技术-市场双元性组合对破坏性创新的影响——以科技型小微企业为研究对象
|
摘要
为厘清技术推动力和市场拉动力对于科技型小微企业破坏性创新的影响机理,本研究基于技术和市场领域中探索与利用的组合分别探讨了单一探索、单一利用、技术双元、市场双元、技术开发和市场开发六种可能的双元性组合策略对科技型小微企业低端破坏性创新和新市场破坏性创新的影响。通过对佛山地区364家科技型小微企业的调查研究,实证分析结果显示基于"技术利用×市场利用"组合的单一利用策略和基于"技术探索×市场利用"组合的技术开发策略对科技型小微企业的低端破坏性创新具有显著的正向影响;而基于"技术利用×市场探索"组合的市场开发策略和基于"技术探索×市场探索"组合的单一探索策略对于科技型小微企业的新市场破坏性创新具有显著的正向影响。
Utilizing and balancing exploration and exploitation are critical challenges that are particularly difficult for smaller,nascent enterprises which lack the resources,capabilities,and experience necessary to successfully implement ambidexterity.This article distinguishes between exploration and exploitation in technology and market domains. As the two most basic business functions,technology development and marketing represent distinct dimensions for exploration and exploitation. This perspective builds on research demonstrating the independence of product-and market-oriented learning. Enterprises can achieve strategic ambidexterity by combining exploration and exploitation across or within functional domains. Within the technology domain,technology exploration emphasizes developing new technologies,skills,and product capabilities,and technology exploitation emphasizes increasing returns from existing technology capabilities. Within the market domain,market exploration emphasizes marketing programs that attract new customers,and market exploitation emphasizes marketing programs designed to retain and increase purchases from current customers. The cross-functional combinations exhibit ambidexterity across product and market domains to exploit current technology capabilities with the goal of attracting new customer markets,which corresponds to a market development growth strategy,or to explore new technology capabilities that target current customers,corresponding to a technology development growth strategy. Within functional domains,technology ambidexterity simultaneously explores new technology capabilities and exploits current technology capabilities,whereas market ambidexterity simultaneously explores new customer markets and exploits current customers.On the other hand,disruptive innovation has been confirmed to be an effective strategy for new entrants and startups to compete with incumbents or larger competitors. The diversities in the incentives,knowledge and capabilities of small and large firms lead to heterogeneities in enterprise innovation activities,and innovation activities in micro-and small-sized enterprises have different characteristics than in larger enterprises has been confirmed in prior literature. Additionally,the complexities of an ambidextrous strategy are particularly problematic for smaller business,prompting calls for additional research linking ambidexterity-especially in small enterprises-to innovation activities. However,to our knowledge,how different strategic ambidextrous combinations affect low-end disruptions and new-market disruptions respectively are still poorly understood in the context of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises. To better understand how technology and market influence the disruptive innovation of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises,this paper classifies six strategic ambidextrous combinations of exploration and exploitation in both technology and market domains and develops theoretical arguments that link low-end disruptive innovation and new-market disruptive innovation to these strategic combinations separately. We conceptualize and measure exploration and exploitation at the functional level,and propose that the implementation of both low-end and new-market disruptive innovation depends on whether strategic emphases complement one another,producing a positive interaction,or conflict with one another,creating tensions and trade-offs.In recent years,micro-and small-sized enterprises have developed rapidly in China since the central government puts emphasis on"mass entrepreneurship and innovation",which makes China reach highest entrepreneurship rates in the world. Using a sample of 364 technological micro-and small-sized enterprises from Foshan City at Guangdong Province,China,this paper tests the hypotheses and the empirical results show that both the combination of technology exploration and market exploitation,and the combination of technology exploitation and market exploitation have positive effects on low-end disruptive innovation of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises. In addition,both the combination of technology exploration and market exploration,and the combination of technology exploitation and market exploration have positive influences on new-market disruptive innovation.Much of the literature to date has focused on how firms can overcome challenges and barriers to implement organizational ambidexterity and simultaneously pursue exploration and exploitation. The so-called"ambidexterity premise"assumes that organizational ambidexterity is necessary for long-term performance and that all firms should endeavor to achieve ambidexterity. Relatively little research has explicitly examined if and when organizational ambidexterity impacts firm innovation,and empirical research linking ambidexterity to disruptive innovation of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises is especially scarce.This article contributes to the research gap by examining how the combinations of exploration and exploitation across or within technology and market domains influence technological micro-and small-sized enterprises' disruptive innovations. Linking exploitation and exploration in both technology and market domains to enterprises innovation activities represents new levels of analysis for ambidexterity,especially in the context of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises. More importantly,the results offer new insights with respect to the application of strategic ambidextrous combinations of exploration and exploitation within or across technology and market domains in disruptive innovation activities:( 1) both the ambidextrous combinations of market exploitation with technology exploration,and market exploitation with technology exploitation have positive effects on low-end disruptive innovation of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises;( 2) both the combinations of market exploration with technology exploration,and market exploration with technology exploitation have positive influences on new-market disruptive innovation of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises. In addition,the results indicate that the disruptive innovation models and activities of micro-and small-sized enterprises differ from their larger counterparts,as small businesses are typically more flexible,less formalized,and quicker to make decisions than larger firms.Moreover,the research results suggest general managerial implications and specific recommendations for managers of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises. The results confirm that specific ambidextrous combinations across or within technology and market domains are suitable strategies for micro-and small-sized enterprises to engage in low-end and new-market innovations. Market exploration especially benefits micro-and small-sized enterprises when they pursue new market segments or niche market through disruptive innovation. By contrast,managers of micro-and small-sized firms achieve better low-end disruptive innovation performance by focusing on market exploitation,along with the exploration and exploitation of technology.
Utilizing and balancing exploration and exploitation are critical challenges that are particularly difficult for smaller,nascent enterprises which lack the resources,capabilities,and experience necessary to successfully implement ambidexterity.This article distinguishes between exploration and exploitation in technology and market domains. As the two most basic business functions,technology development and marketing represent distinct dimensions for exploration and exploitation. This perspective builds on research demonstrating the independence of product-and market-oriented learning. Enterprises can achieve strategic ambidexterity by combining exploration and exploitation across or within functional domains. Within the technology domain,technology exploration emphasizes developing new technologies,skills,and product capabilities,and technology exploitation emphasizes increasing returns from existing technology capabilities. Within the market domain,market exploration emphasizes marketing programs that attract new customers,and market exploitation emphasizes marketing programs designed to retain and increase purchases from current customers. The cross-functional combinations exhibit ambidexterity across product and market domains to exploit current technology capabilities with the goal of attracting new customer markets,which corresponds to a market development growth strategy,or to explore new technology capabilities that target current customers,corresponding to a technology development growth strategy. Within functional domains,technology ambidexterity simultaneously explores new technology capabilities and exploits current technology capabilities,whereas market ambidexterity simultaneously explores new customer markets and exploits current customers.On the other hand,disruptive innovation has been confirmed to be an effective strategy for new entrants and startups to compete with incumbents or larger competitors. The diversities in the incentives,knowledge and capabilities of small and large firms lead to heterogeneities in enterprise innovation activities,and innovation activities in micro-and small-sized enterprises have different characteristics than in larger enterprises has been confirmed in prior literature. Additionally,the complexities of an ambidextrous strategy are particularly problematic for smaller business,prompting calls for additional research linking ambidexterity-especially in small enterprises-to innovation activities. However,to our knowledge,how different strategic ambidextrous combinations affect low-end disruptions and new-market disruptions respectively are still poorly understood in the context of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises. To better understand how technology and market influence the disruptive innovation of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises,this paper classifies six strategic ambidextrous combinations of exploration and exploitation in both technology and market domains and develops theoretical arguments that link low-end disruptive innovation and new-market disruptive innovation to these strategic combinations separately. We conceptualize and measure exploration and exploitation at the functional level,and propose that the implementation of both low-end and new-market disruptive innovation depends on whether strategic emphases complement one another,producing a positive interaction,or conflict with one another,creating tensions and trade-offs.In recent years,micro-and small-sized enterprises have developed rapidly in China since the central government puts emphasis on"mass entrepreneurship and innovation",which makes China reach highest entrepreneurship rates in the world. Using a sample of 364 technological micro-and small-sized enterprises from Foshan City at Guangdong Province,China,this paper tests the hypotheses and the empirical results show that both the combination of technology exploration and market exploitation,and the combination of technology exploitation and market exploitation have positive effects on low-end disruptive innovation of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises. In addition,both the combination of technology exploration and market exploration,and the combination of technology exploitation and market exploration have positive influences on new-market disruptive innovation.Much of the literature to date has focused on how firms can overcome challenges and barriers to implement organizational ambidexterity and simultaneously pursue exploration and exploitation. The so-called"ambidexterity premise"assumes that organizational ambidexterity is necessary for long-term performance and that all firms should endeavor to achieve ambidexterity. Relatively little research has explicitly examined if and when organizational ambidexterity impacts firm innovation,and empirical research linking ambidexterity to disruptive innovation of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises is especially scarce.This article contributes to the research gap by examining how the combinations of exploration and exploitation across or within technology and market domains influence technological micro-and small-sized enterprises' disruptive innovations. Linking exploitation and exploration in both technology and market domains to enterprises innovation activities represents new levels of analysis for ambidexterity,especially in the context of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises. More importantly,the results offer new insights with respect to the application of strategic ambidextrous combinations of exploration and exploitation within or across technology and market domains in disruptive innovation activities:( 1) both the ambidextrous combinations of market exploitation with technology exploration,and market exploitation with technology exploitation have positive effects on low-end disruptive innovation of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises;( 2) both the combinations of market exploration with technology exploration,and market exploration with technology exploitation have positive influences on new-market disruptive innovation of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises. In addition,the results indicate that the disruptive innovation models and activities of micro-and small-sized enterprises differ from their larger counterparts,as small businesses are typically more flexible,less formalized,and quicker to make decisions than larger firms.Moreover,the research results suggest general managerial implications and specific recommendations for managers of technological micro-and small-sized enterprises. The results confirm that specific ambidextrous combinations across or within technology and market domains are suitable strategies for micro-and small-sized enterprises to engage in low-end and new-market innovations. Market exploration especially benefits micro-and small-sized enterprises when they pursue new market segments or niche market through disruptive innovation. By contrast,managers of micro-and small-sized firms achieve better low-end disruptive innovation performance by focusing on market exploitation,along with the exploration and exploitation of technology.
引文
[1]Adner,R.When are technologies disruptive?A demandbased view of the emergence of competition[J].Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(8):667-688.
[2]Reinhardt,R.,Gurtner,S.Differences between early adopters of disruptive and sustaining innovations[J].Journal of Business Research,2015,68(1):137-145.
[3]Christensen,C.Inoovaiton is a strategy,not just the technology[J].Business Today,2015(4):150-158.
[4]Ruan Y,Hang C,Wang Y.Government’s role in disruptive innovation and industry emergence[J].Technovation,2014,34(12):785-796.
[5]臧树伟,李平.基于破坏性创新的后发企业市场进入时机选择[J].科学学研究,2016(1):122-131.Zang Shuwei,Li Ping.The timing of latecomer firms’market entry based on disruptive innovation[J].Studies in Science of Science,2016(1):122-131.
[6]徐久香,李华,王春元.基于破坏性创新的企业成长模式研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2014(2):134-142.Jiuxiang,X.,Hua,L.,Chunyuan,W.The growth model of enterprise based on the disruptive innovation[J].Science of Science and Management of S.&T.,2014,35(2):134-142.
[7]薛捷,张振刚.基于市场侵入模式的持续性创新和破坏性创新研究[J].中国科技论坛,2010(9):28-33.Jie,X.,Zhengang,Z.Sustainable innovation and disruptive innovation based on the market encroachment mode[J].Forum on Science and Technology in China,2010(9):28-33.
[8]Hang,C.,Garnsey,E.,and Ruan,Y.Disruptive innovation and entrepreneurial opportunity[J].Technovation,2015,39-40:83-93.
[9]周俊,薛求知.组织双元性的培育与效应:组织学习视角[J].科研管理,2014,35(2):87-93.Jun,Z.,Qiuzhi,X.Cultivation and effect of organizational ambidexterity[J].Science Research Management,2014,35(2):87-93.
[10]Kim,N.,&Atuahene-Gima,K.Using exploratory and exploitative market learning for new product development[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2010,27(4):519-536.
[11]Zhang H,Wu F,Cui A.Balancing market exploration and market exploitation in product innovation[J].International Journal of Research in Marketing,2015,32(3):297-308.
[12]Rubera,G.,Ordanini,A.,&Calantone,R.J.Whether to integrate R&D and marketing[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2012,29(5):766-783.
[13]Ocass,A.,Heirati,N.,Ngo,L.Achieving new product success via the synchronization of exploration and exploitation across multiple levels and functional areas[J].Industrial Marketing Management,2014,43(5):862-872.
[14]乔·蒂德,约翰·贝赞特(著);陈劲(译).创新管理(第4版)[M].中国人民大学出版社,2012.Tidd,J.,Bessant,J.Managing innovation[M].China Renmin University Press,2012.
[15]Andriopoulos C,Lewis M.Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity[J].Organization Science,2009,20(4):696-717.
[16]Christensen,C.M.(著),胡建桥(译).创新者的窘境[M].中信出版社,2014.Christensen,C.M.The innovator`s dillema[M].CITICPress,2014.
[17]Christensen,C.M.The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,23,39-55.
[18]Yu,D.Hang,C.C.Creating technology candidates for disruptive innovation:Generally applicable R&D strategies[J].Technovation,2011(31):401-410.
[19]Schmidt,G.M.,Druehl,C.T.When is a disruptive innovation disruptive?[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2008(25):347-369.
[20]Lubatkin,M.H.,Simsek,Z.,Ling,Y.,&Veiga,J.F.Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms[J].Journal of Management,2006,32(5):646-672.
[21]林春培,余传鹏,吴东儒.探索式学习与利用式学习对企业破坏性创新的影响研究[J].研究与发展管理,2015,27(6):19-28.Chunpei,L.,Chuanpeng,Y.,Dongru,W.Effects of exploratory and exploitative learning on enterprise’s disruptive innovation[J].R&D Management,2015,27(6):19-28.
[22]He,Z.L.,&Wong,P.K.Exploration vs.exploitation:An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis[J].Organization Science,2004,15(4),481-494.
[23]Kyriakopoulos,K.,and Moorman,C.Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies[J].International Journal of Research in Marketing,2004,21(3):219-240.
[24]Van Looy,B.,Martens,T.Debackere K.Organizing for continuous innovation:On the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations[J].Creativity Innovation Management,2005,14(3):208-221.
[25]Voss,Z.G,Cable,D.M,Voss G.B.Organizational identity and firm performance[J].Organization Science,2006,17(6):741-755.
[26]Ebben,J.J.,Johnson,A.C.Efficiency,flexibility,or both?Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms[J].Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(13):1249-1259.
[27]Voss,G.B.,Voss,Z.G.Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises[J].Organization Science,2013,24(5):1459-1477.
[28]Brettel,M.,Heinemann,F.,Engelen,A.,&Neubauer,S.Cross-functional integration of R&D,marketing,and manufacturing in radical and incremental product innovations and its effects on project effectiveness and efficiency[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2011,28(2):251-269.
[29]Atuahene-Gima,K.Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation[J].Journal of Marketing,2005,69(4):61-83.
[30]Andriopoulos,C,Lewis,M.W.Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity[J].Organization Science,2009,20(4):696-717.
[31]Morgan R,Berthon P.Market orientation,generative learning,innovation strategy and business performance inter-relationships in bioscience firms[J].Journal of Management Studies,2008,45(8):1329-1353.
[32]Yin,E.,Williamson,P..Racing with the Chinese dragons,(with Eden Yin),Chapter 3.In:Alon,I.,Chang,J.,etal.(Eds.),China Rules:Globalization and Political Transformation[M].Palgrave-Macmillan,NewYork.2009.
[33]Wan,F.,Williamson,P.,and Yin,E.Antecedents and implications of disruptive innovation[J].Technovation,2015,(39-40):94-104.
[34]Huang,J.Y.,Chou,T.C.,Lee,G.G.Imitative innovation strategies[J].Management Decision,2010,48(6),952-975.
[35]Christensen,C.M.and Raynor,E.M(著);李瑜偲,林伟,郑欢(译).创新者的解答[M].中信出版社,2013.Christensen,C.M.,Raynor,E.M.The innovator’s solution[M].CITIC Press,2013.
[36]Yu,D.,Hang,C.C.A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory[J].International Journal of Management Reviews,2010,12(4):435-452.
[37]薛捷.破坏性创新理论的最新研究进展述评及推进策略研究[J].管理学报,2013(5):768-774.Jie,X.A review of the latest research development of disruptive innovation theory and the research on promoting strategy for disruptive innovation[J].Chinese Journal of Management,2013(5):768-774.
[38]Sethi,R.,&Iqbal,Z.Stage-gate controls,learning failure,and adverse effect on novel new products[J].Journal of Marketing,2008,72:118-134.
[39]周浩,龙立荣.共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法[J].心理科学进展,2004,12(6):942-950.Hao,Z.,Lirong,L.Statistical remedies for common method biases[J].Advances in Psychological Science,2004,12(6):942-950.
[2]Reinhardt,R.,Gurtner,S.Differences between early adopters of disruptive and sustaining innovations[J].Journal of Business Research,2015,68(1):137-145.
[3]Christensen,C.Inoovaiton is a strategy,not just the technology[J].Business Today,2015(4):150-158.
[4]Ruan Y,Hang C,Wang Y.Government’s role in disruptive innovation and industry emergence[J].Technovation,2014,34(12):785-796.
[5]臧树伟,李平.基于破坏性创新的后发企业市场进入时机选择[J].科学学研究,2016(1):122-131.Zang Shuwei,Li Ping.The timing of latecomer firms’market entry based on disruptive innovation[J].Studies in Science of Science,2016(1):122-131.
[6]徐久香,李华,王春元.基于破坏性创新的企业成长模式研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2014(2):134-142.Jiuxiang,X.,Hua,L.,Chunyuan,W.The growth model of enterprise based on the disruptive innovation[J].Science of Science and Management of S.&T.,2014,35(2):134-142.
[7]薛捷,张振刚.基于市场侵入模式的持续性创新和破坏性创新研究[J].中国科技论坛,2010(9):28-33.Jie,X.,Zhengang,Z.Sustainable innovation and disruptive innovation based on the market encroachment mode[J].Forum on Science and Technology in China,2010(9):28-33.
[8]Hang,C.,Garnsey,E.,and Ruan,Y.Disruptive innovation and entrepreneurial opportunity[J].Technovation,2015,39-40:83-93.
[9]周俊,薛求知.组织双元性的培育与效应:组织学习视角[J].科研管理,2014,35(2):87-93.Jun,Z.,Qiuzhi,X.Cultivation and effect of organizational ambidexterity[J].Science Research Management,2014,35(2):87-93.
[10]Kim,N.,&Atuahene-Gima,K.Using exploratory and exploitative market learning for new product development[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2010,27(4):519-536.
[11]Zhang H,Wu F,Cui A.Balancing market exploration and market exploitation in product innovation[J].International Journal of Research in Marketing,2015,32(3):297-308.
[12]Rubera,G.,Ordanini,A.,&Calantone,R.J.Whether to integrate R&D and marketing[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2012,29(5):766-783.
[13]Ocass,A.,Heirati,N.,Ngo,L.Achieving new product success via the synchronization of exploration and exploitation across multiple levels and functional areas[J].Industrial Marketing Management,2014,43(5):862-872.
[14]乔·蒂德,约翰·贝赞特(著);陈劲(译).创新管理(第4版)[M].中国人民大学出版社,2012.Tidd,J.,Bessant,J.Managing innovation[M].China Renmin University Press,2012.
[15]Andriopoulos C,Lewis M.Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity[J].Organization Science,2009,20(4):696-717.
[16]Christensen,C.M.(著),胡建桥(译).创新者的窘境[M].中信出版社,2014.Christensen,C.M.The innovator`s dillema[M].CITICPress,2014.
[17]Christensen,C.M.The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,23,39-55.
[18]Yu,D.Hang,C.C.Creating technology candidates for disruptive innovation:Generally applicable R&D strategies[J].Technovation,2011(31):401-410.
[19]Schmidt,G.M.,Druehl,C.T.When is a disruptive innovation disruptive?[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2008(25):347-369.
[20]Lubatkin,M.H.,Simsek,Z.,Ling,Y.,&Veiga,J.F.Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms[J].Journal of Management,2006,32(5):646-672.
[21]林春培,余传鹏,吴东儒.探索式学习与利用式学习对企业破坏性创新的影响研究[J].研究与发展管理,2015,27(6):19-28.Chunpei,L.,Chuanpeng,Y.,Dongru,W.Effects of exploratory and exploitative learning on enterprise’s disruptive innovation[J].R&D Management,2015,27(6):19-28.
[22]He,Z.L.,&Wong,P.K.Exploration vs.exploitation:An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis[J].Organization Science,2004,15(4),481-494.
[23]Kyriakopoulos,K.,and Moorman,C.Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies[J].International Journal of Research in Marketing,2004,21(3):219-240.
[24]Van Looy,B.,Martens,T.Debackere K.Organizing for continuous innovation:On the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations[J].Creativity Innovation Management,2005,14(3):208-221.
[25]Voss,Z.G,Cable,D.M,Voss G.B.Organizational identity and firm performance[J].Organization Science,2006,17(6):741-755.
[26]Ebben,J.J.,Johnson,A.C.Efficiency,flexibility,or both?Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms[J].Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(13):1249-1259.
[27]Voss,G.B.,Voss,Z.G.Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises[J].Organization Science,2013,24(5):1459-1477.
[28]Brettel,M.,Heinemann,F.,Engelen,A.,&Neubauer,S.Cross-functional integration of R&D,marketing,and manufacturing in radical and incremental product innovations and its effects on project effectiveness and efficiency[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management,2011,28(2):251-269.
[29]Atuahene-Gima,K.Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation[J].Journal of Marketing,2005,69(4):61-83.
[30]Andriopoulos,C,Lewis,M.W.Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity[J].Organization Science,2009,20(4):696-717.
[31]Morgan R,Berthon P.Market orientation,generative learning,innovation strategy and business performance inter-relationships in bioscience firms[J].Journal of Management Studies,2008,45(8):1329-1353.
[32]Yin,E.,Williamson,P..Racing with the Chinese dragons,(with Eden Yin),Chapter 3.In:Alon,I.,Chang,J.,etal.(Eds.),China Rules:Globalization and Political Transformation[M].Palgrave-Macmillan,NewYork.2009.
[33]Wan,F.,Williamson,P.,and Yin,E.Antecedents and implications of disruptive innovation[J].Technovation,2015,(39-40):94-104.
[34]Huang,J.Y.,Chou,T.C.,Lee,G.G.Imitative innovation strategies[J].Management Decision,2010,48(6),952-975.
[35]Christensen,C.M.and Raynor,E.M(著);李瑜偲,林伟,郑欢(译).创新者的解答[M].中信出版社,2013.Christensen,C.M.,Raynor,E.M.The innovator’s solution[M].CITIC Press,2013.
[36]Yu,D.,Hang,C.C.A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory[J].International Journal of Management Reviews,2010,12(4):435-452.
[37]薛捷.破坏性创新理论的最新研究进展述评及推进策略研究[J].管理学报,2013(5):768-774.Jie,X.A review of the latest research development of disruptive innovation theory and the research on promoting strategy for disruptive innovation[J].Chinese Journal of Management,2013(5):768-774.
[38]Sethi,R.,&Iqbal,Z.Stage-gate controls,learning failure,and adverse effect on novel new products[J].Journal of Marketing,2008,72:118-134.
[39]周浩,龙立荣.共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法[J].心理科学进展,2004,12(6):942-950.Hao,Z.,Lirong,L.Statistical remedies for common method biases[J].Advances in Psychological Science,2004,12(6):942-950.