.& Woo, C. Y. Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a regime of encompassing technological change. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(7):651-666.
[176]Okhuysen, G. A.,& Eisenhardt, K. M. Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flibility. Organization Science,2002,13: 370-386.
[177]Osborn, R. N.& Baughn, C. C. Forms of Inter-organizational governance for multinational alliances. The Academy of Management Journal,1990, 33(3):503-519.
[178]Ouchi, W. G.& Bolton, M. K. The logic of joint research and development. California Management Review,1988,30(3):9-33.
[179]Owen-Smith, J.,& Powell, W. W.. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits:The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science,2003,15:5-21.
[180]Pan, S. L., G. Pan, et al. The dynamics of implementing and managing modularity of organizational routines during capability development:Insights from a process model. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,2007, 54(4):800-813.
[181]Park, S. H.& Ungson, G. R. Interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity:A conceptual framework of alliance failure. Organization Science,2001,12(1): 37-53.
[182]Paulo, A., Cauchick M., Silvio, et al. A case study on modularity in product development and production within the auto industry. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management,2006,6 (3):315-330
[183]Pennings, J. M.& Harianto, F. Technological networking and innovation implementation. Organization Science,1992,3(3):356-382.
[184]Perrow, C. B. Complexity, catastrophe, and modularity. Sociological Inquiry,2008,78(2):162-173.
[185]Phelps, C. C. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. The Academy of Management Journal,2010,53(4):890-913.
[186]Pil, F. K.& Cohen, S. K. Modularity:Implications for imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4): 995-1011.
[187]Pinch, S., Henry, N., et al. From 'industrial districts' to 'knowledge clusters': A model of knowledge dissemination and competitive advantage in industrial agglomerations. Journal of Economic Geography,2003,3(4):373.
[188]Pisano, G. P. Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning:An empirical analysis of process development. Strategic Management Journal, 1994,15:85-100.
[189]Polanyi, M. The tacit dimension. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul,1966.
[190]Porter, M. E. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review,1998,76(6):77-90.
[191]Powell, W. W. Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review,1998,40(3): 228-240.
[192]Powell, W. W. Neither market nor hierarchy:Network forms of organization. Research in Organization Behavior,1990,12:295-336.
[193]Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., et al. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(1):116-145.
[194]Prahalad, C. K.& Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review.1990.68(3):79-91.
[195]Price, R. M. EXECUTIVE FORUM:Technology and strategic advantage. California Management Review,1996,38(3):38-56.
[196]Pyke, F.. Becattini, G., et al. Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy. International Institute for Labour Studies,1990.
[197]Riccaboni, M.& Moliterni, R. Managing technological transitions through R&D alliances. R&D Management,2009,39(2):124-135.
[198]Rindova, V.,& Kotha, S. Continuous morphing:Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal. 2001,44:1263-1280.
[199]Rivkin, J. W.,& Siggelkow, N. Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science,2003,49:290-311.
[200]Robertson, P. L., Casali, G. L., et al. Managing open incremental process innovation:Absorptive capacity and distributed learning. Research Policy, 2012, In Press, Corrected Proof, available online 15 March.
[201]Rothaermel, F. T.& Deeds D. L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology:A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(3):201-221.
[202]Rothaermel, F. T., Hitt, M., et al. Balancing vertical integration and strategic outsourcing:Effects on product portfolios, new product success, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27:1033-1056.
[203]Rothwell, R. Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review,1994,11(1):7-31.
[204]Rowley, T., Behrens, D., et al. Redundant governance structures:An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3): 369-386.
[205]Rutten, R.& Boekema, F. Regional social capital:Embeddedness, innovation networks and regional economic development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2007,74(9):1834-1846.
[206]Sako, M. Supplier development at Honda, Nissan and Toyota:Comparative case studies of organizational capability enhancement. Industrial and Corporate Change,2004,13(2):281-308.
[207]Samina, K. Modularity in organizational structure:The reconfiguration of internally developed and acquired business units. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(9):799-823.
[208]Sanchez, R.& Mahoney, J. T. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 1996,17(Special Issue):63-76.
[209]Sanchez, R. Modular architectures, knowledge assets and organizational learning:New management processes for product creation. International Journal of Technology Management,2000,19(6):610-629.
[210]Sanchez, R. Modularity in the mediation of market and technology change. International Journal of Technology Management,2008,42(4):331-364.
[211]Santos, F. M.,& Eisenhardt, K. M. Constructing markets and shaping boundaries:Entrepreneurial power in nascentfi elds. Academy of Management Journal,2009,52:643-671.
[212]Saxenian, A. L. Comment on Kenney and von Burg,'Technology, entrepreneurship and path dependence:Industrial clustering in Silicon Valley and Route 128'. Industrial & Corporate Change,1999,8(1):105.
[213]Schilling, M. A.& Steensma, H. K. The use of modular organizational forms:An industry-level analysis. The Academy of Management Journal,2001, 44(6):1149-1168.
[214]Schilling, M. A. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 2000,25(2):312-334.Schreyogg, G & Kliesch-Eberl, M. How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(9):913-933.
[215]Schwab, D. Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,2005.
[216]Scott, W. R. Organizational structure.1975, Pp.1-20 in Annual Review of Sociology. Vol.1, edited by Alex Inkeles. Palo Alto, Calif.:Annual Reviews.
[217]Shan, W., Walker, G., et al. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(5): 387-394.
[218]Shane, S. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science,2000,11:448-469.
[219]Shu-hsien, L., Wu-Chen, F., et al. Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability:An empirical study of Taiwan's knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Information Science.2007,33(3):340-359.
[220]Siggelkow, N. Change in the presence of fit:The rise, the fall, and the renascence of Liz Claiborne. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44: 838-857.
[221]Simon, H. A. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,1962,106(6):467-482.
[222]Sosa, M. E., Eppinger, S. D., et al. The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Management Science,2004:1674-1689.
[223]Sφrensen, J. B.& Stuart, T. E. Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,2000,45(1):81-112
[224]Starbuck, W. H. Organizations and their Environments. Pp.1069-1123 in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by Marvin D. Dunnette. New York:Rand McNally,1976.
[225]Stinchcombe, A. L. Bureaucratic and craft administration of production:A com-parative study. Administrative Science Quarterly,1959,4:168-187.
[226]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Special Issue):27-43.
[227]Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., et al. Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review,2004,29(2):258-271.
[228]Teece, D. J.& Pisano, G. The dynamic capabilities of firms:An introduction. Ind Corp Change,1994,3(3):537-a-556.
[229]Teece, D. J. Explicating dynamic capabilities:The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(13):1319-1350.
[230]Teece, D. J. Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy,1986, 15(6):285-305.
[231]Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., et al. Dynamic capabilities & strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7):509-533.
[232]Terreberry, S. The evolution of organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1968,12(March):590-613.
[233]Thomke, S.& Von Hippel, E. Customers as innovators:A new way to create value. Harvard Business Review,2002,80(4):74-85.
[234]Thompson. J. D. Organizations in action. New York:McGraw-Hill,1967.
[235]Tripsas, M. Surviving radical technological change through dynamic capability:Evidence form the typesetter industry. Industrial and Corporate Change,1997.6:341-377.
[236]Tsai, K. H.& Wang, J. C. External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT sectors:An analysis based on the Taiwanese Technological Innovation Survey. Research Policy,2009,38(3):518-526.
[237]Tsai, W. Knowledge Transfer in intraorganizational networks:Effect of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5):996-1004.
[238]Tushman, M. L.& Anderson, P. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986,31(3): 439-465.
[239]Tushman, M.,& O'Reilly, Ⅲ C. A. Ambidextrous organizations:Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. C alifornia Management Review,1996, 38 (summer):8-30.
[240]Utterback, J. M. Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology. Science,1974,183(4125):620.
[241]Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1): 35-67.
[242]Van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., et al. Open innovation in SMEs:Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation,2009,29(6-7):423-437.
[243]Van der Aa, W.& Elfring, T. Realizing innovation in services. Scandinavian Journal of Management,2002,18(2):155-171.
[244]Vanhaverbeke, W.& Noorderhaven, N. G. Competition between alliance blocks:The case of the RISC microprocessor technology. Organization Studies, 2001,22(1):1-30.
[245]Volberda, H. W. Toward the flexible form:How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science,1996,7(4):359-374.
[246]Von Hippel, E. Comment on'Is open innovation a field of study or a communication barrier to theory development?' Technovation,2010,30(11-12): 555-555.
[247]Von Hippel, E. Industrial innovation by users:Evidence, explanatory hypotheses and implications. Working paper (Sloan School of Management), 1977:953-77.
[248]Von Hippel, E. Lead users:A source of novel product concepts. Management Science,1986,32(7):791-805.
[249]Von Hippel, E. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy,1976,5(3):212-239.
[250]Weber, Max. Essays in sociology. New York:Oxford University Press, 1946.
[251]Weber, Max. The protestant's ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner's,1930.
[252]Weber, Max. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press,1947.
[253]Weick, K. E. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly,1976,21(1):1-19.
[254]Weick, K. E. Improvisation as a mindset. Organization Science,1998,9: 543-555.
[255]Weick, K. E. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations:The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly,1993,38:628-652.
[256]Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schroder, G., et al. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models:Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly,2009,33(1):177-195.
[257]Williams, C.,& Mitchell, W. Focusmgn evolution:The impact of information infrastructure on market entry by U.S. telecommunications companies,1984-1998. Management Science,2004,50:1561-1575.
[258]Williamson, O. E. Comparative economic organization:The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative science quarterly,1991: 269-296.
[259]Williamson, O.E. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York:Free Press,1985.
[260]Winter, S. G. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(10):991-995.
[261]Wolter, C.& Veloso, F. M. The effects of innovation on vertical structure: Perspectives on transaction costs and competences. Academy of Management Review,2008,33(3):586-605.
[262]Woodward, J. Industrial organization, theory and practice. London:Oxford University Press,1965.
[263]Yang, C.-H., Motohashi, K., et al. Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative? Evidence from Taiwan. Research Policy,2009,38(1):77-85.
[264]Yokakul. N.& Zawdie, G. Innovation network and technological capability development in the Thai SME sector:The case of the Thai dessert industry. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 2010,9(1):19-36.
[265]Zaheer, A.& Bell, G. G. Benefiting from network position:Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 2005,26(9):809-825.
[266]Zahra S. A., Sapienza H. J, et al. Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies,2006, 43(4):917-955.
[267]Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., et al. Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation,2009,30:181-194.
[268]Zhang, G.& Gao, R. Y. Modularity and incremental innovation:The roles of design rules and organizational communication. Computional and mathematical organization theory,2010,16(2):171-200.
[269]Zhang, J., Baden-Fuller, C., et al. Technological knowledge base, R&D organization structure and alliance formation:Evidence from the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy,2007,36:515-528.
[270]Zhou, K. Z.& Wu, F. Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(5):547-561.
[271]Zollo, M.,& Winter, S. G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science,2002,13(3):339-351.
[272]Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., et al. Commercializing knowledge:University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science,2002,48(1):138-153.
[273]曹虹剑.网络经济时代模块化组织运行与治理机制研究.博士学位论文,湖南大学,2008.
[274]曹洪军等.企业自主创新能力评价体系研究.中国工业经济,2009(9)： 105-114.
[275]曹虹剑和罗能生.高新技术产业组织模块化及其对中国的启示.自然辩证法研究,2010,26(4)：51-55.
[276]曾楚宏和林丹明.对企业建立战略联盟的理论解释.科研管理,2004,25(2)：93-97.
[277]陈柳.模块化、信息包裹与研发风险的分散.科学学研究,2006,24(1)：112-116.
[278]陈菲琼.企业知识联盟：理论与实证研究.北京：商务印书馆,2003.
[279]陈菲琼和傅秀美.区域自主创新能力提升研究—一基于ODI和内部学习网络的动态仿真.科学学研究,2010,28(1)：133-140.
[280]陈劲和陈钰芬.开放创新体系与企业技术创新资源配置.科研管理,2006,27(3)：1-8.
[281]程海.技术联盟的模式与机制探究.沈阳：东北大学出版社,2006.
[282]达恩·克罗姆林和罗伯特·辛德拉(Daan J. A. Crommelin & Robert D. Sindelar)著,2002,吉爱国等译.制药生物技术.北京：化学工业出版社,2005年.
[283]董颖等.集群内知识流动的空间不均衡性.科学学研究,2007,25(4)：745-749
[284]付家骥.技术创新学.北京：清华大学出版社,1998.
[285]高若阳.基于知识观的组织模块性与企业适应性研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[286]郭岚等.模块化的微观结构与风险特性：基于产业集群的分析.科研管理,2008,29(5)：55-62.
[287]侯杰泰等.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2005.
[288]胡晓鹏.模块化整合标准化：产业模块化研究.中国工业经济,2005(9)：67-74.
[289]胡祖光和章丹.网络嵌入性对技术创新网络形成结构的影响——基于中国企业的分析.科学学研究,2010,28(8)：1254-1258.
[290]黄兆银.R&D全球化研究.武汉：武汉大学出版社,2006.
[291]克利斯·弗里曼和罗克·苏特(Chris Freeman & Lucc Soete)著,华宏勋等译.工业创新经济学.北京：北京大学出版社,2004年.
[292]克里斯托费一弗里德里克·冯布(Christoph-Friedrich von Braun)创新之战.北京：机械工业出版社,1999.
[293]雷如桥等.基于模块化的组织模式及其效率比较研究.中国工业经济,2004(10)：83-90.
[294]理查德·福斯特(Richard Foster)著,王宇锋、韩丽华译.创新：进攻者的优势.北京：中信出版社,2008年
[295]罗伯特·殷(Robert K.Yin)著,周海涛主译.案例研究：设计与方法(第3版).重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004.
[296]刘雪峰.网络嵌入性与差异化战略及企业绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[297]马歇尔.经济学原理.北京：商务印书馆,1964.
[298]毛蕴诗和汪建成.基于产品升级的自主创新路径研究.管理世界,2006(5)：114-120.
[299]梅丽莎·希林(Melissa A. Schilling)著,谢伟,王毅译.技术创新的战略管理.北京：清华大学出版社,2005.
[300]奈特,1921.风险,不确定性与利润.北京：商务印书馆,2006.
[301]彭学兵.基于知识观的技术创业组织方式选择研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[302]青木昌彦和安藤晴彦著,周国荣译,模块时代：新产业结构的本质.上海：上海远东出版社,2003.
[303]邱皓政和林碧芳.结构方程模型的原理与应用.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2009.
[304]任峰等.产品生命周期对技术创新影响的实证研究.科研管理,2003,24(3)：13-18.
[305]森谷正规著,徐鸣等译.日本的技术——以最少的耗费取得最好的成就.上海：上海翻译出版社,1985.
[306]芮明杰和张琰.模块化组织理论研究综述.当代财经,2008(3)：122-128
[307]万君康和李华威.自主创新及自主创新能力的辨识.科学学研究,2008,26(1)：205-209.
[308]王飞绒和陈劲.技术联盟与创新关系研究述评.科研管理,2010,31(2)：9-17.
[309]王凤彬等.模块化组织模式的构建与运作——基于海尔“市场链”再造案例的研究.管理世界,2008(4)：122-139,187.
[310]王辉.跨国公司技术联盟管理.上海：立信会计出版社,2006.
[311]威尔玛·苏恩(Wilma W. Suen)避开合作的陷阱.北京：中国劳动社会保障出版社,2008.
[312]魏江和郑小勇.关系嵌入强度对企业技术创新绩效的影响机制研究.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2010,40(6)：160-179.
[313]巫景飞和芮明杰.产业模块化的微观动力机制研究_基于计算机产业演 化史的考察.管理世界,2007(10)：75-83.
[314]吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2000.
[315]吴先华等.知识吸收能力影响内生型产业集群创新的实证——以苏州市乌鹊桥电脑产业集群为例.科学学研究,2010,28(6)：941-951
[316]吴晓波和韦影.制药企业技术创新战略网络中的关系性嵌入.科学学研究,2005,23(4)：561-565.
[317]小艾尔弗雷德·钱德勒(Alfred D. Chandler)著,2005,罗仲伟译.塑造工业时代：现代化学工业和制药工业的非凡历程.北京：华夏出版社,2006.
[318]徐宏玲.模块化组织价值创新：原理、机制及理论挑战.中国工业经济,2006(3)：83-91.
[319]徐宏玲等.模块化组织与大型企业基因重组.中国工业经济,2005(6)：52-59.
[320]徐亮等.竞合战略与技术创新绩效的实证研究.科研管理,2009,(])：87-96.
[321]杨菊萍和贾生华.知识扩散路径、吸收能力与区域中小企业创新——基于浙江省3个传统制造业集群的实证分析.科研管理,2009,30(5)：9-17
[322]野中郁次郎和竹内弘高(Nonaka, I.& Takeuchi, H.)著,2005,李萌,高飞译,创造知识的企业：日美企业持续创新的动力.北京：知识产权出版社,2006.
[323]雍灏等.技术创新中的领先用户研究.科研管理,1999,20(3)：57-61.
[324]约瑟夫·熊彼特(Joseph A. Schumpeter),1934.经济发展理论.北京：商务印书馆,1990.
[325]张方华.资源获取与技术创新绩效关系的实证研究.科学学研究,2006,24(4)：635-640.
[326]张钢.企业组织网络化发展.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2005.
[327]张贵.高新技术产业成长：不确定性分析框架.北京：中国经济出版社,2007.
[328]张炜和杨选良.自主创新概念的讨论与界定.科学学研究,2006,24(6)：956-961.
[329]张文彤SPSS统计分析高级教程.北京：高等教育出版社,2004.
[330]张运生.高科技企业创新生态系统风险产生机理探究.科学学研究,2009,27(6)：925-931.
[331]朱瑞博.模块化抗产业集群内生性风险的机理分析.中国工业经济,2004,(5)：54-60.
[2]Aiken, M.& Hage, J. Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. American Sociological Review.1968,33(December):912-30.
[3]Aken, J. E.& Weggeman, M. Managing learning in informal innovation networks:Overcoming the daphne-dilemma. R&D Management,2000,30(2): 139-149.
[4]Alcacer, J.& Chung, W. Location strategies and knowledge spillovers. Management Science,2007,53(5):760-776.
[5]Alexander, C. Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1964.Almeida, P.& Kogut, B. Localization of knowledge and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science,1999, 45(7):905-917.
[6]Almirall, E.& Casadesus-Masanell, R. Open versus closed innovation:A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review,2010, 35(1):27-47.
[7]Amabile, T. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO:Westview Press,1996.
[8]Amin, A.& Cohendet, P. Organisational learning and governance through embedded practices. Journal of Management and Governance,2000,4(1): 93-116.
[9]Amin, A.& Cohendet, P. Organizational learning through embedded practices. Mimeo UK,1999.
[10]Anders, B. Working with distant researchers-distance and content in university-industry interaction. Research Policy,2010,39(10):1311-1320.
[11]Anderson, P. Complexity theory and organization science. Organization Science,1999,10:216-232.
[12]Argyres, N.S. The impact of information technology on coordination:Evidence from the B-2 "stealth" bomber. Organization Science,1999,10(2):162-173.
[13]Arias, J. T. G. Do networks really foster innovation? Management Decision, 1995,33(9):52-56.
[14]Arora, A.& Fosfuri. A wholly owned subsidiary versus technology licensing in the worldwide chemical industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 2000,31(4):555-572.
[15]Arvanitis, S., U. Kubli, et al.,2008. University-industry knowledge and technology transfer in Switzerland:What university scientists think about co-operation with private enterprises. Research Policy,37(10):1865-1883.
[16]Audretsch, D. B.& Feldman, M. P. R&D Spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. The American Economic Review,1996,86(3): 630-640.
[17]Audretsch, D. B.& Lehmann, E. E. Does the knowledge spillover theory of entrepreneurship hold for regions? Research Policy,2005,34(8):1191-1202.
[18]Autio, E., Hameri, A.-P., et al. A framework of industrial knowledge spillovers in big-science centers. Research Policy,2004,33(1):107-126.
[19]Avadikyan, A., Llerena, P., et al. Organisational rules, codification and knowledge creation in inter-organisation cooperative agreements. Research Policy,2001,30:1443-1458.
[20]Baba, Y.& Walsh, J. P. Embeddedness, social epistemology and breakthrough innovation:The case of the development of statins. Research Policy,2010, 39(4):511-522.
[21]Badaracco, J. The knowledge link:How firms compete through strategic alliances. Harvard Business Press,1991.
[22]Baker, T.,& Nelson, R. E. Creating something from nothing:Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly,2005,50:329-366.
[23]Baker, W. E.& Sinkula, J. M. Does market orientation facilitate balanced innovation programs? An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2007,24(4):316-334.
[24]Baldwin, C. Y.& Clark, K. B. Design rules:The power of modularity. The MIT Press,2000.
[25]Baldwin, C. Y.& Clark, K. B. Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review,1997,75(5):84-93.
[26]Baldwin, C. Y. Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms. Industrial & Corporate Change,2008,17(1): 155-195.
[27]Baptista, R.& Swann, P. Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy, 1998,27(5):525-540.
[28]Barnes, T. J.& Gertler, M. S. The new industrial geography:Regions, regulations and institutions. Psychology Press,1999.
[29]Baron, R.& Kenny, D. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality Social Psychology.1986,31(6):1173-1182.
[30]Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., et al. Don't go it alone:Alliance network composition and startups'performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21:267-294.
[31]Baum, C. F. An introduction to modern econometrics using stata. College Station, Texas:StataCorp Publishers,2006
[32]Becattini, G. The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy,1990:37-51.
[33]Berger, P. L.,& Luckmann, T. The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday,1967.
[34]Besen, S. M.& Farrell, J. Choosing how to compete:Strategies and tactics in standardization. The Journal of Economic Perspectives,1994,8(2):117-131.
[35]Bigley, G.,& Roberts, K. Structuring temporary systems for high reliability. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44:1281-1300.
[36]Bingham, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., et al. What makes a process a capability? Heuristics, strategy, and effective capture of opportunities. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,2007,1:21-47.
[37]Blau, P. M. Bureaucracy in modern society. New York:Random House,1956.
[38]Blind, K.& Thumm, N. Interrelation between patenting and standardisation strategies:Empirical evidence and policy implications. Research Policy,2004, 33(10):1583-1598.
[39]Boudreau, K. Open platform strategies and innovation:Granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science,2010,56(10):1849-1872.
[40]Bower, J. L.& Christensen, C. M. Disruptive technologies:Catching the wave. Harvard Business Review,1995,73(1):43-53.
[41]Bradach, J. L. Using the plural form in the management of restaurant chains. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42:276-304.
[42]Breschia, S.& Lissoni, F. Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems: A critical survey. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001,10(4):975-1005.
[43]Brown, J. S.& Duguid, P. Knowledge and organization:A social-practice perspective. Organization Science,2001,12(2):198-213.
[44]Brown, S. L.& Eisenhardt, K. M. The art of continuous change:Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42:1-34.
[45]Brusoni, S.& Prencipe, A. Unpacking the black box of modularity: Technologies, products and organizations. Industrial & Corporate Change, 2001,10(1):179-205.
[46]Brusoni, S. The limits to specialization:Problem solving and coordination in modular networks. Organization Studies,2005,26(12):1885-1907.
[47]Bunnell, T. G.& Coe, N. M. Spaces and scales of innovation. Progress in Human Geography,2001,25(4):569-589.
[48]Burgelman, R. A. A process model of strategic business exit:Implications for an evolutionary theory of strategy. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17: 193-214.
[49]Burns, T.& Stalker, G. M. The management of innovation. London:Tavistock, 1961.
[50]Burt, R. Structural holes:The social science of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1992.
[51]Camagni, R. On the concept of territorial competitiveness:Sound or misleading? Urban studies,2002,39(13):2395-2411.
[52]Capello, R.& Faggian, A. Collective learning and relational capital in local innovation processes. Regional Studies,2005,39(1):75-87.
[53]Carayannopoulos, S.& Auster, E. R. External knowledge sourcing in biotechnology through acquisition versus alliance:A KBV approach. Research Policy,2010,39(2):254-267.
[54]Carroll, G. R.,& Harrison, J. R. Organizational demography and culture: Insights from a formal model and simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998,43:637-667.
[55]Cebon, P., O. Hauptman, et al. Product modularity and the product life cycle: New dynamics in the interactions of product and process technologies. International Journal of Technology Management,2008,42(4):365-386.
[56]Ceci, F.& Iubatti, D. Personal relationships and innovation diffusion in SME networks:A content analysis approach. Research Policy,2012,41(3):565-579.
[57]Chan, P. S.& Heide, D. Strategic alliances in technology:Key competitive weapon. SAM Advanced Management Journal,1993,58(4):9-17.
[58]Chang, Y.-C., Yang, P. Y., et al. The determinants of academic research commercial performance:Towards an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Research Policy,2009,38(6):936-946.
[59]Chen, E. L., Katila, R., et al. All the right moves:Competitive interaction, temporary advantage, and fi rm performance. Stanford Technology Ventures Program Working Paper,2009.
[60]Chesbrough, H. W.& Teece, D. J. Organizing for innovation:When is virtual virtuous? Harvard Business Review,2002,80(8):127-135.
[61]Chesbrough, H. W.& Teece, D. J. When is virtual virtuous? Organizing for innovation. Harvard Business Review,1996,74(1):65-73.
[62]Chesbrough, H. W. Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management,2004,47(1):23-26.
[63]Chesbrough, H. W. Open innovation:The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press,2003b.
[64]Chesbrough, H. W. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,2003a,44(3):35-41.
[65]Chesbrough, H.W. Toward a dynamics of modularity. In:A. Prencipe, A. Davies and M. Hobday (Editors), The Business of Systems Integration. Oxford, U. K.:Oxford University Press,2003c:174-198.Clark, K. Project scope and project performance:The effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management Science,1989,35(10):1247-1262.
[66]Cohen, J., Cohen, P., et al. Applied regression/correlation analysis for behavioral science. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,2003.
[67]Cohen, M. D., March J. G., et al. A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly,1972,17:1-25.
[68]Cohen, W. M.& Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1): 128-152.
[69]Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,1988,94(1):95-120.
[70]Collis, D J. Research Note:How valuable are organizational capabilities? Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(S1):143-152.
[71]Cravens, D. W., Piercy, N. F., et al. New organizational forms for competing in highly dynamic environments:The network paradigm. British Journal of management,1996,7(3):203-218.
[72]Crevoisier, O. The innovative milieus approach:Toward a territorialized understanding of the economy? Economic geography,2004,80(4):367-379.
[73]Cuervo-Cazurra, A.& Annique Un, C. Why some firms never invest in formal R&D. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(7):759-779.
[74]D'Este, P. How do firms'knowledge bases affect intra-industry heterogeneity? An analysis of the Spanish pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy,2005,34: 33-45.Dahl, M. S.& Pedersen, C.φ. R. Knowledge flows through informal contacts in industrial clusters:Myth or reality? Research Policy,2004.33(10): 1673-1686.
[75]Das, T. K.& Teng, B. S. Instabilities of strategic alliances:An internal tensions perspective. Organization Science,2000,11(1):77-101.
[76]David, C. M., Joanne, E. O., et al. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue):77-91.
[77]Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K. M., et al. Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly,2009,54(3): 413-452.
[78]Davis, J. P., Eisenhardt, K.M., et al. Developing theory through simulation methods. Academy of Management Review,2007,32(2):480-499.
[79]Deeds Charles, W. L.& David, L. Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development:An empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. Journal of Business Venturing,1996,11(1):41-55.
[80]Desrochers, P. Geographical proximity and the transmission of tacit knowledge. The Review of Austrian Economics,2001,14(1):25-46.
[81]Dewar, R. D.& Dutton, J. E. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations:An empirical analysis. Management Science,1986,32(11): 1422-1433.
[82]DiMaggio, P. J.,& Powell, W. W. The iron cage revisited:Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,1983,48:147-160.
[83]Duysters, G., G. Kok, et al. Crafting successful strategic technology partnerships. R&D Management,1999,29(4):343-351.
[84]Dyer, J. H.& Nobeoka, K. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network:The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(3):345-367.
[85]Easterby-Smith, M., Lyles, M. A, et al. Dynamic capabilities:Current debates and future directions. British Journal of Management,2009,20(sl):S1-S8
[86]Eisenhardt, K. M.& Bhatia, M. M. "Organizational complexity and computation." In J. A. C. Baum (ed.), Companion to Organizations. Oxford: Blackwell,2001.
[87]Eisenhardt, K. M.& Martin, J. A. Dynamic capabilities:What are they? Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(10-11):1105-1121.
[88]Eisenhardt, K. M. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal,1989,32:543-576.
[89]Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Bourgeois, L. J. Politics of strategic decision making in high-velocity environments:Toward a midrange theory. Academy of Management Journal,1988,31:737-770.
[90]Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Sull, D. Strategy as simple rules. Harvard Business Review,2001,79 (January-February):107-116.
[91]Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Tabrizi, B. Accelerating adaptive processes:Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995,40:84-110.
[92]Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., et al. CROSSROADS——Microfoundations of performance:Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science,2010,21(6):1263-1273
[93]Emery, F. L.,& Trist, E. L. The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations,1965,18(February):21-32.
[94]Ernst, D. Limits to modularity:Reflections on recent developments in chip design. Industry and Innovation,2005,12(3):303-335.
[95]Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A., et al. Managing external knowledge flows:The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy,2009,38(1):96-105.
[96]Estades, J.& Ramani, S. V. Technological competence and the influence of networks:A comparative analysis of new biotechnology firms in France and Britain. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,1998,10(4):483-495.
[97]Ethiraj, S. K.& Levinthal, D. Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Science,2004,50(2):159-173.
[98]Ethiraj, S. K., Levinthal, D., et al. The dual role of modularity:Innovation and imitation. Management Science,2008,54(5):939-955.
[99]Evans, JSBT. Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology,2008,59(1):255-278.
[100]Feldman, M. P. Location and innovation:The new economic geography of innovation, spillovers, and agglomeration. The Oxford handbook of economic geography,2000:373-394.
[101]Feldman, M. P. The New economics of innovation, spillovers and agglomeration:A review of empirical studies. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,1999.8:5-25.
[102]Feller, I., Ailes, C. P., et al. Impacts of research universities on technological innovation in industry:Evidence from engineering research centers. Research Policy.2002,31.(3):457-474.
[103]Fleming, L., Sorenson, O., et al. Complexity, networks, and knowledge flow. Research Policy,2006,35:994-1017.
[104]Fosfuri, A.& Tribo, J. Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega,2008,36(2): 173-187.
[105]Frenken, K. A fitness landscape approach to technological complexity, modularity, and vertical disintegration. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,2006,17(3):288-305.
[106]Galunic, C. D.& Eisenhardt, K. M. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(6):1229-1249.
[107]Garud, R.& Kumaraswamy, A. Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management Journal,1995, 16(S1):93-109.
[108]Gavetti, G. Cognition and hierarchy:Rethinking the microfoundations of capabilities' development. Organization Science,2005,16(6):599-617.
[109]Gell-Mann, M. The quark and the jaguar:Adventures in the simple and the complex. New York:W.H. Freeman,1994.
[110]Gertler, M. S. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or The undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 2003,3(1):75-99.
[111]Gibson, C.,& Birkinshaw, J. The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal,2004, 47:209-226.
[112]Gilbert, C. Unbundling the structure of inertia:Resource vs routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48:741-763.
[113]Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure:A theory of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,1985,91(3):481-510.
[114]Granovetter, M., Nohria, N., et al. Networks and organizations:Structure, form and action, networks and organizations. Harvard Business School Press, 1992.
[115]Grant, R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Special Issue):109-122.
[116]Groen, A. J.& Linton, J. D. Is open innovation a field of study or a communication barrier to theory development? Technovation,2010,30(11-12): 554-554.
[117]Gulati, R.& Gargiulo, M. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology,1999,104(5):1439-1493.
[118]Gulati, R. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal,1998, 19(4):293-317.
[119]Gulati, R. Social structure and alliance formation patterns:A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly,1995,40(4):619-652.
[120]Hagedoorn, J.& Duysters, G. External sources of innovative capabilities: The preferences for strategic alliances or mergers and acquisitions. Journal of Management Studies,2002,39(2):167-188.
[121]Hamel G., Doz., Y. L., et al. Collaborate with your competitors and win. Harvard Business Review,1989,67(1):133-139.
[122]Hamel, G. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12(S1): 83-103.
[123]Hannan, M. T.& Freeman, J. H. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology,1977,82:929-64.
[124]Hansen, M. T. The search-transfer problem:The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999,44:82-111.
[125]Hargadon, A.,& Sutton, R. I. Technology brokering and innovation in a product developmenfirm. A dministrative Science Quarterly,1997,42: 716-749.
[126]Hatch, M. J. Jazz as a metaphor for organizing in the 21st century. Organization Science,1998,9:556-557.
[127]Hawley, A. Human ecology. Pp.328-37 in David L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York:Macmillan, 1968.
[128]He, Z. L.& Wong, P. K. Exploration vs. exploitation:An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science，2004,15(4):481-494.
[129]Helfat, C. E, Finkelstein, S., et al. Dynamic capabilities:Understanding strategic change in organizations. Blackwell:London,2007.
[130]Helfat, C. E.& Eisenhardt, K. M. Inter temporal economies of scope. organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(13):1217-1232.
[131]Henderson, R. M.& Clark. K. B. Architectural innovation:The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35:9-30.
[132]Hill, C. W. L.,& Rothaermel, F. T. The performance of incumbentfi rms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review, 2003,28:257-274.
[133]Hoekman, J., Frenken, K., et al. Research collaboration at a distance: Changing spatial patterns of scientific collaboration within Europe. Research Policy,2010,39(5):662-673.
[134]Hoetker, G. Do modular products lead to modular organizations? Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(6):501-518.
[135]Fu, X. How does openness affect the importance of incentives for innovation? Research Policy,2012,41(3):512-523.
[136]Inkpen, A. C.& Beamish, P. W. Knowledge, bargaining power, and the instability of international joint ventures. Academy of Management Review, 1997,22(1):177-202.
[137]Inkpen, A. C.& Dinur, A. Knowledge management processes and international joint ventures. Organization Science,1998,9(4):454-468.
[138]Inkpen, A. C.& Tsang, E. W. K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review,2005,30(1):146-165.
[139]Jaffe, A. B., M. Trajtenberg, et al. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1993,108:577-598.
[140]Jaffe, A. B., M. Trajtenberg, et al. Knowledge spillovers and patent citations: Evidence from a survey of inventors. American Economic Review,2000,90(2): 215-218.
[141]Jansen, J. J., et al. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 2005,48(6):999-1015.Kash, D. E.& Rycroft, R. Emerging patterns of complex technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2002,69(6):581-606.
[142]Jaworski, B. J.& Kohli, A. K. Market orientation:antecedents and consequences. The Journal of marketing,1993,57(3):53-70.
[143]Katila, R.,& Ahuja, G. Something old, something new:A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal,2002.45:1183-1194.
[144]Kauffman, S. The origins of order. New York:Oxford University Press, 1993.
[145]Keeble, D.& Wilkinson, F. Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional clusters of high technology SMEs in Europe. Regional Studies,1999,33(4):295-303.
[146]Kogut, B.& Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities. and the replication of technology. Organization Science,1992,3(3):383-397.
[147]Lam, A. Embedded firms, embedded knowledge:Problems in collaboration and knowledge transfer in global cooperative ventures. Organization Studies, 1997,18(6):973-996.
[148]Langlois, R. N.& Robertson, P. L. Networks and innovation in a modular system:Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries. Research Policy,1992,21(4):297-313.
[149]Langlois, R.N. Modularity in technology and organization. Journal of economic Behavior & Organization,2002,49(1):19-37.
[150]Langton, C. Life at the edge of chaos,1992. In C. Langton, J. Farmer, S. Rasmussen, and C. Taylor (eds.), Artficial life Ⅱ:Santa Fe institute studies in the sciences of complexity,10:41-91. Santa Fe:Addison-Wesley.
[151]Larson, A. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings:A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly,1992, 37(1):76-104.
[152]Lawson, B.& Samson, D. Developing innovation capability in organizations. International journal of innovation management,2001,5(3): 377-400.
[153]Lee, C.-Y. The differential effects of public R&D support on firm R&D: Theory and evidence from multi-country data. Technovation,2011,31(5): 256-269.
[154]Leiblein, M. J. The choice of organizational governance form and performance:Predictions from transaction cost, resource-based and real option theories. Journal of Management,2003,29(6):937-961.
[155]Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal.1992. 13(S1):111-125.
[156]Leveque, F., Bonazzi, C., et al. Dynamics of cooperation and industrial R&D:first insights into the black box Ⅱ'. R. Coombs; A. Richards:PP Saviotti e V. Walsh, Technological collaboration:The dynamics of cooperation in industrial innovation. Cheltenham/Gr-Bretanha, Edward Elgar,1996.
[157]Levinthal, D. A.& March, J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(S2):95-112.
[158]Lhuillery, S.& Pfister, E. R&D cooperation and failures in innovation projects:Empirical evidence from French CIS data. Research Policy,2009, 38(1):45-57.
[159]Li, H.Y., Zhang, Y., et al. Entrepreneurial strategy making and performance in China's new technology ventures:The contingency effect of environments and firm competences. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 2005,16:37-57.
[160]Lichtenthaler, U. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management Journal,2009,52(4):822-846.
[161]Malmberg, A.& Maskell, P. The elusive concept of localization economies. Environment and Planning A,2002,34(3):429-449.
[162]Malmberg, A. Beyond the cluster:Local milieus and global connections. Remaking the global economy:Economic-geographical perspectives,2003: 145-162.
[163]March, J. G. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1):71-87.
[164]March, J. G.& Olsen, J. P. Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway:Universitetsforlaget,1976.
[165]Martin, J. A.,& Eisenhardt, K. Rewiring:Cross-business-unit collaborations and performance in multi-business organizations. Academy of Management Journal,2010,53(2):265-301.
[166]Maskell, P.& Malmberg, A. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1999,23(2):167-185.
[167]Maskell, P. Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001,10(4):921-943.
[168]Mesquita, L. F., J. Anand, et al. Comparing the resource-based and relational views:Knowledge transfer and spillover in vertical alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 2008,29(9):913-941.
[169]Meyer, J. W.& Rowan, B. Institutionalized organizations:Formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology,1977.83(2): 340-363.
[170]Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., et al. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal,2007, 50(2):307-326.
[171]Miller, D.,& Friesen, P. H. Momentum and revolution in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal,1980,23:591-614.
[172]Mintzberg, H.,& McHugh, A. Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science Quarterly,1985,30:160-197.
[173]Moon, C. L. Technological capacity as a determinant of governance form in international strategic combinations. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,1998,9(1):35-53.
[174]Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., et al. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Special Issue): 77-91.
[175]Nicholls, N. C. L.& Woo, C. Y. Technology sourcing and output of established firms in a regime of encompassing technological change. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(7):651-666.
[176]Okhuysen, G. A.,& Eisenhardt, K. M. Integrating knowledge in groups: How formal interventions enable flibility. Organization Science,2002,13: 370-386.
[177]Osborn, R. N.& Baughn, C. C. Forms of Inter-organizational governance for multinational alliances. The Academy of Management Journal,1990, 33(3):503-519.
[178]Ouchi, W. G.& Bolton, M. K. The logic of joint research and development. California Management Review,1988,30(3):9-33.
[179]Owen-Smith, J.,& Powell, W. W.. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits:The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science,2003,15:5-21.
[180]Pan, S. L., G. Pan, et al. The dynamics of implementing and managing modularity of organizational routines during capability development:Insights from a process model. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,2007, 54(4):800-813.
[181]Park, S. H.& Ungson, G. R. Interfirm rivalry and managerial complexity:A conceptual framework of alliance failure. Organization Science,2001,12(1): 37-53.
[182]Paulo, A., Cauchick M., Silvio, et al. A case study on modularity in product development and production within the auto industry. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management,2006,6 (3):315-330
[183]Pennings, J. M.& Harianto, F. Technological networking and innovation implementation. Organization Science,1992,3(3):356-382.
[184]Perrow, C. B. Complexity, catastrophe, and modularity. Sociological Inquiry,2008,78(2):162-173.
[185]Phelps, C. C. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. The Academy of Management Journal,2010,53(4):890-913.
[186]Pil, F. K.& Cohen, S. K. Modularity:Implications for imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4): 995-1011.
[187]Pinch, S., Henry, N., et al. From 'industrial districts' to 'knowledge clusters': A model of knowledge dissemination and competitive advantage in industrial agglomerations. Journal of Economic Geography,2003,3(4):373.
[188]Pisano, G. P. Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning:An empirical analysis of process development. Strategic Management Journal, 1994,15:85-100.
[189]Polanyi, M. The tacit dimension. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul,1966.
[190]Porter, M. E. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review,1998,76(6):77-90.
[191]Powell, W. W. Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review,1998,40(3): 228-240.
[192]Powell, W. W. Neither market nor hierarchy:Network forms of organization. Research in Organization Behavior,1990,12:295-336.
[193]Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., et al. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(1):116-145.
[194]Prahalad, C. K.& Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review.1990.68(3):79-91.
[195]Price, R. M. EXECUTIVE FORUM:Technology and strategic advantage. California Management Review,1996,38(3):38-56.
[196]Pyke, F.. Becattini, G., et al. Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy. International Institute for Labour Studies,1990.
[197]Riccaboni, M.& Moliterni, R. Managing technological transitions through R&D alliances. R&D Management,2009,39(2):124-135.
[198]Rindova, V.,& Kotha, S. Continuous morphing:Competing through dynamic capabilities, form, and function. Academy of Management Journal. 2001,44:1263-1280.
[199]Rivkin, J. W.,& Siggelkow, N. Balancing search and stability: Interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science,2003,49:290-311.
[200]Robertson, P. L., Casali, G. L., et al. Managing open incremental process innovation:Absorptive capacity and distributed learning. Research Policy, 2012, In Press, Corrected Proof, available online 15 March.
[201]Rothaermel, F. T.& Deeds D. L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology:A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(3):201-221.
[202]Rothaermel, F. T., Hitt, M., et al. Balancing vertical integration and strategic outsourcing:Effects on product portfolios, new product success, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27:1033-1056.
[203]Rothwell, R. Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review,1994,11(1):7-31.
[204]Rowley, T., Behrens, D., et al. Redundant governance structures:An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3): 369-386.
[205]Rutten, R.& Boekema, F. Regional social capital:Embeddedness, innovation networks and regional economic development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2007,74(9):1834-1846.
[206]Sako, M. Supplier development at Honda, Nissan and Toyota:Comparative case studies of organizational capability enhancement. Industrial and Corporate Change,2004,13(2):281-308.
[207]Samina, K. Modularity in organizational structure:The reconfiguration of internally developed and acquired business units. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(9):799-823.
[208]Sanchez, R.& Mahoney, J. T. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 1996,17(Special Issue):63-76.
[209]Sanchez, R. Modular architectures, knowledge assets and organizational learning:New management processes for product creation. International Journal of Technology Management,2000,19(6):610-629.
[210]Sanchez, R. Modularity in the mediation of market and technology change. International Journal of Technology Management,2008,42(4):331-364.
[211]Santos, F. M.,& Eisenhardt, K. M. Constructing markets and shaping boundaries:Entrepreneurial power in nascentfi elds. Academy of Management Journal,2009,52:643-671.
[212]Saxenian, A. L. Comment on Kenney and von Burg,'Technology, entrepreneurship and path dependence:Industrial clustering in Silicon Valley and Route 128'. Industrial & Corporate Change,1999,8(1):105.
[213]Schilling, M. A.& Steensma, H. K. The use of modular organizational forms:An industry-level analysis. The Academy of Management Journal,2001, 44(6):1149-1168.
[214]Schilling, M. A. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 2000,25(2):312-334.Schreyogg, G & Kliesch-Eberl, M. How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(9):913-933.
[215]Schwab, D. Research methods for organizational studies. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers,2005.
[216]Scott, W. R. Organizational structure.1975, Pp.1-20 in Annual Review of Sociology. Vol.1, edited by Alex Inkeles. Palo Alto, Calif.:Annual Reviews.
[217]Shan, W., Walker, G., et al. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(5): 387-394.
[218]Shane, S. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science,2000,11:448-469.
[219]Shu-hsien, L., Wu-Chen, F., et al. Knowledge sharing, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability:An empirical study of Taiwan's knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Information Science.2007,33(3):340-359.
[220]Siggelkow, N. Change in the presence of fit:The rise, the fall, and the renascence of Liz Claiborne. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44: 838-857.
[221]Simon, H. A. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,1962,106(6):467-482.
[222]Sosa, M. E., Eppinger, S. D., et al. The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Management Science,2004:1674-1689.
[223]Sφrensen, J. B.& Stuart, T. E. Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,2000,45(1):81-112
[224]Starbuck, W. H. Organizations and their Environments. Pp.1069-1123 in Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by Marvin D. Dunnette. New York:Rand McNally,1976.
[225]Stinchcombe, A. L. Bureaucratic and craft administration of production:A com-parative study. Administrative Science Quarterly,1959,4:168-187.
[226]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Special Issue):27-43.
[227]Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., et al. Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage. The Academy of Management Review,2004,29(2):258-271.
[228]Teece, D. J.& Pisano, G. The dynamic capabilities of firms:An introduction. Ind Corp Change,1994,3(3):537-a-556.
[229]Teece, D. J. Explicating dynamic capabilities:The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(13):1319-1350.
[230]Teece, D. J. Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy,1986, 15(6):285-305.
[231]Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., et al. Dynamic capabilities & strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7):509-533.
[232]Terreberry, S. The evolution of organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1968,12(March):590-613.
[233]Thomke, S.& Von Hippel, E. Customers as innovators:A new way to create value. Harvard Business Review,2002,80(4):74-85.
[234]Thompson. J. D. Organizations in action. New York:McGraw-Hill,1967.
[235]Tripsas, M. Surviving radical technological change through dynamic capability:Evidence form the typesetter industry. Industrial and Corporate Change,1997.6:341-377.
[236]Tsai, K. H.& Wang, J. C. External technology sourcing and innovation performance in LMT sectors:An analysis based on the Taiwanese Technological Innovation Survey. Research Policy,2009,38(3):518-526.
[237]Tsai, W. Knowledge Transfer in intraorganizational networks:Effect of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5):996-1004.
[238]Tushman, M. L.& Anderson, P. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986,31(3): 439-465.
[239]Tushman, M.,& O'Reilly, Ⅲ C. A. Ambidextrous organizations:Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. C alifornia Management Review,1996, 38 (summer):8-30.
[240]Utterback, J. M. Innovation in industry and the diffusion of technology. Science,1974,183(4125):620.
[241]Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1): 35-67.
[242]Van de Vrande, V., de Jong, J. P. J., et al. Open innovation in SMEs:Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation,2009,29(6-7):423-437.
[243]Van der Aa, W.& Elfring, T. Realizing innovation in services. Scandinavian Journal of Management,2002,18(2):155-171.
[244]Vanhaverbeke, W.& Noorderhaven, N. G. Competition between alliance blocks:The case of the RISC microprocessor technology. Organization Studies, 2001,22(1):1-30.
[245]Volberda, H. W. Toward the flexible form:How to remain vital in hypercompetitive environments. Organization Science,1996,7(4):359-374.
[246]Von Hippel, E. Comment on'Is open innovation a field of study or a communication barrier to theory development?' Technovation,2010,30(11-12): 555-555.
[247]Von Hippel, E. Industrial innovation by users:Evidence, explanatory hypotheses and implications. Working paper (Sloan School of Management), 1977:953-77.
[248]Von Hippel, E. Lead users:A source of novel product concepts. Management Science,1986,32(7):791-805.
[249]Von Hippel, E. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy,1976,5(3):212-239.
[250]Weber, Max. Essays in sociology. New York:Oxford University Press, 1946.
[251]Weber, Max. The protestant's ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Scribner's,1930.
[252]Weber, Max. The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press,1947.
[253]Weick, K. E. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly,1976,21(1):1-19.
[254]Weick, K. E. Improvisation as a mindset. Organization Science,1998,9: 543-555.
[255]Weick, K. E. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations:The Mann Gulch disaster. Administrative Science Quarterly,1993,38:628-652.
[256]Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schroder, G., et al. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models:Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Quarterly,2009,33(1):177-195.
[257]Williams, C.,& Mitchell, W. Focusmgn evolution:The impact of information infrastructure on market entry by U.S. telecommunications companies,1984-1998. Management Science,2004,50:1561-1575.
[258]Williamson, O. E. Comparative economic organization:The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative science quarterly,1991: 269-296.
[259]Williamson, O.E. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York:Free Press,1985.
[260]Winter, S. G. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(10):991-995.
[261]Wolter, C.& Veloso, F. M. The effects of innovation on vertical structure: Perspectives on transaction costs and competences. Academy of Management Review,2008,33(3):586-605.
[262]Woodward, J. Industrial organization, theory and practice. London:Oxford University Press,1965.
[263]Yang, C.-H., Motohashi, K., et al. Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative? Evidence from Taiwan. Research Policy,2009,38(1):77-85.
[264]Yokakul. N.& Zawdie, G. Innovation network and technological capability development in the Thai SME sector:The case of the Thai dessert industry. International Journal of Technology Management & Sustainable Development, 2010,9(1):19-36.
[265]Zaheer, A.& Bell, G. G. Benefiting from network position:Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 2005,26(9):809-825.
[266]Zahra S. A., Sapienza H. J, et al. Entrepreneurship and dynamic capabilities: A review, model and research agenda. Journal of Management Studies,2006, 43(4):917-955.
[267]Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., et al. Relationship between cooperation networks and innovation performance of SMEs. Technovation,2009,30:181-194.
[268]Zhang, G.& Gao, R. Y. Modularity and incremental innovation:The roles of design rules and organizational communication. Computional and mathematical organization theory,2010,16(2):171-200.
[269]Zhang, J., Baden-Fuller, C., et al. Technological knowledge base, R&D organization structure and alliance formation:Evidence from the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy,2007,36:515-528.
[270]Zhou, K. Z.& Wu, F. Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(5):547-561.
[271]Zollo, M.,& Winter, S. G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science,2002,13(3):339-351.
[272]Zucker, L. G., Darby, M. R., et al. Commercializing knowledge:University science, knowledge capture, and firm performance in biotechnology. Management Science,2002,48(1):138-153.
[273]曹虹剑.网络经济时代模块化组织运行与治理机制研究.博士学位论文,湖南大学,2008.
[274]曹洪军等.企业自主创新能力评价体系研究.中国工业经济,2009(9)： 105-114.
[275]曹虹剑和罗能生.高新技术产业组织模块化及其对中国的启示.自然辩证法研究,2010,26(4)：51-55.
[276]曾楚宏和林丹明.对企业建立战略联盟的理论解释.科研管理,2004,25(2)：93-97.
[277]陈柳.模块化、信息包裹与研发风险的分散.科学学研究,2006,24(1)：112-116.
[278]陈菲琼.企业知识联盟：理论与实证研究.北京：商务印书馆,2003.
[279]陈菲琼和傅秀美.区域自主创新能力提升研究—一基于ODI和内部学习网络的动态仿真.科学学研究,2010,28(1)：133-140.
[280]陈劲和陈钰芬.开放创新体系与企业技术创新资源配置.科研管理,2006,27(3)：1-8.
[281]程海.技术联盟的模式与机制探究.沈阳：东北大学出版社,2006.
[282]达恩·克罗姆林和罗伯特·辛德拉(Daan J. A. Crommelin & Robert D. Sindelar)著,2002,吉爱国等译.制药生物技术.北京：化学工业出版社,2005年.
[283]董颖等.集群内知识流动的空间不均衡性.科学学研究,2007,25(4)：745-749
[284]付家骥.技术创新学.北京：清华大学出版社,1998.
[285]高若阳.基于知识观的组织模块性与企业适应性研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[286]郭岚等.模块化的微观结构与风险特性：基于产业集群的分析.科研管理,2008,29(5)：55-62.
[287]侯杰泰等.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2005.
[288]胡晓鹏.模块化整合标准化：产业模块化研究.中国工业经济,2005(9)：67-74.
[289]胡祖光和章丹.网络嵌入性对技术创新网络形成结构的影响——基于中国企业的分析.科学学研究,2010,28(8)：1254-1258.
[290]黄兆银.R&D全球化研究.武汉：武汉大学出版社,2006.
[291]克利斯·弗里曼和罗克·苏特(Chris Freeman & Lucc Soete)著,华宏勋等译.工业创新经济学.北京：北京大学出版社,2004年.
[292]克里斯托费一弗里德里克·冯布(Christoph-Friedrich von Braun)创新之战.北京：机械工业出版社,1999.
[293]雷如桥等.基于模块化的组织模式及其效率比较研究.中国工业经济,2004(10)：83-90.
[294]理查德·福斯特(Richard Foster)著,王宇锋、韩丽华译.创新：进攻者的优势.北京：中信出版社,2008年
[295]罗伯特·殷(Robert K.Yin)著,周海涛主译.案例研究：设计与方法(第3版).重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004.
[296]刘雪峰.网络嵌入性与差异化战略及企业绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[297]马歇尔.经济学原理.北京：商务印书馆,1964.
[298]毛蕴诗和汪建成.基于产品升级的自主创新路径研究.管理世界,2006(5)：114-120.
[299]梅丽莎·希林(Melissa A. Schilling)著,谢伟,王毅译.技术创新的战略管理.北京：清华大学出版社,2005.
[300]奈特,1921.风险,不确定性与利润.北京：商务印书馆,2006.
[301]彭学兵.基于知识观的技术创业组织方式选择研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[302]青木昌彦和安藤晴彦著,周国荣译,模块时代：新产业结构的本质.上海：上海远东出版社,2003.
[303]邱皓政和林碧芳.结构方程模型的原理与应用.北京：中国轻工业出版社,2009.
[304]任峰等.产品生命周期对技术创新影响的实证研究.科研管理,2003,24(3)：13-18.
[305]森谷正规著,徐鸣等译.日本的技术——以最少的耗费取得最好的成就.上海：上海翻译出版社,1985.
[306]芮明杰和张琰.模块化组织理论研究综述.当代财经,2008(3)：122-128
[307]万君康和李华威.自主创新及自主创新能力的辨识.科学学研究,2008,26(1)：205-209.
[308]王飞绒和陈劲.技术联盟与创新关系研究述评.科研管理,2010,31(2)：9-17.
[309]王凤彬等.模块化组织模式的构建与运作——基于海尔“市场链”再造案例的研究.管理世界,2008(4)：122-139,187.
[310]王辉.跨国公司技术联盟管理.上海：立信会计出版社,2006.
[311]威尔玛·苏恩(Wilma W. Suen)避开合作的陷阱.北京：中国劳动社会保障出版社,2008.
[312]魏江和郑小勇.关系嵌入强度对企业技术创新绩效的影响机制研究.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2010,40(6)：160-179.
[313]巫景飞和芮明杰.产业模块化的微观动力机制研究_基于计算机产业演 化史的考察.管理世界,2007(10)：75-83.
[314]吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2000.
[315]吴先华等.知识吸收能力影响内生型产业集群创新的实证——以苏州市乌鹊桥电脑产业集群为例.科学学研究,2010,28(6)：941-951
[316]吴晓波和韦影.制药企业技术创新战略网络中的关系性嵌入.科学学研究,2005,23(4)：561-565.
[317]小艾尔弗雷德·钱德勒(Alfred D. Chandler)著,2005,罗仲伟译.塑造工业时代：现代化学工业和制药工业的非凡历程.北京：华夏出版社,2006.
[318]徐宏玲.模块化组织价值创新：原理、机制及理论挑战.中国工业经济,2006(3)：83-91.
[319]徐宏玲等.模块化组织与大型企业基因重组.中国工业经济,2005(6)：52-59.
[320]徐亮等.竞合战略与技术创新绩效的实证研究.科研管理,2009,(])：87-96.
[321]杨菊萍和贾生华.知识扩散路径、吸收能力与区域中小企业创新——基于浙江省3个传统制造业集群的实证分析.科研管理,2009,30(5)：9-17
[322]野中郁次郎和竹内弘高(Nonaka, I.& Takeuchi, H.)著,2005,李萌,高飞译,创造知识的企业：日美企业持续创新的动力.北京：知识产权出版社,2006.
[323]雍灏等.技术创新中的领先用户研究.科研管理,1999,20(3)：57-61.
[324]约瑟夫·熊彼特(Joseph A. Schumpeter),1934.经济发展理论.北京：商务印书馆,1990.
[325]张方华.资源获取与技术创新绩效关系的实证研究.科学学研究,2006,24(4)：635-640.
[326]张钢.企业组织网络化发展.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2005.
[327]张贵.高新技术产业成长：不确定性分析框架.北京：中国经济出版社,2007.
[328]张炜和杨选良.自主创新概念的讨论与界定.科学学研究,2006,24(6)：956-961.
[329]张文彤SPSS统计分析高级教程.北京：高等教育出版社,2004.
[330]张运生.高科技企业创新生态系统风险产生机理探究.科学学研究,2009,27(6)：925-931.
[331]朱瑞博.模块化抗产业集群内生性风险的机理分析.中国工业经济,2004,(5)：54-60.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |