企业STI/DUI学习与技术创新绩效关系研究
|
摘要
步入21世纪以来,知识和学习在企业技术创新中发挥的作用越来越受到学者们的关注。知识成为企业的关键资源,如何利用知识实现持续创新成为企业创新战略的主要挑战。在这个战略搜索过程中,至关重要的是识别和有效利用企业不同学习活动的互补性,优化知识资源的使用。Lundvall教授等学者于2004年识别了STI (Science,Technology, Innovation)和DUI(Doing, Using, Interacting)这两种学习和创新模式,Jensen等学者基于丹麦企业的调查研究,得出将STI和DUI两种学习模式相结合有助于提高创新绩效,但该结论是否具有普适性,是否适合中国企业,STI/DUI学习对技术创新是否具有互补作用还有待进一步验证。我国企业自主创新能力薄弱,已经成为经济可持续发展的桎梏,有机将基于科学的学习(Science-based learning,STI学习)和基于经验的学习(Experience-based learning,DUI学习)结合起来可能是我国企业提高自主创新能力的有效途径,而这需要进一步的理论支持,本文正是围绕这一核心问题展开研究。
本文综合运用知识观、组织学习和技术创新等相关理论,围绕“STI学习和DUI学习如何影响技术创新绩效”这一基本研究命题,探究了企业STI学习和DUI学习及其结合对创新绩效的影响、深入剖析了STI/DUI学习影响创新绩效的作用机制,并就STI学习和DUI学习在不同发展阶段的动态演化进行了探讨。本文的研究内容主要通过以下部分展开：
(1)文献综述和理论发展。通过对企业知识观、组织学习和技术创新等相关理论的详细回顾,找出现有研究的不足。对STI学习、DUI学习和组织学习能力等关键变量的概念及其要素构成进行了分析界定,形成本文论证的基础。
(2)探索性案例研究。选择4个典型的案例开展深入的探索性案例研究。经过理论预设、案例选择、数据收集、案例内分析和多案例之间的比较研究,推导出关于STI/DUI学习、组织学习能力与企业技术创新绩效关系的十一个初始研究命题,为后续研究提供源于实践的构想。
(3)企业STI/DUI学习与技术创新绩效关系的理论模型与实证检验。在探索性案例研究基础上,结合已有相关研究进行更深层次的理论探讨,分别提出STI学习和DUI学习及其两者结合对创新绩效的影响概念模型、STI/DUI学习影响技术创新绩效的作用机制概念模型和细化假设。基于230家企业的调查问卷,运用验证性因子分析、回归分析、方差分析和结构方程建模等方法进行了实证研究,进一步明晰STI/DUI学习对技术创新绩效的影响、内在作用机制以及环境动荡性的调节作用。
(4)探讨STI学习和DUI学习在技术创新不同阶段以及企业发展不同阶段的动态演化规律。先是结合已有相关研究进行理论分析,提出STI学习和DUI学习动态演化的假设,再基于230家企业的调查问卷,运用描述性统计分析和方差分析进行验证。
通过上述分析论证过程,本文得出如下主要结论：
(1)企业的STI学习和DUI学习均有助于企业技术创新绩效的提升。外部技术和市场环境的动荡程度对DUI学习与创新绩效之间关系具有调节作用。在技术和市场环境变化缓慢的情况下,DUI学习对创新绩效的作用更明显,随着技术和市场环境变化程度加大,DUI学习对创新绩效的促进作用减弱。
(2)STI学习对创新绩效的影响是间接的,这种作用通过组织学习能力的传递而产生。具体而言,STI学习是通过正向作用于企业的知识搜索识别能力与知识整合应用能力,进而正向影响其技术创新绩效的。DUI学习对技术创新绩效有直接正向效应；同时,DUI学习还通过正向作用于知识搜索识别能力和转移能力,间接影响技术创新绩效。企业的STI学习和DUI学习之间存在一定的相互依赖性和互补性,它们对创新绩效有交互作用,同时注重STI学习和DUI学习的企业将比只重视STI学习或DUI学习的企业更有可能创新。
(3)STI学习和DUI学习在不同阶段动态演化。随着产品创新从变动阶段、过渡阶段发展到特定阶段,STI学习的重要性程度逐渐下降,DUI学习的重要性程度逐步提升。从技术的引进模仿、改进提高到自主技术创新的技术发展过程中,企业的STI学习和DUI学习强度都逐渐增强。
上述研究结论深化了STI/DUI学习与技术创新绩效间关系的理解,具有理论上的原创性和方法论意义上的创新性。具体而言,本研究在以下四个方面进行了深化与拓展：
(1)本文以我国制造业为实证研究对象,是对Jensen等学者关于STI/DUI互补创新结论在不同国度的检验。除对新产品数量的影响外,本文还分析了STI学习和DUI学习结合对企业新产品开发速度、产品的独创性、开发持续性和新产品销售比重等多个创新绩效指标的影响。本文还首次探究了技术和市场环境动态性对STI/DUI学习与技术创新绩效间关系的调节作用。
(2)本研究通过理论分析和实证研究探讨STI/DUI互补创新的内在作用机制,进一步打开了STI/DUI互补创新的机理,建立了"STI/DUI学习--组织学习能力--技术创新绩效”的理论框架,是对Jensen等学者关于STI/DUI互补创新结论的进一步解释,更有力地证实STI学习和DUI学习之间的互补关系,有助于完善STI/DUI互补创新理论。
(3)本文首次对STI学习和DUI学习在企业不同发展阶段的动态演化以及在产品创新不同阶段的演化轨迹进行了探讨,进一步丰富和发展了Jensen等学者关于STI/DUI互补创新的理论,进而为中国制造企业实现战略转型与升级的研究提供了一个新的视角。
(4)本文进一步明晰了组织学习能力的概念及构成要素,指出组织学习能力主要由知识搜索识别能力、转移能力和整合应用能力三个能力要素构成,并设计了直接度量各能力要素的测度量表,经检验具有较好的信度与效度,为今后类似的研究打下了基础。本文还深入探究了组织学习各能力要素对企业技术创新绩效的影响机制,以及STI学习和DUI学习对提升组织学习能力的作用,进一步丰富充实了当前组织学习的相关理论。
Since striding into the 21st century, scholars are more and more focusing on the role that knowledge and learning play in the enterprise's technological innovation. Knowledge becomes the enterprise's key resource. The main challenge for enterprise in innovation strategy is how to use knowledge to sustain its continuous innovation. During this strategic search, the most importance task is to recognize and make efficient use of the complementarity among the enterprise's different learning activities, and optimize knowledge use. In 2004, professor Lundvall and his fellows recognized two modes of learning and innovation modes:STI (Science,Technology, Innovation) and DUI (Doing, Using, Interacting). Scholars like Jensen further deepen the concepts of these two modes. Drawing on the results of the 2001 Danish DISKO Survey, they make a preliminary conclusion that firms are more likely to innovation by combining the two modes of learning. However, their research are not sufficient to demonstrate such complementarity between STI and DUI learning, more verifications are still needed of whether this conclusion is universal and whether it adapts to Chinese enterprises. Weakness of Chinese Enterprises in indigenous innovation is becoming a shackle for our country's sustainable development in economy. Combining STI and DUI learning properly may be an effective way to improve the enterprise's indigenous innovation capability, which still needs further theoretical support. This paper launches the research right on this central issue.
This dissertation integrates related theories like knowledge-based view, organization learning and technological innovation, focuses on the basic research proposition of "how STI and DUI learning influence technological innovation performance", explores the influence on innovation performance from STI/DUI learning and their interaction, thoroughly analyzes the mechanism how STI/DUI learning influence innovation performance, and discusses the dynamic evolution locus of STI and DUI learning in different development stage. The main work is expanded in the following four parts:
(1) Through review of related theories like knowledge-based view, organization learning and technological innovation, the dissertation finds out shortcomings of the current research and puts forward the definition to the concepts and constructs of key variables such as STI learning, DUI learning and organization learning capability (OLC), which forms the basis for argumentation.
(2) Four typical cases are chosen for the explorative cases research. Through theoretical presumption, data collection, within-case analysis and comparison among cases,11 preliminary research issues are put forward about relationships between STI/DUI learning, organization learning capability and enterprise's technological innovation performance, which provides a construct for future research.
(3) Based on explorative cases research mentioned above and in-depth theoretical analysis, two concept models of the influence of STI & DUI learning and their combination on innovation performance and the mechanism how STI & DUI learning influence technological innovation performance are put forward. The hypotheses are tested using a sample of 230 Chinese manufacturing firms.
(4) The dynamic evolution process of STI & DUI learning in the different stage of technological innovation and enterprise development is approached in the end.
This dissertation comes to the following main conclusions based on the above-mentioned analysis:
(1) Enterprise's STI & DUI learning have positive influence on technological innovation performance. Both STI learning and DUI learning can facilitate the technological innovation performance. The uncertainty of external technology and market environment can regulate the relationship between DUI learning and innovation performance. In the circumstance that technology and marked environment change slowly, DUI learning will have more obvious influence on innovation performance, while as the technology and market environment change quickly, the facilitation of DUI learning to innovation performance will become weak.
(2) The influence of STI learning on innovation performance is indirect, and this influence is derived through the mediating role of OLC. In detail, it is via STI learning positive influence on knowledge search-recognition capability and integration-application capability, that it imposes its positive influence on technological innovation performance. DUI learning has direct and positive effect on technological innovation performance. Meanwhile, through positive influence on knowledge search-recognition capability and transfer capability, DUI learning further influence technological innovation performance. STI learning and DUI learning have certain mutual interdependency and complementarity on each, and they influence innovation performance interactively. Meanwhile, firms combining STI and DUI learning are more likely to innovate than those emphasizing on STI learning or DUI learning respectively.
(3) Based on the U-A dynamic pattern of innovation, this dissertation finds that the importance of STI learning descends significantly from fluid, transition to specific stages while DUI learning ascends significantly. In addition, this thesis finds that enterprises'STI learning and DUI learning intensity strengthen gradually from the phase of introduction and imitation, improvement, to indigenous technological innovation.
By employing an integrative, multidisciplinary approach, this thesis tries to make some innovation in the following fields:
First, this dissertation takes Chinese manufacturing industry as the empirical research object, and it is a proof of STI/DUI complementary innovation in different countries which is put forward by scholars like Jensen. In addition to the influence on the quantity of new products, the paper also discusses the influence that the combination of STI and DUI learning impose on the enterprises'other innovation performances indicators such as new products development speed, originality, development continuity, and proportion of new products sales etc. The dissertation, for the first time, makes research on the regulating function that the uncertainty of technology and market environment has on the relationships of STI & DUI learning and technological innovation performance.
Second, this dissertation discusses the internal mechanism of STI/DUI complementary innovation, further opens the'black box'of STI/DUI complementary innovation, and establishes the theoretical framework of "STI/DUI learning -- OLC-technological innovation performance". It further explains Jensen and his fellow's conclusion of the STI/DUI complementary innovation, and facilitates to perfect the STI/DUI complementary innovation theory.
Third, this dissertation first explorers STI/DUI leaning dynamic evolution in enterprise different development stage and the evolution track in different products innovation stages, further enriches and develops the STI/DUI complementary innovation theory, and provides a good perspective for the research on Chinese manufacturing enterprises realizing strategic transformation and update.
Fourth, this dissertation refines the construct of OLC and points out that OLC is mainly composed of knowledge search-recognition capability, transfer capability and integration-application capability. The paper also designs a scale for directly measuring each capability element which is proved to have high reliability and validity, laying foundation for similar researches in the future. In addition, the dissertation gives a deep investigation on the influence mechanism that each capability element has on enterprise's technological innovation performance, and the role that STI/DUI learning plays in promoting OLC, which further enrich the current organization learning theory.
本文综合运用知识观、组织学习和技术创新等相关理论,围绕“STI学习和DUI学习如何影响技术创新绩效”这一基本研究命题,探究了企业STI学习和DUI学习及其结合对创新绩效的影响、深入剖析了STI/DUI学习影响创新绩效的作用机制,并就STI学习和DUI学习在不同发展阶段的动态演化进行了探讨。本文的研究内容主要通过以下部分展开：
(1)文献综述和理论发展。通过对企业知识观、组织学习和技术创新等相关理论的详细回顾,找出现有研究的不足。对STI学习、DUI学习和组织学习能力等关键变量的概念及其要素构成进行了分析界定,形成本文论证的基础。
(2)探索性案例研究。选择4个典型的案例开展深入的探索性案例研究。经过理论预设、案例选择、数据收集、案例内分析和多案例之间的比较研究,推导出关于STI/DUI学习、组织学习能力与企业技术创新绩效关系的十一个初始研究命题,为后续研究提供源于实践的构想。
(3)企业STI/DUI学习与技术创新绩效关系的理论模型与实证检验。在探索性案例研究基础上,结合已有相关研究进行更深层次的理论探讨,分别提出STI学习和DUI学习及其两者结合对创新绩效的影响概念模型、STI/DUI学习影响技术创新绩效的作用机制概念模型和细化假设。基于230家企业的调查问卷,运用验证性因子分析、回归分析、方差分析和结构方程建模等方法进行了实证研究,进一步明晰STI/DUI学习对技术创新绩效的影响、内在作用机制以及环境动荡性的调节作用。
(4)探讨STI学习和DUI学习在技术创新不同阶段以及企业发展不同阶段的动态演化规律。先是结合已有相关研究进行理论分析,提出STI学习和DUI学习动态演化的假设,再基于230家企业的调查问卷,运用描述性统计分析和方差分析进行验证。
通过上述分析论证过程,本文得出如下主要结论：
(1)企业的STI学习和DUI学习均有助于企业技术创新绩效的提升。外部技术和市场环境的动荡程度对DUI学习与创新绩效之间关系具有调节作用。在技术和市场环境变化缓慢的情况下,DUI学习对创新绩效的作用更明显,随着技术和市场环境变化程度加大,DUI学习对创新绩效的促进作用减弱。
(2)STI学习对创新绩效的影响是间接的,这种作用通过组织学习能力的传递而产生。具体而言,STI学习是通过正向作用于企业的知识搜索识别能力与知识整合应用能力,进而正向影响其技术创新绩效的。DUI学习对技术创新绩效有直接正向效应；同时,DUI学习还通过正向作用于知识搜索识别能力和转移能力,间接影响技术创新绩效。企业的STI学习和DUI学习之间存在一定的相互依赖性和互补性,它们对创新绩效有交互作用,同时注重STI学习和DUI学习的企业将比只重视STI学习或DUI学习的企业更有可能创新。
(3)STI学习和DUI学习在不同阶段动态演化。随着产品创新从变动阶段、过渡阶段发展到特定阶段,STI学习的重要性程度逐渐下降,DUI学习的重要性程度逐步提升。从技术的引进模仿、改进提高到自主技术创新的技术发展过程中,企业的STI学习和DUI学习强度都逐渐增强。
上述研究结论深化了STI/DUI学习与技术创新绩效间关系的理解,具有理论上的原创性和方法论意义上的创新性。具体而言,本研究在以下四个方面进行了深化与拓展：
(1)本文以我国制造业为实证研究对象,是对Jensen等学者关于STI/DUI互补创新结论在不同国度的检验。除对新产品数量的影响外,本文还分析了STI学习和DUI学习结合对企业新产品开发速度、产品的独创性、开发持续性和新产品销售比重等多个创新绩效指标的影响。本文还首次探究了技术和市场环境动态性对STI/DUI学习与技术创新绩效间关系的调节作用。
(2)本研究通过理论分析和实证研究探讨STI/DUI互补创新的内在作用机制,进一步打开了STI/DUI互补创新的机理,建立了"STI/DUI学习--组织学习能力--技术创新绩效”的理论框架,是对Jensen等学者关于STI/DUI互补创新结论的进一步解释,更有力地证实STI学习和DUI学习之间的互补关系,有助于完善STI/DUI互补创新理论。
(3)本文首次对STI学习和DUI学习在企业不同发展阶段的动态演化以及在产品创新不同阶段的演化轨迹进行了探讨,进一步丰富和发展了Jensen等学者关于STI/DUI互补创新的理论,进而为中国制造企业实现战略转型与升级的研究提供了一个新的视角。
(4)本文进一步明晰了组织学习能力的概念及构成要素,指出组织学习能力主要由知识搜索识别能力、转移能力和整合应用能力三个能力要素构成,并设计了直接度量各能力要素的测度量表,经检验具有较好的信度与效度,为今后类似的研究打下了基础。本文还深入探究了组织学习各能力要素对企业技术创新绩效的影响机制,以及STI学习和DUI学习对提升组织学习能力的作用,进一步丰富充实了当前组织学习的相关理论。
Since striding into the 21st century, scholars are more and more focusing on the role that knowledge and learning play in the enterprise's technological innovation. Knowledge becomes the enterprise's key resource. The main challenge for enterprise in innovation strategy is how to use knowledge to sustain its continuous innovation. During this strategic search, the most importance task is to recognize and make efficient use of the complementarity among the enterprise's different learning activities, and optimize knowledge use. In 2004, professor Lundvall and his fellows recognized two modes of learning and innovation modes:STI (Science,Technology, Innovation) and DUI (Doing, Using, Interacting). Scholars like Jensen further deepen the concepts of these two modes. Drawing on the results of the 2001 Danish DISKO Survey, they make a preliminary conclusion that firms are more likely to innovation by combining the two modes of learning. However, their research are not sufficient to demonstrate such complementarity between STI and DUI learning, more verifications are still needed of whether this conclusion is universal and whether it adapts to Chinese enterprises. Weakness of Chinese Enterprises in indigenous innovation is becoming a shackle for our country's sustainable development in economy. Combining STI and DUI learning properly may be an effective way to improve the enterprise's indigenous innovation capability, which still needs further theoretical support. This paper launches the research right on this central issue.
This dissertation integrates related theories like knowledge-based view, organization learning and technological innovation, focuses on the basic research proposition of "how STI and DUI learning influence technological innovation performance", explores the influence on innovation performance from STI/DUI learning and their interaction, thoroughly analyzes the mechanism how STI/DUI learning influence innovation performance, and discusses the dynamic evolution locus of STI and DUI learning in different development stage. The main work is expanded in the following four parts:
(1) Through review of related theories like knowledge-based view, organization learning and technological innovation, the dissertation finds out shortcomings of the current research and puts forward the definition to the concepts and constructs of key variables such as STI learning, DUI learning and organization learning capability (OLC), which forms the basis for argumentation.
(2) Four typical cases are chosen for the explorative cases research. Through theoretical presumption, data collection, within-case analysis and comparison among cases,11 preliminary research issues are put forward about relationships between STI/DUI learning, organization learning capability and enterprise's technological innovation performance, which provides a construct for future research.
(3) Based on explorative cases research mentioned above and in-depth theoretical analysis, two concept models of the influence of STI & DUI learning and their combination on innovation performance and the mechanism how STI & DUI learning influence technological innovation performance are put forward. The hypotheses are tested using a sample of 230 Chinese manufacturing firms.
(4) The dynamic evolution process of STI & DUI learning in the different stage of technological innovation and enterprise development is approached in the end.
This dissertation comes to the following main conclusions based on the above-mentioned analysis:
(1) Enterprise's STI & DUI learning have positive influence on technological innovation performance. Both STI learning and DUI learning can facilitate the technological innovation performance. The uncertainty of external technology and market environment can regulate the relationship between DUI learning and innovation performance. In the circumstance that technology and marked environment change slowly, DUI learning will have more obvious influence on innovation performance, while as the technology and market environment change quickly, the facilitation of DUI learning to innovation performance will become weak.
(2) The influence of STI learning on innovation performance is indirect, and this influence is derived through the mediating role of OLC. In detail, it is via STI learning positive influence on knowledge search-recognition capability and integration-application capability, that it imposes its positive influence on technological innovation performance. DUI learning has direct and positive effect on technological innovation performance. Meanwhile, through positive influence on knowledge search-recognition capability and transfer capability, DUI learning further influence technological innovation performance. STI learning and DUI learning have certain mutual interdependency and complementarity on each, and they influence innovation performance interactively. Meanwhile, firms combining STI and DUI learning are more likely to innovate than those emphasizing on STI learning or DUI learning respectively.
(3) Based on the U-A dynamic pattern of innovation, this dissertation finds that the importance of STI learning descends significantly from fluid, transition to specific stages while DUI learning ascends significantly. In addition, this thesis finds that enterprises'STI learning and DUI learning intensity strengthen gradually from the phase of introduction and imitation, improvement, to indigenous technological innovation.
By employing an integrative, multidisciplinary approach, this thesis tries to make some innovation in the following fields:
First, this dissertation takes Chinese manufacturing industry as the empirical research object, and it is a proof of STI/DUI complementary innovation in different countries which is put forward by scholars like Jensen. In addition to the influence on the quantity of new products, the paper also discusses the influence that the combination of STI and DUI learning impose on the enterprises'other innovation performances indicators such as new products development speed, originality, development continuity, and proportion of new products sales etc. The dissertation, for the first time, makes research on the regulating function that the uncertainty of technology and market environment has on the relationships of STI & DUI learning and technological innovation performance.
Second, this dissertation discusses the internal mechanism of STI/DUI complementary innovation, further opens the'black box'of STI/DUI complementary innovation, and establishes the theoretical framework of "STI/DUI learning -- OLC-technological innovation performance". It further explains Jensen and his fellow's conclusion of the STI/DUI complementary innovation, and facilitates to perfect the STI/DUI complementary innovation theory.
Third, this dissertation first explorers STI/DUI leaning dynamic evolution in enterprise different development stage and the evolution track in different products innovation stages, further enriches and develops the STI/DUI complementary innovation theory, and provides a good perspective for the research on Chinese manufacturing enterprises realizing strategic transformation and update.
Fourth, this dissertation refines the construct of OLC and points out that OLC is mainly composed of knowledge search-recognition capability, transfer capability and integration-application capability. The paper also designs a scale for directly measuring each capability element which is proved to have high reliability and validity, laying foundation for similar researches in the future. In addition, the dissertation gives a deep investigation on the influence mechanism that each capability element has on enterprise's technological innovation performance, and the role that STI/DUI learning plays in promoting OLC, which further enrich the current organization learning theory.
引文
[1]Akgun, A. E., Byrne, J. C., Lynn, G. S.& Keskin, H. New product development in turbulent environments:impact of improvisation and unlearning on new product performance. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2007,24(3),203-230.
[2]Akgiin, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J. C.& Aren, S. Emotional and learning capaility and their impact on product innovativeness and firm performance. Technovation,2007,27(9),501-513.
[3]Alavi, M.& Leidner, D. E. Review:knowledge management and knowledge management systems:conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly,2001,25(1),107-136.
[4]Alcorta, L., Tomlinson, M.& Tongliang, A. Knowledge generation and innovation in manufacturing firms in China. Industry & Innovation,2009, 16(4/5),435-461.
[5]Alegre, J.& Chiva, R. Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance:an empirical test. Technovation,2008, 28(6),315-326.
[6]Alegre, J., Lapiedra, R.& Chiva, R. A measurement scale for product innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management,2006, 9(4),333-346.
[7]Allen, T. J. Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1977.
[8]Amir-Aslani, A.& Negassi, S. Is technology integration the solution to biotech-nology's low research and development productivity?. Technovation,2006, 26(5-6),573-582.
[9]Amit, R.& Schoemaker, P. J. H. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(1),33-46.
[10]Anand, V., Clark, M. A.& Zellmer-Bruhn, M. Team knowledge structures: matching task to information environment. Journal of Managerial Issues,2003, XV(1),15-31.
[11]Anders, I., Jonas, R., Alexander, S.& A B (Rami), S. Dynamic learning capability and actionable knowledge creation:clinical R&D in a pharmaceutical company. The Learning Organization,2002,9(2),65-11.
[12]Antonelli, C. Localized product innovation:the role of proximity in the lancastrian product space. Information Economics and Policy,2004,16(2), 255-274.
[13]Argyris, C. Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology,1995,10(6),20-26.
[14]Argyris, C.& Schon, D. Organizational learning:a theory of action perspective. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.,1978.
[15]Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S.& Lay, G. Organizational innovation:the challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation,2008,28(10),644-657.
[16]Arundel, A.& Kabla, I. What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy,1998,27(2),127-141.
[17]Arundel, A., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B. A.& Valeyre, A. The organisation of work and innovative performance:a comparison of the EU-15. DRUDI Working Paper Series, No. (14). Aalborg:Aalborg University,2006.
[18]Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J.& Almeida, J. G. Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. The Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(5),909-924.
[19]Baba, Y., Shichijo, N.& Sedita, S. R. How do collaborations with universities affect firms'innovative performance? The role of "pasteur scientists" in the advanced materials field. Research Policy,2009,38(5),756-764.
[20]Bagozzi, R.& Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,1988,16(1),74-94.
[21]Baker, W. E.& Sinkula, J. M. the synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,1999,27(4),411-427.
[22]Balachandra, R.& Friar, J. H. Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation:a contextual framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,1997,44(3),276-287.
[23]Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,1991,17(1),99-120.
[24]Barney, J.& Wright, P. On becoming a strategic partner:the role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 1998,37(1),31-46.
[25]Becheikh, N., Landry, R.& Amara, N. Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector:a systematic review of the literature from 1993-2003. Technovation,2006,26(5-6),644-664.
[26]Belderbos, R., Carree, M.& Lokshin, B. Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy,2004,33(10),1477-1492.
[27]Benjamin, C., Fabienne, O.& Olivier, W. Does biotech reflect a new science-based innovation regime? Industry and Innovation,2003,10(3), 231-253.
[28]Bessant, J.& Francis, D. Using learning networks to help improve manufacturing competitiveness. Technovation,1999,19(6-7),373-381.
[29]Bidault, F., Despres, C.& Butler, C. The drivers of cooperation between buyers and suppliers for product innovation. Research Policy,1998,26(7-8),719-732.
[30]Bierly, P.& Chakrabarti, A. Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter), 123-135.
[31]Bock, G., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.& Lee, J. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly,2005, 29(1),87-111.
[32]Bower, G.& Hilgard, E. Theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1981.
[33]Breschi, S., Malerba, F.& Orsenigo, L. Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. The Economic Journal,2000,110(463), 388-410.
[34]Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J.& Nobel, R. Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies,1999,30(3),439-462.
[35]Brouwer, E.& Kleinknecht, A. Firm size, small business presence and sales of innovative products:a micro-econometric analysis. Small Business Economics, 1996,8(3),189-201.
[36]Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T.& Zhao, Y. Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 2002,31(6),515-524.
[37]Camison, C.& Fores, B. Knowledge absorptive capacity:new insights for its conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research, In Press.
[38]Cara, J., Lundvall, B. A.& Mendon, S. The changing role of science in the innovation process:from queen to cinderella? Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2009,76(6),861-867.
[39]Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R.& Zuniga, P. Science linkages and innovation performance:an analysis on CIS-3 firms in Belgium. Working Paper, Barcelona, Spain,2007.
[40]Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. An empirical investigation of organizational learning through strategic alliances between SMEs. Journal of Strategic Marketing,2005, 13(1),3-16.
[41]Chesbrough, H. Open innovation:the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,2003.
[42]Chesbrough, H. Managing open innovation. Research Technology Management, 2004,47(1),23-26.
[43]Chipika, S.& Wilson, G. Enabling technological learning among light engineering SMEs in Zimbabwe through networking. Technovation,2006,26(8), 969-979.
[44]Chiva, R., Alegre, J.& Lapiedra, R. Measuring organisational learning capability among the workforce. International Journal of Manpower,2007,28(3/4), 224-242.
[45]Christensen, J. F. Whither core competency for the large corporation in an open innovation world? in H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J.West (Eds.), Open innovation:researching a new paradigm, New York:Oxford University Press Inc.,2006.
[46]Churchill Jr, G. A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR),1979,16(1),64-73.
[47]Clark, K. B.& Fujimoto, T. Product development performance:strategy, organi-zation, and management in the world auto industry. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1991.
[48]Cockburn, I. M.& Henderson, R. M. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. The Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46(2),157-182.
[49]Cohen, W. M.& Levinthal, D. A. Innovation and learning:the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal,1989,99(397),569-596.
[50]Cohen, W. M.& Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1), 128-152.
[51]Cohen, W. M.& Levinthal, D. A. Fortune favors the prepared firm. Management Science,1994,40(2),227-251.
[52]Cooper, R.& Kleinschmidt, E. New products:what separates winners from losers? Journal of Product Innovation,1987(4),169-184.
[53]Costa, I.& De, Q. S. Foreign direct investment and technological capabilities in Brazilian industry. Research Policy,2002,31(8-9),1431-1443.
[54]Court, A. W., Culley, S. J.& McMahon, C. A. The influence of information technology in new product development:observations of an empirical study of the access of engineering design information. International Journal of Information Management,1997,17(5),359-375.
[55]Criscuolo, C., Haskel, J. E.& Slaughter, M. J. Global engagement and the innovation activities of firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2010,28(2),191-202.
[56]Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W.& White, R. E. An organizational learning framework:from intuition to institution. The Academy of Management Review, 1999,24(3),522-537.
[57]Cummings, J. L.& Teng, B. S. Transferring R&D knowledge:the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2003,20(1-2),39-68.
[58]Daft, R. L.& Weick, K. E. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. The Academy of Management Review,1984,9(2),284-295.
[59]De Boer, M., van den Bosch, F. A. J.& Volberda, H. W. Managing organizational knowledge integration in the emerging multimedia complex. Journal of Management Studies,1999,36(3),379-398.
[60]De Clercq, D.& Sapienza, H. J. Effects of relational capital and commitment on venture capitalists'perception of portfolio company performance. Journal of Business Venturing,2006,21(3),326-347.
[61]Debackere, K.& Veugelers, R. The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy,2005,34(3), 321-342.
[62]Decarolis, D. M.& Deeds, D. L. The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance:an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(10),953-968.
[63]Demsetz, H. The theory of firm revisited. Journal of Law, Economics,& Organization,1988,4(1),141-161.
[64]Devinney, T. M. How well do patents measure new product activity?. Economics Letters,1993,41(4),447-450.
[65]Dodgson, M. Organizational learning:a review of some literatures. Organization studies,1993,14(3),375-394.
[66]Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R.& Winter, S. G. The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[67]Drongelen, I. C. K., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C.& Fisscher, O. A. M. Describing the issues of knowledge management in R&D:towards a communication and analysis tool. R&D Management,1996,26(3),213-230.
[68]Drucker, P. Post-capitalist society. New York, NY:Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993.
[69]Duarte, D.& Snyder, N. From experience:facilitating global organizational learning in product development at Whirlpool corporation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1997,14(1),48-55.
[70]Dunn, S. C., Seaker, R. F.& Waller, M. A. Latent variables in business logistics research:scale development and validation. Journal of Business Logistics,1994, 15(2),145-172.
[71]Dyer, J. H. Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(4), 271-291.
[72]Easterby-Smith, M. Disciplines of organizational learning:contributions and critiques. Human Relations,1997,50(9),1085-1113.
[73]Easterby-Smith, M., Gra, M., Antonacopoulou, E.& Ferdinand, J. Absorptive capacity:a process perspective. Management Learning,2008,39(5),483-501.
[74]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4),532-550.
[75]Fabrizio, K. R. Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy,2009,38(38),255-267.
[76]Faems, D., van Looy, B.& Debackere, K. Interorganizational collaboration and innovation:toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2005,22(3),238-250.
[77]Fiol, C. M.& Lyles, M. A. Organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review,1985,10(4),803-813.
[78]Fleck, J. Informal information flow and the nature of expertise in financial services. International Journal of Technology Management,1996,11(1/2), 104-128.
[79]Fleming, L.& Sorenson, O. Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(8/9),909-928.
[80]Fleming, L.& Sorenson, O. Technology as a complex adaptive system:evidence from patent data. Research Policy,2001,30(7),1019-1039.
[81]Flor, M. L.& Oltra, M. J. Identification of innovating firms through technological innovation indicators:an application to the Spanish ceramic tile industry. Research Policy,2004,33(2),323-336.
[82]Forsman, M.& Solitander, N. Network knowledge versus cluster knowledge:the gordian knot of knowledge transfer concepts, http://dhanken.shh.fi/dspace/ handle/10227/180.
[83]Fosfuri, A.& Tribo, J. A. Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega,2008,36(2), 173-187.
[84]Foster, R. N. Timing technological transition.in M. Horwitch (Eds.), Technology in the Modern Corporation:A Strategic Perspective, New York:Pergamon Press, 1986a.
[85]Foster, R. N. Innovation:the attacker's advantage. New York:Summit Books, 1986b.
[86]Fowler, F. J. Survey research methods. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.,1988.
[87]Franz, T., Lehner, P.& Kaufmann, A. Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation,2009,29(1),59-71.
[88]Freel, M. S. Strategy and structure in innovative manufacturing smes:the case of an English region. Small Business Economics,2000,15(1),27-45.
[89]Freel, M. S. Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research Policy,2003,32(5),751-770.
[90]Frenz, M.& Ietto-Gillies, G. The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge:evidence from the UK community innovation survey. Research Policy,2009,38(7),1125-1135.
[91]Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E.& Stern, S.The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy,2002,31(6),899-933.
[92]Gales, L.& Mansour-Cole, D. User involvement in innovation projects:toward an information processing model. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,1995,12(1-2),77-109.
[93]Garud, R.& Nayyar, P. R. Transformative capacity:continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(5), 365-385.
[94]Garvin, D. Building a learning organization. Harv Bus Rev,1993,71(4),78-91.
[95]Geiger, S. W.& Makri, M.. Exploration and exploitation innovation processes: the role of organizational slack in R&D intensive firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,2006,17(1),97-108.
[96]Gherardi, S.& Nicolini, D. The organizational learning of safety in communities of practice. Journal of Management Inquiry,2000,9(1),7-18.
[97]Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P.& Zedeck, S. Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. New York:Freeman, San Francisco, CA,1981.
[98]Gibbons, M.& Johnston, R. The roles of science in technological innovation. Research Policy,1974,3(3),220-242.
[99]Glynn, M. A. Innovative genius:a framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. The Academy of Management Review,1996,21(4),1081-1111.
[100]Goh, S. C. Toward a learning organization:the strategic building blocks. SAM Advanced Management Journal,1998,63,15-22.
[101]Goh, S. C.& Ryan, P. J. Learning capability, organization factors and firm performance. Paper presented at Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Athens, Greece,2002.
[102]Goh, S.& Richards, G.. Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations. European Management Journal,1997,15(5),575-583.
[103]Gorga, E.& Halberstam, M. Knowledge inputs, legal institutions and firm structure:towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Northwestern University Law Review,2007,101(3),1123-1206.
[104]Grant, R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996a,17(Winter Special Issue),109-122.
[105]Grant, R. M. The knowledge-based view of the firm.in C. W. Choo & N. Bontis(Eds.), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, New York:Oxford University Press,2002.
[106]Grant, R. M. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science,1996b, 7(4),375-387.
[107]Grant, R. M.& Baden-Fuller, C. A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration. Academy of Management Journal,1995,17-21.
[108]Greve, H. R. Interorganizational learning and heterogeneous social structure. Organization Studies,2005,26(7),1025-1047.
[109]Greve, H.R. Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly,1998,43(1),58-86.
[110]Hagedoorn, J. & Cloodt, M. Measuring innovative performance:is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy,2003,32(8), 1365-1379.
[111]Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L.& Black, W. C. Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall,1998.
[112]Hall, R.& Andriani, P. Managing knowledge for innovation. Long Range Planning,2002,35(1),29-48.
[113]Hatcher, L. A step-by-step approach to using the SAS(r) system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC, USA:SAS Institute Inc., 1994
[114]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(1),9-30.
[115]Herrera, L., Mu, D. M.& Nieto, M. Mobility of public researchers, scientific knowledge transfer, and the firm's innovation process. Journal of Business Research,2010,63(5),510-518.
[116]Hienerth, C. The commercialization of user innovations:the development of the rodeo kayak industry. R&D Management,2006,36(3),273-294.
[117]Holsapple, C. W.& Joshi, K. D. Organizational knowledge resources. Decision Support Systems,2001,31(1),39-54.
[118]Hong, Y. Coordinating product development with suppliers and performance impacts. Ph.D.dissertation, Arizona State University,2007.
[119]Hoopes, D. G.& Postrel, S. Shared knowledge, "glitches," and product development performance. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(9), 837-865.
[120]Hsu, Y. H.& Fang, W. Intellectual capital and new product development performance:the mediating role of organizational learning capability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2009,76(5),664-677.
[121]Hu, J. L.& Hsu, Y. H. The more interactive, the more innovative a case study of South Korean cellular phone manufacturers. Technovation,2008,28(1-2), 75-87.
[122]Huber, G. P. Organizational learning:the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science,1991,2(1),88-115.
[123]Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F.& Knight, G. A. Innovativeness:its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management,2004, 33(5),429-438.
[124]Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J.& Arrfelt, M. Strategic supply chain management: improving performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(10),1035-1052.
[125]Hult, G. T.& Ferrell, O. C. Global organizational learning capacity in purchasing:construct and measurement. Journal of Business Research,1997, 40(2),97-111.
[126]Hurley, R. F.& Hult, G. T. Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning:an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing,1998, 62(3),42-54.
[127]Iansiti, M.& West, J. Technology integration:turning great research into great products. Harvard Business Review,1997,75(3),69-79.
[128]Iansiti, M.& West, J. From physics to function:an empirical study of research and development performance in the semiconductor industry. The Journal of Product Innovation Management,1999,16(4),385-399.
[129]Ireland, D. C.& Hine, D. Harmonizing science and business agendas for growth in new biotechnology firms:case comparisons from five countries. Technovation,2007,27(11),676-692.
[130]Itami, H.& Numagami, T. Dynamic interaction between strategy and technology. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13,119-135.
[131]Jansen, J. U., Van, D. E.& Volberda, H. E. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity:how do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(6),999-1015.
[132]Jaworski, B. J.& Kohli, A. K. Market orientation:antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing,1993,57(3),53-70.
[133]Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E.& Lundvall, B. A. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy,2007,36(5),680-693.
[134]Jensen, M., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E.& Lundvall, B. A. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Working paper, Institute for Erhvervsstudier, Aalborg University,2004.
[135]Jerez-G6mez, P., Cespedes-Lorente, J.& Valle-Cabrera, R. Organizational learning capability:a proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research Special Section:The Nonprofit Marketing Landscape,2005,58(6),715-725.
[136]Johannessen, J. A., Olsen, B.& Olaisen, J. Aspects of innovation theory based on knowledge management. International Journal of Information Management, 1999,19(2),121-139.
[137]Johnsen, I. H. G.& Isaksen, A. Innovation modes, geography of knowledge flows and social capital. Paper presented at DRUID-DIME Academy Winter 2009 PhD Conference,2009.
[138]Johnsen, T. E. Supplier involvement in new product development and innovation:taking stock and looking to the future. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,2009,15(3),187-197.
[139]Johnston, W. J., Leach, M. P.& Liu, A. H. Theory testing using case studies in business-to-business research. Industrial Marketing Management,1999,28(3), 201-213.
[140]Juniper, J. Universities and collaboration within complex, uncertain knowledge-based economies. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,2002,13(5-6),747-778.
[141]Kakabadse, N. K., Kakabadse, A.& Kouzmin, A. Reviewing the knowledge management literature:towards a taxonomy. Journal of Knowledge Management,2003,7(4),75-91.
[142]Katila, R. New product search over time:past ideas in their prime? Academy of Management Journal,2002,45(5),995-1010.
[143]Kaufmann, A.& Todtling, F. Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation:the importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy,2001,30(5),791-804.
[144]Kelley, M. R.& Brooks, H. External learning opportunities and the diffusion of process innovations to small firms:the case of programmable automation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,1991,39(1-2),103-125.
[145]Kessler, E. H., Bierly, P. E.& Gopalakrishnan, S. Internal vs. external learning in new product development:effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage. R&D Management,2000,30(3),213-224.
[146]Kim, L. Crisis construction and organizational learning:capability building in catching-up at Hyundai motor. Organization Science,1998,9(4),506-521.
[147]Klepper, S. T. Industry life cycles. Ind Corp Change,1997,6(1),145-182.
[148]Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R.& Winter, S. G. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy,1995,24(2),185-205.
[149]Kline, S.& Rosenberg, N. An overview of innovation.in R. Landau & N. Rosenberg(Eds.), The Positive Sum Game., Washington, DC:National Academy Press,1986.
[150]Koc, T.& Ceylan, C. Factors impacting the innovative capacity in large-scale companies. Technovation,2007,27(3),105-114.
[151]Kogut, B.& Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replications of technology. Organization Science,1992,3(3),383-397.
[152]Lane, P. J.& Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5),461-477.
[153]Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R.& Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity:a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4),833-863.
[154]Lane, P. J., Koka, B.& Pathak, S. A thematic analysis and critical assessment of absorptive capacity research. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings, Denver,2002.
[155]Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E.& Lyles, M. A. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal,2001, 22(12),1139-1161.
[156]Lang, J. R.& Lockhart, D. E. Increased environmental uncertainty and changes in board linkage patterns. The Academy of Management Journal,1990,33(1), 106-128.
[157]Laursen, K.& Foss, N. J. New HRM practices, complementarities, and the impact on innovation performance. Cambridge Journal of Economics,2003, 27(2),243-263.
[158]Laursen, K.& Salter, A. Open for innovation:the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2),131-150.
[159]Lei, D., Slocum, J. W.& Pitts, R. A. Designing organizations for competitive advantage:the power of unlearning and learning. Organizational Dynamics, 1999,27(3),24-38.
[160]Leonard-Barton, D. Wellsprings of knowledge:building and sustaining the sources of innovation:Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA,1995
[161]Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13,111-125.
[162]Levitt, B.& March, J. G. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 1988,14(1),319-340.
[163]Li, S. T.& Tsai, M. H. A dynamic taxonomy for managing knowledge assets. Technovation,2009,29(4),284-298.
[164]Liao, S., Fei, W. C.& Liu, C. T. Relationships between knowledge inertia, organizational learning and organization innovation. Technovation,2008,28(4), 183-195.
[165]Lieberman, M. B.& Asaba, S. Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of Management Review,2006,31(2),366-385.
[166]Linton, J. D. The role of relationships and reciprocity in the implementation of process innovation. Engineering Management Journal,2000,12(3),34-38.
[167]Lorenz, E. European trend chart on innovation:developing indicators for skills and innovation. Paper presented at Trend Chart Policy Workshop,2004.
[168]Lorenz, E.& Valeyre, A. Organisational forms and innovative performance:a comparison of the EU-15.in E. Lorenz & B. A. Lundvall(Eds.), How Europe's Economies Learn:Coordinating Competing Models:Oxford University Press, 2006.
[169]Love, J. H.& Roper, S. Organizing innovation:complementarities between cross-functional teams. Technovation,2009,29(3),192-203.
[170]Lundvall, B. A. Interactive learning, social capital and economic performance. Paper presented at Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy, Conference organized by EC, OECD and NSF-US, Washington,2005.
[171]Lundvall, B. A. innovation as an interactive process:from user-producer interaction to the national innovation systems.in G. Dosi, C. Freeman & R. R. Nelson et al. (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory, London:Pinter Publishers,1988.
[172]Lundvall, B. A. Product innovation and user-producer interaction. Aalborg, Denmark:Aalborg University Press,1985.
[173]Lundvall, B. A.& Johnson, B. The learning economy. Industry & Innovation, 1994,1(2),23-42.
[174]Lundvall, B. A.& Vinding, A. L. Product innovation and economic theory. Report for the Paris workshop meeting,2003.
[175]Lundvall, B. A., Lorenz, E.& Drejer, I. How europe's economies learn. Report for the Loc Nis Policy Workshop,2004.
[176]Luthje, C. Customer as co-inventors:an empirical analysis of the antecedents of customer-driven innovations in the field of medical equipment. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the European Marketing Academy, Glasgow, 2003.
[177]Mahoney, J. T.& Pandian, J. R. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1992, 13(5),363-380.
[178]Malerba, F. Learning by firms and incremental technical change. The Economic Journal,1992,102(413),845-859.
[179]Malerba, F.& Orsenigo, L. Knowledge, innovative activities and industrial evolution. Ind Corp Change,2000,9(2),289-314.
[180]Mansfield, E. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 1991,20(1),1-12.
[181]March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1),71-87.
[182]McKee, D. An organizational learning approach to product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1992,9(3),232-245.
[183]Meyer-Krahmer, F.& Schmoch, U. Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy,1998,27(8), 835-851.
[184]Milliken, F. J. Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment:state, effect, and response uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review,1987, 12(1),133-143.
[185]Miotti, L.& Sachwald, F. Co-operative R&D:why and with whom? An integr-ated framework of analysis. Research Policy,2003,32(8),1481-1499.
[186]Mohr, L. B. Determinants of innovation in organizations. The American Political Science Review,1969,63(1),111-126.
[187]Montalvo, C. What triggers change and innovation?. Technovation,2006,26(3), 312-323.
[188]Moorman, C.& Miner, A. S. The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research,1997,34(1), 91-106.
[189]Murovec, N.& Prodan, I. Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output:cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation,2009,29(12),859-872.
[190]Nelson, R. R. The role of knowledge in R&D efficiency. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1982,97(3),453-470.
[191]Nelson, R. R. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy,2004,33(3),455-471.
[192]Nevis, E. C., Anthony, J. D.& Gould, J. M. Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review,1995,36(2),73-85.
[193]Newell, A.& Simon, H. A. Human problem solving:Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall,1972.
[194]Nieto, M.& Quevedo, P. Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledge spillovers, and innovative effort. Technovation,2005,25(10), 1141-1157.
[195]Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Orga-nization Science,1994,5(1),14-37.
[196]Nonaka, I.& Takeuchi, H. The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press,1995.
[197]Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C. C.& Konno, N. Organizational knowledge creation theory:a first comprehensive test. International Business Review,1994, 3(4),337-351.
[198]OECD. OECD reviews of innovation policy:China:OECD Publishing,2008
[199]OECD. The knowledge-based economy. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/8/ 1913021
[200]Patrashkova, R. R.& McComb, S. A. Exploring why more communication is not better:insights from a computational model of cross-functional teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2004,21(1-2),83-114.
[201]Pavitt, K. The social shaping of the national science base. Research Policy,1998, 27(8),793-805.
[202]Pavitt, K. Technologies, products and organization in the innovating firm:what Adam Smith tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn't. Ind Corp Change,1998, 7(3),433-452.
[203]Penrose, E. T. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford:Basil Blackwell, 1959.
[204]Peteraf, M. A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage:a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(3),179-191.
[205]Pisano, G. The development factory:unlocking the potential of process innovation. Boston, Massachusetts:Harvard Business School Press,1997
[206]Polanyi, M. Tacit knowing:its bearing on some problems of philosophy. Reviews of Modern Physics,1962,34(4),601-616.
[207]Polanyi, M. Personal knowledge. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.,1958.
[208]Polt, W., Rammer, C., Gassler, H., Schibany, A.& Schartinger, D. Benchmarking industry-science relations:the role of framework conditions. Science and Public Policy,2001,28(4),247-258.
[209]Popadiuk, S.& Choo, C. W. Innovation and knowledge creation:how are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management,2006,26(4), 302-312.
[210]Porter, M. E. Competitive strategy. New York:Free Press,1980.
[211]Prieto, I. M. Assessing the impact of learning capability on business performance:empirical evidence from Spain. Management Learning,2006, 37(4),499-522.
[212]Purser, R. E., Pasmore, W. A.& Tenkasi, R. V. The influence of deliberations on learning in new product development teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,1992,9(1),1-28.
[213]Ras-Vidal, D. Learning to innovate. The ESST MA dissertation, University of Oslo/Aalborg University,2006.
[214]Real, J. C., Leal, A.& Rold, J. L. Information technology as a determinant of organizational learning and technological distinctive competencies. Industrial Marketing Management,2006,35(4),505-521.
[215]Ren, R. Learning by firms and technological innovation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles,2005.
[216]Rodgers, P. A.& Clarkson, P. J. Knowledge usage in new product development (NPD). Paper presented at IDATER 1998 Conference, Loughborough: Loughborough University,1998.
[217]Rosenberg, N. Uncertainty and technological change.in R. Landau, T. Taylor & G. Wright(Eds.), The Mosaic of Economic Growth, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1996.
[218]Rosenberg, N. Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy,1990,19(2),165-174.
[219]Rosenberg, N.& Nelson, R. R. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy,1994,23(3),323-348.
[220]Rosenkopf, L.& Nerkar, A. Beyond local search:boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(4),287-306.
[221]Rothwell, R. Successful industrial innovation:critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management,1992,22(3),221-240.
[222]Santarelli, E.& Piergiovanni, R. Analyzing literature-based innovation output indicators:the Italian experience. Research Policy,1996,25(5),689-711.
[223]Schmidt, T. What determines absorptive capacity. Paper presented at the DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark,2005.
[224]Segarra-Blasco, A.& Arauzo-Carod, J. Sources of innovation and industry-university interaction:evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 2008,37(8),1283-1295.
[225]Shavelson, R. J.& Towne, L. Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,2002.
[226]Shefer, D.& Frenkel, A. R&D, firm size and innovation:an empirical analysis. Technovation,2005,25(1),25-32.
[227]Simonin, B. L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(7),595-623.
[228]Slater, S. F.& Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization. The Journal of Marketing,1995,59(3),63-74.
[229]Sobrero, M.& Roberts, E. B. Strategic management of supplier-manufacturer relations in new product development. Research Policy,2002,31(1),159-182.
[230]Sobrero, M.& Roberts, E. B. The trade-off between efficiency and learning in interorganizational relationships for product development. Management Science, 2001,47(4),493-511.
[231]Solow, R. M. Learning from learning by doing:lessons for economic growth. Stanford:CA:Stanford University Press,1997.
[232]Song, M.& Swink, M. Marketing-manufacturing joint involvement across stages of new product development:effects on the success of radical vs. incremental innovations. Paper presented at Academy of Management Proceedings,2002.
[233]Song, M., Droge, C., Hanvanich, S.& Calantone, R. Marketing and technology resource complementarity:an analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(3),259-276.
[234]Sorenson, O.& Fleming, L. Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research Policy,2004,33(10),1615-1634.
[235]Sparrow, J. Knowledge management in small firms. Knowledge and Process Management,2001,8(1),3-16.
[236]Spender, J. C. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue),45-62.
[237]Spender, J. C.& Grant, R. M. Knowledge and the firm:overview. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17 (Winter Special Issue),5-9.
[238]Subramaniam, M. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(3),450-463.
[239]Subramaniam, M.& Venkatraman, N. Determinants of transnational new product development capability:testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(4), 359-378.
[240]Sun, Y. Sources of innovation in China's manufacturing sector:imported or developed in-house? Environment and Planning,2002,34,1059-1072.
[241]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(SUPPL. WINTER),27-43.
[242]Takeishi, A. Bridging inter-and intra-firm boundaries:management of supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal, 2001,22(5),403-433.
[243]Tan, K., Kannan, V. R., Handfield, R. B.& Ghosh, S. Supply chain management: an empirical study of its impact on performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,1999,19(10),1034-1052.
[244]Teece, D. A.& Pisano, G. A. The dynamic capabilities of firms:an introduction. Industrial and corporate change,1994,3(3),537-556.
[245]Teece, D. J. Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,1996,31(2),193-224.
[246]Teece, D., Pisano, G.& Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic manage-ment. Strategic management journal,1997,18(7),509-533.
[247]Therin, F. Organizational learning and innovation in high-tech small firms. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii,2003.
[248]Tidd, J. Innovation management in context:environment, organization and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews,2001,3(3), 169-183.
[249]Tidd, J., Bessant, J.& Pavitt, K.著；陈劲,龚焱和金珺译.创新管理.北京：清华大学出版社,2002.
[250]Tilton, J. E. International diffusion of technology:the case of semiconductors. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press,1971.
[251]Todorova, G.& Durisin, B. Absorptive capacity:valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review,2007,32(3),774-786.
[252]Todtling, F., Lehner, P.& Kaufmann, A. Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation,2009,29(1),59-71.
[253]Tucker, L.& Lewis, C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika,1973,38(1),1-10.
[254]Tushman, M. L.& Anderson, P. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986,31(3), 439-465.
[255]Ulrich, D., Von, G. M.& Jick, T. High-impact learning:building and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics,1993,22(2),52-66.
[256]Valentin, F.& Jensen, R. L. Reaping the fruits of science:comparing exploitations of a scientific breakthrough in European innovation systems. Economic Systems Research,2002,14(4),363-388.
[257]Van den Bosch, F. A. J., van Wijk, R.& Volberda, H. W. Absorptive capacity: antecedents, models and outcomes. Report for Erim Research In Management (No.ERS-2003-035-STR),2003.
[258]Vera, D.& Crossan, M. Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review,2004,29(2),222-240.
[259]Verona, G. A resource-based view of product development. The Academy of Management Review,1999,24(1),132-142.
[260]Von Hippel, E. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy,1976,5(3),212-239.
[261]Von Hippel, E. The sources of innovation. New York:Oxford University Press, 1988.
[262]Von Hippel, E. Lead users:a source of novel product concepts. Management Science,1986,32(7),791-805.
[263]Von Hippel, E.& Schrader, S. "managed" informal information trading:the oil scout system in oil exploration firms. International Journal of Technology Management,1996,11(1/2),207-218.
[264]Wagner, S. M.& Hoegl, M. Involving suppliers in product development:insi-ghts from R&D directors and project managers. Industrial Marketing Management,2006,35(8),936-943.
[265]Wang, P., Chow, H. W.& Peck, H. K. Establishing a successful sino-foreign equity joint venture:the Singapore experience. Journal of World Business,1999, 34(3),287-305.
[266]Wang, Y., Lo, H. P.& Yang, Y. The constituents of core competencies and firm performance:evidence from high-technology firms in China. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2004,21(4),249-280.
[267]Weerawardena, J. Exploring the role of market learning capability in competitive strategy. European Journal of Marketing,2003,37(3/4),407-429.
[268]Weerawardena, J., O'Cass, A.& Julian, C. Does industry matter? Examining the role of industry structure and organizational learning in innovation and brand performance. Journal of Business Research,2006,59(1),37-45.
[269]Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 1984,5(2),171-180.
[270]Wheelwright, S. C.& Clark, K. B. Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review,1992,70(2),67-83.
[271]Winter, S. G. The satisficing principle in capability learning. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(10/11),981-996.
[272]Wong, V., Shaw, V.& Sher, P. J. Intra-firm learning in technology transfer:a study of Taiwanese information technology firms. International Journal of Innovation Management,1999,3(4),427-458.
[273]Yang, J. Knowledge integration and innovation:securing new product advantage in high technology industry. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,2005,16(1),121-135.
[274]Yin, R. K. Case study research:design and methods (3rd edition). Thousands Oaks:Sage Publications,2003.
[275]Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E.& Sapienza, H. J. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal,2001(22),587-613.
[276]Zahra, S. A.& George, G. Absorptive capacity:a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2),185-203.
[277]Zaltman, G., Duncan, R.& Holbek, J. Innovations and organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc,1973.
[278]Zander, U.& Kogut, B. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities:an empirical test. Organization Science,1995, 6(1),76-92.
[279]Zeller, C. Project teams as means of restructuring research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. Regional Studies,2002,36(3),275-289.
[280]Zollo, M.& Winter, S. G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science,2002,13(3),339-351.
[281]Zuckera, L. G.& Darby, M. R. Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Paper presented at colloquium entitled "Science, Technology and the Economy", the National Academy of Science in Irvine, CA,1996.
[282]安同良,王文翌和魏巍.中国制造业企业的技术创新：模式、动力与障碍——基于江苏省制造业企业问卷调查的实证分析.当代财经,2005(12),69-73.
[283]毕春丽.构建知识产权损害预警机制——中外知识产权案件之争的调查与思考.http://www. gmw. cn/content/2005-09/10/content_298765,2005-09-10.
[284]陈光.企业内部协同创新研究.博学位论文,西南交通大学,2005.
[285]陈国权.学习型组织的过程模型、本质特征和设计原则.中国管理科学,2002,10(04),86-94.
[286]陈国权和马萌.组织学习——现状与展望.中国管理科学,2000a,8(1),66-74.
[287]陈国权和马萌.组织学习的过程模型研究.管理科学学报,2000b,3(3), 15-23.
[288]陈国权和马萌.组织学习评价方法和学习工具的研究及在30家民营企业的应用.管理工程学报,2002,16(1),25-30.
[289]陈国权和郑红平.组织学习影响因素、学习能力与绩效关系的实证研究.管理科学学报,2005,8(1),48-61.
[290]陈劲.永续创新——企业技术创新透析.北京：科学出版社,2001.
[29l]陈劲.创新全球化——企业技术创新国际化范式.北京：经济科学出版社,2003.
[292]陈劲.从技术引进到自主创新的学习模式.科研管理,1994,15(2),31-34.
[293]陈劲,邱嘉铭和沈海华.技术学习对企业创新绩效的影响因素分析.科学学研究,2007,25(6),1223-1232.
[294]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.
[295]陈钰芬.开放式创新的机理与动态模式研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[296]程进,韩玉启和陈小文.我国技术引进创新时滞的实证分析.科研管理,2005,26(4),1-7.
[297]范保群.开放式创新——美国高技术公司创新管理新动向.中国制造业信息化,2007(5),72-74.
[298]奉继承.知识管理：理论、技术与运营.北京：中国经济出版社,2006.
[299]高建.中国企业技术创新分析.北京：清华大学出版社,1997.
[300]高展军和李垣.企业吸收能力研究阐述.科学管理研究,2005,23(6),66-69.
[301]高章存.国外组织学习能力理论比较研究.经济社会体制比较,2007(4),145-150.
[302]高章存和汤书昆.基于主体和过程二重性的企业学习能力内涵与特征探析.科技管理研究,2008(5),23-25.
[303]郭熙保和文礼朋.从技术模仿到自主创新—后发国家的技术成长之路.南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学版),2008(1),28-35.
[304]何郁冰.企业技术多样化与企业绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[305]侯杰泰,温忠麟和成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004.
[306]胡汉辉和潘安成.组织知识转移与学习能力的系统研究.管理科学学报,2006,9(3),81-87.
[307]黄芳铭.结构方程模式：理论与应用.北京：中国税务出版社,2005.
[308]蒋天颖,季伟伟和施放.制造业企业组织学习对组织绩效影响的实证研 究.科学学研究,2008(5),1046-1051.
[309]杰弗里.摩尔.公司进化论：伟大的企业如何持续创新.北京：机械工业出版社,2007.
[310]李丹.我国企业组织学习能力与绩效关系研究----基于对201家企业的实证分析.工业技术经济,2007,26(5),72-75.
[311]李正风.科学知识生产方式及其演变.博士学位论文,清华大学,2005.
[312]李正卫.动态环境条件下的组织学习与企业绩效.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2003.
[313]林嵩.结构方程模型原理及AMOS应用.武汉：华中师范大学出版社,2008.
[314]刘常勇和谢洪明.企业知识吸收能力的主要影响因素.科学学研究,2003,21(3),307-310.
[315]刘珂和和金生.从知识发酵效率看科技中介对创新的促进作用.中国地质大学学报：社会科学版,2005,5(6),11-14.
[316]罗德明.“干中学”理论评述.科研管理,1997,18(1),28-33.
[317]马力和韩静轩.中国企业建立学习型组织的思考.西安电子科技大学学报：社会科学版,2001,11(1),27-30.
[318]马庆国.管理统计：数据获取、统计原理、SPSS工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2002.
[319]迈克尔.被中断的创新.http://www. businessweekchina. com/,2009-08-09.
[320]米勒和莫里斯著；关山松,李彤,杨作兴等译.第四代研发：管理知识、技术与革新.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[321]苗文斌.基于集体知识的集群企业创新性研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[322]倪颂文.民营企业自主创新的知识产权习惯战略研究——以浙江民营企业为例.企业经济,2008,344(06),23-26.
[323]牛继舜.论组织学习能力的内涵.科技与管理,2004(5),32-34.
[324]牛继舜.论组织学习能力的构成要素.现代管理科学,2005(8),40-42.
[325]钱兆华.为什么实验方法和逻辑方法对科学特别重要7.科学技术与辩证法,2004,21(2),20-22.
[326]钱兆华.从科学的构成看科学与经验的关系——也谈“李约瑟难题”.山西师大学报(社会科学版),2003,30(1),27-31.
[327]钱兆华.经验技术和科学技术及其特点.科学.经济.社会,2001,19(2),42-46.
[328]钱兆华和钱明.技术的两个来源及其启示.科学技术与辩证法,2007,24(2),68-71.
[329]任皓和邓三鸿.知识管理的重要步骤—知识整合.情报科学,2002,20(6), 650-653.
[330]芮明杰和樊圣君.“造山”：以知识和学习为基础的企业的新逻辑.管理科学学报,2001,4(3),14-24.
[331]世界银行.中国：促进以企业为主体的创新.http://www. gemag. com. cn/ gemag/new/Article_content. asp?D_ID=8405,2009年5月14日.
[332]宋建元.成熟型大企业开展破坏性创新的机理与途径研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2005.
[333]孙海法,刘运国和方琳.案例研究的方法论.科研管理,2004,25(2),107-112.
[334]童亮.基于跨组织合作联结的复杂产品系统创新知识管理机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[335]王飞绒.基于组织间学习的技术联盟与企业创新绩效关系研究——以生物技术产业为例.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[336]王国荣.组织学习视角：公司核心竞争力与组织学习方式相关性研究.博士学位论文,复旦大学,2006.
[337]王红.企业技术战略对创新绩效的影响-基于技术学习的视角.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2005.
[338]王立生.社会资本、吸收能力对知识获取和创新绩效的影响研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[339]王铜安.重大装备制造型企业技术整合的架构与机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[340]王伟强,吴晓波和许庆瑞.技术创新的学习模式.科技管理研究,1993(5),20-23.
[341]王娅莉.影响我国基础研究投入的因素分析.http//www. sts. org. cn/fxyj/zcfx/ documents/20051213. htm.
[342]王毅和吴贵生.产学研合作中粘滞知识的成因与转移机制研究.科研管理,2001,22(6),114-121.
[343]王重鸣.心理学研究方法.北京：人民教育出版社,1990.
[344]魏江.企业技术能力：增长过程、机理与模式.博士学位论文,浙江大学,1997.
[345]温忠麟,侯杰泰和张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2),268-274.
[346]温忠麟,张雷和侯杰泰和刘红云.中介效应检验程序及其应用.心理学报,2004,36(5),614-620.
[347]吴价宝.组织学习能力测度.中国管理科学,2003,11(4),74-78.
[348]吴晓波.二次创新的周期与企业组织学习模式.管理世界,1995(3),168-172.
[349]谢洪明.市场导向、组织学习与组织绩效的关系研究.科学学研究,2005, 23(4),517-524.
[350]谢洪明,刘常勇和陈春辉.市场导向与组织绩效的关系：组织学习与创新的影响——珠三角地区企业的实证研究.管理世界,2006(2),80-94,143.
[351]谢洪明,吴隆增和王成和葛志良.组织学习的前因后果：一个新的理论框架.科学学与科学技术管理,2006,27(8),161-168.
[352]谢洪明和韩子天.组织学习与绩效的关系：创新是中介变量吗?-珠三角地区企业的实证研究及其启示.科研管理,2005,26(5),1-10.
[353]谢伟和吴贵生.技术学习的功能和来源.科研管理,2000,21(1),8-13.
[354]新华网.资源价格动荡,中国制造业如何应对.http://news. xinhuanet. com/ fortune/2009-07/16/content 11716486. htm,2009-07-16.
[355]许冠南.关系嵌入性对技术创新绩效的影响研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[356]许庆瑞,郑刚和陈劲.全面创新管理：创新管理新范式初探——理论溯源与框架.管理学报,2006,3(2),135-142.
[357]严志庆和王振江.组织学习力研究.吉林省经济管理干部学院学报,2000,14(5),10-11.
[358]阎大颖.企业能力视角下跨国并购动因的前沿理论述评.南开学报：哲学社会科学版,2006(4),106-112.
[359]杨静.供应链内企业间信任的产生机制及其对合作的影响——基于制造业企业的研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[360]余光胜.企业知识理论导向下的知识管理研究新进展.研究与发展管理,2005,17(3),70-76.
[361]余光胜.一种全新的企业理论(上)——企业知识理论.外国经济与管理,2000,22(2),8-10.
[362]原欣伟,覃正和伊景冰.国内组织学习研究的历史、现状和展望.科技管理研究,2006a,26(5),173-178.
[363]原欣伟,覃正和伊景冰.学习-绩效互动对创新和绩效影响的实证研究.科学学研究,2006b,24(6),939-944.
[364]原欣伟,覃正和伊景冰.组织中学习与绩效相互作用机理研究.科研管理,2006c,27(6),136-143.
[365]云绍辉和郑丕谔.组织学习能力评价指标体系的研究.西北工业大学学报,2007,27(1),35-38.
[366]张春宁,谢恩和李垣.企业间合作学习、控制方式、创新的关系研究.科学学研究,2006,24(5),791-797.
[367]张华和席酉民.社会资本视角下的咨询网络演化研究.运筹与管理,2009(4),138-143.
[368]张立新.组织学习能力与企业绩效关系研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[369]张伟.2006年国产手机命运分析.http://www. enet. com. cn/article/2005/1230/ A20051230488505. shtml,2005年12月30日.
[370]张忠有和鞠耀绩.“张力”的产生及其作用：从科技成果价值评价标准的变化观察新形势下科技系.学术交流,1997(1),71-73.
[371]赵晓庆.技术学习的模式.科研管理,2003,24(3),39-44.
[372]郑刚.基于TIM视角的企业技术创新过程中各要素全面协同机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[373]郑刚,何郁冰和陈劲,陶婷婷和蒋键.“中国制造”如何通过开放式自主创新提升国际竞争力——中集集团自主创新模式的案例研究.科研管理,2008,29(4),95-102.
[374]郑素丽.组织间资源对企业创新绩效的作用机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[375]郑育艺.企业的科学能力对其创新绩效的影响因素分析.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[376]中国新闻网.埃森哲“把脉”二00九年中国经济.http://www. chinanews. com. cn/cj/gncj/news/2009/01-01/1511489. shtml,2009-01-02.
[377]中经网.民营企业自主创新的知识产权习惯战略研究.http//www. cas. org. cn/xwdt/ztlml/22402. htm,2008-08-04
[378]周兰和李福刚.STI和DUI创新模式对企业创新能力的影响及其关系分析.集团经济研究,2007(07X),275.
[379]周玉泉和李垣.组织学习、能力与创新方式选择关系研究.科学学研究,2005,23(4),525-530.
[380]朱朝晖.基于开放式创新的技术学习协同与机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[2]Akgiin, A. E., Keskin, H., Byrne, J. C.& Aren, S. Emotional and learning capaility and their impact on product innovativeness and firm performance. Technovation,2007,27(9),501-513.
[3]Alavi, M.& Leidner, D. E. Review:knowledge management and knowledge management systems:conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly,2001,25(1),107-136.
[4]Alcorta, L., Tomlinson, M.& Tongliang, A. Knowledge generation and innovation in manufacturing firms in China. Industry & Innovation,2009, 16(4/5),435-461.
[5]Alegre, J.& Chiva, R. Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance:an empirical test. Technovation,2008, 28(6),315-326.
[6]Alegre, J., Lapiedra, R.& Chiva, R. A measurement scale for product innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management,2006, 9(4),333-346.
[7]Allen, T. J. Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press, 1977.
[8]Amir-Aslani, A.& Negassi, S. Is technology integration the solution to biotech-nology's low research and development productivity?. Technovation,2006, 26(5-6),573-582.
[9]Amit, R.& Schoemaker, P. J. H. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(1),33-46.
[10]Anand, V., Clark, M. A.& Zellmer-Bruhn, M. Team knowledge structures: matching task to information environment. Journal of Managerial Issues,2003, XV(1),15-31.
[11]Anders, I., Jonas, R., Alexander, S.& A B (Rami), S. Dynamic learning capability and actionable knowledge creation:clinical R&D in a pharmaceutical company. The Learning Organization,2002,9(2),65-11.
[12]Antonelli, C. Localized product innovation:the role of proximity in the lancastrian product space. Information Economics and Policy,2004,16(2), 255-274.
[13]Argyris, C. Action science and organizational learning. Journal of Managerial Psychology,1995,10(6),20-26.
[14]Argyris, C.& Schon, D. Organizational learning:a theory of action perspective. Reading, MA:Addison-Wesley.,1978.
[15]Armbruster, H., Bikfalvi, A., Kinkel, S.& Lay, G. Organizational innovation:the challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys. Technovation,2008,28(10),644-657.
[16]Arundel, A.& Kabla, I. What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy,1998,27(2),127-141.
[17]Arundel, A., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B. A.& Valeyre, A. The organisation of work and innovative performance:a comparison of the EU-15. DRUDI Working Paper Series, No. (14). Aalborg:Aalborg University,2006.
[18]Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J.& Almeida, J. G. Effects of age at entry, knowledge intensity, and imitability on international growth. The Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(5),909-924.
[19]Baba, Y., Shichijo, N.& Sedita, S. R. How do collaborations with universities affect firms'innovative performance? The role of "pasteur scientists" in the advanced materials field. Research Policy,2009,38(5),756-764.
[20]Bagozzi, R.& Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,1988,16(1),74-94.
[21]Baker, W. E.& Sinkula, J. M. the synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,1999,27(4),411-427.
[22]Balachandra, R.& Friar, J. H. Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation:a contextual framework. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,1997,44(3),276-287.
[23]Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,1991,17(1),99-120.
[24]Barney, J.& Wright, P. On becoming a strategic partner:the role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 1998,37(1),31-46.
[25]Becheikh, N., Landry, R.& Amara, N. Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector:a systematic review of the literature from 1993-2003. Technovation,2006,26(5-6),644-664.
[26]Belderbos, R., Carree, M.& Lokshin, B. Cooperative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy,2004,33(10),1477-1492.
[27]Benjamin, C., Fabienne, O.& Olivier, W. Does biotech reflect a new science-based innovation regime? Industry and Innovation,2003,10(3), 231-253.
[28]Bessant, J.& Francis, D. Using learning networks to help improve manufacturing competitiveness. Technovation,1999,19(6-7),373-381.
[29]Bidault, F., Despres, C.& Butler, C. The drivers of cooperation between buyers and suppliers for product innovation. Research Policy,1998,26(7-8),719-732.
[30]Bierly, P.& Chakrabarti, A. Generic knowledge strategies in the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter), 123-135.
[31]Bock, G., Zmud, R. W., Kim, Y.& Lee, J. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing:examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS Quarterly,2005, 29(1),87-111.
[32]Bower, G.& Hilgard, E. Theories of learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,1981.
[33]Breschi, S., Malerba, F.& Orsenigo, L. Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. The Economic Journal,2000,110(463), 388-410.
[34]Bresman, H., Birkinshaw, J.& Nobel, R. Knowledge transfer in international acquisitions. Journal of International Business Studies,1999,30(3),439-462.
[35]Brouwer, E.& Kleinknecht, A. Firm size, small business presence and sales of innovative products:a micro-econometric analysis. Small Business Economics, 1996,8(3),189-201.
[36]Calantone, R. J., Cavusgil, S. T.& Zhao, Y. Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 2002,31(6),515-524.
[37]Camison, C.& Fores, B. Knowledge absorptive capacity:new insights for its conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Business Research, In Press.
[38]Cara, J., Lundvall, B. A.& Mendon, S. The changing role of science in the innovation process:from queen to cinderella? Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2009,76(6),861-867.
[39]Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R.& Zuniga, P. Science linkages and innovation performance:an analysis on CIS-3 firms in Belgium. Working Paper, Barcelona, Spain,2007.
[40]Cegarra-Navarro, J. G. An empirical investigation of organizational learning through strategic alliances between SMEs. Journal of Strategic Marketing,2005, 13(1),3-16.
[41]Chesbrough, H. Open innovation:the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,2003.
[42]Chesbrough, H. Managing open innovation. Research Technology Management, 2004,47(1),23-26.
[43]Chipika, S.& Wilson, G. Enabling technological learning among light engineering SMEs in Zimbabwe through networking. Technovation,2006,26(8), 969-979.
[44]Chiva, R., Alegre, J.& Lapiedra, R. Measuring organisational learning capability among the workforce. International Journal of Manpower,2007,28(3/4), 224-242.
[45]Christensen, J. F. Whither core competency for the large corporation in an open innovation world? in H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke & J.West (Eds.), Open innovation:researching a new paradigm, New York:Oxford University Press Inc.,2006.
[46]Churchill Jr, G. A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR),1979,16(1),64-73.
[47]Clark, K. B.& Fujimoto, T. Product development performance:strategy, organi-zation, and management in the world auto industry. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1991.
[48]Cockburn, I. M.& Henderson, R. M. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. The Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46(2),157-182.
[49]Cohen, W. M.& Levinthal, D. A. Innovation and learning:the two faces of R&D. The Economic Journal,1989,99(397),569-596.
[50]Cohen, W. M.& Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1), 128-152.
[51]Cohen, W. M.& Levinthal, D. A. Fortune favors the prepared firm. Management Science,1994,40(2),227-251.
[52]Cooper, R.& Kleinschmidt, E. New products:what separates winners from losers? Journal of Product Innovation,1987(4),169-184.
[53]Costa, I.& De, Q. S. Foreign direct investment and technological capabilities in Brazilian industry. Research Policy,2002,31(8-9),1431-1443.
[54]Court, A. W., Culley, S. J.& McMahon, C. A. The influence of information technology in new product development:observations of an empirical study of the access of engineering design information. International Journal of Information Management,1997,17(5),359-375.
[55]Criscuolo, C., Haskel, J. E.& Slaughter, M. J. Global engagement and the innovation activities of firms. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2010,28(2),191-202.
[56]Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W.& White, R. E. An organizational learning framework:from intuition to institution. The Academy of Management Review, 1999,24(3),522-537.
[57]Cummings, J. L.& Teng, B. S. Transferring R&D knowledge:the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2003,20(1-2),39-68.
[58]Daft, R. L.& Weick, K. E. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. The Academy of Management Review,1984,9(2),284-295.
[59]De Boer, M., van den Bosch, F. A. J.& Volberda, H. W. Managing organizational knowledge integration in the emerging multimedia complex. Journal of Management Studies,1999,36(3),379-398.
[60]De Clercq, D.& Sapienza, H. J. Effects of relational capital and commitment on venture capitalists'perception of portfolio company performance. Journal of Business Venturing,2006,21(3),326-347.
[61]Debackere, K.& Veugelers, R. The role of academic technology transfer organizations in improving industry science links. Research Policy,2005,34(3), 321-342.
[62]Decarolis, D. M.& Deeds, D. L. The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance:an empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(10),953-968.
[63]Demsetz, H. The theory of firm revisited. Journal of Law, Economics,& Organization,1988,4(1),141-161.
[64]Devinney, T. M. How well do patents measure new product activity?. Economics Letters,1993,41(4),447-450.
[65]Dodgson, M. Organizational learning:a review of some literatures. Organization studies,1993,14(3),375-394.
[66]Dosi, G., Nelson, R. R.& Winter, S. G. The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[67]Drongelen, I. C. K., de Weerd-Nederhof, P. C.& Fisscher, O. A. M. Describing the issues of knowledge management in R&D:towards a communication and analysis tool. R&D Management,1996,26(3),213-230.
[68]Drucker, P. Post-capitalist society. New York, NY:Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993.
[69]Duarte, D.& Snyder, N. From experience:facilitating global organizational learning in product development at Whirlpool corporation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1997,14(1),48-55.
[70]Dunn, S. C., Seaker, R. F.& Waller, M. A. Latent variables in business logistics research:scale development and validation. Journal of Business Logistics,1994, 15(2),145-172.
[71]Dyer, J. H. Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(4), 271-291.
[72]Easterby-Smith, M. Disciplines of organizational learning:contributions and critiques. Human Relations,1997,50(9),1085-1113.
[73]Easterby-Smith, M., Gra, M., Antonacopoulou, E.& Ferdinand, J. Absorptive capacity:a process perspective. Management Learning,2008,39(5),483-501.
[74]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. The Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4),532-550.
[75]Fabrizio, K. R. Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation. Research Policy,2009,38(38),255-267.
[76]Faems, D., van Looy, B.& Debackere, K. Interorganizational collaboration and innovation:toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2005,22(3),238-250.
[77]Fiol, C. M.& Lyles, M. A. Organizational learning. The Academy of Management Review,1985,10(4),803-813.
[78]Fleck, J. Informal information flow and the nature of expertise in financial services. International Journal of Technology Management,1996,11(1/2), 104-128.
[79]Fleming, L.& Sorenson, O. Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(8/9),909-928.
[80]Fleming, L.& Sorenson, O. Technology as a complex adaptive system:evidence from patent data. Research Policy,2001,30(7),1019-1039.
[81]Flor, M. L.& Oltra, M. J. Identification of innovating firms through technological innovation indicators:an application to the Spanish ceramic tile industry. Research Policy,2004,33(2),323-336.
[82]Forsman, M.& Solitander, N. Network knowledge versus cluster knowledge:the gordian knot of knowledge transfer concepts, http://dhanken.shh.fi/dspace/ handle/10227/180.
[83]Fosfuri, A.& Tribo, J. A. Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega,2008,36(2), 173-187.
[84]Foster, R. N. Timing technological transition.in M. Horwitch (Eds.), Technology in the Modern Corporation:A Strategic Perspective, New York:Pergamon Press, 1986a.
[85]Foster, R. N. Innovation:the attacker's advantage. New York:Summit Books, 1986b.
[86]Fowler, F. J. Survey research methods. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.,1988.
[87]Franz, T., Lehner, P.& Kaufmann, A. Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation,2009,29(1),59-71.
[88]Freel, M. S. Strategy and structure in innovative manufacturing smes:the case of an English region. Small Business Economics,2000,15(1),27-45.
[89]Freel, M. S. Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research Policy,2003,32(5),751-770.
[90]Frenz, M.& Ietto-Gillies, G. The impact on innovation performance of different sources of knowledge:evidence from the UK community innovation survey. Research Policy,2009,38(7),1125-1135.
[91]Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E.& Stern, S.The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy,2002,31(6),899-933.
[92]Gales, L.& Mansour-Cole, D. User involvement in innovation projects:toward an information processing model. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,1995,12(1-2),77-109.
[93]Garud, R.& Nayyar, P. R. Transformative capacity:continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(5), 365-385.
[94]Garvin, D. Building a learning organization. Harv Bus Rev,1993,71(4),78-91.
[95]Geiger, S. W.& Makri, M.. Exploration and exploitation innovation processes: the role of organizational slack in R&D intensive firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,2006,17(1),97-108.
[96]Gherardi, S.& Nicolini, D. The organizational learning of safety in communities of practice. Journal of Management Inquiry,2000,9(1),7-18.
[97]Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P.& Zedeck, S. Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. New York:Freeman, San Francisco, CA,1981.
[98]Gibbons, M.& Johnston, R. The roles of science in technological innovation. Research Policy,1974,3(3),220-242.
[99]Glynn, M. A. Innovative genius:a framework for relating individual and organizational intelligences to innovation. The Academy of Management Review,1996,21(4),1081-1111.
[100]Goh, S. C. Toward a learning organization:the strategic building blocks. SAM Advanced Management Journal,1998,63,15-22.
[101]Goh, S. C.& Ryan, P. J. Learning capability, organization factors and firm performance. Paper presented at Third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Athens, Greece,2002.
[102]Goh, S.& Richards, G.. Benchmarking the learning capability of organizations. European Management Journal,1997,15(5),575-583.
[103]Gorga, E.& Halberstam, M. Knowledge inputs, legal institutions and firm structure:towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Northwestern University Law Review,2007,101(3),1123-1206.
[104]Grant, R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996a,17(Winter Special Issue),109-122.
[105]Grant, R. M. The knowledge-based view of the firm.in C. W. Choo & N. Bontis(Eds.), The Strategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, New York:Oxford University Press,2002.
[106]Grant, R. M. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science,1996b, 7(4),375-387.
[107]Grant, R. M.& Baden-Fuller, C. A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration. Academy of Management Journal,1995,17-21.
[108]Greve, H. R. Interorganizational learning and heterogeneous social structure. Organization Studies,2005,26(7),1025-1047.
[109]Greve, H.R. Performance, aspirations, and risky organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly,1998,43(1),58-86.
[110]Hagedoorn, J. & Cloodt, M. Measuring innovative performance:is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy,2003,32(8), 1365-1379.
[111]Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L.& Black, W. C. Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice-Hall,1998.
[112]Hall, R.& Andriani, P. Managing knowledge for innovation. Long Range Planning,2002,35(1),29-48.
[113]Hatcher, L. A step-by-step approach to using the SAS(r) system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC, USA:SAS Institute Inc., 1994
[114]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(1),9-30.
[115]Herrera, L., Mu, D. M.& Nieto, M. Mobility of public researchers, scientific knowledge transfer, and the firm's innovation process. Journal of Business Research,2010,63(5),510-518.
[116]Hienerth, C. The commercialization of user innovations:the development of the rodeo kayak industry. R&D Management,2006,36(3),273-294.
[117]Holsapple, C. W.& Joshi, K. D. Organizational knowledge resources. Decision Support Systems,2001,31(1),39-54.
[118]Hong, Y. Coordinating product development with suppliers and performance impacts. Ph.D.dissertation, Arizona State University,2007.
[119]Hoopes, D. G.& Postrel, S. Shared knowledge, "glitches," and product development performance. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(9), 837-865.
[120]Hsu, Y. H.& Fang, W. Intellectual capital and new product development performance:the mediating role of organizational learning capability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2009,76(5),664-677.
[121]Hu, J. L.& Hsu, Y. H. The more interactive, the more innovative a case study of South Korean cellular phone manufacturers. Technovation,2008,28(1-2), 75-87.
[122]Huber, G. P. Organizational learning:the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science,1991,2(1),88-115.
[123]Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F.& Knight, G. A. Innovativeness:its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management,2004, 33(5),429-438.
[124]Hult, G. T. M., Ketchen, D. J.& Arrfelt, M. Strategic supply chain management: improving performance through a culture of competitiveness and knowledge development. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(10),1035-1052.
[125]Hult, G. T.& Ferrell, O. C. Global organizational learning capacity in purchasing:construct and measurement. Journal of Business Research,1997, 40(2),97-111.
[126]Hurley, R. F.& Hult, G. T. Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning:an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing,1998, 62(3),42-54.
[127]Iansiti, M.& West, J. Technology integration:turning great research into great products. Harvard Business Review,1997,75(3),69-79.
[128]Iansiti, M.& West, J. From physics to function:an empirical study of research and development performance in the semiconductor industry. The Journal of Product Innovation Management,1999,16(4),385-399.
[129]Ireland, D. C.& Hine, D. Harmonizing science and business agendas for growth in new biotechnology firms:case comparisons from five countries. Technovation,2007,27(11),676-692.
[130]Itami, H.& Numagami, T. Dynamic interaction between strategy and technology. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13,119-135.
[131]Jansen, J. U., Van, D. E.& Volberda, H. E. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity:how do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(6),999-1015.
[132]Jaworski, B. J.& Kohli, A. K. Market orientation:antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing,1993,57(3),53-70.
[133]Jensen, M. B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E.& Lundvall, B. A. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy,2007,36(5),680-693.
[134]Jensen, M., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E.& Lundvall, B. A. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Working paper, Institute for Erhvervsstudier, Aalborg University,2004.
[135]Jerez-G6mez, P., Cespedes-Lorente, J.& Valle-Cabrera, R. Organizational learning capability:a proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research Special Section:The Nonprofit Marketing Landscape,2005,58(6),715-725.
[136]Johannessen, J. A., Olsen, B.& Olaisen, J. Aspects of innovation theory based on knowledge management. International Journal of Information Management, 1999,19(2),121-139.
[137]Johnsen, I. H. G.& Isaksen, A. Innovation modes, geography of knowledge flows and social capital. Paper presented at DRUID-DIME Academy Winter 2009 PhD Conference,2009.
[138]Johnsen, T. E. Supplier involvement in new product development and innovation:taking stock and looking to the future. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management,2009,15(3),187-197.
[139]Johnston, W. J., Leach, M. P.& Liu, A. H. Theory testing using case studies in business-to-business research. Industrial Marketing Management,1999,28(3), 201-213.
[140]Juniper, J. Universities and collaboration within complex, uncertain knowledge-based economies. Critical Perspectives on Accounting,2002,13(5-6),747-778.
[141]Kakabadse, N. K., Kakabadse, A.& Kouzmin, A. Reviewing the knowledge management literature:towards a taxonomy. Journal of Knowledge Management,2003,7(4),75-91.
[142]Katila, R. New product search over time:past ideas in their prime? Academy of Management Journal,2002,45(5),995-1010.
[143]Kaufmann, A.& Todtling, F. Science-industry interaction in the process of innovation:the importance of boundary-crossing between systems. Research Policy,2001,30(5),791-804.
[144]Kelley, M. R.& Brooks, H. External learning opportunities and the diffusion of process innovations to small firms:the case of programmable automation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,1991,39(1-2),103-125.
[145]Kessler, E. H., Bierly, P. E.& Gopalakrishnan, S. Internal vs. external learning in new product development:effects on speed, costs and competitive advantage. R&D Management,2000,30(3),213-224.
[146]Kim, L. Crisis construction and organizational learning:capability building in catching-up at Hyundai motor. Organization Science,1998,9(4),506-521.
[147]Klepper, S. T. Industry life cycles. Ind Corp Change,1997,6(1),145-182.
[148]Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R.& Winter, S. G. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy,1995,24(2),185-205.
[149]Kline, S.& Rosenberg, N. An overview of innovation.in R. Landau & N. Rosenberg(Eds.), The Positive Sum Game., Washington, DC:National Academy Press,1986.
[150]Koc, T.& Ceylan, C. Factors impacting the innovative capacity in large-scale companies. Technovation,2007,27(3),105-114.
[151]Kogut, B.& Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replications of technology. Organization Science,1992,3(3),383-397.
[152]Lane, P. J.& Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5),461-477.
[153]Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R.& Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity:a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4),833-863.
[154]Lane, P. J., Koka, B.& Pathak, S. A thematic analysis and critical assessment of absorptive capacity research. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings, Denver,2002.
[155]Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E.& Lyles, M. A. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal,2001, 22(12),1139-1161.
[156]Lang, J. R.& Lockhart, D. E. Increased environmental uncertainty and changes in board linkage patterns. The Academy of Management Journal,1990,33(1), 106-128.
[157]Laursen, K.& Foss, N. J. New HRM practices, complementarities, and the impact on innovation performance. Cambridge Journal of Economics,2003, 27(2),243-263.
[158]Laursen, K.& Salter, A. Open for innovation:the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2),131-150.
[159]Lei, D., Slocum, J. W.& Pitts, R. A. Designing organizations for competitive advantage:the power of unlearning and learning. Organizational Dynamics, 1999,27(3),24-38.
[160]Leonard-Barton, D. Wellsprings of knowledge:building and sustaining the sources of innovation:Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA,1995
[161]Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13,111-125.
[162]Levitt, B.& March, J. G. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 1988,14(1),319-340.
[163]Li, S. T.& Tsai, M. H. A dynamic taxonomy for managing knowledge assets. Technovation,2009,29(4),284-298.
[164]Liao, S., Fei, W. C.& Liu, C. T. Relationships between knowledge inertia, organizational learning and organization innovation. Technovation,2008,28(4), 183-195.
[165]Lieberman, M. B.& Asaba, S. Why do firms imitate each other? Academy of Management Review,2006,31(2),366-385.
[166]Linton, J. D. The role of relationships and reciprocity in the implementation of process innovation. Engineering Management Journal,2000,12(3),34-38.
[167]Lorenz, E. European trend chart on innovation:developing indicators for skills and innovation. Paper presented at Trend Chart Policy Workshop,2004.
[168]Lorenz, E.& Valeyre, A. Organisational forms and innovative performance:a comparison of the EU-15.in E. Lorenz & B. A. Lundvall(Eds.), How Europe's Economies Learn:Coordinating Competing Models:Oxford University Press, 2006.
[169]Love, J. H.& Roper, S. Organizing innovation:complementarities between cross-functional teams. Technovation,2009,29(3),192-203.
[170]Lundvall, B. A. Interactive learning, social capital and economic performance. Paper presented at Advancing Knowledge and the Knowledge Economy, Conference organized by EC, OECD and NSF-US, Washington,2005.
[171]Lundvall, B. A. innovation as an interactive process:from user-producer interaction to the national innovation systems.in G. Dosi, C. Freeman & R. R. Nelson et al. (Eds.), Technical change and economic theory, London:Pinter Publishers,1988.
[172]Lundvall, B. A. Product innovation and user-producer interaction. Aalborg, Denmark:Aalborg University Press,1985.
[173]Lundvall, B. A.& Johnson, B. The learning economy. Industry & Innovation, 1994,1(2),23-42.
[174]Lundvall, B. A.& Vinding, A. L. Product innovation and economic theory. Report for the Paris workshop meeting,2003.
[175]Lundvall, B. A., Lorenz, E.& Drejer, I. How europe's economies learn. Report for the Loc Nis Policy Workshop,2004.
[176]Luthje, C. Customer as co-inventors:an empirical analysis of the antecedents of customer-driven innovations in the field of medical equipment. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the European Marketing Academy, Glasgow, 2003.
[177]Mahoney, J. T.& Pandian, J. R. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1992, 13(5),363-380.
[178]Malerba, F. Learning by firms and incremental technical change. The Economic Journal,1992,102(413),845-859.
[179]Malerba, F.& Orsenigo, L. Knowledge, innovative activities and industrial evolution. Ind Corp Change,2000,9(2),289-314.
[180]Mansfield, E. Academic research and industrial innovation. Research Policy, 1991,20(1),1-12.
[181]March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1),71-87.
[182]McKee, D. An organizational learning approach to product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1992,9(3),232-245.
[183]Meyer-Krahmer, F.& Schmoch, U. Science-based technologies: university-industry interactions in four fields. Research Policy,1998,27(8), 835-851.
[184]Milliken, F. J. Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment:state, effect, and response uncertainty. The Academy of Management Review,1987, 12(1),133-143.
[185]Miotti, L.& Sachwald, F. Co-operative R&D:why and with whom? An integr-ated framework of analysis. Research Policy,2003,32(8),1481-1499.
[186]Mohr, L. B. Determinants of innovation in organizations. The American Political Science Review,1969,63(1),111-126.
[187]Montalvo, C. What triggers change and innovation?. Technovation,2006,26(3), 312-323.
[188]Moorman, C.& Miner, A. S. The impact of organizational memory on new product performance and creativity. Journal of Marketing Research,1997,34(1), 91-106.
[189]Murovec, N.& Prodan, I. Absorptive capacity, its determinants, and influence on innovation output:cross-cultural validation of the structural model. Technovation,2009,29(12),859-872.
[190]Nelson, R. R. The role of knowledge in R&D efficiency. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,1982,97(3),453-470.
[191]Nelson, R. R. The market economy, and the scientific commons. Research Policy,2004,33(3),455-471.
[192]Nevis, E. C., Anthony, J. D.& Gould, J. M. Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review,1995,36(2),73-85.
[193]Newell, A.& Simon, H. A. Human problem solving:Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall,1972.
[194]Nieto, M.& Quevedo, P. Absorptive capacity, technological opportunity, knowledge spillovers, and innovative effort. Technovation,2005,25(10), 1141-1157.
[195]Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Orga-nization Science,1994,5(1),14-37.
[196]Nonaka, I.& Takeuchi, H. The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press,1995.
[197]Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P., Borucki, C. C.& Konno, N. Organizational knowledge creation theory:a first comprehensive test. International Business Review,1994, 3(4),337-351.
[198]OECD. OECD reviews of innovation policy:China:OECD Publishing,2008
[199]OECD. The knowledge-based economy. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/8/ 1913021
[200]Patrashkova, R. R.& McComb, S. A. Exploring why more communication is not better:insights from a computational model of cross-functional teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2004,21(1-2),83-114.
[201]Pavitt, K. The social shaping of the national science base. Research Policy,1998, 27(8),793-805.
[202]Pavitt, K. Technologies, products and organization in the innovating firm:what Adam Smith tells us and Joseph Schumpeter doesn't. Ind Corp Change,1998, 7(3),433-452.
[203]Penrose, E. T. The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford:Basil Blackwell, 1959.
[204]Peteraf, M. A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage:a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(3),179-191.
[205]Pisano, G. The development factory:unlocking the potential of process innovation. Boston, Massachusetts:Harvard Business School Press,1997
[206]Polanyi, M. Tacit knowing:its bearing on some problems of philosophy. Reviews of Modern Physics,1962,34(4),601-616.
[207]Polanyi, M. Personal knowledge. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.,1958.
[208]Polt, W., Rammer, C., Gassler, H., Schibany, A.& Schartinger, D. Benchmarking industry-science relations:the role of framework conditions. Science and Public Policy,2001,28(4),247-258.
[209]Popadiuk, S.& Choo, C. W. Innovation and knowledge creation:how are these concepts related? International Journal of Information Management,2006,26(4), 302-312.
[210]Porter, M. E. Competitive strategy. New York:Free Press,1980.
[211]Prieto, I. M. Assessing the impact of learning capability on business performance:empirical evidence from Spain. Management Learning,2006, 37(4),499-522.
[212]Purser, R. E., Pasmore, W. A.& Tenkasi, R. V. The influence of deliberations on learning in new product development teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,1992,9(1),1-28.
[213]Ras-Vidal, D. Learning to innovate. The ESST MA dissertation, University of Oslo/Aalborg University,2006.
[214]Real, J. C., Leal, A.& Rold, J. L. Information technology as a determinant of organizational learning and technological distinctive competencies. Industrial Marketing Management,2006,35(4),505-521.
[215]Ren, R. Learning by firms and technological innovation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles,2005.
[216]Rodgers, P. A.& Clarkson, P. J. Knowledge usage in new product development (NPD). Paper presented at IDATER 1998 Conference, Loughborough: Loughborough University,1998.
[217]Rosenberg, N. Uncertainty and technological change.in R. Landau, T. Taylor & G. Wright(Eds.), The Mosaic of Economic Growth, Stanford:Stanford University Press,1996.
[218]Rosenberg, N. Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research Policy,1990,19(2),165-174.
[219]Rosenberg, N.& Nelson, R. R. American universities and technical advance in industry. Research Policy,1994,23(3),323-348.
[220]Rosenkopf, L.& Nerkar, A. Beyond local search:boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(4),287-306.
[221]Rothwell, R. Successful industrial innovation:critical factors for the 1990s. R&D Management,1992,22(3),221-240.
[222]Santarelli, E.& Piergiovanni, R. Analyzing literature-based innovation output indicators:the Italian experience. Research Policy,1996,25(5),689-711.
[223]Schmidt, T. What determines absorptive capacity. Paper presented at the DRUID Tenth Anniversary Summer Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark,2005.
[224]Segarra-Blasco, A.& Arauzo-Carod, J. Sources of innovation and industry-university interaction:evidence from Spanish firms. Research Policy, 2008,37(8),1283-1295.
[225]Shavelson, R. J.& Towne, L. Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,2002.
[226]Shefer, D.& Frenkel, A. R&D, firm size and innovation:an empirical analysis. Technovation,2005,25(1),25-32.
[227]Simonin, B. L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(7),595-623.
[228]Slater, S. F.& Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization. The Journal of Marketing,1995,59(3),63-74.
[229]Sobrero, M.& Roberts, E. B. Strategic management of supplier-manufacturer relations in new product development. Research Policy,2002,31(1),159-182.
[230]Sobrero, M.& Roberts, E. B. The trade-off between efficiency and learning in interorganizational relationships for product development. Management Science, 2001,47(4),493-511.
[231]Solow, R. M. Learning from learning by doing:lessons for economic growth. Stanford:CA:Stanford University Press,1997.
[232]Song, M.& Swink, M. Marketing-manufacturing joint involvement across stages of new product development:effects on the success of radical vs. incremental innovations. Paper presented at Academy of Management Proceedings,2002.
[233]Song, M., Droge, C., Hanvanich, S.& Calantone, R. Marketing and technology resource complementarity:an analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(3),259-276.
[234]Sorenson, O.& Fleming, L. Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Research Policy,2004,33(10),1615-1634.
[235]Sparrow, J. Knowledge management in small firms. Knowledge and Process Management,2001,8(1),3-16.
[236]Spender, J. C. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue),45-62.
[237]Spender, J. C.& Grant, R. M. Knowledge and the firm:overview. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17 (Winter Special Issue),5-9.
[238]Subramaniam, M. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(3),450-463.
[239]Subramaniam, M.& Venkatraman, N. Determinants of transnational new product development capability:testing the influence of transferring and deploying tacit overseas knowledge. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(4), 359-378.
[240]Sun, Y. Sources of innovation in China's manufacturing sector:imported or developed in-house? Environment and Planning,2002,34,1059-1072.
[241]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(SUPPL. WINTER),27-43.
[242]Takeishi, A. Bridging inter-and intra-firm boundaries:management of supplier involvement in automobile product development. Strategic Management Journal, 2001,22(5),403-433.
[243]Tan, K., Kannan, V. R., Handfield, R. B.& Ghosh, S. Supply chain management: an empirical study of its impact on performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,1999,19(10),1034-1052.
[244]Teece, D. A.& Pisano, G. A. The dynamic capabilities of firms:an introduction. Industrial and corporate change,1994,3(3),537-556.
[245]Teece, D. J. Firm organization, industrial structure, and technological innovation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,1996,31(2),193-224.
[246]Teece, D., Pisano, G.& Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic manage-ment. Strategic management journal,1997,18(7),509-533.
[247]Therin, F. Organizational learning and innovation in high-tech small firms. Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii,2003.
[248]Tidd, J. Innovation management in context:environment, organization and performance. International Journal of Management Reviews,2001,3(3), 169-183.
[249]Tidd, J., Bessant, J.& Pavitt, K.著；陈劲,龚焱和金珺译.创新管理.北京：清华大学出版社,2002.
[250]Tilton, J. E. International diffusion of technology:the case of semiconductors. Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press,1971.
[251]Todorova, G.& Durisin, B. Absorptive capacity:valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review,2007,32(3),774-786.
[252]Todtling, F., Lehner, P.& Kaufmann, A. Do different types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge interactions? Technovation,2009,29(1),59-71.
[253]Tucker, L.& Lewis, C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika,1973,38(1),1-10.
[254]Tushman, M. L.& Anderson, P. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986,31(3), 439-465.
[255]Ulrich, D., Von, G. M.& Jick, T. High-impact learning:building and diffusing learning capability. Organizational Dynamics,1993,22(2),52-66.
[256]Valentin, F.& Jensen, R. L. Reaping the fruits of science:comparing exploitations of a scientific breakthrough in European innovation systems. Economic Systems Research,2002,14(4),363-388.
[257]Van den Bosch, F. A. J., van Wijk, R.& Volberda, H. W. Absorptive capacity: antecedents, models and outcomes. Report for Erim Research In Management (No.ERS-2003-035-STR),2003.
[258]Vera, D.& Crossan, M. Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review,2004,29(2),222-240.
[259]Verona, G. A resource-based view of product development. The Academy of Management Review,1999,24(1),132-142.
[260]Von Hippel, E. The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process. Research Policy,1976,5(3),212-239.
[261]Von Hippel, E. The sources of innovation. New York:Oxford University Press, 1988.
[262]Von Hippel, E. Lead users:a source of novel product concepts. Management Science,1986,32(7),791-805.
[263]Von Hippel, E.& Schrader, S. "managed" informal information trading:the oil scout system in oil exploration firms. International Journal of Technology Management,1996,11(1/2),207-218.
[264]Wagner, S. M.& Hoegl, M. Involving suppliers in product development:insi-ghts from R&D directors and project managers. Industrial Marketing Management,2006,35(8),936-943.
[265]Wang, P., Chow, H. W.& Peck, H. K. Establishing a successful sino-foreign equity joint venture:the Singapore experience. Journal of World Business,1999, 34(3),287-305.
[266]Wang, Y., Lo, H. P.& Yang, Y. The constituents of core competencies and firm performance:evidence from high-technology firms in China. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2004,21(4),249-280.
[267]Weerawardena, J. Exploring the role of market learning capability in competitive strategy. European Journal of Marketing,2003,37(3/4),407-429.
[268]Weerawardena, J., O'Cass, A.& Julian, C. Does industry matter? Examining the role of industry structure and organizational learning in innovation and brand performance. Journal of Business Research,2006,59(1),37-45.
[269]Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 1984,5(2),171-180.
[270]Wheelwright, S. C.& Clark, K. B. Creating project plans to focus product development. Harvard Business Review,1992,70(2),67-83.
[271]Winter, S. G. The satisficing principle in capability learning. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(10/11),981-996.
[272]Wong, V., Shaw, V.& Sher, P. J. Intra-firm learning in technology transfer:a study of Taiwanese information technology firms. International Journal of Innovation Management,1999,3(4),427-458.
[273]Yang, J. Knowledge integration and innovation:securing new product advantage in high technology industry. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,2005,16(1),121-135.
[274]Yin, R. K. Case study research:design and methods (3rd edition). Thousands Oaks:Sage Publications,2003.
[275]Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E.& Sapienza, H. J. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal,2001(22),587-613.
[276]Zahra, S. A.& George, G. Absorptive capacity:a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2),185-203.
[277]Zaltman, G., Duncan, R.& Holbek, J. Innovations and organizations. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc,1973.
[278]Zander, U.& Kogut, B. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities:an empirical test. Organization Science,1995, 6(1),76-92.
[279]Zeller, C. Project teams as means of restructuring research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. Regional Studies,2002,36(3),275-289.
[280]Zollo, M.& Winter, S. G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science,2002,13(3),339-351.
[281]Zuckera, L. G.& Darby, M. R. Star scientists and institutional transformation: patterns of invention and innovation in the formation of the biotechnology industry. Paper presented at colloquium entitled "Science, Technology and the Economy", the National Academy of Science in Irvine, CA,1996.
[282]安同良,王文翌和魏巍.中国制造业企业的技术创新：模式、动力与障碍——基于江苏省制造业企业问卷调查的实证分析.当代财经,2005(12),69-73.
[283]毕春丽.构建知识产权损害预警机制——中外知识产权案件之争的调查与思考.http://www. gmw. cn/content/2005-09/10/content_298765,2005-09-10.
[284]陈光.企业内部协同创新研究.博学位论文,西南交通大学,2005.
[285]陈国权.学习型组织的过程模型、本质特征和设计原则.中国管理科学,2002,10(04),86-94.
[286]陈国权和马萌.组织学习——现状与展望.中国管理科学,2000a,8(1),66-74.
[287]陈国权和马萌.组织学习的过程模型研究.管理科学学报,2000b,3(3), 15-23.
[288]陈国权和马萌.组织学习评价方法和学习工具的研究及在30家民营企业的应用.管理工程学报,2002,16(1),25-30.
[289]陈国权和郑红平.组织学习影响因素、学习能力与绩效关系的实证研究.管理科学学报,2005,8(1),48-61.
[290]陈劲.永续创新——企业技术创新透析.北京：科学出版社,2001.
[29l]陈劲.创新全球化——企业技术创新国际化范式.北京：经济科学出版社,2003.
[292]陈劲.从技术引进到自主创新的学习模式.科研管理,1994,15(2),31-34.
[293]陈劲,邱嘉铭和沈海华.技术学习对企业创新绩效的影响因素分析.科学学研究,2007,25(6),1223-1232.
[294]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.
[295]陈钰芬.开放式创新的机理与动态模式研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[296]程进,韩玉启和陈小文.我国技术引进创新时滞的实证分析.科研管理,2005,26(4),1-7.
[297]范保群.开放式创新——美国高技术公司创新管理新动向.中国制造业信息化,2007(5),72-74.
[298]奉继承.知识管理：理论、技术与运营.北京：中国经济出版社,2006.
[299]高建.中国企业技术创新分析.北京：清华大学出版社,1997.
[300]高展军和李垣.企业吸收能力研究阐述.科学管理研究,2005,23(6),66-69.
[301]高章存.国外组织学习能力理论比较研究.经济社会体制比较,2007(4),145-150.
[302]高章存和汤书昆.基于主体和过程二重性的企业学习能力内涵与特征探析.科技管理研究,2008(5),23-25.
[303]郭熙保和文礼朋.从技术模仿到自主创新—后发国家的技术成长之路.南京大学学报(哲学.人文科学.社会科学版),2008(1),28-35.
[304]何郁冰.企业技术多样化与企业绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[305]侯杰泰,温忠麟和成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004.
[306]胡汉辉和潘安成.组织知识转移与学习能力的系统研究.管理科学学报,2006,9(3),81-87.
[307]黄芳铭.结构方程模式：理论与应用.北京：中国税务出版社,2005.
[308]蒋天颖,季伟伟和施放.制造业企业组织学习对组织绩效影响的实证研 究.科学学研究,2008(5),1046-1051.
[309]杰弗里.摩尔.公司进化论：伟大的企业如何持续创新.北京：机械工业出版社,2007.
[310]李丹.我国企业组织学习能力与绩效关系研究----基于对201家企业的实证分析.工业技术经济,2007,26(5),72-75.
[311]李正风.科学知识生产方式及其演变.博士学位论文,清华大学,2005.
[312]李正卫.动态环境条件下的组织学习与企业绩效.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2003.
[313]林嵩.结构方程模型原理及AMOS应用.武汉：华中师范大学出版社,2008.
[314]刘常勇和谢洪明.企业知识吸收能力的主要影响因素.科学学研究,2003,21(3),307-310.
[315]刘珂和和金生.从知识发酵效率看科技中介对创新的促进作用.中国地质大学学报：社会科学版,2005,5(6),11-14.
[316]罗德明.“干中学”理论评述.科研管理,1997,18(1),28-33.
[317]马力和韩静轩.中国企业建立学习型组织的思考.西安电子科技大学学报：社会科学版,2001,11(1),27-30.
[318]马庆国.管理统计：数据获取、统计原理、SPSS工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2002.
[319]迈克尔.被中断的创新.http://www. businessweekchina. com/,2009-08-09.
[320]米勒和莫里斯著；关山松,李彤,杨作兴等译.第四代研发：管理知识、技术与革新.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[321]苗文斌.基于集体知识的集群企业创新性研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[322]倪颂文.民营企业自主创新的知识产权习惯战略研究——以浙江民营企业为例.企业经济,2008,344(06),23-26.
[323]牛继舜.论组织学习能力的内涵.科技与管理,2004(5),32-34.
[324]牛继舜.论组织学习能力的构成要素.现代管理科学,2005(8),40-42.
[325]钱兆华.为什么实验方法和逻辑方法对科学特别重要7.科学技术与辩证法,2004,21(2),20-22.
[326]钱兆华.从科学的构成看科学与经验的关系——也谈“李约瑟难题”.山西师大学报(社会科学版),2003,30(1),27-31.
[327]钱兆华.经验技术和科学技术及其特点.科学.经济.社会,2001,19(2),42-46.
[328]钱兆华和钱明.技术的两个来源及其启示.科学技术与辩证法,2007,24(2),68-71.
[329]任皓和邓三鸿.知识管理的重要步骤—知识整合.情报科学,2002,20(6), 650-653.
[330]芮明杰和樊圣君.“造山”：以知识和学习为基础的企业的新逻辑.管理科学学报,2001,4(3),14-24.
[331]世界银行.中国：促进以企业为主体的创新.http://www. gemag. com. cn/ gemag/new/Article_content. asp?D_ID=8405,2009年5月14日.
[332]宋建元.成熟型大企业开展破坏性创新的机理与途径研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2005.
[333]孙海法,刘运国和方琳.案例研究的方法论.科研管理,2004,25(2),107-112.
[334]童亮.基于跨组织合作联结的复杂产品系统创新知识管理机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[335]王飞绒.基于组织间学习的技术联盟与企业创新绩效关系研究——以生物技术产业为例.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[336]王国荣.组织学习视角：公司核心竞争力与组织学习方式相关性研究.博士学位论文,复旦大学,2006.
[337]王红.企业技术战略对创新绩效的影响-基于技术学习的视角.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2005.
[338]王立生.社会资本、吸收能力对知识获取和创新绩效的影响研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[339]王铜安.重大装备制造型企业技术整合的架构与机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[340]王伟强,吴晓波和许庆瑞.技术创新的学习模式.科技管理研究,1993(5),20-23.
[341]王娅莉.影响我国基础研究投入的因素分析.http//www. sts. org. cn/fxyj/zcfx/ documents/20051213. htm.
[342]王毅和吴贵生.产学研合作中粘滞知识的成因与转移机制研究.科研管理,2001,22(6),114-121.
[343]王重鸣.心理学研究方法.北京：人民教育出版社,1990.
[344]魏江.企业技术能力：增长过程、机理与模式.博士学位论文,浙江大学,1997.
[345]温忠麟,侯杰泰和张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2),268-274.
[346]温忠麟,张雷和侯杰泰和刘红云.中介效应检验程序及其应用.心理学报,2004,36(5),614-620.
[347]吴价宝.组织学习能力测度.中国管理科学,2003,11(4),74-78.
[348]吴晓波.二次创新的周期与企业组织学习模式.管理世界,1995(3),168-172.
[349]谢洪明.市场导向、组织学习与组织绩效的关系研究.科学学研究,2005, 23(4),517-524.
[350]谢洪明,刘常勇和陈春辉.市场导向与组织绩效的关系：组织学习与创新的影响——珠三角地区企业的实证研究.管理世界,2006(2),80-94,143.
[351]谢洪明,吴隆增和王成和葛志良.组织学习的前因后果：一个新的理论框架.科学学与科学技术管理,2006,27(8),161-168.
[352]谢洪明和韩子天.组织学习与绩效的关系：创新是中介变量吗?-珠三角地区企业的实证研究及其启示.科研管理,2005,26(5),1-10.
[353]谢伟和吴贵生.技术学习的功能和来源.科研管理,2000,21(1),8-13.
[354]新华网.资源价格动荡,中国制造业如何应对.http://news. xinhuanet. com/ fortune/2009-07/16/content 11716486. htm,2009-07-16.
[355]许冠南.关系嵌入性对技术创新绩效的影响研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[356]许庆瑞,郑刚和陈劲.全面创新管理：创新管理新范式初探——理论溯源与框架.管理学报,2006,3(2),135-142.
[357]严志庆和王振江.组织学习力研究.吉林省经济管理干部学院学报,2000,14(5),10-11.
[358]阎大颖.企业能力视角下跨国并购动因的前沿理论述评.南开学报：哲学社会科学版,2006(4),106-112.
[359]杨静.供应链内企业间信任的产生机制及其对合作的影响——基于制造业企业的研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[360]余光胜.企业知识理论导向下的知识管理研究新进展.研究与发展管理,2005,17(3),70-76.
[361]余光胜.一种全新的企业理论(上)——企业知识理论.外国经济与管理,2000,22(2),8-10.
[362]原欣伟,覃正和伊景冰.国内组织学习研究的历史、现状和展望.科技管理研究,2006a,26(5),173-178.
[363]原欣伟,覃正和伊景冰.学习-绩效互动对创新和绩效影响的实证研究.科学学研究,2006b,24(6),939-944.
[364]原欣伟,覃正和伊景冰.组织中学习与绩效相互作用机理研究.科研管理,2006c,27(6),136-143.
[365]云绍辉和郑丕谔.组织学习能力评价指标体系的研究.西北工业大学学报,2007,27(1),35-38.
[366]张春宁,谢恩和李垣.企业间合作学习、控制方式、创新的关系研究.科学学研究,2006,24(5),791-797.
[367]张华和席酉民.社会资本视角下的咨询网络演化研究.运筹与管理,2009(4),138-143.
[368]张立新.组织学习能力与企业绩效关系研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[369]张伟.2006年国产手机命运分析.http://www. enet. com. cn/article/2005/1230/ A20051230488505. shtml,2005年12月30日.
[370]张忠有和鞠耀绩.“张力”的产生及其作用：从科技成果价值评价标准的变化观察新形势下科技系.学术交流,1997(1),71-73.
[371]赵晓庆.技术学习的模式.科研管理,2003,24(3),39-44.
[372]郑刚.基于TIM视角的企业技术创新过程中各要素全面协同机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[373]郑刚,何郁冰和陈劲,陶婷婷和蒋键.“中国制造”如何通过开放式自主创新提升国际竞争力——中集集团自主创新模式的案例研究.科研管理,2008,29(4),95-102.
[374]郑素丽.组织间资源对企业创新绩效的作用机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[375]郑育艺.企业的科学能力对其创新绩效的影响因素分析.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[376]中国新闻网.埃森哲“把脉”二00九年中国经济.http://www. chinanews. com. cn/cj/gncj/news/2009/01-01/1511489. shtml,2009-01-02.
[377]中经网.民营企业自主创新的知识产权习惯战略研究.http//www. cas. org. cn/xwdt/ztlml/22402. htm,2008-08-04
[378]周兰和李福刚.STI和DUI创新模式对企业创新能力的影响及其关系分析.集团经济研究,2007(07X),275.
[379]周玉泉和李垣.组织学习、能力与创新方式选择关系研究.科学学研究,2005,23(4),525-530.
[380]朱朝晖.基于开放式创新的技术学习协同与机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.