组织模块化影响组织动态能力机制研究
|
摘要
本世纪以来,经济发展加快向全球化、网络化、知识化、需求个性化方向演进,这推动了产业组织范式的根本性变革。新的产业组织范式,表现为全球价值链体系的垂直裂解,基于分布式开放网络的资源敏捷组合,以及跨越行业与组织边界的生产要素协同。在这种变革背景下,越来越多的领先企业采取网络化、敏捷性的经营战略,以实现组织能力的动态可持续发展,及有效地响应外部环境变革。模块化组织范式被认为是驱动当今产业变革的核心力量之一,它提高了组织单元之间的协同效率,降低了组织间协同成本,为低成本大规模定制和跨越组织边界的资源整合创造了条件,其结果是增强了企业能力的动态性。当前的组织模块化理论研究,虽然在组织模块化能够有效提升组织动态能力的观点上达成了广泛共识,但是关于组织模块化如何提升组织动态能力的问题,统计实证研究十分薄弱,显然仍处于初期探索阶段。本研究旨在从组织模块化理论与动态能力理论研究的模糊地带中,通过核心概念解构与情境研究,构建并检验两者之间可靠的影响关系逻辑,为两个理论的深层次联结进行前沿探索。
为了解开组织模块化影响组织动态能力的“黑箱”规则,本研究综合权威文献对“组织模块化”概念的理解,按其内在逻辑将其拆分为组织模块化(程度)、模块化界面、组织动态能力三个构念,以探索组织模块化对组织动态能力影响机制的深层次结构。当前关于组织模块化的研究,实际上是将组织模块化特征与动态能力特征合并在一起来解释“组织模块化”概念的,并且没有对组织模块化程度与模块化界面进行清晰地界定。本研究为了探索组织模块化内在机制,将组织动态能力和模块化界面两个特征从组织模块化模糊概念中抽取出来,这样组织模块化概念只剩下“组织分工”和“组织独立性”两个衡量组织模块化程度的特征。基于以上概念界定,本研究设计了组织模块化通过模块化界面的中介效应,影响组织动态能力的研究模型。
如何理解基于组织模块化特征的动态能力,是本研究另一个核心命题。组织模块化是一种市场机制与企业机制“握手”的中间性组织机制,它突破企业产权边界划分的传统观察视角,将组织边界理解为基于分工职能的独立组织模块,组织模块内部主要追求专业性能力完整性创造的效益,而组织模块之间则主要追求差异化能力灵活组合所创造的效益。在这样的视角下,笼统的组织动态能力可以根据模块化边界分解为“组织内动态能力”和“组织间动态能力”两种功能性情境。其中,“组织间动态能力”强调组织间异质性资源的整合、重构与重组的能力；“组织内动态能力”则强调核心能力的敏捷性与多元化扩展应用的能力。本研究根据组织动态能力的情境分类,将研究模型分拆为“组织模块化对组织内动态能力的影响机制”和“组织模块化对组织内动态能力的影响机制”两个子模型,以探索两种情境下组织模块化影响机制的差异,并进行基于“组织动态能力”构念效度区分的情境敏感性比较。
为了探索组织模块化对组织动态能力的影响机制,本文采用理论研究与实证研究相结合、定性研究与定量研究相结合的方法,通过以下三个部分展开规范的理论构建、假设提出与假设关系验证：
(1)文献综述与理论评价。通过对组织模块化、动态能力、模块化界面相关理论的述评、归纳、分析,找出前沿研究的发展脉络和问题交织点,建立三个构念之间关联性的文献依据,以及组织动态能力构念情境化研究的依据。
(2)多案例研究与理论框架的提出。通过对来自6个不同行业的典型多案例研究,为理论研究模型的构建进一步准备厚实的案例实证材料,强化研究论证的坚韧度,降低理论构建风险。多案例研究遵循规范的案例研究步骤和方法。其中,2个重点探索性案例研究采取基于设计科学研究方法(DSRD)的准实验跟踪调查,并对组织模块化实施前与实施后的组织动态能力进行差异性比较；4个解释性案例研究旨在复证逻辑关系,多重检验因果关系,以及对变量关系及其测量题项进行补充调查。在文献研究和案例研究的基础上,本文分别构建了组织模块化对组织间动态能力影响机制和对组织内动态能力影响机制的两个子模型。
(3)大样本统计实证分析。针对组织模块化经由模块化界面中介作用影响组织动态能力的理论模型,通过大样本统计分析,验证并比较该模型在组织间动态能力情境和组织内动态能力情境下的作用机制和差异性。两种情境的研究,均先通过对50份测试样本的探索性因子分析,进行初步的模型构建和问卷题项的修正。在此基础上,对5省市企业样本进行随机调查,采集了229份来自制造业与服务业的有效样本。通过对大样本数据进行探索性因子分析和结构方程模型估计,验证两种情境下组织模块化对组织动态能力的影响机制,并分析其差异性。
通过以上研究,本研究得出以下主要结论：
(1)组织模块化概念可以有效分解为组织模块化(程度)、组织动态能力、模块化界面三个构念。其中,组织模块化程度由分工程度、组织独立性程度两个变量维度组成；组织动态能力可以分解为组织间动态能力和组织内动态能力,这种分解具有统计学意义；模块化界面由界面标准化、界面兼容性、合作属性区分三个变量维度组成。在两种组织动态能力情境中,组织模块化对组织间动态能力和组织内动态能力均发挥显著正向影响,模块化界面均发挥显著中介作用。
(2)在组织间动态能力情境下,组织模块化通过模块化界面的完全中介作用影响组织间动态能力。组织模块化程度构念中,分工程度变量与模块化界面三个变量具有高度相关性,组织独立程度与模块化界面具有中低度相关性。模块化界面的构成变量中,合作属性区分与组织间动态能力的关系最为密切,发挥的中介作用最大；界面兼容性的中介作用次之；界面标准化的中介作用最小
(3)在组织内动态能力情境下,组织模块化通过模块化界面的部分中介作用影响组织内动态能力。组织模块化构念中,分工程度对组织内动态能力的直接正向影响较小,并且弱于模块化界面的中介作用；组织独立程度对组织内动态能力的直接正向影响较大,并且强于模块化界面的中介作用。模块化界面三个变量与分工程度的相关性高于与组织独立程度的相关性,但它们与组织内动态能力的相关性比较接近。
本研究具有以下理论贡献和管理实践启示：
(1)首次从当前主流组织模块化概念中成功分离出组织模块化(程度)、组织动态能力、模块化界面三个不同的构念,构建并验证了三者之间的逻辑关系从而在组织模块化理论与动态能力理论之间构建了深层次联结的理论桥梁。
(2)率先将动态能力概念在模块化范式中分为组织间动态能力和组织内动态能力两种不同的能力范畴,并在实证研究中有效地验证了两种能力的差异性。同时,组织模块化对两种动态能力的影响路径存在显著差异。
(3)企业应高度重视组织模块化管理范式,它是产品模块化、生产模块化、价值链模块化深化发展的必然结果,能为企业带来动态能力的显著提升,克服组织对传统发展路径的刚性依赖,提高对复杂、动态环境的响应能力。
(4)企业不仅要重视发展组织间资源的柔性整合能力,而且要挖掘组织模块专业性核心能力多元化应用的敏捷能力,通过模块化网络机制和柔性组织流程将组织间动态能力与组织内动态能力有效结合起来。
(5)企业应特别关注模块化界面在动态能力建设中的超级催化剂作用,它在组织模块化机制发挥着无法替代的关键作用。特别要根据不同情境,加强外部协同的界面标准化、界面兼容性与合作属性分类的组合管理,以提高组织在全球化、网络式、知识化背景下的网络化资源整合与资源嵌入性应用能力。
Since the beginning of this century, the economic development, which has been speeding up its involvement towards being globalized, networked, intellectualized and personalized on demands, has promoted the ultimate transformation in paradigm of industrial organization. The new formula is characterized by vertical cracking of global value chain and synergy in production factors of stepping across the traditional organizational boundaries on the basis of agile recourse combination in open networks. In this trend, there will be more and more leading companies that are choosing modular strategy to improve the dynamics of organizing capacity and be in response to the environmental changes effectively. Organizational modularity, the inner force at the core for driving the industrial organizational reform, has improved the synergy efficiency between organizations, and reduced the collaboration cost between organizations, which has created realization conditions for low-cost mass customization and networking recourse consolidation. Although the current authoritative documentary related to the organizational modularity has extensive consensus on the opinions regarding to the improvement of organizational dynamic capabilities, it is still in the initial exploratory stage in respect of the "how". The statistical empirical study is very scarce, which makes the connection relation between the theory of organizational modularity and theory of dynamic capability terribly vague. This study is designed to establish a clear, secure and profound logic of connections of influence between the two theories for filling up the theoretical gap.
In order to solve the Black Box rules for the organizational modularity that impact the organizational dynamic capability, this study has split up it into three "constructs", which are organizational modularity (degree), modular interface and organizational dynamic capability according to the inner theoretical logic with the understanding of the concept of Organizational Modularity as described in the authoritative documentary for exploring the deep structural relation between organizational modularity and influencing mechanism of organizational dynamic capability. Organizational modularity that is currently defined the theoretical documentary is actually the combination of the three concepts which are organizational modularity (degree), modular interface and organizational dynamic capability. To scientifically explore the inner mechanism of organizational modularity, this study extracted the two concepts of organizational dynamic capability and modular interface from the fuzzy concept of organizational modularity, only two characteristic dimensions which are "division of labor" and "organizational independence" are remained for measuring the degree of organizational modularity. The author believes that the organizational dynamic capability of organizational modularity is influenced by mediating effect through decomposition of the concept of organizational modularity, which is the core logic to the design of this study.
To understand the dynamic capability based on the characteristics of organizational modularity is another key proposition of this study. Organizational modularity is considered to be the intermediate organizational mechanism between the market mechanism and enterprise mechanism, which has broken the angle of view of the traditional organizational boundaries based on property right and endowed the organizational boundaries with the understanding of modular organizational boundaries based on professional division efficiency. Ground on the boundary of division efficiency, the organizational modularity mainly pursues its internal profit from the creation of the completeness of professional capability while the profit generated from the flexible combination of differentiation capability is mainly pursued between the organization modularity. The organizational dynamic capability then can be divided into two situations as "inter-organization dynamic capability" and "intra-organization dynamic capability" on the ground of the foresaid perspectives."Intra-organization dynamic capability" focuses on the capability of integration, reconstruction and recombination for the heterogeneous resources between organizations;"inter-organization dynamic capability" will attach more importance on the agility of the core ability and the capability of expanding application in pluralism. The model to be studied hereof will be split into two sub-models which are "influencing mechanism that organizational modularity gives to inter-organization dynamic capability" and "influencing mechanism that organizational modularity gives to intra-organization dynamic capability " according to the classification of the circumstance of "organizational dynamic capability" construct for exploring the differentiation of the influencing mechanism of the organizational modularity in different conditions of dynamic capability.
In respect of the mechanism for organizational modularity that influences the organizational dynamic capability, this study has given theory construction and hypothesis and validation through the following three aspects:
(1)Literature review and evaluation. To find out the development threads and crossing points regarding to the problems of the frontier research and establish documentary basis together with the basis for research on circumstances of organizational dynamic capability construct in connection with the relativity between the three constructs through commentary, summary and analysis of the related theory of organizational modularity, dynamic capability and modular interface.
(2) Multi-case study and theoretical model construction. The present study further prepares abundant case-based empirical materials for the construction of theoretical research model, strengthens the robustness of feasibility study and reduces the risk of theory construction through the research of multiple typical cases in6different industries. Multi-case research complies with the procedures and methods of normative case study, where there are2key exploratory case studies adopt the follow-up investigation with quasi-experiment based on Design Science Research Methodology, DSRD and conduct the differentiation comparison for the organizational dynamic capability before and after the implementation of organizational modularity;4explanative case studies are designed to provide cumulative evidence of logical relationship, multi-tested causality and give supplement survey for relationship between the variables and the items for measurement. This study has constructed two sub-models which are the influencing mechanism of inter-organization dynamic capability and influencing mechanism of inter-organization dynamic capability in respect of organizational modularity on the basis on the literature research and case study.
(3)Statistical empirical study:In connection with the theoretical model that the organizational dynamic capability is influenced by organizational modularity through intermediation of modular interface, examination and verification together with the comparison of mechanism of action and differentiation of this type of model when in the condition of inter-organization dynamic capability and afterwards in the condition of inter-organization dynamic capability shall be carried out through large sample statistical analysis. The research conducted in the foresaid two conditions shall be provided with initial model construction and modifications for the items on the questionnaire after exploratory factorial analysis is given on the50pieces of test patterns. In this case, random investigations shall be carried out in the5provincial and municipal business samples, from which229pieces of valid samples were collected from manufacturing and service trade. To examine and confirm the influencing mechanism that the organizational modularity gives on the organizational dynamic capability in the two foresaid conditions and their differentiation through the exploratory factorial analysis and model estimation with equation of structure carried out on the data of the large samples.
Conclusions obtained hereof through the above research as follow:(1)The concept of organizational modularity can be effectively decomposed into three constructs which are organizational modularity (degree), organizational dynamic capability and modular interface, where the degree of organizational modularity consists of two variable dimensions which are the degree of division of labor and the degree of independence of organization; the organizational dynamic capability can be divided into inter-organization dynamic capability and inter-organizational dynamic capability, which is characterized by statistical significance; modular interface is composed of three variable dimensions including interface standardization, interface compatibility and differentiation upon the property of cooperation. In the situation of having two types of organizational dynamic capabilities, organizational modularity has significant and positive influence on inter-organization dynamic capability and intern-organizational dynamic capability and the modular interface will play a role as intermediation.
(2)In the context of having inter-organization dynamic capability, this type of capability is influenced by the organizational modularity through its full intermediation of modular interface. In the construct of degree of organizational modularity, the relativity between the degree of division of labor and the three variables of modular interface is high while that of between the degree of independence of the organizations and modular interface is relatively medium or even lower. Among the variables of the components of modular interface, the relation between the differentiation upon the property of cooperation and inter-organization dynamic capability is the closest and has the greatest intermediation; intermediation provided by interface compatibility takes the second place; that of interface standardization is the least.
(3)In the context of having the inter-organization dynamic capability, this type of capability is influenced by the organizational modularity through its partial intermediation of modular interface. In the construct of organizational modularity, the degree of division of labor has less direct influence on the inter-organization dynamic capability and is weaker than the intermediation of modular interface; the organizational independence degree has greater direct influence on inter-organization dynamic capability and is stronger than the intermediation of modular interface. The relativity between the three variables of the modular interface and the degree of division of labor is higher than that of the degree of independence of organizations, but it is more approachable to the relativity of inter-organization dynamic capability. The theoretical innovative contribution and significance of enlightenment on management that is obtained from this study as follow:
(1)(The study first splits out three different constructs in modularity theory which are organizational modularity (degree), organizational dynamic capability and modular interface from the concept of main-stream organizational modularity, the logic relation between the three has been established and verified so that a profound theoretical bridge for connection has been built between the theory of organizational modularity and theory of dynamic capability.
(2)The study first separates the conception of dynamic capability into two different categories of capabilities in modular paradigm which are inter-organization dynamic capability and intern-organizational dynamic capability, diversity of which has effectively inspected and verified in the empirical study. In the meantime, the paths of impact brought by the organizational modularity on the two dynamic capabilities have significant difference.(3)The company shall highly have an eye to the organizational modular management paradigm which is the inevitable result of deepening development of modularity in products, manufacturing and value chain and can significantly improve the dynamic capability for the company to overcome the rigidity dependence of the organizations on traditional development path for enhancement of the response capability to the complex and dynamic environment.
(4)The company shall be good at making the most of the advantage of two different dynamic capabilities, upon which the importance shall not be only attached on the development of flexible integration capability of the resource between organizations but also on fully digging out the potential of application in pluralism of the core capability to the organization, to effectively combine inter-organization dynamic capability and the inter-organization dynamic capability in virtue of modular network mechanism and flexible organizational process.
(5)The company shall pay special attention to the modular interface as a catalyst in the dynamic capabilities construction. The modular interface has been an irreplaceable and key role in the organizational molecular mechanism. To particularly strengthen the interface standardization of external synergy, interface compatibility and portfolio management classified by the property of cooperation according to different situations to enhance the integration of networking resources and embedded application ability of resources in the context of globalization, networking and intellectualizati on.
为了解开组织模块化影响组织动态能力的“黑箱”规则,本研究综合权威文献对“组织模块化”概念的理解,按其内在逻辑将其拆分为组织模块化(程度)、模块化界面、组织动态能力三个构念,以探索组织模块化对组织动态能力影响机制的深层次结构。当前关于组织模块化的研究,实际上是将组织模块化特征与动态能力特征合并在一起来解释“组织模块化”概念的,并且没有对组织模块化程度与模块化界面进行清晰地界定。本研究为了探索组织模块化内在机制,将组织动态能力和模块化界面两个特征从组织模块化模糊概念中抽取出来,这样组织模块化概念只剩下“组织分工”和“组织独立性”两个衡量组织模块化程度的特征。基于以上概念界定,本研究设计了组织模块化通过模块化界面的中介效应,影响组织动态能力的研究模型。
如何理解基于组织模块化特征的动态能力,是本研究另一个核心命题。组织模块化是一种市场机制与企业机制“握手”的中间性组织机制,它突破企业产权边界划分的传统观察视角,将组织边界理解为基于分工职能的独立组织模块,组织模块内部主要追求专业性能力完整性创造的效益,而组织模块之间则主要追求差异化能力灵活组合所创造的效益。在这样的视角下,笼统的组织动态能力可以根据模块化边界分解为“组织内动态能力”和“组织间动态能力”两种功能性情境。其中,“组织间动态能力”强调组织间异质性资源的整合、重构与重组的能力；“组织内动态能力”则强调核心能力的敏捷性与多元化扩展应用的能力。本研究根据组织动态能力的情境分类,将研究模型分拆为“组织模块化对组织内动态能力的影响机制”和“组织模块化对组织内动态能力的影响机制”两个子模型,以探索两种情境下组织模块化影响机制的差异,并进行基于“组织动态能力”构念效度区分的情境敏感性比较。
为了探索组织模块化对组织动态能力的影响机制,本文采用理论研究与实证研究相结合、定性研究与定量研究相结合的方法,通过以下三个部分展开规范的理论构建、假设提出与假设关系验证：
(1)文献综述与理论评价。通过对组织模块化、动态能力、模块化界面相关理论的述评、归纳、分析,找出前沿研究的发展脉络和问题交织点,建立三个构念之间关联性的文献依据,以及组织动态能力构念情境化研究的依据。
(2)多案例研究与理论框架的提出。通过对来自6个不同行业的典型多案例研究,为理论研究模型的构建进一步准备厚实的案例实证材料,强化研究论证的坚韧度,降低理论构建风险。多案例研究遵循规范的案例研究步骤和方法。其中,2个重点探索性案例研究采取基于设计科学研究方法(DSRD)的准实验跟踪调查,并对组织模块化实施前与实施后的组织动态能力进行差异性比较；4个解释性案例研究旨在复证逻辑关系,多重检验因果关系,以及对变量关系及其测量题项进行补充调查。在文献研究和案例研究的基础上,本文分别构建了组织模块化对组织间动态能力影响机制和对组织内动态能力影响机制的两个子模型。
(3)大样本统计实证分析。针对组织模块化经由模块化界面中介作用影响组织动态能力的理论模型,通过大样本统计分析,验证并比较该模型在组织间动态能力情境和组织内动态能力情境下的作用机制和差异性。两种情境的研究,均先通过对50份测试样本的探索性因子分析,进行初步的模型构建和问卷题项的修正。在此基础上,对5省市企业样本进行随机调查,采集了229份来自制造业与服务业的有效样本。通过对大样本数据进行探索性因子分析和结构方程模型估计,验证两种情境下组织模块化对组织动态能力的影响机制,并分析其差异性。
通过以上研究,本研究得出以下主要结论：
(1)组织模块化概念可以有效分解为组织模块化(程度)、组织动态能力、模块化界面三个构念。其中,组织模块化程度由分工程度、组织独立性程度两个变量维度组成；组织动态能力可以分解为组织间动态能力和组织内动态能力,这种分解具有统计学意义；模块化界面由界面标准化、界面兼容性、合作属性区分三个变量维度组成。在两种组织动态能力情境中,组织模块化对组织间动态能力和组织内动态能力均发挥显著正向影响,模块化界面均发挥显著中介作用。
(2)在组织间动态能力情境下,组织模块化通过模块化界面的完全中介作用影响组织间动态能力。组织模块化程度构念中,分工程度变量与模块化界面三个变量具有高度相关性,组织独立程度与模块化界面具有中低度相关性。模块化界面的构成变量中,合作属性区分与组织间动态能力的关系最为密切,发挥的中介作用最大；界面兼容性的中介作用次之；界面标准化的中介作用最小
(3)在组织内动态能力情境下,组织模块化通过模块化界面的部分中介作用影响组织内动态能力。组织模块化构念中,分工程度对组织内动态能力的直接正向影响较小,并且弱于模块化界面的中介作用；组织独立程度对组织内动态能力的直接正向影响较大,并且强于模块化界面的中介作用。模块化界面三个变量与分工程度的相关性高于与组织独立程度的相关性,但它们与组织内动态能力的相关性比较接近。
本研究具有以下理论贡献和管理实践启示：
(1)首次从当前主流组织模块化概念中成功分离出组织模块化(程度)、组织动态能力、模块化界面三个不同的构念,构建并验证了三者之间的逻辑关系从而在组织模块化理论与动态能力理论之间构建了深层次联结的理论桥梁。
(2)率先将动态能力概念在模块化范式中分为组织间动态能力和组织内动态能力两种不同的能力范畴,并在实证研究中有效地验证了两种能力的差异性。同时,组织模块化对两种动态能力的影响路径存在显著差异。
(3)企业应高度重视组织模块化管理范式,它是产品模块化、生产模块化、价值链模块化深化发展的必然结果,能为企业带来动态能力的显著提升,克服组织对传统发展路径的刚性依赖,提高对复杂、动态环境的响应能力。
(4)企业不仅要重视发展组织间资源的柔性整合能力,而且要挖掘组织模块专业性核心能力多元化应用的敏捷能力,通过模块化网络机制和柔性组织流程将组织间动态能力与组织内动态能力有效结合起来。
(5)企业应特别关注模块化界面在动态能力建设中的超级催化剂作用,它在组织模块化机制发挥着无法替代的关键作用。特别要根据不同情境,加强外部协同的界面标准化、界面兼容性与合作属性分类的组合管理,以提高组织在全球化、网络式、知识化背景下的网络化资源整合与资源嵌入性应用能力。
Since the beginning of this century, the economic development, which has been speeding up its involvement towards being globalized, networked, intellectualized and personalized on demands, has promoted the ultimate transformation in paradigm of industrial organization. The new formula is characterized by vertical cracking of global value chain and synergy in production factors of stepping across the traditional organizational boundaries on the basis of agile recourse combination in open networks. In this trend, there will be more and more leading companies that are choosing modular strategy to improve the dynamics of organizing capacity and be in response to the environmental changes effectively. Organizational modularity, the inner force at the core for driving the industrial organizational reform, has improved the synergy efficiency between organizations, and reduced the collaboration cost between organizations, which has created realization conditions for low-cost mass customization and networking recourse consolidation. Although the current authoritative documentary related to the organizational modularity has extensive consensus on the opinions regarding to the improvement of organizational dynamic capabilities, it is still in the initial exploratory stage in respect of the "how". The statistical empirical study is very scarce, which makes the connection relation between the theory of organizational modularity and theory of dynamic capability terribly vague. This study is designed to establish a clear, secure and profound logic of connections of influence between the two theories for filling up the theoretical gap.
In order to solve the Black Box rules for the organizational modularity that impact the organizational dynamic capability, this study has split up it into three "constructs", which are organizational modularity (degree), modular interface and organizational dynamic capability according to the inner theoretical logic with the understanding of the concept of Organizational Modularity as described in the authoritative documentary for exploring the deep structural relation between organizational modularity and influencing mechanism of organizational dynamic capability. Organizational modularity that is currently defined the theoretical documentary is actually the combination of the three concepts which are organizational modularity (degree), modular interface and organizational dynamic capability. To scientifically explore the inner mechanism of organizational modularity, this study extracted the two concepts of organizational dynamic capability and modular interface from the fuzzy concept of organizational modularity, only two characteristic dimensions which are "division of labor" and "organizational independence" are remained for measuring the degree of organizational modularity. The author believes that the organizational dynamic capability of organizational modularity is influenced by mediating effect through decomposition of the concept of organizational modularity, which is the core logic to the design of this study.
To understand the dynamic capability based on the characteristics of organizational modularity is another key proposition of this study. Organizational modularity is considered to be the intermediate organizational mechanism between the market mechanism and enterprise mechanism, which has broken the angle of view of the traditional organizational boundaries based on property right and endowed the organizational boundaries with the understanding of modular organizational boundaries based on professional division efficiency. Ground on the boundary of division efficiency, the organizational modularity mainly pursues its internal profit from the creation of the completeness of professional capability while the profit generated from the flexible combination of differentiation capability is mainly pursued between the organization modularity. The organizational dynamic capability then can be divided into two situations as "inter-organization dynamic capability" and "intra-organization dynamic capability" on the ground of the foresaid perspectives."Intra-organization dynamic capability" focuses on the capability of integration, reconstruction and recombination for the heterogeneous resources between organizations;"inter-organization dynamic capability" will attach more importance on the agility of the core ability and the capability of expanding application in pluralism. The model to be studied hereof will be split into two sub-models which are "influencing mechanism that organizational modularity gives to inter-organization dynamic capability" and "influencing mechanism that organizational modularity gives to intra-organization dynamic capability " according to the classification of the circumstance of "organizational dynamic capability" construct for exploring the differentiation of the influencing mechanism of the organizational modularity in different conditions of dynamic capability.
In respect of the mechanism for organizational modularity that influences the organizational dynamic capability, this study has given theory construction and hypothesis and validation through the following three aspects:
(1)Literature review and evaluation. To find out the development threads and crossing points regarding to the problems of the frontier research and establish documentary basis together with the basis for research on circumstances of organizational dynamic capability construct in connection with the relativity between the three constructs through commentary, summary and analysis of the related theory of organizational modularity, dynamic capability and modular interface.
(2) Multi-case study and theoretical model construction. The present study further prepares abundant case-based empirical materials for the construction of theoretical research model, strengthens the robustness of feasibility study and reduces the risk of theory construction through the research of multiple typical cases in6different industries. Multi-case research complies with the procedures and methods of normative case study, where there are2key exploratory case studies adopt the follow-up investigation with quasi-experiment based on Design Science Research Methodology, DSRD and conduct the differentiation comparison for the organizational dynamic capability before and after the implementation of organizational modularity;4explanative case studies are designed to provide cumulative evidence of logical relationship, multi-tested causality and give supplement survey for relationship between the variables and the items for measurement. This study has constructed two sub-models which are the influencing mechanism of inter-organization dynamic capability and influencing mechanism of inter-organization dynamic capability in respect of organizational modularity on the basis on the literature research and case study.
(3)Statistical empirical study:In connection with the theoretical model that the organizational dynamic capability is influenced by organizational modularity through intermediation of modular interface, examination and verification together with the comparison of mechanism of action and differentiation of this type of model when in the condition of inter-organization dynamic capability and afterwards in the condition of inter-organization dynamic capability shall be carried out through large sample statistical analysis. The research conducted in the foresaid two conditions shall be provided with initial model construction and modifications for the items on the questionnaire after exploratory factorial analysis is given on the50pieces of test patterns. In this case, random investigations shall be carried out in the5provincial and municipal business samples, from which229pieces of valid samples were collected from manufacturing and service trade. To examine and confirm the influencing mechanism that the organizational modularity gives on the organizational dynamic capability in the two foresaid conditions and their differentiation through the exploratory factorial analysis and model estimation with equation of structure carried out on the data of the large samples.
Conclusions obtained hereof through the above research as follow:(1)The concept of organizational modularity can be effectively decomposed into three constructs which are organizational modularity (degree), organizational dynamic capability and modular interface, where the degree of organizational modularity consists of two variable dimensions which are the degree of division of labor and the degree of independence of organization; the organizational dynamic capability can be divided into inter-organization dynamic capability and inter-organizational dynamic capability, which is characterized by statistical significance; modular interface is composed of three variable dimensions including interface standardization, interface compatibility and differentiation upon the property of cooperation. In the situation of having two types of organizational dynamic capabilities, organizational modularity has significant and positive influence on inter-organization dynamic capability and intern-organizational dynamic capability and the modular interface will play a role as intermediation.
(2)In the context of having inter-organization dynamic capability, this type of capability is influenced by the organizational modularity through its full intermediation of modular interface. In the construct of degree of organizational modularity, the relativity between the degree of division of labor and the three variables of modular interface is high while that of between the degree of independence of the organizations and modular interface is relatively medium or even lower. Among the variables of the components of modular interface, the relation between the differentiation upon the property of cooperation and inter-organization dynamic capability is the closest and has the greatest intermediation; intermediation provided by interface compatibility takes the second place; that of interface standardization is the least.
(3)In the context of having the inter-organization dynamic capability, this type of capability is influenced by the organizational modularity through its partial intermediation of modular interface. In the construct of organizational modularity, the degree of division of labor has less direct influence on the inter-organization dynamic capability and is weaker than the intermediation of modular interface; the organizational independence degree has greater direct influence on inter-organization dynamic capability and is stronger than the intermediation of modular interface. The relativity between the three variables of the modular interface and the degree of division of labor is higher than that of the degree of independence of organizations, but it is more approachable to the relativity of inter-organization dynamic capability. The theoretical innovative contribution and significance of enlightenment on management that is obtained from this study as follow:
(1)(The study first splits out three different constructs in modularity theory which are organizational modularity (degree), organizational dynamic capability and modular interface from the concept of main-stream organizational modularity, the logic relation between the three has been established and verified so that a profound theoretical bridge for connection has been built between the theory of organizational modularity and theory of dynamic capability.
(2)The study first separates the conception of dynamic capability into two different categories of capabilities in modular paradigm which are inter-organization dynamic capability and intern-organizational dynamic capability, diversity of which has effectively inspected and verified in the empirical study. In the meantime, the paths of impact brought by the organizational modularity on the two dynamic capabilities have significant difference.(3)The company shall highly have an eye to the organizational modular management paradigm which is the inevitable result of deepening development of modularity in products, manufacturing and value chain and can significantly improve the dynamic capability for the company to overcome the rigidity dependence of the organizations on traditional development path for enhancement of the response capability to the complex and dynamic environment.
(4)The company shall be good at making the most of the advantage of two different dynamic capabilities, upon which the importance shall not be only attached on the development of flexible integration capability of the resource between organizations but also on fully digging out the potential of application in pluralism of the core capability to the organization, to effectively combine inter-organization dynamic capability and the inter-organization dynamic capability in virtue of modular network mechanism and flexible organizational process.
(5)The company shall pay special attention to the modular interface as a catalyst in the dynamic capabilities construction. The modular interface has been an irreplaceable and key role in the organizational molecular mechanism. To particularly strengthen the interface standardization of external synergy, interface compatibility and portfolio management classified by the property of cooperation according to different situations to enhance the integration of networking resources and embedded application ability of resources in the context of globalization, networking and intellectualizati on.
引文
[1]Abernathy, W. J., Clark, K. B. Innovation:Mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy,1985,14(1),3-22.
[2]Achrol, R. S. Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing:Towards a network paradigm. J. Acad. Marketing Sci,1997. 25(Spring).56-71.
[3]Adner, R.. Levinthal, D. Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: Implications for product and process innovation. Management Science,2001. 47,611-628.
[4]Adler, P. S. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science,1999,10(1).43-68.
[5]Afuah. G. Collaboration network, Structural holes and innovation:A Longitudinal Study. Administrative Seienee Quarterly.2000.45,425 - 455.
[6]Afuah. A. Mapping technological capabilities into product markets and competitive advantage:the case of cholesterol drugs. Strategic Management Journal,2002.23(2).171-179.
[7]Ahuja. G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation:A longitudinal study. Admin. Sci. Quart.2000.45(3),425-445.
[8]Alan M. Rugman. Inside the multinationals:The economics of internal market. New York:Columbia University Press.1981.
[9]Alexander. C. Notes of the synthesis of form. Cambridge. MA:Harvard University Press,1964.
[10]Alunadi. R.. Roemer, T. A.. Wang, R. H. Structuring product development process. European Journal of Operational Research,2001,130(3).539-558.
[11]Amit. R.. Schoemaker. P. J. H. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal,1993.14(1),33-46.
[12]Andreas, H. Value chain orchestration in action and the case of the global agrochemical industry. Long Range Planning.2002.35(6).615-635.
[13]Aoki. M. Toward an economic model of the Japanese firm. Journal of Economic Literature.1990.28,1-27.
[14]Argote L. Organizational learning:Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Boston, MA:Kluwer Academic.1999.
[15]Argyres. N. Technology strategy, governance structure and interdivisional coordination. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1995,28. 337-358.
[16]Arthur, W. B. Complexity and the economy. Science,1999,284(April), 107-109.
[17]Arthur, W. B. Increasing returns and path dependency in the economy. University of Michigan Press:Ann Arbor, Ml,1994.
[18]Arthur, W. B. Positive feedbacks in the economy. Scientific American,1990, 262,92-99.
[19]Arthur, W. B. Self-reinforcing mechanisms in economics. In:Anderson, P. W., Arrow, K. J., Pines, D. (eds) The economy as an evolving complex system. SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity. New York:Addison-Wesley,1988.
[20]Asanuma, B.1989. Manufacturer-supplier relationships in Japan and the concept of relation-specific skill. J. Japanese Internet Economy.3(1),1-30.
[21]Astebro, T. Key success factors for technological entrepreneurs'R&D projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,2004, Volume 51(3),314-321.
[22]Athanassiou, N., Nigh, D. The impact of the top management team's international business experience on the firm's internationalization:Social networks at work. Management International Review,2002,42(2),157-181.
[23]Baker, W. E., Faulkner, R. R., Fisher. G. A. Hazards of the market:The continuity and dissolution of interorganizational market relationships. Amer. Sociol.1998,63(2),147-177.
[24]Baker, W. E. Market networks and corporate behavior. Amer. J. Sociol.,1990, 96(3),589-625.
[25]Baldwin, C. Y. Personal communication, Boston:Harvard Business School, 2005.
[26]Baldwin, C. Y., Clark, K. B., Architectural innovation and dynamic competition:The small "footprint" strategy. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School,2006.
[27]Baldwin, C. Y, Clark, K. B. Does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model?. Harvard Business Review,2003.
[28]Baldwin, C. Y, Clark, K.B. Design rules:The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000.
[29]Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B. Management in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review,1997, Sep/Oct 84-93.
[30]Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., Phillips. L. W. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly,1991,36(3), 421-458.
[31]Bahrami, H. The emerging flexible organization:Perspectives from Silicon Valley. Organization,1992,34(4),33-52.
[32]Barnett, W. P., Hansen, M. T. The Red Queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Summer),139-157.
[33]Barney J. B. Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1997.
[34]Barney J. B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,1991,17(1),99-120.
[35]Barney J. B. Strategic factor markets:Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science,1986,32(10),1231-1241.
[36]Baron, J. N., Bielby, W. T. Bringing the firms back in:Stratification, segmentation, and the organization of work. American Sociological Review, 1980,45(5),737-765.
[37]Baron R M., Kenny D A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1986,51, 1173-1182.
[38]Barr, P. S. Adapting to Unfamiliar Environmental Events:A Look at the Evolution of Interpretation and Its Role in Strategic Change. Organization Science,1998,9(6),644-669.
[39]Barr, P. S., Huff, A. S. Seeing isn't believing:Understanding diversity in the timing of strategic response. Journal of Management Studies,1997,34(3), 337-370.
[40]Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., Huff, A. S. Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(S1),15-36.
[41]Bartlett, C, Ghoshal, S. Managing across borders. Boston:HBS Press,1989.
[42]Bartlett, M. S. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology,1950.
[43]Bassey, M. Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham and Philadelphia:Open University Press,1999.
[44]Baum, J. R., Wally, S. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(11),1107-1129.
[45]Becker, G., Murphy, K. The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1992,107,1137-1160.
[46]Bernstein, F., DeCroix, G. A. Decentralized pricing and capacity decisions in a multitier system with modular assembly. Management Science,50 (2004), pp. 1293-1308.
[47]Bercovitz, J. E., de Figueiredo, J. M., Teece, D. J. Firm capabilities and managerial decision-making:A theory of innovation biases. In Innovation: Oversights and Foresights, Garud, R., Nayyar, P., Shapira, Z. (eds). Cambridge, U.K:Cambridge University Press,1996,233-259.
[48]Bergh, D. D., Lawless, M. W. Portfolio restructuring and limits to hierarchical governance:The effects of environmental uncertainty and diversification strategy. Organization Science,1998,9(1),87-102.
[49]Bogner, W. C., Barr, P. S. Making sense in hypercompetitive environments:A cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organization Science,2000,11(2),212-226.
[50]Bowman, E. H. Strategy, annual reports, and alchemy. California Management Review,1978,20(3),64-71.
[51]Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I..Strategic pathways to product innovation capabilities in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing,2006,21(1),75-105.
[52]Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., Werner, S. Transaction cost-enhanced entry mode choices and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2003, 24(12),1239-1248.
[53]Brouthers, K. D. Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies,2002, 33(2),203-221.
[54]Brusoni S. Authority in the age of modularity. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, No.101, The Freeman Centre, University of Sussex, June,2003.
[55]Brown, S. L., Eisenhardt, K. M. Product development:Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review,1995,20(2), 343-78.
[56]Burgelman, R. A. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly,1983, Vol.28, 223-244.
[57]Burt, R. S. Structural holes:The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1992.
[58]Burt, R. S. Autonomy in a social topology. Amer. J. Sociology,1980,85(4), 892-925.
[59]Carlile, P. R., Rebentisch, E. S. Into the black box:The knowledge transformation cycle. Management Science,2003,49(9),1180-1195.
[60]Castells, M. The power of identity. Oxford:Blackwel,1997.
[61]Caves, R. E., Uekusa. M. Industrial organization in Japan. Washington. D.C: The Brookings Institution,1976.
[62]Chamberlin. Edward. The theory of monopolistic competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.1933.
[63]Chandler A D. Scale and scope:The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge:Belknap/Harvard University Press,1990.
[64]Chandy, R. K.. Tellis, G. J. Organizing for radical product innovation:The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research. 1998,35(4),474-487.
[65]Chen. K. M., Liu. RJ. Interface strategies in modular product innovation. Technovation,2005,25.771-782.
[66]Christiansen, J. A. Building the Innovative organization. London:MacMillan Press.2000.
[67]Christensen. C, Suarez. F.F.. Utterback. J.M. Strategies for survival in fast-changing industries. Manage.1998.44 (12).207-220.
[68]Clark. K. B. The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy.1985.14.235-251.
[69]Clark. K. B.. T. Fujimoto. Product development performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.1991.
[70]Clive, H.. Courtney Nigel. Development managerial learning styles in the context of the strategic application of information and communications technologies. International Journal of Training and Development,2001,5(1), 22-34.
[71]Coase. R. The nature of the firm:meaning. Journal of Law. Economics and Organization.1988,4(Spring).19-32.
[72]Coase. R. The nature of the firm. Economica.1937,4.386-405.
[73]Cohen. W. M. Empirical studies of innovative activity. In P. Stoneman (Ed.). Handbook of Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Oxford: Blackwell.1995.182-265.
[74]Cohen, W. M, Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1), 128-152.
[75]Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., Walsh, J. P. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). Cambridge, MA:NBER working paper No.7552, National Bureau of Economic Research,2000.
[76]Conner, K. R., Prahalad, C. K. A resource-based theory of the firm:Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science,1996,7(5),477-501.
[77]Cook, K. S. Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations. Sociol. Quart.1977,1862-82.
[78]Cook, K. S., Emerson, R. M. Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. Amer. Sociol.1978,43(5),721-739.
[79]Cooper, R.G, Schmidt, K. New products:What separates winner from losers. Journal of Product Innovation Management.1987,4 (3),24-35.
[80]Corey, C.P. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal,2010,53(4),890-913.
[81]COSMOS Corporation.. Case studies and organizational innovation: strengthening the connection. Bethesda, MD:Author,1983.
[82]Crossan, M. M. An organizational learning framework:From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review,1999,24(3),522-537.
[83]Daft, R. L., Lewin, A. Y., Where are the theories of the "new" organizational firms? An editorial essay. Organization Science,1993,4(4), i-iv.
[84]Danneels, E. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23,1095-1121.
[85]Davenport, T. H. Information Ecology. Oxford University Press, New York, 1997.
[86]Davidow, W. H., Malone, M. S. The virtual corporation:Structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st century. New York:Harper Business, 1992.
[87]Delmas, M. A..Innovating against European rigidities, institutional environment and dynamic capabilities. Journal of High Technology Management Researeh,2001,13,19-43.
[88]Demetz, H. The theory of the firm revisited. Journal of Law Economics and Organization,1988,4(1),141-162.
[89]Dess, G. G., Rasheed, A. M. The new corporate architecture. Academy of Management Executive,1995,9(3),7-18.
[90]Dierickx, I., Cool. K. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science,1989,35(12),1504-1511.
[91]Ding, L., Velicer, W.E., Harlow, L.L. Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling,1995,2,119-144.
[92]Doz, Y., Shuen, A. From intent to outcome:A process framework for partnerships. INSEAD working paper,1990.
[93]Dyer, J. H. Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17, 271-292.
[94]Dyer. J. H.. Nobeoka, K. Creating and managing a high performance Knowledge-sharing network:The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal. 2000,21,345-367.
[95]Dyer, J. H., Singh, H. The relational view:Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review. 1998,23(4).660-79.
[96]Egyedi, T. Shaping standardization:A study of standards processes and standards policies in the field of telemetric services. Delft University Press, 1996
[97]Eisenhardt. K. M. Has strategy changed?. Sloan Management Review,2002, 43(2):88-91.
[98]Eisenhardt, K. M. Agency theory:An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review,1989,14.57-74.
[99]Eisenhardt K. M., Brown SL. Patching:restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets. Harvard Business Review,1999.77(3),71-82.
[100]Eisenhardt. K. M., Galunic, D. C. Coevolving:At last, a way to make synergies work. Harvard Business Review,2000,78(1-2),91-101.
[101]Eisenhardt. K.M. Graebner, M.E. Theory building from cases:Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(1),25-32.
[102]Eisenhardt K. M., Martin J. A. Dynamic capabilities:what are they?. Strategic Management Journal,2000, Special Issue 21(10-11):1105-1121.
[103]Eisenhardt, K. M., Sehoonhoven, C. B. Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation:strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science,1996,7(2),136-15.
[104]Ensign, P. The concept of fit in organizational research. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior,2001, Vol.4 (Issue 3/4),287-307.
[105]Ernst, H., Martin, G. Co-evolution of technical modularity and organization integration-the case of "System-on-Chip" design. Manuscript, Honolulu: East-West-Center,2004.
[106]Ernst, H., Teichert, T. The R and D/marketing interface and single informant bias in NPD research:An illustration of a benchmarking case study. Technovation,1998,18(12),721-739.
[107]Esteve A., Ramon C. Open versus closed innovation:A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review,2010,35,27-47.
[108]Ethiraj S. K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M. S., Singh, J. V. Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(1),25-45.
[109]Ethiraj, S. K., Levinthal, D. L. Bounded rational the search for organizational architecture:An evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly,2004,49,404-437.
[110]Farrel, J., Saloner, G. Converters, compatibility, and the control of interface. Journal of Industrial Economics,1992,40,9-35.
[111]Farrell, J., Shapiro, C. Dynamic competition with switching costs. The RAND Journal of Economics,1988,19 (1),123-137.
[112]Feng, P. Studying standardization:a review of the literature. Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology, The 3rd Conference,2003,99-112.
[113]Freeman, C. Networks of innovators:A synthesis of research issue. Research Policy,1991,20(5),499-514.
[114]Freeman, C, Hagedoom, J. Convergence and Divergence in the Internationalization of Technolog", paper for MERIT Conference, University of Limburg,1992.
[115]Freeman, C, Soete, L., The economics of industrial innovation. London, Washington,1997.
[116]Fredriksson, P. Mechanisms and rationales for the coordination of a modular assembly system:The case of Volvo Cars. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2006,26 (4),350-370.
[117]Fujimoto, R. M. Time management in the high level architecture. Simulation, 1998,71(6),388-400.
[118]Galunic, D. C, Eisenhardt, K. M. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Acad. Management J.2001,44(6),1229-1249.
[119]Galunic, D. C., Eisenhardt, K. M. The evolution of intracorporate domains: Divisional charter losses in high-technology, multidivisional corporations. Organization Science,1996,7(3),255-282.
[120]Gamba, A., Fusari, N. Valuing modularity as a real option. Management Science,2009,55(11),1877-1896.
[121]Gargiulo, M., M. Benassi. Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organ. Sci.2000,11(2), 183-196.
[122]Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A. Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management J,1995,16(Special issue),93-109.
[123]Gereffi, G. A commodity chains framework for analyzing global industries, Duke University working paper,1999.
[124]Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., Zedeck, S. Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. New York:W. H. Freeman and Co.,1981.
[125]Gioia, D. A. Thomas, J. B. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41,371-403.
[126]Glenn FH., Anand S., Will M. Modularity and the impact of buyer-supplier relationships on the survival of suppliers. Management Science,2007,53(2), 178-191.
[127]Graebner, M. E. Momentum and serendipity:How acquired leaders create value in the integration of technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 2004,25,751-777.
[128]Graham, S., Mowery, D. Submarines in software? Continuation patenting in software in the 1980s and 1990s and its implications for open source. Paper presented at the HBS/MIT Sloan Free/Open Software Conference, Boston, 2003.
[129]Griffin, Abbie; Hauser, John R.. Integrating R&D and marketing:A review and analysis of the literature. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1996,13(3),191-215.
[130]Gulati, R., Does familiarity breed trust:The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Acad. Management J,1995,38(1),85-112.
[131]Gulati, R., Singh, H. The architecture of cooperation:Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly,1998,43,781-814.
[132]Gulati, R., Sytch, M. Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships:Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer's performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2007,52,32-6.
[133]Gupta, A.K., Raj, S.P., Wilemon, D. The R&D-marketing interface in the high-tech firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1985, Vol.2(No.2),12-24.
[134]Harrison, J. S., Freeman, R. E.1999. Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance:Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal,1999,42,479-485.
[135]Hayes, R., Wheelwright, S., Clark, K. Dynamic manufacturing creating the learning organization. New York:The Free Press,1988.
[136]Helfat, C. E., Eisenhardt, K. M. Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(13),1217-1232.
[137]Helgesen, S. The web of inclusion:Architecture for building great organizations. U. S.:Beard Books,2005.
[138]Hendriks, P. Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management,1999,6(2),91-100.
[139]Henderson, R., Cockburn, I. Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(Winter Special Issue),63-84.
[140]Holland, J. H. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Mich.:University of Michigan Press,1992.
[141]Hummels, J. D., Ishii, J., Yi, K. The nature and growth of vertical specialization in world trade. Journal of International Economics,2001,54(1), 75-96.
[142]Humphrey, J. D. Continuum thermomechanics and the clinical treatment of disease and injury. Appl. Mech. Review,2003,56(2),231-260.
[143]Humphrey, J. D., Schmitz, H. Governance and upgrading:Linking industrial cluster and global value chain research, IDS Working Paper No.120. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex,2000.
[144]Iansiti, M., Clark, K. B. Integration and dynamic capability:Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Industrial and Corporate Change,1994,3(3),557-605.
[145]Jarillo, J.C. On strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal,1988,9(1), 31-41.
[146]Jeffey, F. R., John, J. S. Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harvard Business Review,1995,73(6),75-99.
[147]Jian, C., Gengui Z., Yu, Q.. The decision analysis on the development of green products based upon manufactures'competition. Key Engineering Materials, 2011,467(3),1721-1726.
[148]Jian, C., Xuhong, Y., Yu, Q., Yiner, L. An integrative decision-making model for the operation of sustainable supply chain in China. Energy Procedia,2011, 5,1497-1501.
[149]Johnston, W. J., Leach, M. P., Liu, A. H. Theory testing using case studies in business-to-business research. Industrial Marketing Management,1999,28, 201-213.
[150]Johnson, R. Antecedents and outcomes of corporate refocusing. Journal of Management,1996,22(3),439-483.
[151]Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., Borgatti, S. P. A general theory of network governance:Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Acad. Manage. Review,1997,22(4),911-945.
[152]Kaa, G., Ende, J., Vries, H. J., Heck, E. Factors for winning interface format battles:A review and synthesis of the literature. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,2011,78,1397-1411.
[153]Kahn, K. B. Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management.2001, 18(5),314-323.
[154]Kale, P., Singh, H., Perlmutter, H. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances:building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(March Special Issue),217-237.
[155]Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., Singh, H. Alliance capability, stock market response, and long term alliance success. Working paper, University of Michigan:Ann Arbor, MI,1999.
[156]Karim, S. Modularity in organizational structure:The reconfiguration of internally development and acquired business units. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27,799-823.
[157]Kauffman, S. A. The origins of order. New York:Oxford University Press, 1993.
[158]Kauffman, S.A. Antichaos and adaptation. Scientific American,1991,265(2), 78-84.
[159]Kelley, M. R., Brooks, H. External learning opportunities and the diffusion of Process innovations to small firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,1991,39(5),103-112.
[160]Kerlinger F. N. Foundations of behavioral research (3nd Edition). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers,1986.
[161]Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R. Blue ocean strategy:How to create uncontested market space and make competition irrelevant. Boston Massachusetts:Harvard Business School Press,1997.
[162]Kirsten, F., Link. The modularization of products and organizations:Improving lead time in product development. Http://www.cbs.dk/link/papers,2001, April.
[163]Koestler, A. The Ghost in the machine. London:Hutchinson,1990.
[164]Kogut, B. Designing global strategies:Comparative and competitive value-added chains. Sloan Management Review,1985,26(4),15-28.
[165]Kogut, B., Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science,1992,3(3),383-97.
[166]Koren, Y., Ulsoy, A. G. Vision, principles and impact of reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Powertrain International,2002,5(3),14-21.
[167]Koren, Y., Heisel, U., Jovane, F., Moriwaki, T., Pritchow, G., Van Brussel, H., Ulsoy, A. G. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. CIRP Annals,1999,48 (2),1-14.
[168]Kusonoki, K., Nonaka, I., Nagata, A. Organizational capabilities in product development of Japanese firms. Organization Science,1998,9,699-718.
[169]Langlois, R. N. The vanishing hand:The changing dynamics of industrial capitalism. Industrial and Corporate Change,2003,12 (4),351-385.
[170]Langlois, R. N. Modularity in technology and organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,2002,49,19-37.
[171]Langlois, R. N. Cognition and capabilities:Opportunities seized and Missed in 64 the history of the computer industry. Conference on Technological Oversights and Foresights. Stern School of Business, New york,1994,11-12 March.
[172]Langlois, R. N., Robertson, P. L. Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries. Research Policy,1992,21(4),297-313.
[173]Larson, A. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings:A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly,1992, 37,76-104.
[174]Lavie, D. Alliance portfolios and firm performance:A study of value creation and appropriation in the US software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 2007,28(12),1187-1212.
[175]Lavie D. Capability reconfiguration:an analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(1), 153-174.
[176]Lazonick, W. The myth of the market economy. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1991.
[177]Leonard-Barton, D. A dual methodology for case studies:Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites, Organization Science, 1990,1(3),248-266.
[178]Levinthal, D. A., Fichman, M. Dynamics of interorganizational attachments: Auditor-client relations. Administrative Science Quarterly,1988,33,345-369.
[179]Levinthal, D. A., March, J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(Winter Special Issue),95-112.
[180]Levinthal, D., March, J. G., A model of adaptive organizational search (1981). Reprinted in March, J.G. Decisions and organizations. New York:Basil Blackwell,1988,187-218.
[181]Lieberman, M. B., Montgomery, D. B. First-mover (dis)advantages: retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(12),1111-1125.
[182]Lundvall, B. A., Interakummerd, P., Lauridsen, J. V. (eds). Asia's Innovation Systems in Transition, London:Edward Elgar,2006.
[183]Lundvall, B. A.. National systems of innovation:Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London:Pinter Publishers,1992.
[184]Mahoney, J. T. The management of resources and the resource of management. Journal of Business Research,1995,33(2),91-101.
[185]Mahoney, J. T, Pandian, J. R. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(5), 363-380.
[186]Martin, X., Swaminathan, A., Mitchell, W. Organizational evolution in the interorganizational environment:Incentives and constraints on international expansion strategy. Admin. Sci. Quart.,1998,43(3),566-601.
[187]Marengo, L., Dosi, G., Legrenzi, P., Pasquali, G. The structure of problem-solving knowledge and the structure of organizations. Indust. Corporate Change,2000,9(4),757-788.
[188]Meredith, J. Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of Operations Management,1998,16 (4),441-454.
[189]Miles, R., Snow, C. C. Organizations:New concepts for new forms. California Management Review,1986,28(3),62-73.
[190]Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York:McGraw-Hill,1978.
[191]Miner, A. S., Amburgey, T. L., Stearns, T. M. Interorganizational linkages and population-dynamics:Buffering and transformational shields. Admin. Sci. Quart.,1990,35(4),689-713.
[192]Mintzberg, H. Waters, J.A. Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal,1982,25(3),465-499.
[193]Mitchell, W., Singh, K. Precarious collaboration:Business survival after partners shut down or form new partnerships. Strategic Management J,1996, 17(3),95-115.
[194]Monteverde, K., Teece, D. J. Supplier switching costs and vertical integration in the automobile industry. Bell J. Econom,1982,13(1) 206-213.
[195]McClelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D. E. Parellel distributed processing. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press,1995.
[196]Mehrabi, M. G, Ulsoy, A. G., Koren, Y. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: Key to future manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,2000,11(4), 403-419.
[197]Mikkola, J., Gassman, O. Managing modularity of product architectures: Toward an integrated theory. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2003,50(2),204-218.
[198]Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C. Causes of failure in network organizations. California Management Review,1992,34(4),53-72.
[199]Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C. The new network firm:A spherical structure built on a human investment philosophy. Organizational Dynamics,1995,23(4),5-18.
[200]Mody, A. Learning through alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1993,20,151-170.
[201]Mody, A., Razin, A., Sadka, E. The role of information in driving FDI flows: host-country transparency and source country specialization. NBER Working Paper No.9255,2003.
[202]Mosakowski E, McKelvey B. Predicting rent generation in competence-based competition. In Competence-Based Strategic Management, Heene, A., Sanchez, R. (eds.). Chichester:Wiley,1997,65-85.
[203]Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1982.
[204]Newell. S., Scarbrough, H. et al. The Importance of process knowledge for cross project learning:Evidence from a UK hospital. The 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Science,2002.
[205]Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,1994,5(1),14-37.
[206]Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. The knowledge-creating company:How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press,1995.
[207]Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: Subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change,2005, 14(3),419-436.
[208]Norman, R., Ramirez, R. From value chain to value constellation:Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review,1993,171(4),65-77.
[209]Palmberg, C. Technological system and competent procurers-the transformation of Nokia and he finish telecom industry revisited?. Telecommunications Policy,2002,26,129-148.
[210]Patton, M. Q. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation sage. Beverly Hills, 1987.
[211]Paul, S. Some uneasiness with the Coase Theorem. Japan and the World Economy.1995,7(1),9-11.
[212]Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., Chatterjee, S. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems,2007,24(3),45-77.
[213]Penrose, E. T. The theory of the growth of the firm. Basil Blackwell:Oxford., 1959.
[214]Perrow, C. Complex organizations:A critical essay. New York:Newberry Award Records,1986.
[215]Peters, T. Liberation management:Necessary disorganization for the nanosecond nineties. London:Macmillan,1992.
[216]Pettigrew, A. M. Longitudinal field research on change:Theory and practice. Organization Science,1990,1(3),267-292.
[217]Podolny, J. M. Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Admin. Sci. Quart.,1994,39(3) 458-483.
[218]Podolny, J. M. A status-based model of market competition. Amer. J. Sociol., 1993,98(4),829-872.
[219]Porter, M. E. What is Strategy?. Harvard Business Review,1996, (6),61-78.
[220]Porter, M. E. Competitive advantage. New York:Free Press,1985.
[221]Porter, M. E. Competitive strategy:Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York:Free Press,1980.
[222]Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin. Sci. Quart.,1996,41(1),116-145.
[223]Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G. Strategy as a field of study:why search for a new paradigm?. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15,5-16.
[224]Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,1990, May-June,79-91.
[225]Priem, R. L., Butler, J. E..Is the resource-based "view'" a useful perspective for strategic management research?. Academy of Management Review,2001,26(1). 22-40.
[226]Rayport, F. J., Sviokla, J. J., Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harvard Business Review,1995,73(6),75-99.
[227]Richard, L. D., Arie, Y. L. Where are the theories for the 'New' organizational form?. Organization Science,1993,4(4),513-518.
[228]Rindova, V., Taylor, S..Dynamic capabilities as macro and micro organizational evolution, www.thsmith.umd.edu/hcit/docs/dynamic.pdf.,2002.
[229]Ring, P. S., A. H. Van de Ven. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad. Management Rev.1994,19,90-118.
[230]Robert, A. B. Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary Lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly,2002,47(2),325-357.
[231]Robinson, J. The economics of imperfect competition. London:Macmillan, 1933.
[232]Rosenberg, N. Inside the black box:Technology and economics. UK, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1982.
[233]Rothwell, R. Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review,1994,11 (1),7-32.
[234]Sanchez, R., Collins, R. P. Competing and learning in modular markets. Long-Range Planning,2001,12,1-18.
[235]Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J. T. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal,1996, (Special Issue),63-76.
[236]Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J. T. The modularity principle in product and organization design. Office of Research Working Paper No.94-0157, Champaign, IL:University of Illinois,1994.
[237]Sanders, P. Phenomenology:A New Way of Viewing Organizational Research. The Academy of Management Review,1982,7(3),353-360.
[238]Schilling, M.A. Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities, Acad.Manage. J.,2002,45 (2),387-398.
[239]Schilling, M. A. Toward a general modular system theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review,2000,5(2), 312-334.
[240]Schilling M.A., Steensma, H. K. The use of modular organizational forms:An industry-level analysis. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(6), 1149-1168.
[241]Schumpeter J. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York:Harper,1950.
[242]Schumpeter, J. The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1934.
[243]Shaker A. Zahra, S. A., George, G.. Absorptive capacity:A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy of Management Review, 2002,27(2),185-203.
[244]Shapiro, S. M.24/7 Innovation:A blueprint for surviving and thriving in an age of change. McGraw-Hill Trade,2001.
[245]Shavell, S. Risk sharing and incentives in the principal and agent relationship. Bell Journal of Economics,1979,10,55-73.
[246]Shavelson, R.J., Towne, L. (Eds.). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC:National Academy Press,2002.
[247]Shona, L., Brown, Eisenhardt, K. M. The art of continuous change:Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),1-34.
[248]Shuen, A. Technology sourcing and learning strategies in the semiconductor industry. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Berkeley:University of California, 1994.
[249]Singh, K., Mitchell, W. Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to commercialize complex goods. Strategic Management J.,1996,17(3), 169-196.
[250]Singley, M. K., Anderson, J. R. The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1989.
[251]Siggelkow, N. Evolution toward fit. Administrative Science Quarterly,2002, 47,125-159.
[252]Simon, H. A. Models of bounded rationality:Empirically grounded economic reason. The MIT Press,1982.
[253]Simon H. A. The architecture of complexity[C]. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,1962,106(6):467-482.
[254]Simon, H. A. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1969.
[255]Sitkin, S. Learning through failure:The strategy of small losses, In Research in Organizational Behavior, Staw, B. M., Cummings, L. L.(eds.).1992,14, Greenwich:JAI Press, CT,231-266.
[256]Slater, S. F., Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing,1995,59,63-74.
[257]Slater, S. F., Narver, J. C. Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship?. Journal of Marketing,1994,58(1), 46-56.
[258]Smith, K. G, Collins, C. J., Clark, K. D. Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(2),346-357.
[259]Song, X. M., Souder, W. E., Dyer, B. A causal model of the impact of skills, synergy, and design sensitivity on new product performance. The Journal of Product Innovation Management March,1997,14(2),88-101.
[260]Souder, W.E., Disharmony between R&D and marketing. Industrial Marketing Management,1981,10(1),67-73.
[261]Stake, R. E..Case studies. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publieations,2000,435-45.
[262]Starr, M. K. Modular product:A new concept. Harvard Business Review,1965, 43(6),131-142.
[263]Stigler, G. J. The economies of scale. Journal of Law and Economics,1958,1, 54-71.
[264]Stuart, T. E., Hoang,.H., Hybels, R. C. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Admin. Sci. Quart.,1999,44(2), 315-349.
[265]Strauss, A.L. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,1987.
[266]Sturgeon, T. Modular production networks:a new American model of industrial organization. Industrial and Corporation Change,2002,11(3), 451-496.
[267]Subramaniam, M., Youndt, M. A. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(3), 450-463.
[268]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm),27-43.
[269]Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed.) Needham height. MA:Allyn and Bacon,2007.
[270]Takeishi, A., Fujimoto,T. Modularization in the auto industry:Inter linked multiple hierarchies of product, production, and supplier systems. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management,2001,1,379-396.
[271]Tang, C. S. A review of marketing-operations interface models:From co-existence to coordination and collaboration. Int. J. Production Economics, 2010,125,22-40.
[272]Teece, D. J. Dynamic capabilities:The causes, consequences and challenges of change, in J. Hazy (ed.), Honolulu, HI:Comment at a Symposium at the Academy of Management Annual Conference,2005.
[273]Teece, D. J. Foreign investment and technological development in Silicon Valley. California Management Review,1992,34(2),88-106.
[274]Teece, D. J. Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy,1986, 15(6),285-305.
[275]Teece, D. J. Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1982,3(1),39-63.
[276]Teece, D. J. technology transfer by multinational firms:The resource costs of transferring technological Know-how. The Economic Journal,1977,87, 242-261.
[277]Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7),509-533.
[278]Thomas, L. G., R. D'Aveni. The rise of hypercompetition in the US manufacturing sector,1950 to 2002, Version 2.3. Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc.,2004.
[279]Tidd, J., Bessant, J., Pavitt, K. Managing innovation:Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester and New York:John Wiley. 1997.
[280]Tucker, Robert B. Driving growth through innovation. Berrett-Koehler,2002.
[281]Tushman, M. L., Anderson, P. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986,31(3),439-465.
[282]Tung, R. L. Dimensions of Organizational Environments:An Exploratory Study of Their Impact on Organization Structure. The Academy of Management Journal,1979,22(4),672-693.
[283]Tushman, M. L. O'Reilly Ⅲ, Charles. Winning through Innovation:A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1997.
[284]Tushman, M. L., Romanelli, E. Organizational evolution:a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In Cummings, L. L.,& Staw, B. M. (Editors), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press, 1984,177-222.
[285]Thomke, S., Reinertsen, D. Agile product development:Managing development flexibility in uncertain environments. California Management Review,1998,41(1),8-30.
[286]Trochim, W. Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning,1989,12,355-366.
[287]Ulrich, K.T. The role of product architecture in manufacturing firm. Research Policy,1995,24,419-440.
[288]Ulrich, K. T. Fundamentals of product modularity. Proceedings of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting Symposium on Design and Manufacturing Integration, 1991,73-39.
[289]Utterback, J. M. Mastering the dynamics of innovation:How companies can seize the opportunities in the face of technological change, Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1994.
[290]Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:The paradox of embeddedness. Admin. Sci. Quart.1997,42(1),35-67.
[291]van Aken, J. E. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences:The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies,2004,41(2),219-246.
[292]van Alstyne, M. The state of network organization:Survey in three framework. Journal of Organizational Computig & Electronic Commerce,1997, Vol.7, Issue2-3,83-151.
[293]Verona, G., Ravasi, D..Unbundling dynamic capabilities:An exploratory study of continuous product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change,2003,12, 577-606.
[294]Vickery, S., Calantone, R., Droge, C. Supply chain flexibility:An empirical study. J. Supply Chain Management,1999,35(3),16-24.
[295]Volberda, H. W. Building the flexible firm:How to remain competitive. New York:Oxford University Press,1998.
[296]Walsh, J. P. Managerial and Organizational Cognition:Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane. Organization Science,1995,6(3),280-321.
[297]Walker, G., Kogut, B., Shan, W. J. Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organ. Sci.,1997,8(2),109-125.
[298]Walsham, G. Actor-network theory and IS research:current status and future prospects. In Proc. IFIP WG 8.2, Philidelphia, USA,1997,466-480.
[299]Wang, C. L., Ahmed, P. K..Dynamic capabilities:Are view and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,2007,9(1),31-51.
[300]Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1984,5(2),171-180.
[301]Wernerfelt, B., Montgomerg, C. Tobin's Q and the importance of focus in firm performance. American Economic Review,1988,78(1),246-25.
[302]Westphal, J. D. Collaboration in the boardroom:Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-Board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 1999,42(1),7-24.
[303]Williams, J. R. Strategy and the search for rents:the evolution of diversity among firms. In Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D. E., Teece, D. J. (Editors), Fundamental Issues in Strategy. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press, 1994,229-246.
[304]Williamson, O. E. Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. J. Law Econom,1993,36(1),453-486.
[305]Williamson, O. E. Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12(Winter Special Issue),75-94.
[306]Williamson, O. E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York:The Free Press,1985.
[307]Williamson O. E. The economics of organization:The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology,1981,87,548-577.
[308]Williamson, O. E. Markets and hierarchies:analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organization. New York:Free Press,1975.
[309]Williamson, O. E. Hierarchical control and optimum firm size. J. of Political Econ.,1967,75(2),123-138.
[310]Wilson, R., Integer programming via modular representations. Management Science,1970,16(5),289-294.
[311]Winter, S. G. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,2003, Special Issue,24(10),991-995.
[312]Wren, D. A. Interface and interorganizational coordination. Academy of Management Journal,1967,10,69-81.
[313]Yin, R. K. Case study research:Design and methods (3rd ed.)-Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.,2003.
[314]Yin, R. K. The case study crisis:Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly,1981,26,58-65.
[315]Young, A. A. Increasing returns and economic progress. The Economic Journal, 1928,38(152),527-542.
[316]Yu. Q., Xiaobo W., Jian, C., Fan, XQ., Jingjiang, L. Flexible knowledge management on modular innovation network. Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences,2012,4,248-255.
[317]Yu. Q., Xiaobo W., Jian, C, Xiaoqing, F., Ying, X. The study of entrepreneurial quality education in China's universities and colleges. China, Hangzhou:Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Management of Technology,2012.
[318]Yu. Q., Xiaobo W., Low-carbon technical integration strategy based on modular design. Energy Procedia,2011,5,2509-2516.
[319]Yu. Q., Xiaobo W. Energy-saving applied research of modular design. China, Beijing:Proceedings of the International Conference on Second China Energy Scientist Forum,2010,1574-1579.
[320]Zander, U., Kogut, B. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities:An empirical test. Organization Science January, 1995,6(1),76-92.
[321]Zenger, T. R., Hesterly, W. S. The disaggregation of corporations:Selective intervention, high-powered incentives, and molecular units. Organ. Sci.,1997, 8(3),209-222.
[322]Zhou, K. Z., Li, C. B. How strategic orientations influence the building of dynamic capability in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research, 2010,63(3),224-231.
[323]Zollo, M., Winter, S. G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science,2002,13,339-351.
[324]Zollo, M., Winter, S. G. From organizational routines to dynamic capabilities. Working paper WP 99-07, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA,1999.
[325]Zott, C. Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance:Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(2),97-125.
[326]白雪洁.模块化时代的汽车产业变革.中国工业经济,2005(9),76-81.
[327]贝塔朗菲.一般系统论——基础发展应用.秋同,袁嘉译.北京：社会科学文献出版社,1987.
[328]波特著；陈小悦译.竞争战略.北京：华夏出版社,1997(1),2-32.
[329]蔡莉,杨阳,单标安,任萍.基于网络视角的新企业资源整合过程模型.吉林大学社会科学学报,2011(3),124-129.
[330]蔡溪平等.管理战略.上海：外文/远东出版社,1997.
[331]曹红军,赵剑波.动态能力如何影响企业绩效：基于中国企业的实证研究.南开管理评论,2008,11(6),54-65.
[332]曹虹剑,张慧,刘茂松.产权治理新范式：模块化网络组织产权治理.中国工业经济.2010(7),84-93.
[333]曹江涛,苗建军.模块化时代企业边界变动研究.中国工业经济,2006,221(8),85-92.
[334]陈光.企业协同创新管理的高标准定位与审计.管理学报,2005(3),327-332.
[335]陈国权,李赞斌.学习型组织中的“学习主体”类型与案例研究.管理科学学报,2002,5(4),51-60,67.
[336]陈剑,冯蔚东.虚拟企业构建与管理.北京：清华大学出版社,2002.
[337]陈劲,桂彬旺.模块化创新——复杂产品系统创新机理与路径研究.北京：知识产权出版社,2007.
[338]陈菲琼,王丹霞.全球价值链的动态性与企业升级.科研管理,2007,28(5),52-59.
[339]陈向东.模块化在制造企业知识管理战略设计中的应用——我国航空企业国际转包生产的模块化战略分析.中国工业经济,2004(1),36-42.
[340]陈晓萍,徐淑英,樊景立.组织与管理研究的实证方法.北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
[341]成思危.复杂科学与管理.中国科学院院刊,1999(3),175-183.
[342]戴汝为.一个开放的复杂巨系统.系统工程学报,2001(10),376-381.
[343]德鲁克.新型组织的出现http://www.360doc.com/content/06/0709/16/4213_152396. shtml,2006.07.09.
[344]电子工业部标准化研究所.电子工业标准化工作手册.北京：电子工业出版社,1983.
[345]方海洁.未来的组织(德鲁克纪念版).北京：中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[346]Felix Janszen著；雷华,马乐为译.创新时代：网络化时代的成功模式.昆明：云南大学出版社,2002.
[347]福山,信任：社会道德和繁荣的创造.呼和浩特：远方出版社出版,1998.
[348]官建成,张爱军.技术与组织的集成创新.中国软科学,2002(12),57-61.
[349]国家技术监督局、机电部电子机械标准化研究所《IEEE电气和电子术语标准辞典》编译委员会IEEE电气和电子术语标准辞典.北京：国防工业出版社,1992.
[350]郭重庆.中国管理学界的社会责任与历史使命.管理学报,2008(3),320-322.
[351]赫斌,任浩,Anne-Marie GUERIN组织模块化设计：基本原理与理论架构.中国工业经济,2007(6),80-87.
[352]贺小刚,李新春,方海鹰.动态能力的测量与功效：基于中国经验的实证研究.管理世界,2006(3),94-103.
[353]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版 社,2004.
[354]胡晓鹏.模块化：经济分析新视角.北京：人民出版社,2009.
[355]胡晓鹏.模块化整合标准化：产业模块化研究.中国工业经济,2005(9),67-74.
[356]胡晓鹏.价值系统的模块化与价值转移.中国工业经济,2004(11),68-74.
[357]黄芳铭.结构方程模式——理论与应用.北京：中国税务出版社,2005.
[358]黄俊英.多变量分析.台北：华泰书局,2004.
[359]霍利斯·B·钱纳里著,吴奇、王松宝等译.工业化和经济增长的比较研究.上海：上海人民出版社,1995.
[360]克里斯滕森,雷纳著；容冰译.困境与出路：企业如何制定破坏性增长战略.北京：中信出版社,2004.
[361]贾生华,邬爱其,疏礼兵.基于协同创新思想的浙江民营企业创新发展模式.浙江社会科学,2005(2),213-217.
[362]江小娟.中国的外资经济.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[363]柯颖.模块化生产网络：一种新产业组织形态研究.北京：经济科学出版社,2009.
[364]雷如桥,陈继祥,刘芹.基于模块化的组织模式及其效率比较研究.中国工业经济,2004(10),83-90.
[365]李海舰,原磊.基于价值链层面的利润转移研究.中国工业经济,2005(6),81-89.
[366]李怀祖.管理研究方法论.西安：西安交通大学出版社,2004.
[367]刘东等著.企业网络论.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[368]李海舰,聂辉华.论企业与市场的相互融合.中国工业经济,2004(8),26-35.
[369]李惠斌,杨雪冬编译.社会资本与社会发展.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[370]李兆友.论技术创新主体间的协同.系统辩证学学报,2000(2).
[371]刘杰.基于设计科学研究方法的管理问题研究路径International Journal of Electronic Commerce/Spring 2009,13(3)综述.管理学家(学术版),2009(5),69-72.——国外学术期刊综述.
[372]柳卸林.构建区域创新体系新思维.人民论坛,2006(4),15-16.
[373]刘雪锋.网络嵌入性与差异化战略及企业绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[374]卢福财,胡平波.网络租金及其形成机理分析.中国工业经济,2006(6),84-90.
[375]吕铁.论技术标准化与产业标准战略.中国工业经济,2005(7),43-49.
[376]罗伯特·L·弗勒德,迈克尔·C·杰克逊著,杨建梅、庄东、陈安琪等译,创造性解决问题——全面系统干预.上海：上海科技教育出版社,2008.
[377]罗伯特·K·殷.案例研究设计与方法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004.
[378]罗振璧,盛伯浩,赵晓波等.快速重组制造系统.中国机械工程,2000,11(3),300-303.
[379]罗仲伟.网络组织对层级组织的替代.中国工业经济,2001(6)
[380]罗珉,何长见.组织间关系：界面规则与治理机制.中国工业经济,2006(5),87-95.
[381]马克斯·韦伯,经济与社会.上海：商务印书馆出版,1998
[382]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,2006.
[383]毛基业、李晓燕.理论在案例研究中的作用——中国企业管理案例论坛(2009)综述与范文分析.管理世界,2010(2),106－113,140.
[384]尼尔·瑞克曼等.合作竞争大未来.北京：经济管理出版社,1998.
[385]彭纪生,吴林海.论技术协同创新模式及建构.研究与发展管理,2000(5),12-16.
[386]彭新敏,吴晓波,吴东.基于二次创新动态过程的企业网络与组织学习平衡模式演化～海天1971-2010纵向案例研究.管理世界,2011(4),138-149,166.
[387]钱钰博,焦黎,徐奕柳,荣志刚.面向产品全生命周期的产品模块结构编码研究.成组技术与生产现代化,2008,25(4),52-54.
[388]青木昌彦.比较制度分析.上海：上海远东出版社,2001.
[389]青木昌彦,安藤晴彦.模块时代：新产业结构的本质.上海：上海远东出版社,2003.
[390]邱皓政.结构方程模式——LISREL的理论、技术与应用.台北：双叶书廊出版社,2005.
[391]任新建.基于信息的虚拟价值链模型研究.兰州学刊,2005(1),102－105.
[392]荣泰生.AMOS与研究方法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2009.
[393]芮明杰.《跨国公司制造和服务外包发展趋势与中国相关政策研究》评介.中国工业经济,2009(9),157-158.
[394]芮明杰,陈娟.模块化原理对知识创新的作用及相关管理策略分析——以电脑设计为例.管理学报,2004,1(1),25-27,24.
[395]芮明杰,张琰.产业创新战略——基于网络状产业链内知识创新平台的研究.上海：上海财经大学出版社,2009.
[396]石奇.集成经济原理与产业转移.中国工业经济,2004(10),5-12.
[397]孙大涌,屈贤明,张松滨.先进制造技术.北京：机械工业出版社,2000.
[398]苏静,娄朝晖.分工专业化与模块化效率分析——一个新兴古典经济学的解释.科技管理研究,2005(2),199-201.
[399]孙海法,刘运国,方琳.案例研究的方法论.科研管理,2004(2),107-112.
[400]孙国强.西方网络组织治理研究评介.外国经济与管理,2004(8),8-12.
[401]唐铁球.中国制造业参与产品内分工与贸易的动因与收益研究.杭州：浙江大学,2011.
[402]唐一平.先进制造技术.北京：机械工业出版社,2005.
[403]田敏.高科技产业模块化与组织能力研究.电子科技大学学报(社科版),2007(2),30-33.
[404]童时中.模块化原理在生产系统布局设计中的运用.标准化报道,2000(5),20-22.
[405]涂尔干,社会分工论.三联书店出版,2000.
[406]汪斌,李伟庆,周明海.ODI与中国自主创新：机理分析与实证研究.科学学研究,2010,28(6),926-933.
[407]王凤彬,李东红,张婷婷,杨阳.产品开发组织超模块化及其对创新的影响.中国工业经济,2011(2),131-141.
[408]王琴华.我国科技兴贸战略的若干问题.国际贸易,2007(3),4-9.
[409]王毅,吴贵生.基于复杂理论的企业动态核心能力研究.管理科学学报, 2007,10(1),18-28.
[410]翁君奕.多变环境下的业务战略：从通用单一到精准组合的理论创新.中国工业经济,2009,252(3),92-101.
[411]翁君奕.面向动态完全竞争构建多维协同组合战略.南开管理评论,2007(10),80-85.
[412]翁君奕.差别产品的动态完全竞争.中国工业经济,2005(9),106-113.
[413]温忠麟,侯杰泰,马什赫伯特.结构方程模型检验：拟合指数与卡方准则.心理学报,2004,36(2),186-194.
[414]温忠麟,侯杰泰,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.
[415]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰等.中介效应检验程序及其应用.心理学报,2004,36(5),614-620.
[416]吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务——SPSS操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.
[417]吴明隆.结构方程模型——AMOS的操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2009.
[418]吴晓波.浙江制造亟待摆脱路径依赖.浙江经济.2011(3),16-17.
[419]吴晓波主编.浙江省创新型经济蓝皮书2008-2009.浙江大学出版社,2009.
[420]吴晓波主编.浙江省创新型经济蓝皮书2006-2007.浙江大学出版社,2007.
[421]吴晓波.全球化制造与二次创新：赢得后发优势.北京：机械工业出版社,2005.
[422]许冠南.关系嵌入性对技术创新绩效的影响研究——基于探索型学习的中介机制.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[423]席酉民,姚小涛.复杂多变环境下和谐管理理论与企业战略分析框架.管理科学,2003(4),2-6.
[424]项保华,张建东.案例研究方法和战略管理研究.自然辩证法通讯,2005(5),62-66,111.
[425]徐宏玲.模块化组织研究.成都：西南财经大学出版社,2006,33-36.
[426]徐红玲,李双海.价值链形态演变与模块化组织协调.中国工业经济,2005,212(11),81-88.
[427]许强,刘翌.基于知识的企业集团组织创新.商业研究,2006(14),28-31.
[428]许庆瑞,郑刚,喻子达,沈威.全面创新管理：21世纪创新管理的新趋势—基于海尔集团的案例研究.科研管理,2003(5),1-5.
[429]徐晓飞,战德臣等.动态联盟企业组织方法体系.计算机集成制造系统(CIMS),1999,5(1),7-12.
[430]亚当·斯密著.国富论,西安：陕西人民出版社,2001(首次出版为1976年).
[431]闫星宇,高觉民.模块化理论的再审视：局限及适用范围.中国工业经济,2007(4),71-78.
[432]杨继全,朱玉芳.先进制造技术.北京：化学工业出版社,2004.
[433]杨小凯,张永生.新兴古典经济学与超边际分析(修订版).北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[434]叶康涛.案例研究：从个案分析到理论创建——中国第一届管理案例学术研讨会综述.管理世界,2006(2),139-143.
[435]余东华,芮明杰.模块化、企业价值网络与企业边界变动.中国工业经济,2005(10).
[436]余菁.案例研究与案例研究方法.经济管理,2004(20),24-29.
[437]曾楚宏,林丹明.信息技术、交易成本与激励：论经济组织形式的中间化.中国工业经济,2006(6),75-83.
[438]张辉,全球价值链理论与我国产业发展研究.中国工业经济,2004(5),38-46.
[439]张钢,陈劲,许庆瑞.技术、组织与文化的协同创新模式研究.科学学研究,1997(2),56-61,112.
[440]张立鼎,周志春.先进电子制造技术信息装备的能工巧匠.北京：国防工业出版社,2000.
[441]张维迎.产权、政府与信誉.上海：三联书店,2001.
[442]赵伟,江东.ODI与中国产业升级：机理分析与尝试性实证.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2010,40(3),116-125.
[443]赵春明.虚拟企业.杭州：浙江人民出版社,1999.
[444]周长辉.中国企业战略变革过程研究：五矿经验及一般启示.管理世界,2005(12),23-136.
[445]周治翰,胡汉辉.分工、企业组织演进与企业集团重组分析——以江苏牡丹汽车集团为例.中国工业经济,2001(8),56-60.
[446]朱瑞博,模块生产网络价值创新的整合架构研究.中国工业经济,2006(1),98-105.
[447]朱瑞博.价值模块的虚拟再整合：以IC产业为例.中国工业经济,2004(1),28-35.
[448]朱瑞博.价值模块整合与产业融合.中国工业经济,2003(8),24-31.
[2]Achrol, R. S. Changes in the theory of interorganizational relations in marketing:Towards a network paradigm. J. Acad. Marketing Sci,1997. 25(Spring).56-71.
[3]Adner, R.. Levinthal, D. Demand heterogeneity and technology evolution: Implications for product and process innovation. Management Science,2001. 47,611-628.
[4]Adler, P. S. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science,1999,10(1).43-68.
[5]Afuah. G. Collaboration network, Structural holes and innovation:A Longitudinal Study. Administrative Seienee Quarterly.2000.45,425 - 455.
[6]Afuah. A. Mapping technological capabilities into product markets and competitive advantage:the case of cholesterol drugs. Strategic Management Journal,2002.23(2).171-179.
[7]Ahuja. G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation:A longitudinal study. Admin. Sci. Quart.2000.45(3),425-445.
[8]Alan M. Rugman. Inside the multinationals:The economics of internal market. New York:Columbia University Press.1981.
[9]Alexander. C. Notes of the synthesis of form. Cambridge. MA:Harvard University Press,1964.
[10]Alunadi. R.. Roemer, T. A.. Wang, R. H. Structuring product development process. European Journal of Operational Research,2001,130(3).539-558.
[11]Amit. R.. Schoemaker. P. J. H. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal,1993.14(1),33-46.
[12]Andreas, H. Value chain orchestration in action and the case of the global agrochemical industry. Long Range Planning.2002.35(6).615-635.
[13]Aoki. M. Toward an economic model of the Japanese firm. Journal of Economic Literature.1990.28,1-27.
[14]Argote L. Organizational learning:Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Boston, MA:Kluwer Academic.1999.
[15]Argyres. N. Technology strategy, governance structure and interdivisional coordination. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1995,28. 337-358.
[16]Arthur, W. B. Complexity and the economy. Science,1999,284(April), 107-109.
[17]Arthur, W. B. Increasing returns and path dependency in the economy. University of Michigan Press:Ann Arbor, Ml,1994.
[18]Arthur, W. B. Positive feedbacks in the economy. Scientific American,1990, 262,92-99.
[19]Arthur, W. B. Self-reinforcing mechanisms in economics. In:Anderson, P. W., Arrow, K. J., Pines, D. (eds) The economy as an evolving complex system. SFI Studies in the Sciences of Complexity. New York:Addison-Wesley,1988.
[20]Asanuma, B.1989. Manufacturer-supplier relationships in Japan and the concept of relation-specific skill. J. Japanese Internet Economy.3(1),1-30.
[21]Astebro, T. Key success factors for technological entrepreneurs'R&D projects. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,2004, Volume 51(3),314-321.
[22]Athanassiou, N., Nigh, D. The impact of the top management team's international business experience on the firm's internationalization:Social networks at work. Management International Review,2002,42(2),157-181.
[23]Baker, W. E., Faulkner, R. R., Fisher. G. A. Hazards of the market:The continuity and dissolution of interorganizational market relationships. Amer. Sociol.1998,63(2),147-177.
[24]Baker, W. E. Market networks and corporate behavior. Amer. J. Sociol.,1990, 96(3),589-625.
[25]Baldwin, C. Y. Personal communication, Boston:Harvard Business School, 2005.
[26]Baldwin, C. Y., Clark, K. B., Architectural innovation and dynamic competition:The small "footprint" strategy. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School,2006.
[27]Baldwin, C. Y, Clark, K. B. Does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model?. Harvard Business Review,2003.
[28]Baldwin, C. Y, Clark, K.B. Design rules:The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,2000.
[29]Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B. Management in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review,1997, Sep/Oct 84-93.
[30]Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., Phillips. L. W. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly,1991,36(3), 421-458.
[31]Bahrami, H. The emerging flexible organization:Perspectives from Silicon Valley. Organization,1992,34(4),33-52.
[32]Barnett, W. P., Hansen, M. T. The Red Queen in organizational evolution. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Summer),139-157.
[33]Barney J. B. Gaining and sustaining competitive advantage. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1997.
[34]Barney J. B. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,1991,17(1),99-120.
[35]Barney J. B. Strategic factor markets:Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science,1986,32(10),1231-1241.
[36]Baron, J. N., Bielby, W. T. Bringing the firms back in:Stratification, segmentation, and the organization of work. American Sociological Review, 1980,45(5),737-765.
[37]Baron R M., Kenny D A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,1986,51, 1173-1182.
[38]Barr, P. S. Adapting to Unfamiliar Environmental Events:A Look at the Evolution of Interpretation and Its Role in Strategic Change. Organization Science,1998,9(6),644-669.
[39]Barr, P. S., Huff, A. S. Seeing isn't believing:Understanding diversity in the timing of strategic response. Journal of Management Studies,1997,34(3), 337-370.
[40]Barr, P. S., Stimpert, J. L., Huff, A. S. Cognitive change, strategic action, and organizational renewal. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(S1),15-36.
[41]Bartlett, C, Ghoshal, S. Managing across borders. Boston:HBS Press,1989.
[42]Bartlett, M. S. Tests of significance in factor analysis. British Journal of Psychology,1950.
[43]Bassey, M. Case study research in educational settings. Buckingham and Philadelphia:Open University Press,1999.
[44]Baum, J. R., Wally, S. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(11),1107-1129.
[45]Becker, G., Murphy, K. The division of labor, coordination costs, and knowledge. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1992,107,1137-1160.
[46]Bernstein, F., DeCroix, G. A. Decentralized pricing and capacity decisions in a multitier system with modular assembly. Management Science,50 (2004), pp. 1293-1308.
[47]Bercovitz, J. E., de Figueiredo, J. M., Teece, D. J. Firm capabilities and managerial decision-making:A theory of innovation biases. In Innovation: Oversights and Foresights, Garud, R., Nayyar, P., Shapira, Z. (eds). Cambridge, U.K:Cambridge University Press,1996,233-259.
[48]Bergh, D. D., Lawless, M. W. Portfolio restructuring and limits to hierarchical governance:The effects of environmental uncertainty and diversification strategy. Organization Science,1998,9(1),87-102.
[49]Bogner, W. C., Barr, P. S. Making sense in hypercompetitive environments:A cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Organization Science,2000,11(2),212-226.
[50]Bowman, E. H. Strategy, annual reports, and alchemy. California Management Review,1978,20(3),64-71.
[51]Branzei, O., Vertinsky, I..Strategic pathways to product innovation capabilities in SMEs. Journal of Business Venturing,2006,21(1),75-105.
[52]Brouthers, K. D., Brouthers, L. E., Werner, S. Transaction cost-enhanced entry mode choices and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2003, 24(12),1239-1248.
[53]Brouthers, K. D. Institutional, cultural and transaction cost influences on entry mode choice and performance. Journal of International Business Studies,2002, 33(2),203-221.
[54]Brusoni S. Authority in the age of modularity. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, No.101, The Freeman Centre, University of Sussex, June,2003.
[55]Brown, S. L., Eisenhardt, K. M. Product development:Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review,1995,20(2), 343-78.
[56]Burgelman, R. A. A process model of internal corporate venturing in the diversified major firm. Administrative Science Quarterly,1983, Vol.28, 223-244.
[57]Burt, R. S. Structural holes:The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press,1992.
[58]Burt, R. S. Autonomy in a social topology. Amer. J. Sociology,1980,85(4), 892-925.
[59]Carlile, P. R., Rebentisch, E. S. Into the black box:The knowledge transformation cycle. Management Science,2003,49(9),1180-1195.
[60]Castells, M. The power of identity. Oxford:Blackwel,1997.
[61]Caves, R. E., Uekusa. M. Industrial organization in Japan. Washington. D.C: The Brookings Institution,1976.
[62]Chamberlin. Edward. The theory of monopolistic competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.1933.
[63]Chandler A D. Scale and scope:The dynamics of industrial capitalism. Cambridge:Belknap/Harvard University Press,1990.
[64]Chandy, R. K.. Tellis, G. J. Organizing for radical product innovation:The overlooked role of willingness to cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research. 1998,35(4),474-487.
[65]Chen. K. M., Liu. RJ. Interface strategies in modular product innovation. Technovation,2005,25.771-782.
[66]Christiansen, J. A. Building the Innovative organization. London:MacMillan Press.2000.
[67]Christensen. C, Suarez. F.F.. Utterback. J.M. Strategies for survival in fast-changing industries. Manage.1998.44 (12).207-220.
[68]Clark. K. B. The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy.1985.14.235-251.
[69]Clark. K. B.. T. Fujimoto. Product development performance. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.1991.
[70]Clive, H.. Courtney Nigel. Development managerial learning styles in the context of the strategic application of information and communications technologies. International Journal of Training and Development,2001,5(1), 22-34.
[71]Coase. R. The nature of the firm:meaning. Journal of Law. Economics and Organization.1988,4(Spring).19-32.
[72]Coase. R. The nature of the firm. Economica.1937,4.386-405.
[73]Cohen. W. M. Empirical studies of innovative activity. In P. Stoneman (Ed.). Handbook of Economics of Innovation and Technological Change. Oxford: Blackwell.1995.182-265.
[74]Cohen, W. M, Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1), 128-152.
[75]Cohen, W. M., Nelson, R. R., Walsh, J. P. Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). Cambridge, MA:NBER working paper No.7552, National Bureau of Economic Research,2000.
[76]Conner, K. R., Prahalad, C. K. A resource-based theory of the firm:Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science,1996,7(5),477-501.
[77]Cook, K. S. Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations. Sociol. Quart.1977,1862-82.
[78]Cook, K. S., Emerson, R. M. Power, equity and commitment in exchange networks. Amer. Sociol.1978,43(5),721-739.
[79]Cooper, R.G, Schmidt, K. New products:What separates winner from losers. Journal of Product Innovation Management.1987,4 (3),24-35.
[80]Corey, C.P. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal,2010,53(4),890-913.
[81]COSMOS Corporation.. Case studies and organizational innovation: strengthening the connection. Bethesda, MD:Author,1983.
[82]Crossan, M. M. An organizational learning framework:From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review,1999,24(3),522-537.
[83]Daft, R. L., Lewin, A. Y., Where are the theories of the "new" organizational firms? An editorial essay. Organization Science,1993,4(4), i-iv.
[84]Danneels, E. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23,1095-1121.
[85]Davenport, T. H. Information Ecology. Oxford University Press, New York, 1997.
[86]Davidow, W. H., Malone, M. S. The virtual corporation:Structuring and revitalizing the corporation for the 21st century. New York:Harper Business, 1992.
[87]Delmas, M. A..Innovating against European rigidities, institutional environment and dynamic capabilities. Journal of High Technology Management Researeh,2001,13,19-43.
[88]Demetz, H. The theory of the firm revisited. Journal of Law Economics and Organization,1988,4(1),141-162.
[89]Dess, G. G., Rasheed, A. M. The new corporate architecture. Academy of Management Executive,1995,9(3),7-18.
[90]Dierickx, I., Cool. K. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive advantage. Management Science,1989,35(12),1504-1511.
[91]Ding, L., Velicer, W.E., Harlow, L.L. Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling,1995,2,119-144.
[92]Doz, Y., Shuen, A. From intent to outcome:A process framework for partnerships. INSEAD working paper,1990.
[93]Dyer, J. H. Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: Evidence from the auto industry. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17, 271-292.
[94]Dyer. J. H.. Nobeoka, K. Creating and managing a high performance Knowledge-sharing network:The Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal. 2000,21,345-367.
[95]Dyer, J. H., Singh, H. The relational view:Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review. 1998,23(4).660-79.
[96]Egyedi, T. Shaping standardization:A study of standards processes and standards policies in the field of telemetric services. Delft University Press, 1996
[97]Eisenhardt. K. M. Has strategy changed?. Sloan Management Review,2002, 43(2):88-91.
[98]Eisenhardt, K. M. Agency theory:An assessment and review. Academy of Management Review,1989,14.57-74.
[99]Eisenhardt K. M., Brown SL. Patching:restitching business portfolios in dynamic markets. Harvard Business Review,1999.77(3),71-82.
[100]Eisenhardt. K. M., Galunic, D. C. Coevolving:At last, a way to make synergies work. Harvard Business Review,2000,78(1-2),91-101.
[101]Eisenhardt. K.M. Graebner, M.E. Theory building from cases:Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(1),25-32.
[102]Eisenhardt K. M., Martin J. A. Dynamic capabilities:what are they?. Strategic Management Journal,2000, Special Issue 21(10-11):1105-1121.
[103]Eisenhardt, K. M., Sehoonhoven, C. B. Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation:strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science,1996,7(2),136-15.
[104]Ensign, P. The concept of fit in organizational research. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior,2001, Vol.4 (Issue 3/4),287-307.
[105]Ernst, H., Martin, G. Co-evolution of technical modularity and organization integration-the case of "System-on-Chip" design. Manuscript, Honolulu: East-West-Center,2004.
[106]Ernst, H., Teichert, T. The R and D/marketing interface and single informant bias in NPD research:An illustration of a benchmarking case study. Technovation,1998,18(12),721-739.
[107]Esteve A., Ramon C. Open versus closed innovation:A model of discovery and divergence. Academy of Management Review,2010,35,27-47.
[108]Ethiraj S. K., Kale, P., Krishnan, M. S., Singh, J. V. Where do capabilities come from and how do they matter? A study in the software services industry. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(1),25-45.
[109]Ethiraj, S. K., Levinthal, D. L. Bounded rational the search for organizational architecture:An evolutionary perspective on the design of organizations and their evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly,2004,49,404-437.
[110]Farrel, J., Saloner, G. Converters, compatibility, and the control of interface. Journal of Industrial Economics,1992,40,9-35.
[111]Farrell, J., Shapiro, C. Dynamic competition with switching costs. The RAND Journal of Economics,1988,19 (1),123-137.
[112]Feng, P. Studying standardization:a review of the literature. Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology, The 3rd Conference,2003,99-112.
[113]Freeman, C. Networks of innovators:A synthesis of research issue. Research Policy,1991,20(5),499-514.
[114]Freeman, C, Hagedoom, J. Convergence and Divergence in the Internationalization of Technolog", paper for MERIT Conference, University of Limburg,1992.
[115]Freeman, C, Soete, L., The economics of industrial innovation. London, Washington,1997.
[116]Fredriksson, P. Mechanisms and rationales for the coordination of a modular assembly system:The case of Volvo Cars. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2006,26 (4),350-370.
[117]Fujimoto, R. M. Time management in the high level architecture. Simulation, 1998,71(6),388-400.
[118]Galunic, D. C, Eisenhardt, K. M. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Acad. Management J.2001,44(6),1229-1249.
[119]Galunic, D. C., Eisenhardt, K. M. The evolution of intracorporate domains: Divisional charter losses in high-technology, multidivisional corporations. Organization Science,1996,7(3),255-282.
[120]Gamba, A., Fusari, N. Valuing modularity as a real option. Management Science,2009,55(11),1877-1896.
[121]Gargiulo, M., M. Benassi. Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organ. Sci.2000,11(2), 183-196.
[122]Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A. Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management J,1995,16(Special issue),93-109.
[123]Gereffi, G. A commodity chains framework for analyzing global industries, Duke University working paper,1999.
[124]Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., Zedeck, S. Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. New York:W. H. Freeman and Co.,1981.
[125]Gioia, D. A. Thomas, J. B. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41,371-403.
[126]Glenn FH., Anand S., Will M. Modularity and the impact of buyer-supplier relationships on the survival of suppliers. Management Science,2007,53(2), 178-191.
[127]Graebner, M. E. Momentum and serendipity:How acquired leaders create value in the integration of technology firms. Strategic Management Journal, 2004,25,751-777.
[128]Graham, S., Mowery, D. Submarines in software? Continuation patenting in software in the 1980s and 1990s and its implications for open source. Paper presented at the HBS/MIT Sloan Free/Open Software Conference, Boston, 2003.
[129]Griffin, Abbie; Hauser, John R.. Integrating R&D and marketing:A review and analysis of the literature. The Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1996,13(3),191-215.
[130]Gulati, R., Does familiarity breed trust:The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Acad. Management J,1995,38(1),85-112.
[131]Gulati, R., Singh, H. The architecture of cooperation:Managing coordination costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science Quarterly,1998,43,781-814.
[132]Gulati, R., Sytch, M. Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships:Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer's performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2007,52,32-6.
[133]Gupta, A.K., Raj, S.P., Wilemon, D. The R&D-marketing interface in the high-tech firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1985, Vol.2(No.2),12-24.
[134]Harrison, J. S., Freeman, R. E.1999. Stakeholders, social responsibility, and performance:Empirical evidence and theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal,1999,42,479-485.
[135]Hayes, R., Wheelwright, S., Clark, K. Dynamic manufacturing creating the learning organization. New York:The Free Press,1988.
[136]Helfat, C. E., Eisenhardt, K. M. Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(13),1217-1232.
[137]Helgesen, S. The web of inclusion:Architecture for building great organizations. U. S.:Beard Books,2005.
[138]Hendriks, P. Why share knowledge? The influence of ICT on motivation for knowledge sharing. Knowledge and Process Management,1999,6(2),91-100.
[139]Henderson, R., Cockburn, I. Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(Winter Special Issue),63-84.
[140]Holland, J. H. Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. Mich.:University of Michigan Press,1992.
[141]Hummels, J. D., Ishii, J., Yi, K. The nature and growth of vertical specialization in world trade. Journal of International Economics,2001,54(1), 75-96.
[142]Humphrey, J. D. Continuum thermomechanics and the clinical treatment of disease and injury. Appl. Mech. Review,2003,56(2),231-260.
[143]Humphrey, J. D., Schmitz, H. Governance and upgrading:Linking industrial cluster and global value chain research, IDS Working Paper No.120. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex,2000.
[144]Iansiti, M., Clark, K. B. Integration and dynamic capability:Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Industrial and Corporate Change,1994,3(3),557-605.
[145]Jarillo, J.C. On strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal,1988,9(1), 31-41.
[146]Jeffey, F. R., John, J. S. Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harvard Business Review,1995,73(6),75-99.
[147]Jian, C., Gengui Z., Yu, Q.. The decision analysis on the development of green products based upon manufactures'competition. Key Engineering Materials, 2011,467(3),1721-1726.
[148]Jian, C., Xuhong, Y., Yu, Q., Yiner, L. An integrative decision-making model for the operation of sustainable supply chain in China. Energy Procedia,2011, 5,1497-1501.
[149]Johnston, W. J., Leach, M. P., Liu, A. H. Theory testing using case studies in business-to-business research. Industrial Marketing Management,1999,28, 201-213.
[150]Johnson, R. Antecedents and outcomes of corporate refocusing. Journal of Management,1996,22(3),439-483.
[151]Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., Borgatti, S. P. A general theory of network governance:Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. Acad. Manage. Review,1997,22(4),911-945.
[152]Kaa, G., Ende, J., Vries, H. J., Heck, E. Factors for winning interface format battles:A review and synthesis of the literature. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,2011,78,1397-1411.
[153]Kahn, K. B. Market orientation, interdepartmental integration, and product development performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management.2001, 18(5),314-323.
[154]Kale, P., Singh, H., Perlmutter, H. Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances:building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(March Special Issue),217-237.
[155]Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., Singh, H. Alliance capability, stock market response, and long term alliance success. Working paper, University of Michigan:Ann Arbor, MI,1999.
[156]Karim, S. Modularity in organizational structure:The reconfiguration of internally development and acquired business units. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27,799-823.
[157]Kauffman, S. A. The origins of order. New York:Oxford University Press, 1993.
[158]Kauffman, S.A. Antichaos and adaptation. Scientific American,1991,265(2), 78-84.
[159]Kelley, M. R., Brooks, H. External learning opportunities and the diffusion of Process innovations to small firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,1991,39(5),103-112.
[160]Kerlinger F. N. Foundations of behavioral research (3nd Edition). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers,1986.
[161]Kim, W.C., Mauborgne, R. Blue ocean strategy:How to create uncontested market space and make competition irrelevant. Boston Massachusetts:Harvard Business School Press,1997.
[162]Kirsten, F., Link. The modularization of products and organizations:Improving lead time in product development. Http://www.cbs.dk/link/papers,2001, April.
[163]Koestler, A. The Ghost in the machine. London:Hutchinson,1990.
[164]Kogut, B. Designing global strategies:Comparative and competitive value-added chains. Sloan Management Review,1985,26(4),15-28.
[165]Kogut, B., Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science,1992,3(3),383-97.
[166]Koren, Y., Ulsoy, A. G. Vision, principles and impact of reconfigurable manufacturing systems. Powertrain International,2002,5(3),14-21.
[167]Koren, Y., Heisel, U., Jovane, F., Moriwaki, T., Pritchow, G., Van Brussel, H., Ulsoy, A. G. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems. CIRP Annals,1999,48 (2),1-14.
[168]Kusonoki, K., Nonaka, I., Nagata, A. Organizational capabilities in product development of Japanese firms. Organization Science,1998,9,699-718.
[169]Langlois, R. N. The vanishing hand:The changing dynamics of industrial capitalism. Industrial and Corporate Change,2003,12 (4),351-385.
[170]Langlois, R. N. Modularity in technology and organizations. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,2002,49,19-37.
[171]Langlois, R. N. Cognition and capabilities:Opportunities seized and Missed in 64 the history of the computer industry. Conference on Technological Oversights and Foresights. Stern School of Business, New york,1994,11-12 March.
[172]Langlois, R. N., Robertson, P. L. Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries. Research Policy,1992,21(4),297-313.
[173]Larson, A. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings:A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly,1992, 37,76-104.
[174]Lavie, D. Alliance portfolios and firm performance:A study of value creation and appropriation in the US software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 2007,28(12),1187-1212.
[175]Lavie D. Capability reconfiguration:an analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(1), 153-174.
[176]Lazonick, W. The myth of the market economy. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1991.
[177]Leonard-Barton, D. A dual methodology for case studies:Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites, Organization Science, 1990,1(3),248-266.
[178]Levinthal, D. A., Fichman, M. Dynamics of interorganizational attachments: Auditor-client relations. Administrative Science Quarterly,1988,33,345-369.
[179]Levinthal, D. A., March, J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(Winter Special Issue),95-112.
[180]Levinthal, D., March, J. G., A model of adaptive organizational search (1981). Reprinted in March, J.G. Decisions and organizations. New York:Basil Blackwell,1988,187-218.
[181]Lieberman, M. B., Montgomery, D. B. First-mover (dis)advantages: retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(12),1111-1125.
[182]Lundvall, B. A., Interakummerd, P., Lauridsen, J. V. (eds). Asia's Innovation Systems in Transition, London:Edward Elgar,2006.
[183]Lundvall, B. A.. National systems of innovation:Towards a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London:Pinter Publishers,1992.
[184]Mahoney, J. T. The management of resources and the resource of management. Journal of Business Research,1995,33(2),91-101.
[185]Mahoney, J. T, Pandian, J. R. The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(5), 363-380.
[186]Martin, X., Swaminathan, A., Mitchell, W. Organizational evolution in the interorganizational environment:Incentives and constraints on international expansion strategy. Admin. Sci. Quart.,1998,43(3),566-601.
[187]Marengo, L., Dosi, G., Legrenzi, P., Pasquali, G. The structure of problem-solving knowledge and the structure of organizations. Indust. Corporate Change,2000,9(4),757-788.
[188]Meredith, J. Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of Operations Management,1998,16 (4),441-454.
[189]Miles, R., Snow, C. C. Organizations:New concepts for new forms. California Management Review,1986,28(3),62-73.
[190]Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C. Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York:McGraw-Hill,1978.
[191]Miner, A. S., Amburgey, T. L., Stearns, T. M. Interorganizational linkages and population-dynamics:Buffering and transformational shields. Admin. Sci. Quart.,1990,35(4),689-713.
[192]Mintzberg, H. Waters, J.A. Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firms. Academy of Management Journal,1982,25(3),465-499.
[193]Mitchell, W., Singh, K. Precarious collaboration:Business survival after partners shut down or form new partnerships. Strategic Management J,1996, 17(3),95-115.
[194]Monteverde, K., Teece, D. J. Supplier switching costs and vertical integration in the automobile industry. Bell J. Econom,1982,13(1) 206-213.
[195]McClelland, J.L., Rumelhart, D. E. Parellel distributed processing. Cambridge, Mass:MIT Press,1995.
[196]Mehrabi, M. G, Ulsoy, A. G., Koren, Y. Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: Key to future manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing,2000,11(4), 403-419.
[197]Mikkola, J., Gassman, O. Managing modularity of product architectures: Toward an integrated theory. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2003,50(2),204-218.
[198]Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C. Causes of failure in network organizations. California Management Review,1992,34(4),53-72.
[199]Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C. The new network firm:A spherical structure built on a human investment philosophy. Organizational Dynamics,1995,23(4),5-18.
[200]Mody, A. Learning through alliances. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1993,20,151-170.
[201]Mody, A., Razin, A., Sadka, E. The role of information in driving FDI flows: host-country transparency and source country specialization. NBER Working Paper No.9255,2003.
[202]Mosakowski E, McKelvey B. Predicting rent generation in competence-based competition. In Competence-Based Strategic Management, Heene, A., Sanchez, R. (eds.). Chichester:Wiley,1997,65-85.
[203]Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1982.
[204]Newell. S., Scarbrough, H. et al. The Importance of process knowledge for cross project learning:Evidence from a UK hospital. The 35th Hawaii International Conference on System Science,2002.
[205]Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,1994,5(1),14-37.
[206]Nonaka I., Takeuchi H. The knowledge-creating company:How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford, UK:Oxford University Press,1995.
[207]Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: Subjectivity, objectivity and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change,2005, 14(3),419-436.
[208]Norman, R., Ramirez, R. From value chain to value constellation:Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review,1993,171(4),65-77.
[209]Palmberg, C. Technological system and competent procurers-the transformation of Nokia and he finish telecom industry revisited?. Telecommunications Policy,2002,26,129-148.
[210]Patton, M. Q. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation sage. Beverly Hills, 1987.
[211]Paul, S. Some uneasiness with the Coase Theorem. Japan and the World Economy.1995,7(1),9-11.
[212]Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., Chatterjee, S. A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems,2007,24(3),45-77.
[213]Penrose, E. T. The theory of the growth of the firm. Basil Blackwell:Oxford., 1959.
[214]Perrow, C. Complex organizations:A critical essay. New York:Newberry Award Records,1986.
[215]Peters, T. Liberation management:Necessary disorganization for the nanosecond nineties. London:Macmillan,1992.
[216]Pettigrew, A. M. Longitudinal field research on change:Theory and practice. Organization Science,1990,1(3),267-292.
[217]Podolny, J. M. Market uncertainty and the social character of economic exchange. Admin. Sci. Quart.,1994,39(3) 458-483.
[218]Podolny, J. M. A status-based model of market competition. Amer. J. Sociol., 1993,98(4),829-872.
[219]Porter, M. E. What is Strategy?. Harvard Business Review,1996, (6),61-78.
[220]Porter, M. E. Competitive advantage. New York:Free Press,1985.
[221]Porter, M. E. Competitive strategy:Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York:Free Press,1980.
[222]Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Admin. Sci. Quart.,1996,41(1),116-145.
[223]Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G. Strategy as a field of study:why search for a new paradigm?. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15,5-16.
[224]Prahalad, C.K., Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,1990, May-June,79-91.
[225]Priem, R. L., Butler, J. E..Is the resource-based "view'" a useful perspective for strategic management research?. Academy of Management Review,2001,26(1). 22-40.
[226]Rayport, F. J., Sviokla, J. J., Exploiting the virtual value chain. Harvard Business Review,1995,73(6),75-99.
[227]Richard, L. D., Arie, Y. L. Where are the theories for the 'New' organizational form?. Organization Science,1993,4(4),513-518.
[228]Rindova, V., Taylor, S..Dynamic capabilities as macro and micro organizational evolution, www.thsmith.umd.edu/hcit/docs/dynamic.pdf.,2002.
[229]Ring, P. S., A. H. Van de Ven. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad. Management Rev.1994,19,90-118.
[230]Robert, A. B. Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary Lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly,2002,47(2),325-357.
[231]Robinson, J. The economics of imperfect competition. London:Macmillan, 1933.
[232]Rosenberg, N. Inside the black box:Technology and economics. UK, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1982.
[233]Rothwell, R. Towards the fifth-generation innovation process. International Marketing Review,1994,11 (1),7-32.
[234]Sanchez, R., Collins, R. P. Competing and learning in modular markets. Long-Range Planning,2001,12,1-18.
[235]Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J. T. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal,1996, (Special Issue),63-76.
[236]Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J. T. The modularity principle in product and organization design. Office of Research Working Paper No.94-0157, Champaign, IL:University of Illinois,1994.
[237]Sanders, P. Phenomenology:A New Way of Viewing Organizational Research. The Academy of Management Review,1982,7(3),353-360.
[238]Schilling, M.A. Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities, Acad.Manage. J.,2002,45 (2),387-398.
[239]Schilling, M. A. Toward a general modular system theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review,2000,5(2), 312-334.
[240]Schilling M.A., Steensma, H. K. The use of modular organizational forms:An industry-level analysis. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(6), 1149-1168.
[241]Schumpeter J. Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York:Harper,1950.
[242]Schumpeter, J. The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1934.
[243]Shaker A. Zahra, S. A., George, G.. Absorptive capacity:A review, reconceptualization, and extension. The Academy of Management Review, 2002,27(2),185-203.
[244]Shapiro, S. M.24/7 Innovation:A blueprint for surviving and thriving in an age of change. McGraw-Hill Trade,2001.
[245]Shavell, S. Risk sharing and incentives in the principal and agent relationship. Bell Journal of Economics,1979,10,55-73.
[246]Shavelson, R.J., Towne, L. (Eds.). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC:National Academy Press,2002.
[247]Shona, L., Brown, Eisenhardt, K. M. The art of continuous change:Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),1-34.
[248]Shuen, A. Technology sourcing and learning strategies in the semiconductor industry. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Berkeley:University of California, 1994.
[249]Singh, K., Mitchell, W. Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to commercialize complex goods. Strategic Management J.,1996,17(3), 169-196.
[250]Singley, M. K., Anderson, J. R. The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1989.
[251]Siggelkow, N. Evolution toward fit. Administrative Science Quarterly,2002, 47,125-159.
[252]Simon, H. A. Models of bounded rationality:Empirically grounded economic reason. The MIT Press,1982.
[253]Simon H. A. The architecture of complexity[C]. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,1962,106(6):467-482.
[254]Simon, H. A. The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1969.
[255]Sitkin, S. Learning through failure:The strategy of small losses, In Research in Organizational Behavior, Staw, B. M., Cummings, L. L.(eds.).1992,14, Greenwich:JAI Press, CT,231-266.
[256]Slater, S. F., Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization. Journal of Marketing,1995,59,63-74.
[257]Slater, S. F., Narver, J. C. Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship?. Journal of Marketing,1994,58(1), 46-56.
[258]Smith, K. G, Collins, C. J., Clark, K. D. Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(2),346-357.
[259]Song, X. M., Souder, W. E., Dyer, B. A causal model of the impact of skills, synergy, and design sensitivity on new product performance. The Journal of Product Innovation Management March,1997,14(2),88-101.
[260]Souder, W.E., Disharmony between R&D and marketing. Industrial Marketing Management,1981,10(1),67-73.
[261]Stake, R. E..Case studies. Denzin, N. K., Lincoln, Y. S. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publieations,2000,435-45.
[262]Starr, M. K. Modular product:A new concept. Harvard Business Review,1965, 43(6),131-142.
[263]Stigler, G. J. The economies of scale. Journal of Law and Economics,1958,1, 54-71.
[264]Stuart, T. E., Hoang,.H., Hybels, R. C. Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Admin. Sci. Quart.,1999,44(2), 315-349.
[265]Strauss, A.L. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press,1987.
[266]Sturgeon, T. Modular production networks:a new American model of industrial organization. Industrial and Corporation Change,2002,11(3), 451-496.
[267]Subramaniam, M., Youndt, M. A. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(3), 450-463.
[268]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Special Issue: Knowledge and the Firm),27-43.
[269]Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed.) Needham height. MA:Allyn and Bacon,2007.
[270]Takeishi, A., Fujimoto,T. Modularization in the auto industry:Inter linked multiple hierarchies of product, production, and supplier systems. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management,2001,1,379-396.
[271]Tang, C. S. A review of marketing-operations interface models:From co-existence to coordination and collaboration. Int. J. Production Economics, 2010,125,22-40.
[272]Teece, D. J. Dynamic capabilities:The causes, consequences and challenges of change, in J. Hazy (ed.), Honolulu, HI:Comment at a Symposium at the Academy of Management Annual Conference,2005.
[273]Teece, D. J. Foreign investment and technological development in Silicon Valley. California Management Review,1992,34(2),88-106.
[274]Teece, D. J. Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy,1986, 15(6),285-305.
[275]Teece, D. J. Towards an economic theory of the multiproduct firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,1982,3(1),39-63.
[276]Teece, D. J. technology transfer by multinational firms:The resource costs of transferring technological Know-how. The Economic Journal,1977,87, 242-261.
[277]Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7),509-533.
[278]Thomas, L. G., R. D'Aveni. The rise of hypercompetition in the US manufacturing sector,1950 to 2002, Version 2.3. Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc.,2004.
[279]Tidd, J., Bessant, J., Pavitt, K. Managing innovation:Integrating technological, market and organizational change. Chichester and New York:John Wiley. 1997.
[280]Tucker, Robert B. Driving growth through innovation. Berrett-Koehler,2002.
[281]Tushman, M. L., Anderson, P. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986,31(3),439-465.
[282]Tung, R. L. Dimensions of Organizational Environments:An Exploratory Study of Their Impact on Organization Structure. The Academy of Management Journal,1979,22(4),672-693.
[283]Tushman, M. L. O'Reilly Ⅲ, Charles. Winning through Innovation:A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1997.
[284]Tushman, M. L., Romanelli, E. Organizational evolution:a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In Cummings, L. L.,& Staw, B. M. (Editors), Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press, 1984,177-222.
[285]Thomke, S., Reinertsen, D. Agile product development:Managing development flexibility in uncertain environments. California Management Review,1998,41(1),8-30.
[286]Trochim, W. Outcome pattern matching and program theory. Evaluation and Program Planning,1989,12,355-366.
[287]Ulrich, K.T. The role of product architecture in manufacturing firm. Research Policy,1995,24,419-440.
[288]Ulrich, K. T. Fundamentals of product modularity. Proceedings of the ASME Winter Annual Meeting Symposium on Design and Manufacturing Integration, 1991,73-39.
[289]Utterback, J. M. Mastering the dynamics of innovation:How companies can seize the opportunities in the face of technological change, Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1994.
[290]Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:The paradox of embeddedness. Admin. Sci. Quart.1997,42(1),35-67.
[291]van Aken, J. E. Management research based on the paradigm of the design sciences:The quest for field-tested and grounded technological rules. Journal of Management Studies,2004,41(2),219-246.
[292]van Alstyne, M. The state of network organization:Survey in three framework. Journal of Organizational Computig & Electronic Commerce,1997, Vol.7, Issue2-3,83-151.
[293]Verona, G., Ravasi, D..Unbundling dynamic capabilities:An exploratory study of continuous product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change,2003,12, 577-606.
[294]Vickery, S., Calantone, R., Droge, C. Supply chain flexibility:An empirical study. J. Supply Chain Management,1999,35(3),16-24.
[295]Volberda, H. W. Building the flexible firm:How to remain competitive. New York:Oxford University Press,1998.
[296]Walsh, J. P. Managerial and Organizational Cognition:Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane. Organization Science,1995,6(3),280-321.
[297]Walker, G., Kogut, B., Shan, W. J. Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organ. Sci.,1997,8(2),109-125.
[298]Walsham, G. Actor-network theory and IS research:current status and future prospects. In Proc. IFIP WG 8.2, Philidelphia, USA,1997,466-480.
[299]Wang, C. L., Ahmed, P. K..Dynamic capabilities:Are view and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,2007,9(1),31-51.
[300]Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1984,5(2),171-180.
[301]Wernerfelt, B., Montgomerg, C. Tobin's Q and the importance of focus in firm performance. American Economic Review,1988,78(1),246-25.
[302]Westphal, J. D. Collaboration in the boardroom:Behavioral and performance consequences of CEO-Board social ties. Academy of Management Journal, 1999,42(1),7-24.
[303]Williams, J. R. Strategy and the search for rents:the evolution of diversity among firms. In Rumelt, R. P., Schendel, D. E., Teece, D. J. (Editors), Fundamental Issues in Strategy. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press, 1994,229-246.
[304]Williamson, O. E. Calculativeness, trust, and economic organization. J. Law Econom,1993,36(1),453-486.
[305]Williamson, O. E. Strategizing, economizing, and economic organization. Strategic Management Journal,1991,12(Winter Special Issue),75-94.
[306]Williamson, O. E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York:The Free Press,1985.
[307]Williamson O. E. The economics of organization:The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology,1981,87,548-577.
[308]Williamson, O. E. Markets and hierarchies:analysis and antitrust implications: a study in the economics of internal organization. New York:Free Press,1975.
[309]Williamson, O. E. Hierarchical control and optimum firm size. J. of Political Econ.,1967,75(2),123-138.
[310]Wilson, R., Integer programming via modular representations. Management Science,1970,16(5),289-294.
[311]Winter, S. G. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,2003, Special Issue,24(10),991-995.
[312]Wren, D. A. Interface and interorganizational coordination. Academy of Management Journal,1967,10,69-81.
[313]Yin, R. K. Case study research:Design and methods (3rd ed.)-Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.,2003.
[314]Yin, R. K. The case study crisis:Some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly,1981,26,58-65.
[315]Young, A. A. Increasing returns and economic progress. The Economic Journal, 1928,38(152),527-542.
[316]Yu. Q., Xiaobo W., Jian, C., Fan, XQ., Jingjiang, L. Flexible knowledge management on modular innovation network. Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences,2012,4,248-255.
[317]Yu. Q., Xiaobo W., Jian, C, Xiaoqing, F., Ying, X. The study of entrepreneurial quality education in China's universities and colleges. China, Hangzhou:Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Management of Technology,2012.
[318]Yu. Q., Xiaobo W., Low-carbon technical integration strategy based on modular design. Energy Procedia,2011,5,2509-2516.
[319]Yu. Q., Xiaobo W. Energy-saving applied research of modular design. China, Beijing:Proceedings of the International Conference on Second China Energy Scientist Forum,2010,1574-1579.
[320]Zander, U., Kogut, B. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities:An empirical test. Organization Science January, 1995,6(1),76-92.
[321]Zenger, T. R., Hesterly, W. S. The disaggregation of corporations:Selective intervention, high-powered incentives, and molecular units. Organ. Sci.,1997, 8(3),209-222.
[322]Zhou, K. Z., Li, C. B. How strategic orientations influence the building of dynamic capability in emerging economies. Journal of Business Research, 2010,63(3),224-231.
[323]Zollo, M., Winter, S. G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science,2002,13,339-351.
[324]Zollo, M., Winter, S. G. From organizational routines to dynamic capabilities. Working paper WP 99-07, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA,1999.
[325]Zott, C. Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance:Insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(2),97-125.
[326]白雪洁.模块化时代的汽车产业变革.中国工业经济,2005(9),76-81.
[327]贝塔朗菲.一般系统论——基础发展应用.秋同,袁嘉译.北京：社会科学文献出版社,1987.
[328]波特著；陈小悦译.竞争战略.北京：华夏出版社,1997(1),2-32.
[329]蔡莉,杨阳,单标安,任萍.基于网络视角的新企业资源整合过程模型.吉林大学社会科学学报,2011(3),124-129.
[330]蔡溪平等.管理战略.上海：外文/远东出版社,1997.
[331]曹红军,赵剑波.动态能力如何影响企业绩效：基于中国企业的实证研究.南开管理评论,2008,11(6),54-65.
[332]曹虹剑,张慧,刘茂松.产权治理新范式：模块化网络组织产权治理.中国工业经济.2010(7),84-93.
[333]曹江涛,苗建军.模块化时代企业边界变动研究.中国工业经济,2006,221(8),85-92.
[334]陈光.企业协同创新管理的高标准定位与审计.管理学报,2005(3),327-332.
[335]陈国权,李赞斌.学习型组织中的“学习主体”类型与案例研究.管理科学学报,2002,5(4),51-60,67.
[336]陈剑,冯蔚东.虚拟企业构建与管理.北京：清华大学出版社,2002.
[337]陈劲,桂彬旺.模块化创新——复杂产品系统创新机理与路径研究.北京：知识产权出版社,2007.
[338]陈菲琼,王丹霞.全球价值链的动态性与企业升级.科研管理,2007,28(5),52-59.
[339]陈向东.模块化在制造企业知识管理战略设计中的应用——我国航空企业国际转包生产的模块化战略分析.中国工业经济,2004(1),36-42.
[340]陈晓萍,徐淑英,樊景立.组织与管理研究的实证方法.北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
[341]成思危.复杂科学与管理.中国科学院院刊,1999(3),175-183.
[342]戴汝为.一个开放的复杂巨系统.系统工程学报,2001(10),376-381.
[343]德鲁克.新型组织的出现http://www.360doc.com/content/06/0709/16/4213_152396. shtml,2006.07.09.
[344]电子工业部标准化研究所.电子工业标准化工作手册.北京：电子工业出版社,1983.
[345]方海洁.未来的组织(德鲁克纪念版).北京：中国人民大学出版社,2006.
[346]Felix Janszen著；雷华,马乐为译.创新时代：网络化时代的成功模式.昆明：云南大学出版社,2002.
[347]福山,信任：社会道德和繁荣的创造.呼和浩特：远方出版社出版,1998.
[348]官建成,张爱军.技术与组织的集成创新.中国软科学,2002(12),57-61.
[349]国家技术监督局、机电部电子机械标准化研究所《IEEE电气和电子术语标准辞典》编译委员会IEEE电气和电子术语标准辞典.北京：国防工业出版社,1992.
[350]郭重庆.中国管理学界的社会责任与历史使命.管理学报,2008(3),320-322.
[351]赫斌,任浩,Anne-Marie GUERIN组织模块化设计：基本原理与理论架构.中国工业经济,2007(6),80-87.
[352]贺小刚,李新春,方海鹰.动态能力的测量与功效：基于中国经验的实证研究.管理世界,2006(3),94-103.
[353]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版 社,2004.
[354]胡晓鹏.模块化：经济分析新视角.北京：人民出版社,2009.
[355]胡晓鹏.模块化整合标准化：产业模块化研究.中国工业经济,2005(9),67-74.
[356]胡晓鹏.价值系统的模块化与价值转移.中国工业经济,2004(11),68-74.
[357]黄芳铭.结构方程模式——理论与应用.北京：中国税务出版社,2005.
[358]黄俊英.多变量分析.台北：华泰书局,2004.
[359]霍利斯·B·钱纳里著,吴奇、王松宝等译.工业化和经济增长的比较研究.上海：上海人民出版社,1995.
[360]克里斯滕森,雷纳著；容冰译.困境与出路：企业如何制定破坏性增长战略.北京：中信出版社,2004.
[361]贾生华,邬爱其,疏礼兵.基于协同创新思想的浙江民营企业创新发展模式.浙江社会科学,2005(2),213-217.
[362]江小娟.中国的外资经济.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[363]柯颖.模块化生产网络：一种新产业组织形态研究.北京：经济科学出版社,2009.
[364]雷如桥,陈继祥,刘芹.基于模块化的组织模式及其效率比较研究.中国工业经济,2004(10),83-90.
[365]李海舰,原磊.基于价值链层面的利润转移研究.中国工业经济,2005(6),81-89.
[366]李怀祖.管理研究方法论.西安：西安交通大学出版社,2004.
[367]刘东等著.企业网络论.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2003.
[368]李海舰,聂辉华.论企业与市场的相互融合.中国工业经济,2004(8),26-35.
[369]李惠斌,杨雪冬编译.社会资本与社会发展.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2000.
[370]李兆友.论技术创新主体间的协同.系统辩证学学报,2000(2).
[371]刘杰.基于设计科学研究方法的管理问题研究路径International Journal of Electronic Commerce/Spring 2009,13(3)综述.管理学家(学术版),2009(5),69-72.——国外学术期刊综述.
[372]柳卸林.构建区域创新体系新思维.人民论坛,2006(4),15-16.
[373]刘雪锋.网络嵌入性与差异化战略及企业绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[374]卢福财,胡平波.网络租金及其形成机理分析.中国工业经济,2006(6),84-90.
[375]吕铁.论技术标准化与产业标准战略.中国工业经济,2005(7),43-49.
[376]罗伯特·L·弗勒德,迈克尔·C·杰克逊著,杨建梅、庄东、陈安琪等译,创造性解决问题——全面系统干预.上海：上海科技教育出版社,2008.
[377]罗伯特·K·殷.案例研究设计与方法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004.
[378]罗振璧,盛伯浩,赵晓波等.快速重组制造系统.中国机械工程,2000,11(3),300-303.
[379]罗仲伟.网络组织对层级组织的替代.中国工业经济,2001(6)
[380]罗珉,何长见.组织间关系：界面规则与治理机制.中国工业经济,2006(5),87-95.
[381]马克斯·韦伯,经济与社会.上海：商务印书馆出版,1998
[382]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,2006.
[383]毛基业、李晓燕.理论在案例研究中的作用——中国企业管理案例论坛(2009)综述与范文分析.管理世界,2010(2),106－113,140.
[384]尼尔·瑞克曼等.合作竞争大未来.北京：经济管理出版社,1998.
[385]彭纪生,吴林海.论技术协同创新模式及建构.研究与发展管理,2000(5),12-16.
[386]彭新敏,吴晓波,吴东.基于二次创新动态过程的企业网络与组织学习平衡模式演化～海天1971-2010纵向案例研究.管理世界,2011(4),138-149,166.
[387]钱钰博,焦黎,徐奕柳,荣志刚.面向产品全生命周期的产品模块结构编码研究.成组技术与生产现代化,2008,25(4),52-54.
[388]青木昌彦.比较制度分析.上海：上海远东出版社,2001.
[389]青木昌彦,安藤晴彦.模块时代：新产业结构的本质.上海：上海远东出版社,2003.
[390]邱皓政.结构方程模式——LISREL的理论、技术与应用.台北：双叶书廊出版社,2005.
[391]任新建.基于信息的虚拟价值链模型研究.兰州学刊,2005(1),102－105.
[392]荣泰生.AMOS与研究方法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2009.
[393]芮明杰.《跨国公司制造和服务外包发展趋势与中国相关政策研究》评介.中国工业经济,2009(9),157-158.
[394]芮明杰,陈娟.模块化原理对知识创新的作用及相关管理策略分析——以电脑设计为例.管理学报,2004,1(1),25-27,24.
[395]芮明杰,张琰.产业创新战略——基于网络状产业链内知识创新平台的研究.上海：上海财经大学出版社,2009.
[396]石奇.集成经济原理与产业转移.中国工业经济,2004(10),5-12.
[397]孙大涌,屈贤明,张松滨.先进制造技术.北京：机械工业出版社,2000.
[398]苏静,娄朝晖.分工专业化与模块化效率分析——一个新兴古典经济学的解释.科技管理研究,2005(2),199-201.
[399]孙海法,刘运国,方琳.案例研究的方法论.科研管理,2004(2),107-112.
[400]孙国强.西方网络组织治理研究评介.外国经济与管理,2004(8),8-12.
[401]唐铁球.中国制造业参与产品内分工与贸易的动因与收益研究.杭州：浙江大学,2011.
[402]唐一平.先进制造技术.北京：机械工业出版社,2005.
[403]田敏.高科技产业模块化与组织能力研究.电子科技大学学报(社科版),2007(2),30-33.
[404]童时中.模块化原理在生产系统布局设计中的运用.标准化报道,2000(5),20-22.
[405]涂尔干,社会分工论.三联书店出版,2000.
[406]汪斌,李伟庆,周明海.ODI与中国自主创新：机理分析与实证研究.科学学研究,2010,28(6),926-933.
[407]王凤彬,李东红,张婷婷,杨阳.产品开发组织超模块化及其对创新的影响.中国工业经济,2011(2),131-141.
[408]王琴华.我国科技兴贸战略的若干问题.国际贸易,2007(3),4-9.
[409]王毅,吴贵生.基于复杂理论的企业动态核心能力研究.管理科学学报, 2007,10(1),18-28.
[410]翁君奕.多变环境下的业务战略：从通用单一到精准组合的理论创新.中国工业经济,2009,252(3),92-101.
[411]翁君奕.面向动态完全竞争构建多维协同组合战略.南开管理评论,2007(10),80-85.
[412]翁君奕.差别产品的动态完全竞争.中国工业经济,2005(9),106-113.
[413]温忠麟,侯杰泰,马什赫伯特.结构方程模型检验：拟合指数与卡方准则.心理学报,2004,36(2),186-194.
[414]温忠麟,侯杰泰,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.
[415]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰等.中介效应检验程序及其应用.心理学报,2004,36(5),614-620.
[416]吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务——SPSS操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.
[417]吴明隆.结构方程模型——AMOS的操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2009.
[418]吴晓波.浙江制造亟待摆脱路径依赖.浙江经济.2011(3),16-17.
[419]吴晓波主编.浙江省创新型经济蓝皮书2008-2009.浙江大学出版社,2009.
[420]吴晓波主编.浙江省创新型经济蓝皮书2006-2007.浙江大学出版社,2007.
[421]吴晓波.全球化制造与二次创新：赢得后发优势.北京：机械工业出版社,2005.
[422]许冠南.关系嵌入性对技术创新绩效的影响研究——基于探索型学习的中介机制.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[423]席酉民,姚小涛.复杂多变环境下和谐管理理论与企业战略分析框架.管理科学,2003(4),2-6.
[424]项保华,张建东.案例研究方法和战略管理研究.自然辩证法通讯,2005(5),62-66,111.
[425]徐宏玲.模块化组织研究.成都：西南财经大学出版社,2006,33-36.
[426]徐红玲,李双海.价值链形态演变与模块化组织协调.中国工业经济,2005,212(11),81-88.
[427]许强,刘翌.基于知识的企业集团组织创新.商业研究,2006(14),28-31.
[428]许庆瑞,郑刚,喻子达,沈威.全面创新管理：21世纪创新管理的新趋势—基于海尔集团的案例研究.科研管理,2003(5),1-5.
[429]徐晓飞,战德臣等.动态联盟企业组织方法体系.计算机集成制造系统(CIMS),1999,5(1),7-12.
[430]亚当·斯密著.国富论,西安：陕西人民出版社,2001(首次出版为1976年).
[431]闫星宇,高觉民.模块化理论的再审视：局限及适用范围.中国工业经济,2007(4),71-78.
[432]杨继全,朱玉芳.先进制造技术.北京：化学工业出版社,2004.
[433]杨小凯,张永生.新兴古典经济学与超边际分析(修订版).北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[434]叶康涛.案例研究：从个案分析到理论创建——中国第一届管理案例学术研讨会综述.管理世界,2006(2),139-143.
[435]余东华,芮明杰.模块化、企业价值网络与企业边界变动.中国工业经济,2005(10).
[436]余菁.案例研究与案例研究方法.经济管理,2004(20),24-29.
[437]曾楚宏,林丹明.信息技术、交易成本与激励：论经济组织形式的中间化.中国工业经济,2006(6),75-83.
[438]张辉,全球价值链理论与我国产业发展研究.中国工业经济,2004(5),38-46.
[439]张钢,陈劲,许庆瑞.技术、组织与文化的协同创新模式研究.科学学研究,1997(2),56-61,112.
[440]张立鼎,周志春.先进电子制造技术信息装备的能工巧匠.北京：国防工业出版社,2000.
[441]张维迎.产权、政府与信誉.上海：三联书店,2001.
[442]赵伟,江东.ODI与中国产业升级：机理分析与尝试性实证.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2010,40(3),116-125.
[443]赵春明.虚拟企业.杭州：浙江人民出版社,1999.
[444]周长辉.中国企业战略变革过程研究：五矿经验及一般启示.管理世界,2005(12),23-136.
[445]周治翰,胡汉辉.分工、企业组织演进与企业集团重组分析——以江苏牡丹汽车集团为例.中国工业经济,2001(8),56-60.
[446]朱瑞博,模块生产网络价值创新的整合架构研究.中国工业经济,2006(1),98-105.
[447]朱瑞博.价值模块的虚拟再整合：以IC产业为例.中国工业经济,2004(1),28-35.
[448]朱瑞博.价值模块整合与产业融合.中国工业经济,2003(8),24-31.