基于二元组织的企业颠覆性和维持性创新研究
|
摘要
在新经济时代,创新是一个永恒的话题,是国家和企业保持持续竞争力的重要手段和工具。当前,市场需求变化加快、技术创新加速、竞争激化和产品生命周期缩短,企业经营环境的动态性和竞争性不断增强,成功的组织需要既能够有效运作当前的事业,又能够主动适应明天需要的特征(Duncan,1976)。Christensen(1997)提出了两种不同的路径创新。首先是维持性创新,在现有市场上使得现有产品或服务更好、更快或者更便宜。虽然这些提升可能是困难或者是昂贵的,他们是在已知路径中应用现有的一系列能力和流程。第二种创新路径是通过不连续的变化,可能是通过技术上能力颠覆或者商业模式的颠覆。这些提高需要不同于企业现有的能力或技能,这种创新通常是颠覆现有市场,这种创新路径我们称之为颠覆性创新。
如今战略管理、组织变化和组织学习等领域都逐渐开始探讨企业在颠覆性创新和维持性创新活动之间平衡的必要。企业应该寻求同时实施颠覆性创新和维持性创新的二元创新管理方式。而正确的颠覆性创新探索和维持性创新开发组合是复杂,且难以去说清。企业是受哪些因素的影响,去发展自己的组织二元性,以及二元性是如何影响组织的颠覆性创新和维持性创新绩效?企业如何同时开展颠覆性和维持性创新?二元性组织是如何管理的?现有的研究没有对这些问题给予明确解答,也很少有系统的理论和实证的研究。从而这些问题成为了本文研究的目的。
本文的主要工作及研究结论如下:
1、对现有的理论进行了总结和梳理。主要对当前国内外颠覆性创新理论和二元组织理论的研究状况进行了简要的介绍和评述。其中颠覆新性创新理论的综述按照当前理论界研究的主要问题,从颠覆性创新的内涵、颠覆性创新和维持性创新的特征、颠覆性创新研究的最新进展、以及企业开展颠覆性创新和维持性创新的管理研究等方面分析比较了不同学者的观点及其异同。二元组织理论综述主要包括:二元组织的理论背景、概念和定义、以及二元组织如何解决创新的悖论。同时本文指出了现有研究的不足之处,展望了未来研究的方向。
2、研究二元组织和创新绩效的相关性,以及企业内外部中组织二元性的动因。从案例和现有理论出发,研究企业能力陷阱产生的原因和类型。归纳总结影响组织二元性的动因,并把组织二元性作为中间变量,研究二元性如何影响企业颠覆性创新和维持性创新的绩效,并提出相应的假设。认为外部环境动态性和企业跨部门协调是影响组织二元性的两个因素,而企业经理感知的机会和威胁调节了影响程度的大小。
3、对二元组织和创新绩效的相关性和影响因素进行了实证研究。基于理论研究和假设,实证过程分为问卷设计、样本选择、多元回归分析、结果探讨以及辨析几个经典过程,其中问卷设计主要参考以往文献的相关指标量,样本选择的是基于上海和北京两家培训公司的企业数据库,并经过相应的信效度分析,对于收集回来的数据采用的是多元回归分析,然后对产生的结果结合本文的研究目的进行了详尽的分析。结果显示外部环境的动态性和跨部门协调都影响了组织的探索能力和开发能力,但是对于探索能力的影响更为明显;而在经理感知机会的情况下,影响程度就会加强,企业会更加投入加强探索能力的建设;最后企业开发能力和探索能力的交互对于颠覆性创新绩效和维持性创新绩效的提高程度超过单一发展探索能力或者开发能力。
4、分别从技术和商业模式角度,研究企业颠覆性创新和维持性创新的开展路径。从技术发展曲线出发,研究不同阶段的创新管理,以及技术颠覆点的搜索和技术扫描的管理,特别探讨了颠覆点的确定和搜索。接着从价值链出发,研究企业颠覆性和维持性创新商业模式的管理,通过对企业全部价值活动进行优化选择,并对某些核心价值活动进行创新,再重新排列、优化整合而成的,重点结合具体案例研究了商业颠覆性创新模式的选择。最后总结了二元组织创新的路径,以及实施过程中的关键点。
5、结合动态能力和本文实证研究的结果,提出了二元组织的创新管理框架。本文在动态能力理论综述的基础上,探讨了环境的压力作用,领导者的战略导向作用,以及动态能力如何在二元创新中发挥作用。学习是动态能力和创新的基础,所以本文重点研究了二元组织动态学习机制。并以三星电子DRAM为了说明二元组织是如何通过学习提升自己,加强企业探索能力和开发能力,获取长期竞争优势。最后提出扩展性的二元组织结构,研究了企业如何通过部门协同管理颠覆性创新和维持性创新部门。
6、以我国电气行业作为背景,本章研究了国际性大企业ABB和新兴的民营企业正泰的创新成长案例。结合本文研究的结论,从在位者角度研究ABB如何在新一轮的竞争中,增强自己的灵活性,加强自己的探索能力,以获取持续的成长。相对的,从颠覆者的角度,研究正泰集团通过颠覆性和维持性创新的有效结合,探索能力和开发能力的有机建立,动态学习机制的建立,逐渐从弱变强的发展历程。从实践的角度为企业的二元创新提供了新的实证和启示。
通过对企业二元创新的理论和实证,本文认为企业可以直接从开展颠覆性创新和维持性创新的流程中受益无穷。企业必须思考要通过怎样的方式,才可以创造一个能够进行相异性思考、破坏性创造的“地方”,以及它们应该如何接受并容许企业中新旧观念之间产生竞争。此外,企业必须决定在什么时候、以什么方式让颠覆的力量开始发生作用。对企业和管理者而言,他们的挑战包括:对新的观念保持开放的态度,并且决不过早排斥现有的观念;保持对于改变的偏倚,而非倾向保持现状;以他们周遭环境的速度及规模来从事改变。
本文的成果有利于企业从更深层的视角去理解创新与企业成长的关系,并为企业的实践提供了理论的依据和实证的基础。与现有的颠覆性创新和二元组织理论的研究相比,本文的贡献和创新之处主要表现在四个方面:
1、构建了一个企业颠覆性创新和维持性创新完整的管理框架。首次将二元组织和颠覆性创新管理综合在一起,将二元组织创新作为一种战略工具引入企业理论之中,并将博弈论、统计分析、资源观、价值链等理论和方法引入到具体研究中,丰富了颠覆性创新和维持性创新理论的研究内容和研究方法。当前对二元组织创新的研究分散在技术管理、企业战略、产业发展等各个学科领域,至今没有形成统一的研究框架,造成进一步研究的不便。本文首先对现有文献进行了整理,在前人基础上,对颠覆性创新、维持性创新、二元组织等概念进行了重新界定。在此基础上,本文深入分析了二元组织创新的动因、创新路经、管理等。此外,现有的颠覆性创新和二元组织研究偏重于经验的归纳总结,定性较多,定量较少,缺乏系统的刻画与分析。本文将数理统计、田野调查、多元回归等定量研究方法引入二元组织创新研究之中,深化了研究层次,丰富了理论工具。
2、首次提出动因——二元组织能力——创新绩效的研究框架,把二元组织的建立作为中间变量,研究了二元组织和创新绩效的因果关系。并且从理论和实证角度寻求二元组织和绩效的相关性,以及组织内外寻求二元组织的动因。实证研究结果表明组织二元性促进了企业颠覆性和维持性创新的绩效,外部环境的动态性和企业跨部门协调是组织探索能力和开发能力提升的主要动因,而管理者的感知的机会或者威胁调节了不同因素的影响程度。
3、首次从技术和商业模式两个角度同时探讨颠覆性和维持性创新路径的管理。现有的颠覆性创新管理都是偏重于技术路径的探讨,而忽略了商业模式的研究。本文分别从技术S-曲线和价值链角度探讨,企业对于技术上颠覆点的搜寻和颠覆性创新商业模式的选择。创新性的提出了二元组织创新的路径,以及实施过程中的关键点。
4、多角度研究二元组织的创新管理。动态能力理论将焦点放在创新的开拓性动力上,强调以开拓性动力克服企业的刚性,促进企业持续发展。开拓性动力通过促进创新和创造新的规则与能力为企业的竞争优势提供了长期基础。本文就结合动态能力理论研究二元组织创新的综合管理框架。并重点研究二元组织的学习机制,组织机构的模式,以及二元组织中的部门协同战略,并结合具体案例说明。为理论研究提供了实证基础,为企业提供了具体的理论和实践操作的工具。
In the new economic era, innovation is an eternal topic, as an important way and tool for the states and enterprises to sustain their competitiveness. Nowadays,because of the accelerated changes in market demand, more technological innovation, fiercer competition and shorter product lifecycles, the dynamic and uncertainty of environment and reinforced competition, successful enterprises need to operate current business effectively, also, they must have the initiative to adapt, to explore, and to develop new characteristics for the future. Christensen, C. M.(1997) defined two different paths of innovation. First of all, the maintaining innovation is to make existing products or services better, faster or cheaper in the current market. Although the increase may be difficult or expensive, they apply a range of existing capacity and processes in the known path. Based on the discontinuous changes, the second innovation path may be achived through the technical disruptive ability or business model disruption. What capacity or skills the enterprises need to do such innovation is different with existing; such innovations are often undermining the existing market, which we call this innovative path of disruptive innovation.
Now the reseach fields such as strategic management, organizational change and organizational learning have gradually beginning to explore the necessity of holding the balance between disruptive innovations & maintaining innovation activities for enterprises. Enterprises should seek the dual innovation management to implement disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation simultaneously. Correct combination of disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation are complex, and difficult to explain ambidextrous Organization is influenced by which factors which ultimately influence the disruptive innovation & maintaining innovation performance of enterprises; how the enterprises carry out disruptive innovation & maintaining innovation simultaneously? And how to manage the ambidextrous organization? However Existing research so far failed to offer clear answers to these questions, and have generated comparatively little systematic theoretical inquiry or empirical investigation. These issues are the purpose of this paper.
The primary innovations of the dissertation are summarized in the following:
1, Summarizing the existing theories. The paper introduced the theory of disruptive innovation and the theory of ambidextrous organization, and made a brief comment about these two theories. According to the main research issues of the disruptive innovation theory, the paper contrasted the ideas among the different researchers from concept, the comparison of characteristics, the barrier of implementation, and the different ways of carrying out disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation. The summary of ambidextrous organization theory includes: the background, concepts and definitions of ambidextrous organization theory, how to resolve the innovation paradox based on ambidextrous organization. At same time the paper pointed out the drawbacks about the existing theories and made assumptions about the developing trends in the future.
2、Researching on the relevance between the ambidextrous organization and the innovation performance, and the cause of the organization duality from the inside-outside enterprises. Based on the case study and the existing theory, the paper studies the cause and type of the enterprise capacity trap. The paper summarized the cause of the ambidextrous organization, taking the organization duality as intermediary variables,then studied how the ambidextrous organization impact on the performance of the disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation, ultimately many reasonable hypothesizes have been proposed. The paper put forward the environmental turbulence and interfunctional coordination as the cause of ambidextrous organization, and managers perceived market opportunity moderated the effect of the influence. Also organization duality has the positive effect on the performance of the disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation.
3、Doing empirical research on the relevance between the ambidextrous organization and the innovation performance, and the cause of the organization dualility from the inside-outside enterprises. Based on theoretical study and hypothesizes, the empirical work including the questionnaire design, the sample selection, multiple regression analysis, the results analysis and exploration.The measurement index of questionnaire design is reference to the existing relevant literature. After the collection of data, the first thing to do was to assess the reliability and validity of the scale. The collected data is analysised by multiple regression analysis, and then combining theory to discuss the results for the purpose of this paper. The results showed that environmental turbulence and Interfunctional coordination had the effect on the exploration and exploitation competence, but the effect on the exploration competence is stronger. When the perceived market opportunity of management is high the positive effect is more significant, and enterprises will invest more on the construction of exploration capabilities. The interaction of the exploration and exploitation competence had more positive effect on the performance of the disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation than only the exploration competence or exploitation competence.
4、From the perspective of technology and business model, exploring the management of disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation. Based on the S-curve of technological development, the paper investigated the different innovation management styles according to different technology stages. It especially pointed out how to search the time of technical disruption and technology scanning management. Then based on the value chain, the paper has researched on disruptive business model innovation and maintaining business model innovation management, through optimized combining the value activities of all enterprises options, innovating some of the core activities, then re-arranging and integrating them. With the case studies the paper specially investigated the modes of identifying disruptive business model innovation. Finally the paper put forward the management path of ambidextrous organization, and mentioned the key points during the implementation process.
5、Combining the dynamic capability theory and the empirical findings of the paper, and advancing the innovative management framework of the ambidextrous organization. Based on the summary of dynamic capacity theory, the paper probed what the leadership role was in the strategic direction, and how the dynamic capabilities played a role in ambidextrous organization innovation. Learning mechanism is the foundation of dynamic capabilities and innovative, the paper stressed on ambidextrous organizational dynamic learning mechanism. Then using the Samsung Electronics DRAM as the case study to illustrate how ambidextrous organization was being used to upgrade their learning, enhance their ability to explore, and develop the ability to obtain long-term competitive advantage. Eventually, the paper advanced expansion structure of ambidextrous organization, and integration strategies of departments within the ambidextrous organization.
6、Case study. Taking electrical industry of China as the background, this chapter research on cases how the the international large enterprises ABB and newest private enterprises Zhengtai Group management the innovation. Combined with findings of the study, this chapter explored how ABB enhance their flexibility; strengthen their exploration compentence, to obtain sustained growth in the new competition from the perspective of incumbent. On the other hand, this chapter quested development process of Zhengtai through the effective integration of disruptive & sustaining innovation, establishing exploration and exploition competence to an organic, establishing the dynamic learning mechanism from the perspective of disruptor. It povides new evidences and new sight to the enterprises’innovation.
Through the theoretical and empirical research on the ambidextrous innovation, it’s considered that enterprises which carry out disruptive innovation and sustaining innovation simultaneously will gain immense benefits from it. Enterprises should consider how to create a place which allows for diverse thinking, disruptive creation, and permit competition between old and new concepts.In addition, enterprises have to decide when and how to make the disruptive power take effect. The challenges enterprises face include: keeping an opening mind for the new concept, but never reject the existing concepts too early; keep the bias of changing, but not inclined to maintain the status quo; pursuing the change according the environment dynamic around them.
The conclusions of this paper can be more favorable to firms to understand the relationship of innovation and growth from a deeper perspective. Compared with the predecessors’study of disruptive innovation theory and latecomer firm growth, the contribution and innovation of this paper mainly show in four aspects:
1. This paper constructed a complete management framework of disruptive and sustaining innvation. Firstly combining the disruptive innovation theory and ambibextrous organization theory, taking ambidextrous as the strategic tool, it enriched theoretical contents and research methods of diruptive and sustaining innvation by theories and method such as game theory, statistical analysis, RVB and value-chain. The current study on ambidextrous organization innovation spreading in technology management, corporate strategy, organizational sociology, psychology, economics and other fields, has not formed a unified framework and it lead inconvenience in further study. First of all, the paper took a detailed literature review, and on the basis of predecessors’work, we redefined the concept of disruptive innovation, sustaining innvation and ambidextrous organization. On this basis, the cause, innovation path and management of ambidextrous organization was deeply analysed. Moreover, exsiting research on disruptive innovation and ambidextrous organization stressed on introduction and summarization, with more qualitative reseach and less quantitative ones, and lacked of characterization and analysis of the management system. This paper used many research methods such as game theory, mathematical statistics, field investigations, multiple regression analysis et al, expanding research content and enrich the theoretical tools.
2. This paper put forward the cause----amdidextrous organization capabilities----innovation performance research framework for the first time, taking ambidextrous as the intermediate variable, and explored the cause and effect of the organizational duality.Then it sought the relevance of amdidextrous organization and innovation performance from theoretical and empirical perspective. The empirical study results showed that organizational duality promoted the the performance of the disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation, and environmental turbulence and Interfunctional coordination was the main cause of the development of the exploration and exploitation competence, and that managers’perceived that opportunities or threats would regulate the influence degree of different factors.
3. From technology and business model, the paper explored the disruptive and sustaining innovation path management. The existing disruptive innovation management was emphasized particularly on the technology management path; but neglecting the study on business model. Based on the technology-curve and value chain theory, it discussed search of technical disruptive point and the modes of disruptive innovative business model. Innovatively ambidextrous organizational innovation path has been put forward, the key points in the implementation process. Moreover how the organization is to support innovation habits, consumer and market research, and how to share potential opportunities platform has been summed up.
4.From perspectives of enterprise to research on innovation management of ambidextrous organization. The theory of dynamic capabilities emphasizes how enterprises to overcome the rigidness, to accelerate innovation and create new rules and the capacity of enterprises as the basis of long-term competitive advantages. In this paper, intergrating dynamic capabilities and the system innovation management framework of ambidextrous organization has been advanced. Moreover with the specific case, the research on organizational learning mechanism, the mode of organization structure and departments coordinated strategy in the ambidextrous organizations has been deeply studied. It provided the empirical basis for theoretical research and specific theoretical and practical operation tool for enterprises.
如今战略管理、组织变化和组织学习等领域都逐渐开始探讨企业在颠覆性创新和维持性创新活动之间平衡的必要。企业应该寻求同时实施颠覆性创新和维持性创新的二元创新管理方式。而正确的颠覆性创新探索和维持性创新开发组合是复杂,且难以去说清。企业是受哪些因素的影响,去发展自己的组织二元性,以及二元性是如何影响组织的颠覆性创新和维持性创新绩效?企业如何同时开展颠覆性和维持性创新?二元性组织是如何管理的?现有的研究没有对这些问题给予明确解答,也很少有系统的理论和实证的研究。从而这些问题成为了本文研究的目的。
本文的主要工作及研究结论如下:
1、对现有的理论进行了总结和梳理。主要对当前国内外颠覆性创新理论和二元组织理论的研究状况进行了简要的介绍和评述。其中颠覆新性创新理论的综述按照当前理论界研究的主要问题,从颠覆性创新的内涵、颠覆性创新和维持性创新的特征、颠覆性创新研究的最新进展、以及企业开展颠覆性创新和维持性创新的管理研究等方面分析比较了不同学者的观点及其异同。二元组织理论综述主要包括:二元组织的理论背景、概念和定义、以及二元组织如何解决创新的悖论。同时本文指出了现有研究的不足之处,展望了未来研究的方向。
2、研究二元组织和创新绩效的相关性,以及企业内外部中组织二元性的动因。从案例和现有理论出发,研究企业能力陷阱产生的原因和类型。归纳总结影响组织二元性的动因,并把组织二元性作为中间变量,研究二元性如何影响企业颠覆性创新和维持性创新的绩效,并提出相应的假设。认为外部环境动态性和企业跨部门协调是影响组织二元性的两个因素,而企业经理感知的机会和威胁调节了影响程度的大小。
3、对二元组织和创新绩效的相关性和影响因素进行了实证研究。基于理论研究和假设,实证过程分为问卷设计、样本选择、多元回归分析、结果探讨以及辨析几个经典过程,其中问卷设计主要参考以往文献的相关指标量,样本选择的是基于上海和北京两家培训公司的企业数据库,并经过相应的信效度分析,对于收集回来的数据采用的是多元回归分析,然后对产生的结果结合本文的研究目的进行了详尽的分析。结果显示外部环境的动态性和跨部门协调都影响了组织的探索能力和开发能力,但是对于探索能力的影响更为明显;而在经理感知机会的情况下,影响程度就会加强,企业会更加投入加强探索能力的建设;最后企业开发能力和探索能力的交互对于颠覆性创新绩效和维持性创新绩效的提高程度超过单一发展探索能力或者开发能力。
4、分别从技术和商业模式角度,研究企业颠覆性创新和维持性创新的开展路径。从技术发展曲线出发,研究不同阶段的创新管理,以及技术颠覆点的搜索和技术扫描的管理,特别探讨了颠覆点的确定和搜索。接着从价值链出发,研究企业颠覆性和维持性创新商业模式的管理,通过对企业全部价值活动进行优化选择,并对某些核心价值活动进行创新,再重新排列、优化整合而成的,重点结合具体案例研究了商业颠覆性创新模式的选择。最后总结了二元组织创新的路径,以及实施过程中的关键点。
5、结合动态能力和本文实证研究的结果,提出了二元组织的创新管理框架。本文在动态能力理论综述的基础上,探讨了环境的压力作用,领导者的战略导向作用,以及动态能力如何在二元创新中发挥作用。学习是动态能力和创新的基础,所以本文重点研究了二元组织动态学习机制。并以三星电子DRAM为了说明二元组织是如何通过学习提升自己,加强企业探索能力和开发能力,获取长期竞争优势。最后提出扩展性的二元组织结构,研究了企业如何通过部门协同管理颠覆性创新和维持性创新部门。
6、以我国电气行业作为背景,本章研究了国际性大企业ABB和新兴的民营企业正泰的创新成长案例。结合本文研究的结论,从在位者角度研究ABB如何在新一轮的竞争中,增强自己的灵活性,加强自己的探索能力,以获取持续的成长。相对的,从颠覆者的角度,研究正泰集团通过颠覆性和维持性创新的有效结合,探索能力和开发能力的有机建立,动态学习机制的建立,逐渐从弱变强的发展历程。从实践的角度为企业的二元创新提供了新的实证和启示。
通过对企业二元创新的理论和实证,本文认为企业可以直接从开展颠覆性创新和维持性创新的流程中受益无穷。企业必须思考要通过怎样的方式,才可以创造一个能够进行相异性思考、破坏性创造的“地方”,以及它们应该如何接受并容许企业中新旧观念之间产生竞争。此外,企业必须决定在什么时候、以什么方式让颠覆的力量开始发生作用。对企业和管理者而言,他们的挑战包括:对新的观念保持开放的态度,并且决不过早排斥现有的观念;保持对于改变的偏倚,而非倾向保持现状;以他们周遭环境的速度及规模来从事改变。
本文的成果有利于企业从更深层的视角去理解创新与企业成长的关系,并为企业的实践提供了理论的依据和实证的基础。与现有的颠覆性创新和二元组织理论的研究相比,本文的贡献和创新之处主要表现在四个方面:
1、构建了一个企业颠覆性创新和维持性创新完整的管理框架。首次将二元组织和颠覆性创新管理综合在一起,将二元组织创新作为一种战略工具引入企业理论之中,并将博弈论、统计分析、资源观、价值链等理论和方法引入到具体研究中,丰富了颠覆性创新和维持性创新理论的研究内容和研究方法。当前对二元组织创新的研究分散在技术管理、企业战略、产业发展等各个学科领域,至今没有形成统一的研究框架,造成进一步研究的不便。本文首先对现有文献进行了整理,在前人基础上,对颠覆性创新、维持性创新、二元组织等概念进行了重新界定。在此基础上,本文深入分析了二元组织创新的动因、创新路经、管理等。此外,现有的颠覆性创新和二元组织研究偏重于经验的归纳总结,定性较多,定量较少,缺乏系统的刻画与分析。本文将数理统计、田野调查、多元回归等定量研究方法引入二元组织创新研究之中,深化了研究层次,丰富了理论工具。
2、首次提出动因——二元组织能力——创新绩效的研究框架,把二元组织的建立作为中间变量,研究了二元组织和创新绩效的因果关系。并且从理论和实证角度寻求二元组织和绩效的相关性,以及组织内外寻求二元组织的动因。实证研究结果表明组织二元性促进了企业颠覆性和维持性创新的绩效,外部环境的动态性和企业跨部门协调是组织探索能力和开发能力提升的主要动因,而管理者的感知的机会或者威胁调节了不同因素的影响程度。
3、首次从技术和商业模式两个角度同时探讨颠覆性和维持性创新路径的管理。现有的颠覆性创新管理都是偏重于技术路径的探讨,而忽略了商业模式的研究。本文分别从技术S-曲线和价值链角度探讨,企业对于技术上颠覆点的搜寻和颠覆性创新商业模式的选择。创新性的提出了二元组织创新的路径,以及实施过程中的关键点。
4、多角度研究二元组织的创新管理。动态能力理论将焦点放在创新的开拓性动力上,强调以开拓性动力克服企业的刚性,促进企业持续发展。开拓性动力通过促进创新和创造新的规则与能力为企业的竞争优势提供了长期基础。本文就结合动态能力理论研究二元组织创新的综合管理框架。并重点研究二元组织的学习机制,组织机构的模式,以及二元组织中的部门协同战略,并结合具体案例说明。为理论研究提供了实证基础,为企业提供了具体的理论和实践操作的工具。
In the new economic era, innovation is an eternal topic, as an important way and tool for the states and enterprises to sustain their competitiveness. Nowadays,because of the accelerated changes in market demand, more technological innovation, fiercer competition and shorter product lifecycles, the dynamic and uncertainty of environment and reinforced competition, successful enterprises need to operate current business effectively, also, they must have the initiative to adapt, to explore, and to develop new characteristics for the future. Christensen, C. M.(1997) defined two different paths of innovation. First of all, the maintaining innovation is to make existing products or services better, faster or cheaper in the current market. Although the increase may be difficult or expensive, they apply a range of existing capacity and processes in the known path. Based on the discontinuous changes, the second innovation path may be achived through the technical disruptive ability or business model disruption. What capacity or skills the enterprises need to do such innovation is different with existing; such innovations are often undermining the existing market, which we call this innovative path of disruptive innovation.
Now the reseach fields such as strategic management, organizational change and organizational learning have gradually beginning to explore the necessity of holding the balance between disruptive innovations & maintaining innovation activities for enterprises. Enterprises should seek the dual innovation management to implement disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation simultaneously. Correct combination of disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation are complex, and difficult to explain ambidextrous Organization is influenced by which factors which ultimately influence the disruptive innovation & maintaining innovation performance of enterprises; how the enterprises carry out disruptive innovation & maintaining innovation simultaneously? And how to manage the ambidextrous organization? However Existing research so far failed to offer clear answers to these questions, and have generated comparatively little systematic theoretical inquiry or empirical investigation. These issues are the purpose of this paper.
The primary innovations of the dissertation are summarized in the following:
1, Summarizing the existing theories. The paper introduced the theory of disruptive innovation and the theory of ambidextrous organization, and made a brief comment about these two theories. According to the main research issues of the disruptive innovation theory, the paper contrasted the ideas among the different researchers from concept, the comparison of characteristics, the barrier of implementation, and the different ways of carrying out disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation. The summary of ambidextrous organization theory includes: the background, concepts and definitions of ambidextrous organization theory, how to resolve the innovation paradox based on ambidextrous organization. At same time the paper pointed out the drawbacks about the existing theories and made assumptions about the developing trends in the future.
2、Researching on the relevance between the ambidextrous organization and the innovation performance, and the cause of the organization duality from the inside-outside enterprises. Based on the case study and the existing theory, the paper studies the cause and type of the enterprise capacity trap. The paper summarized the cause of the ambidextrous organization, taking the organization duality as intermediary variables,then studied how the ambidextrous organization impact on the performance of the disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation, ultimately many reasonable hypothesizes have been proposed. The paper put forward the environmental turbulence and interfunctional coordination as the cause of ambidextrous organization, and managers perceived market opportunity moderated the effect of the influence. Also organization duality has the positive effect on the performance of the disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation.
3、Doing empirical research on the relevance between the ambidextrous organization and the innovation performance, and the cause of the organization dualility from the inside-outside enterprises. Based on theoretical study and hypothesizes, the empirical work including the questionnaire design, the sample selection, multiple regression analysis, the results analysis and exploration.The measurement index of questionnaire design is reference to the existing relevant literature. After the collection of data, the first thing to do was to assess the reliability and validity of the scale. The collected data is analysised by multiple regression analysis, and then combining theory to discuss the results for the purpose of this paper. The results showed that environmental turbulence and Interfunctional coordination had the effect on the exploration and exploitation competence, but the effect on the exploration competence is stronger. When the perceived market opportunity of management is high the positive effect is more significant, and enterprises will invest more on the construction of exploration capabilities. The interaction of the exploration and exploitation competence had more positive effect on the performance of the disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation than only the exploration competence or exploitation competence.
4、From the perspective of technology and business model, exploring the management of disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation. Based on the S-curve of technological development, the paper investigated the different innovation management styles according to different technology stages. It especially pointed out how to search the time of technical disruption and technology scanning management. Then based on the value chain, the paper has researched on disruptive business model innovation and maintaining business model innovation management, through optimized combining the value activities of all enterprises options, innovating some of the core activities, then re-arranging and integrating them. With the case studies the paper specially investigated the modes of identifying disruptive business model innovation. Finally the paper put forward the management path of ambidextrous organization, and mentioned the key points during the implementation process.
5、Combining the dynamic capability theory and the empirical findings of the paper, and advancing the innovative management framework of the ambidextrous organization. Based on the summary of dynamic capacity theory, the paper probed what the leadership role was in the strategic direction, and how the dynamic capabilities played a role in ambidextrous organization innovation. Learning mechanism is the foundation of dynamic capabilities and innovative, the paper stressed on ambidextrous organizational dynamic learning mechanism. Then using the Samsung Electronics DRAM as the case study to illustrate how ambidextrous organization was being used to upgrade their learning, enhance their ability to explore, and develop the ability to obtain long-term competitive advantage. Eventually, the paper advanced expansion structure of ambidextrous organization, and integration strategies of departments within the ambidextrous organization.
6、Case study. Taking electrical industry of China as the background, this chapter research on cases how the the international large enterprises ABB and newest private enterprises Zhengtai Group management the innovation. Combined with findings of the study, this chapter explored how ABB enhance their flexibility; strengthen their exploration compentence, to obtain sustained growth in the new competition from the perspective of incumbent. On the other hand, this chapter quested development process of Zhengtai through the effective integration of disruptive & sustaining innovation, establishing exploration and exploition competence to an organic, establishing the dynamic learning mechanism from the perspective of disruptor. It povides new evidences and new sight to the enterprises’innovation.
Through the theoretical and empirical research on the ambidextrous innovation, it’s considered that enterprises which carry out disruptive innovation and sustaining innovation simultaneously will gain immense benefits from it. Enterprises should consider how to create a place which allows for diverse thinking, disruptive creation, and permit competition between old and new concepts.In addition, enterprises have to decide when and how to make the disruptive power take effect. The challenges enterprises face include: keeping an opening mind for the new concept, but never reject the existing concepts too early; keep the bias of changing, but not inclined to maintain the status quo; pursuing the change according the environment dynamic around them.
The conclusions of this paper can be more favorable to firms to understand the relationship of innovation and growth from a deeper perspective. Compared with the predecessors’study of disruptive innovation theory and latecomer firm growth, the contribution and innovation of this paper mainly show in four aspects:
1. This paper constructed a complete management framework of disruptive and sustaining innvation. Firstly combining the disruptive innovation theory and ambibextrous organization theory, taking ambidextrous as the strategic tool, it enriched theoretical contents and research methods of diruptive and sustaining innvation by theories and method such as game theory, statistical analysis, RVB and value-chain. The current study on ambidextrous organization innovation spreading in technology management, corporate strategy, organizational sociology, psychology, economics and other fields, has not formed a unified framework and it lead inconvenience in further study. First of all, the paper took a detailed literature review, and on the basis of predecessors’work, we redefined the concept of disruptive innovation, sustaining innvation and ambidextrous organization. On this basis, the cause, innovation path and management of ambidextrous organization was deeply analysed. Moreover, exsiting research on disruptive innovation and ambidextrous organization stressed on introduction and summarization, with more qualitative reseach and less quantitative ones, and lacked of characterization and analysis of the management system. This paper used many research methods such as game theory, mathematical statistics, field investigations, multiple regression analysis et al, expanding research content and enrich the theoretical tools.
2. This paper put forward the cause----amdidextrous organization capabilities----innovation performance research framework for the first time, taking ambidextrous as the intermediate variable, and explored the cause and effect of the organizational duality.Then it sought the relevance of amdidextrous organization and innovation performance from theoretical and empirical perspective. The empirical study results showed that organizational duality promoted the the performance of the disruptive innovation and maintaining innovation, and environmental turbulence and Interfunctional coordination was the main cause of the development of the exploration and exploitation competence, and that managers’perceived that opportunities or threats would regulate the influence degree of different factors.
3. From technology and business model, the paper explored the disruptive and sustaining innovation path management. The existing disruptive innovation management was emphasized particularly on the technology management path; but neglecting the study on business model. Based on the technology-curve and value chain theory, it discussed search of technical disruptive point and the modes of disruptive innovative business model. Innovatively ambidextrous organizational innovation path has been put forward, the key points in the implementation process. Moreover how the organization is to support innovation habits, consumer and market research, and how to share potential opportunities platform has been summed up.
4.From perspectives of enterprise to research on innovation management of ambidextrous organization. The theory of dynamic capabilities emphasizes how enterprises to overcome the rigidness, to accelerate innovation and create new rules and the capacity of enterprises as the basis of long-term competitive advantages. In this paper, intergrating dynamic capabilities and the system innovation management framework of ambidextrous organization has been advanced. Moreover with the specific case, the research on organizational learning mechanism, the mode of organization structure and departments coordinated strategy in the ambidextrous organizations has been deeply studied. It provided the empirical basis for theoretical research and specific theoretical and practical operation tool for enterprises.
引文
1. Abell, Derek F, Competing Today While Preparing for Tomorrow[J]. Sloan Management Review. 1999. 40(3):73–81.
2. Adner, Ron. When Are Technologies Disruptive: A Dem&Based View of the Emergence of Competition [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2002,24(10):1011–1027.
3. Adner, Ron &Zemsky, Peter. Disruptive Technologies &the Emergence of Competition [J]. RAND Journal of Economics,2005(Summer).
4. Amit, Raphael; Schoemaker, Paul J.H. Strategic assets and organizational rents [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1993,Vol.14, 33-46.
5. Anderson,J.C.,Narus,J.A. A model of distributor firm &manufacturer firm working partnerships [J].Journal of Marketing.1990,Vol.54,January: 42-58
6. Ahuja, G. and Lampert, C. Entrepreneurship in the Large Corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2001, 22, 521-543.
7. Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku. An Exploratory Analysis of the Impact of Market Orientation on New Product Performance: A Contingency Approach [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1995, 12(September), 275–93.
8. Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku, Anthony Ko. An Empirical Investigation of the Effect of Market Orientation and Entrepreneurship Orientation Alignment on Product Innovation [J]. Organization Science, 2001,12(1), 54–74.
9. Atuahene-Gima, Haiyang Li. When Does Trust Matter? Antecedents and Contingent Effects of Supervisee Trust on Performance in Selling New Products in China and the United States[J].Journal of Marketing, 2002,66(July), 61–81.
10. Bagozzi, Richard R., Youjae Yi, and Lynn W. Phillips. Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1991, 36(September): 421–58.
11. Baker, William and James M. Sinkula .The Synergistic Effect of Market Orientation and Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance [J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1999, 27(Fall): 411–27.
12. Barnett, William P., Henrich R. Greve, and Douglas Y. Park. An Evolutionary Model of Organizational Performance [J].Strategic Management Journal. 1994, 15(Winter Special Issue): 11–28.
13. Barney, Jay B . Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage [J]. Journal of Management. 1991, 17(1): 99–120.
14. Barney, Jay B., Edward Zajac. Competitive Organizational Behavior: Toward an Organizationally-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 199415(Winter Special Issue): 5–9.
15. Baron, Rueben M. and David A. Kenny. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual and Statistical Considerations [J].Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology. 1986,51(6): 1173–82.
16. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L.. Exploitation, Exploration, And Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited [J]. Academy of Management Review, 2003,28(2), 238-256.
17. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries [Z].Working paper.The Wharton School. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.2002.
18. Biggadike,E.R.(1981)."The contribution of marketin to strategic management"[J],Academy of Management Review,Vol.6,No.4,pp.621-632
19. Bingham, Christopher B. Learning from heterogeneous experience: The internationalization of entrepreneurial firms[Z]. Stanford School of Engineering Working Paper. 2005.
20. Birgitta Sandberg, Sten-Olof Hanse?n. Creating an international market for disruptive innovations[J]. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2004, Volume 7: 23-32
21. Birkinshaw, J. M., Morrison, A.. Configurations of Strategy and Structure in Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1995, 26: 729-754.
22. B.J. Jaworski and A.K. Kohli. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences [J]. Journal of Marketing 57(1993)(July), pp. 53–70.
23. Brandenberger, Adam and Stuart, Harborne. Value-based strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. 1996,(5): 5-24.
24. Cardinal, Laura B. Technological Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Use of Organizational Control in Managing Research and Development [J]. Organization Science, 2001, 12(1): 19–36.
25. Catherine L. Wang, Pervaiz K. Ahmed. Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda [J]. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2007, Volume 9 Issue 1:31–51.
26. Chandy, Rajesh K. and Tellis, Gerard J. The Incumbent‘s Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product Innovation [J]. Journal of Marketing, 2000, 64(3):1–17.
27. Chandy, Rajesh K. and Tellis, Gerard J. Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize [J]. Journal of Marketing Research , 1998, 35(4):474–87.
28. Charitou, C. and Markides, C. Reponses to Disruptive Strategic Innovation [J]. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2003, Winter 55-63.
29. Chesbrough, Henry. The Organizational Impact of Technological Change: A Comparative Theory of National Institutional Factors[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1999, 8(3):447–85.
30. Christensen, Clayton M. and Joseph L. Bower. Customer Power, Strategic Investment and the Failure of Leading Firms [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(March): 197–218.
31. Christensen CM, R Bohmer, J Kenagy. Will disruptive innovations cure health care[J]. Harvard Business Review, 2000.
32. Christensen, Clayton M..The Ongoing Process of Building a Theory of Disruption [J].Journal of Product Innovation Management.2002,23:1:39-55
33. Christensen, Clay M. and Raynor, Michael. The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth[M]. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 2003
34. Cockburn, Iain M., Rebecca M. Henderson, Scott Stern.Untangling the Origins ofCompetitive Advantage [J].Strategic Management Journal. 2000, 21(October–November Special Issue): 1123–45.
35. Colbert, Barry A. .The Complex Resource-Based View: Implications for Theory and Practice of Strategic Human Resource Management [J].Academy of Management Review. 2004,29(3), 341–58.
36. Constantinos Markides. Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006, 23:1,19-26
37. Cohen, W. , D. Levinthal. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1990, 35: 128-152.
38. Cooper, C. L., D. M. Rousseau(eds.) Trends in Organizational Behaviour [M]. 1999 Volume 6. The Virtual Organization. New York: Wiley.
39. Cooper R G, Kleinschmidt E J. New product success in the chemical industry[J].Industrial Marketing Management,1993,22(2):85-99.
40. Cooper R G, Kleinschmidt E J.New product performance: Keys to success, rofitability & cycle time reduction [J].Journal of Marketing Management, 1995, 24:315-337.
41. Cummings,J.L.,& Bing-Sheng Teng. Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success [J],.Journal Engineering Technology Management.2003,20:39-68.
42. Danneels, Erwin. The Dynamics of Product Innovation and Firm Competencies [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2002, 23(12): 1095–1121.
43. Danneels, Erwin. Tight-Loose Coupling with Customers: The Enactment of Customer Orientation [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2003, 24(6):559–576.
44. Danneels Erwin. Disruptive Technology Reconsidered: A Critique and Research Agenda[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2004,Volume 21 Issue 4
45. Danneels Erwin. Dialogue on the Effects of Disruptive Technology on Firms and Industries[J], Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006, 23:1, 2-4
46. D'Aveni, Richard A. Hypercompetition: managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering [ N ]. Free Press. 1994.
47. Day,G.S..Managing market relationships [J].Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.2000,Vol.28 No.1: 24-30.
48. DeGeus, Arie(1997). The living company: Habits for survival in a turbulent business environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
49. Dess, G.G., D.W. Beard.Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984,29: 52-73.
50. Dew, Nick, Goldfarb, Brent and Sarasvathy, Saras. Optimal inertia: When organizations should fail[J]. Ecology and Strategy. 2006, 23: 73-99.
51. Dosi Giovanni. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change [J]. Research Policy, Elsevier, 1982, 22(2): 102-103.
52. Dougherty, Deborah. A Practice-centered Model of Organizational Renewal through Product Innovation [J].Strategic Management Journal. 1992, 13(Spring): 77–92.
53. Doz, Y. L. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes[J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1996, 17: 55-83
54. Duncan, R.B. The Ambidextrous organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation, in R. Kilman & L. Pondy(eds.) The Management of Organizational Design [M]. 1976. New York: North Holland: 167-188
55. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. and Martin, Jeffrey A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? [J] Strategic Management Journal. 2000, 21: 1105-1121.
56. F. Damanpour, S. Gopalakrishnan. Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: the role of environmental change [J]. English Technology Management. 1998, volume 15: 1-24
57. Foster, Richard and Kaplan, Sarah. Creative destruction: Why companies are built to last and underperform the market—and how to successfully transform them. New York: Currency,2001
58. Galunic, D. Charles and Simon Rodan. Resource Recombinations in the Firm: Knowledge Structures and the Potential for Schumpeterian Innovation[J].Strategic Management Journal, 1998,19(December): 1193–1201.
59. Gatignon, Hubert and Jean-Marc Xuereb. Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1997, 34:77-90.
60. G. Day, The capabilities of market-driven organizations, Journal of Marketing 58(1994), pp. 37–52.
61. Gerard J. Tellis. Disruptive Technology or Visionary Leadership? [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,(23) : 34-39
62. Gilbert, C. and Bower, J.L. Disruptive change: When trying harder is part of the problem[M]. Harvard Business Review, 2002.
63. Gibson, Cristina B. and Birkenshaw, Julian. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity [J]. Academy of Management Journal.2004, 47: 209-226.
64. Gilbert, Clark. Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2005, 48: 741-763
65. G.J. Hooley, G.E. Greenley, J.W. Cadogan and J. Fahy, The performance impact of marketing resources, J Bus Res 58(2005), pp. 18–27.
66. Grant, Robert M.. Prospering in Dynamically Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability and Knowledge Integration [J]. Organization Science. 1996, 7(July): 375–87.
67. Grewal, Rajdeep and Patriya Tansuhaj. Building Organizational Capabilities for Managing Economic Crisis: The Role of Market Orientation and Strategic Flexibility [J]. Journal of Marketing. 2001 65(April): 67–80.
68. Gupta A K,Govindarajan V. Knowledge Flows and the Structure of Control within Multinational Corporations[J].Academy of Management Review,2000(4):473-496.
69. Greenley, G. E.. Market Orientation and Company performance: empirical evidence from UK Companies. British journal of Management. 1995,6: 1-13.
70. Gupta, Anil K., Smith Ken, G. and Shalley, Christina E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation [J].Academy of Management Journal.2006, 49: 693-706.
71. Hamel, G. Leading the Revolution [M]. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts. 2000.
72. Han, Jin K., Namwoon Kim, and Rajendra K. Srivastava. Market and OrganizationalPerformance: Is Innovation the Missing Link [J]. Journal of Marketing. 1998 62(October): 30–45.
73. Harreld, J. Bruce, O’Reilly, Charles A. and Tushman, Michael L. Dynamic capabilities at IBM: Driving strategy into action[Z]. Stanford GSB Working Paper. 2007.
74. Helfat, Constance E. and Peteraf, Margaret A. The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles[J]. Strategic Management Journal. 2003, 24: 997-1010
75. Henderson, Rebecca and Iain Cockburn. Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research[J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1994, 15(Winter Special Issue): 63–84.
76. He, Zi-lin and Wong, Poh-Kam. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of ambidexterity[J]. Organization Science.2004, 15: 481-494.
77. H.G Jones. Tetra Pak– a model for successful innovation [J]. Long Range planning. 1982, 15,(6): 31-37
78. Hitt, Michael A., Robert E. Hoskisson, Richard A. Johnson, Douglas D. Moesel. The Market for Corporate Control and Firm Innovation[J] Academy of Management Journal. 1996, 33(October): 1084–1119.
79. Holmqvist, M. , C. Maravelias. Organizing the extended organization [P].Paper presented at MICT conference 1999, Copenhagen, 14-16 September.
80. Hopkins D.S. New product winners and losers[J].Conference Board Report,1980:773
81. Huff, James O., Anne S. Huff, and Howard Thomas. Strategic Renewal and the Interaction of Cumulative Stress and Inertia [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, 13(Special Issue Summer): 55–75.
82. Hunt, S. and R. Morgan 1995. 'The Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition' Journal of Marketing 59: 1-15.
83. Hurley, Robert F. and G. Tomas M. Hult. Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination [J]. Journal of Marketing. 1998,62(July): 42–54.
84. J. Birkinshaw, C. Gibson. Building ambidexterity into an organization [J]. MIT Sloan Management Review. 2004, 45(4):47-55.
85. J. McCann, J.R. Galbraith. Interdepartmental relations; in: Handbook of Organizational Design[M]. P.C. Nystrom, W.H. Starbuck, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, New York, 1982.
86. Kassicieh S.K.; Kirchhoff B.A.; Walsh S.T.; McWhorter P.J. The role of small firms in the transfer of disruptive technologies [J], Technovation, 2002, Volume 22, Number 11, November pp. 667-674(8)
87. Kassicieh, S.K. Walsh, S.T. Romig, A. Cummings, J. McWhorter, P. Williams, D. An empirical analysis of differences between sustaining and disruptive technology innovations [J]. Management of Engineering and Technology, 2001. PICMET '01. Portland International Conference on
88. Kassicieh, S.K.Anderson, S.W.Romig, A.Cummings, J.McWhorter, P. Williams, D. A model for technology assessment and commercialization for innovative disruptive technologies[J], Engineering Management Society, 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE
89. Kim, Chan W. and Mauborne, Renee. Value innovation: the strategic logic of high growth[J].Harvard Business Review. 1997.
90. King, Andrew A. and Tucci, Christopher L. Incumbent Entry into New Market Niches: The Role of Experience and Managerial Choice in the Creation of Dynamic Capabilities [J]. Management Science, 2002, 48(2):171–86.
91. Kogut, Bruce and Udo Zander. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities and the Replication of Technology [J]. Organization Science. 1992, 3(August): 383–97.
92. Kostoff RN , Boylan R., Simons GR. Disruptive technology roadmaps[J],Technological Forecasting and Social Change, January 2004, vol. 71
93. Kumar, R., K. O. Nti. Differential learning and interaction in alliance dynamics: A process and outcome discrepancy model [J]. Organization Science. 1998, 9: 356-367.
94. Kyriakopoulos, Kyriakos and Christine Moorman. Tradeoff in Marketing Exploitation and Exploration Strategies: The Overlooked Role of Market Orientation [J]. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2004, 21(September): 219–40.
95. Lane, P., M. Lubatkin. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1998, 19: 461-477.
96. Langrish, J., Gibbons, M., Evans, W. G., & Jevons, F. R. Wealth from knowledge: A study of innovation in industry[M]. New York: Halsted, 1972.
97. Lee M,Na D.Determinants of technical success in product development when innovative radicalness is considered[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management 1994,11:62–8.
98. Leonard-Barton, Dorothy. Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992 13(Summer): 111–25.
99. Levinthal, Daniel A. and James G. March. The Myopia of Learning [J].Strategic Management Journal. 1993, 14(February): 95–112.
100. Levinthal, Daniel A., and Jennifer Myatt. Co-evolution of Capabilities and Industry: The Evolution of Mutual Fund Processing [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1994, 15(Winter Special Issue): 45–62
101. Levinthal, D., J. G. March. The myopia of learning [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1993,14: 95-112.
102. Lewin, A.Y., C.P. Long, T.N. Caroll. The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms[J]. Organization Science,1999,10: 535-550.
103. Liebeskind, J. P., A. L. Oliver, L. Zucker, & M. Brewer.Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms [J]. Organization Studies. 1996, 7: 428-441.
104. Li, Haiyang,Kwaku Atuahene-Gima. Product Innovation Strategy and Performance of New Technology Ventures in China[J]. Academy of Management Journal. 2001, 44(6): 1123–34.
105. Li, Haiyang,Kwaku Atuahene-Gima. Adoption of Agency Business Activity, Product Innovation, and Performance in Chinese Technology Ventures [J].Strategic Management Journal. 2002, 23(June):469–90.
106. Louca, Francisco and Mendonca, Sandro(2002). Steady change: The 200 largest US manufacturing firms throughout the 20th century. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4: 817-845.
107. Louis E.Boone & Dvaid L.Kurtz. Contemporary Marketing Wired-9th,北京:机械工业出版社,1997一14
108. L Peterson, T Anderson, D Culler, T Roscoe ,A blueprint for introducing disruptive technology into the Internet[J]. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2003.
109. Lubatkin, Michael H., Simsek, Zeki, Ling, Yan and Veiga, John F. Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of TMT behavioral integration[J]. Journal of Management.2006, 32: 1-27
110. Lukas, Bryan A. and O.C. Ferrell. The Effect of Market Orientation on Product Innovation [J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2000,28(2):239–47.
111. Luo, Yadong. Capability Exploitation and Building in a Foreign Market: Implications for Multinational Enterprises [J]. Organization Science. 2002 ,13(1): 48–63.
112. Luo, Yadong, Seung Ho Park.Strategic Alignment and Performance of Market-Seeking MNCS in China [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 2001,22(February): 141–55.
113. Maidique M, Ziger B.A study of success and failure in product innovation: The case of The U.S.electronics industry [J].IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 1984,31(4):192-203.
114. March, James G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning [J]. Organization Science. 1991, 2: 71-87.
115. March, James G. Understanding organizational adaptation[C]. Paper presented at the Budapest University of Economics and Public Administration, April 2. 2003.
116. March, J G., M. Schulz, X. Zhou. The Dynamics of Rules [M]. 2000. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
117. Markides, Constantinos & Charitou, Constantinos. Competing with dual business models: A contingency approach[J]. Academy of Management Executive. 2004, 18: 22-36.
118. Matsuno, Ken and John T. Mentzer. The Effects of Strategy Type on the Market Orientation–Performance Relationship [J].Journal of Marketing.2000,64: 1–16.
119. McLaughlin, R. L., M. M. Ferguson, and D. L. G. Noakes. Adaptive peaks and alternative foraging tactics in brook charr: evidence of short-term divergent selection for sitting-and-waiting nd actively searching [J]. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol, 1999, 45:386–395.
120. Meyer, Robert. And Eric J. Johnson.. Empirical generalizations in the modeling of consumer choice [J]. Marketing Science. Summer 1995, v14n3(Part 2), p. G180-G189
121. Miller, D. What happens after success: The perils of excellence [J]. Journal of Management Studies. 1994,31: 326-358.
122. Narver,J. C,and Slater.F.S.The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability[J].Journal of Marketing.1990,54(10):20-35.
123. Noble, Charles H., Rajiv K. Sinha, and Ajith Kumar. Market Orientation and Alternative Strategic Orientations: A Longitudinal Assessment of Performance Implications [J].Journal of Marketing, 2002, 66 : 25–39.
124. Nobeoka, Kentaro and Cusumano, Michael A. Multiproduct strategy and sales growth: The benefits of rapid design transfer in new product development [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1998, 18: 169-186.
125. O’Reilly, C.A., & Tushman, M. The Ambidextrous Organization [J]. Harvard Business Review. 2004, 82: 74-82.
126. Pete Thomond, Torsten Herzberg and Fiona Lettice. Disruptive Innovation: Removing the Innovators’Dilemma [J]. British Academy of Management 2003 Conference Proceedings
127. P.M. Norman, L.E. Palich, L.P. Livingstone, G.R. Carini. The role of paradoxical logic in innovation: The case of Intel [J]. Journal of high technology management research. 2004, 15(1): 51-72
128. Powell, W., K. Koput, L. Smith-Doerr. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1996, 41: 116-145.
129. Rafi, F. and Kampas, P.J. How to Identify Your Enemies Before They Destroy You[J]. Harvard Business Review On Point November, 2002.
130. Raisch, Sebastian. Exploration vs. exploitation: A metaparadigm view of ambidextrous organizational forms[C]. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA August. 2006.
131. Rappa, M. A. The utility business model and the future of computing services[J].IBM Systems Journal, 2004, 43(1): 32-42.
132. Rebecca Henderson. The Innovator's Dilemma as a Problem of Organizational Competence[J], Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006, 23:1, 5-11.
133. Reed, Richard and Robert J. DeFillippi. Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage [J]. Academy of Management Review. 1990,15(1): 88–102.
134. Rice, M.P., Kelly, D., Peters, L., O'Connor and Gina Colarelli. Radical Innovation: triggering initiation of opportunity recognition and evaluation [J]. R&D Management, 2001, 31(4): 409-420.
135. Rindfleisch, Aric, Christine Moorman.The Acquisition and Utilization of Information in New Product Alliances:A Strength-of-Ties Perspective[J].Journal of Marketing, 2001, 65(April): 1–18.
136. R. L. Daft. Organization theory and design: 7th edition [M]. South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnatti.2001.
137. R.N.Foster.Working the S-curve:Assessing technological threats.Research Management,1986(7):17-22
138. Rosenbloom RS. Leadership, Capabilities, and Technological Change: The Transformation of NCR in The Electronic Era [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 2000, 21(10-11):1083一1103.
139. Rotemberg, Julio and Saloner, Garth. Visionaries, managers, and strategic direction [J]. RAND Journal of Economics. 2000, 31: 693-716
140. R.M. Kanter. The middle manager as innovator [J]. Harvard Business Review. 2004, 82(7/8): 150-161
141. Rotemberg, Julio and Saloner, Garth. Visionaries, managers, and strategic direction [J]. RAND Journal of Economics.2000, 31: 693-716.
142. Sandberg, Birgitta, Creating the market for disruptive innovation: Market proactiveness at the launch stage, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 2002, Vol. 11,2.
143. Sahal, Devendra.. Technological guideposts and innovation avenues [J]. Research Policy, 1985, 14: 61-82.
144. Schilling,Melissa A,2005, Strategic management og technological Innovation. New York:McGraw-Hill-Irwin.
145. Schroeder, Roger G., Kimberly A. Bates, and Mikko A. Junttila. A Resource-Based View of Manufacturing Strategy and the Relationship to Manufacturing Performance [J].Strategic Management Journal. 2002, 23(2): 105–117.
146. S.D. Saleh, C.K. Wang. The Management of Innovation: Strategy, Structure and Organizational Climate [J].IEEE Transactions on engineering Management. 1993, 40(1): 14-21
147. S.F. Slater and J.C. Naver.The positive effect of a market orientation on business profitability: A balanced replication[J]. Journal of Business Research 48(2000):69–73.
148. Slater, Stanley F., Kwaku Atuahene-Gima. Conducting Survey Research in Strategic Management,”in Research Methodology in Strategy and Management [M]. Vol. 1, David J. Ketchen Jr. and Don D. Bergh, eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier/JAI Press, 2004, 227–50.
149. Slater, Stanley F., John C. Narver. Market Orientation and the Learning Organization [J].Journal of Marketing. 1995, 59: 63–74.
150. Slater, Stanley F. and Narver, John C.(1998). Customer-Led and Market-Oriented: Let’s Not Confuse the Two. Strategic Management Journal 19(10):1001–6.
151. Smith, Wendy and Tushman, Michael L. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams [J]. Organization Science. 2005, 16: 522-536.
152. Siggelkow, Nicolaj and Rivkin, Jan. When exploration backfires: Unintended consequences of organizational search[J]. Academy of Management Journal. 2006, 49: 779-796.
153. Sorescu, Alina B., Rajesh K. Chandy, and Jaideep C. Prabhu. Sources and Financial Consequences of Radical Innovation: Insights from Pharmaceuticals [J].Journal of Marketing. 2003, 67(October): 82–102.
154. Srivastava, Rajendra K., Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Liam Fahey. Market-Based Assets and Shareholder Value: A Framework for Analysis[J]. Journal of Marketing, 1998 62(January): 2–18.
155. Stanley F. Slater and Jakki J. Mohr. Successful Development and Commercialization of Technological Innovation: Insights Based on Strategy Type [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,23:1, 26-33
156. Steven T. Walsh, Member, IEEE, Bruce A. Kirchhoff, and Scott Newbert. Differentiating Market Strategies for Disruptive Technologies[J].IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT.2002, VOL. 49: 341-352
157. Sull, Donald N. The dynamics of standing still: Firestone Tire & Rubber and the radial revolution [J]. Business History Review. 1999,73: 430-464
158. Szulanski, Gabriel. Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practices Within the Firm[J].Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17: 27–44.
159. Teece, David J.Explicating dynamic capabilities:The nature and microfoundations of(sustainable) enterprise performance[Z]. Haas School of Business Working Paper, Dec.22.,2006.
160. Teece, David J., Pisano, Gary and Shuen, Amy. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1997, 18: 509-533.
161. Thomas, James B., Shawn M. Clark, and Dennis A. Gioia. Strategic Sensemaking and Organizational Performance: Linkages Among Scanning, Interpretation, Action and Outcomes [J]. Academy of Management Journal. 1993, 36: 239–70.
162. Tripsas, M. Surviving radical technological change through dynamic capabilities: evidence from the typesetter industry [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change. 1997, 6: 341–377.
163. Tripsas, Mary and Gavetti, Giovanni. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 2000, 21: 1147-1161.
164. Trott, P. The role of market research in the development of discontinuous new products [J]. European Journal of Innovation Management,2001,4, 117-125.
165. Tushman, Michael L. and O’Reilly, Charles A. The ambidextrous organization: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change[J]. California Management Review.1996, 38: 1- 23.
166. Tushman, Michael L. and O’Reilly, Charles A. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal [M]. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. 1997.
167. Van Looy, Bart, Martens, Thierry and Debackere, Koenraad. Organizing for continuous innovation: On the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations [J]. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2005, 14: 208-221
168. Van de Ven,Andrew H.and Douglas Polley(1992).Learning While Innovating. Organization Science, Vol.3, No.1.92-117.
169. Vijay Govindarajan and Praveen K. Kopalle. The Usefulness of Measuring Disruptiveness of Innovations Ex Post in Making Ex Ante Predictions[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,23:1, 12-18
170. Vijay Govindarajan, Praveen K. Kopalle(2006) Disruptiveness of innovations: measurement and an assessment of reliability and validity[J],Strategic Management Journal, Volume 27, Issue 2,: 189-199
171. Vijay Govindarajan, Anilk. Gupta. Strategic innovation: A conceptual road map [J]. Business Horizons, 2001, Vol. 44 Issue 4:3-112
172. Wiggins, Robert R. and Ruefli, Timothy W. Sustained competitive advantage, temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior economic erformance[J]. Organization Science, 2002 13: 81-105.
173. White, J. Chris, P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Peter A. Dacin. Market Situation Interpretation and Response: The Role of Cognitive Style, Organizational Culture, and Information Use [J]. Journal of Marketing. 2003, 67(July): 63–79.
174. Williamson, Peter J. Strategy as Options on the Future [J]. Sloan Management Review. 1999,40(3): 117–26.
175. Winter, Sidney G. Understanding dynamic capabilities [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 2003, 24: 991-995.
176. Zahra, S.A. Technology Strategy and Financial Performance: Examining the Moderating Role of the Firm’s Competitive Environment [J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 1996, 11:189-219.
177. Zahra, S.A., W.C. Bogner. Technology Strategy and Software new Venture’s Performance: Exploring Effect of the Competitive Environment [J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 1999,15 :135-173.
178. Zahra, Shaker A., R. Duane Ireland, Michael A. Hitt. International Expansion by New Venture Firms: Internal Diversity, Mode of Entry, Technological Learning, and Performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2000, 43(5): 925–50.
179. Zahra, Shaker A., R. Duane Ireland, Anders P. Nielson. Sources of Capabilities, Integration and Technology Commercialization [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2002, 23(5): 377–98.
180. Zollo, Maurizio and Winter, Sidney G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities [J]. Organization Science. 2002, 13: 339-351.
181.克雷顿.克里斯滕森著,吴潜龙译,创新者的窘境[M],江苏人民出版社,2001;
182.克雷顿.M.克里斯滕森,迈克尔.E.雷纳著,容冰译,困境与出路[M],中信出版社,2004;
183.吴贵生,“颠覆性创新”与组织响应[J],科学学研究,1997/04;
184.陈京民,大型企业技术突破性创新管理研究[J],科技进步与对策,2000/11;
185.陈劲,突破性创新及其识别[J],科技管理研究,2002/05;
186.付玉秀,张洪石,突破性创新:概念界定与比较[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 2004(3);
187.理查德& L.达夫特.组织理论与设计[M].王凤彬,等译.北京:清华大学出版社,2003;
188.赵明剑,司春林.通过突破性技术实现我国企业技术跨越[J].科学管理研究,2003(6);
189.田红云、陈继祥、田伟.颠覆性创新理论研究综述[J].经济学动态, 2006(12);
190.张洪石、陈劲.突破性创新的组织模式研究[J].科学学研究, 2005(8);
191.花俊国.利乐营销启示录[J].企业活力,2005年06期;
192.克雷顿.克里斯滕森著,吴潜龙译.创新者的窘境[M].江苏人民出版社,2001;
193.克雷顿.M.克里斯滕森,迈克尔.E.雷纳著,容冰译.困境与出路[M].中信出版社,2004;
194.吴国荣.迎接挑战的利乐公司[J],中国包装工业,2003;
195.闵捷,颜春龙,叶明,何宁.网络经济新模式———面向顾客的直接定制[J],中国软科学,2001;
196.加里·哈默尔等.《领导企业变革》,北京,人民邮电出版社,200;
197.孙英辉.关于商业模式创新的探讨[J].中国地质矿产经济,2003;
198.虞立琪.我们要让市场感动——访佳能亚洲营销集团总裁、佳能(中国)有限公司CEO小泽秀树[J].商务周刊, 2006;
199.乔·吉拉德著,汪洋,唐骏.戴尔直销[M],哈尔滨出版社;
200.尹美群.价值链的价值剖析及其解构[J].科研管理,2006;
201.克雷顿.克里斯滕森著,吴潜龙译.创新者的窘境[M],江苏人民出版社,2001;
202.克雷顿.M.克里斯滕森,迈克尔.E.雷纳著,容冰译.困境与出路[M].中信出版社.2004;
203.邓小健,赵艳萍.基于自组织理论的虚拟企业组织模式研究.商业研究.2006,第六期;
204.陈剑,冯蔚东.虚拟企业构建与管理[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002;
205.刘彬.我国现代企业发展模式研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社;
206.南方.企业组织模式研究[D].大连理工大学技术经济学院.2000;
207.王是,王津成,石巍.试论技术创新企业战略[J].科学管理研究2004(6);
208.赵玉林.创新经济学[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2006;
209.黄仁伟.论中国崛起的国内外环境制约(上)[J].社会科学,2003(1);
210.汪斌,赵张耀.国际产业转移理论述评[J].浙江社会科学,2003,11(6);
211.蓝海林,谢洪明.企业战略的抽象群及其演化引论[J].管理工程学报.2003年04期;
212.吕政.中国能成为世界工厂吗[M].北京:经济管理出版社,2003;
213. Michesl E·Porter著,李明轩等译.国家竞争优势[M].北京:华夏出版社,2002;
214.官建成,何颖.基于DEA方法的区域创新系统评价[J].科学学研究,2005(4);
215.杨东奇.企业产品创新力的分解与确定[J].哈尔滨工程大学学报, 2001,22,(5);
216.沈必扬,王晓明.基于吸纳能力、技术机遇和知识溢出的企业创新绩效分析[J] .科技进步与对策,2006,04;
217.刘满凤.民营科技企业创新特点与创新绩效提高[J].科技管理研究,2006(04);
218.何伟胜.企业创新系统要素之相关分析模型[J].辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版)2003(03);
219.韩廷香.企业创新的模式与影响因素分析[J].科学、经济、社会,2002,(2);
220.许小东.技术创新的成败归因及其对创新行为的影响研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2002,(2);
221.克莱顿.M.克里斯坦森.创新与总经理[M].中国人民大学出版社,2005;
222.克莱顿.M.克里斯滕森,斯科特.D.安东尼,埃里克.A.罗恩.远见——用变革理论预测产业未来[M].商务印书局,2006;
223.周晓东,项保华.复杂动态环境、动态能力及战略与环境的匹配关系[J].经济管理,2003,20;
224.张玉利,李乾文.双元型组织研究评介[J].外国经济与管理,2006,第28卷第1期.
225.于畅海.创新型组织研究的新动态:双重性组织研究综述[J].2007,03.
226.姚志坚著.技术跨越的理论与实证[M].北京:科学出版社,2005;
227.郑学益,张春晓,张亚光。中国民营企业启示录[M]。北京大学出版社,2005;
228.杜跃平,高雄,赵红菊.路径依赖与企业顺沿技术轨道的演化创新[J].研究与发展管理,2004,16(4);
229.笛德,本珊特,帕维特著.金马工作室译.创新管理:技术变革、市场变革和组织变革的整合[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004;
2. Adner, Ron. When Are Technologies Disruptive: A Dem&Based View of the Emergence of Competition [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2002,24(10):1011–1027.
3. Adner, Ron &Zemsky, Peter. Disruptive Technologies &the Emergence of Competition [J]. RAND Journal of Economics,2005(Summer).
4. Amit, Raphael; Schoemaker, Paul J.H. Strategic assets and organizational rents [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1993,Vol.14, 33-46.
5. Anderson,J.C.,Narus,J.A. A model of distributor firm &manufacturer firm working partnerships [J].Journal of Marketing.1990,Vol.54,January: 42-58
6. Ahuja, G. and Lampert, C. Entrepreneurship in the Large Corporation: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2001, 22, 521-543.
7. Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku. An Exploratory Analysis of the Impact of Market Orientation on New Product Performance: A Contingency Approach [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1995, 12(September), 275–93.
8. Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku, Anthony Ko. An Empirical Investigation of the Effect of Market Orientation and Entrepreneurship Orientation Alignment on Product Innovation [J]. Organization Science, 2001,12(1), 54–74.
9. Atuahene-Gima, Haiyang Li. When Does Trust Matter? Antecedents and Contingent Effects of Supervisee Trust on Performance in Selling New Products in China and the United States[J].Journal of Marketing, 2002,66(July), 61–81.
10. Bagozzi, Richard R., Youjae Yi, and Lynn W. Phillips. Assessing Construct Validity in Organizational Research [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1991, 36(September): 421–58.
11. Baker, William and James M. Sinkula .The Synergistic Effect of Market Orientation and Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance [J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1999, 27(Fall): 411–27.
12. Barnett, William P., Henrich R. Greve, and Douglas Y. Park. An Evolutionary Model of Organizational Performance [J].Strategic Management Journal. 1994, 15(Winter Special Issue): 11–28.
13. Barney, Jay B . Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage [J]. Journal of Management. 1991, 17(1): 99–120.
14. Barney, Jay B., Edward Zajac. Competitive Organizational Behavior: Toward an Organizationally-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 199415(Winter Special Issue): 5–9.
15. Baron, Rueben M. and David A. Kenny. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual and Statistical Considerations [J].Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology. 1986,51(6): 1173–82.
16. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L.. Exploitation, Exploration, And Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited [J]. Academy of Management Review, 2003,28(2), 238-256.
17. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, Process management and technological innovation: a longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries [Z].Working paper.The Wharton School. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.2002.
18. Biggadike,E.R.(1981)."The contribution of marketin to strategic management"[J],Academy of Management Review,Vol.6,No.4,pp.621-632
19. Bingham, Christopher B. Learning from heterogeneous experience: The internationalization of entrepreneurial firms[Z]. Stanford School of Engineering Working Paper. 2005.
20. Birgitta Sandberg, Sten-Olof Hanse?n. Creating an international market for disruptive innovations[J]. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2004, Volume 7: 23-32
21. Birkinshaw, J. M., Morrison, A.. Configurations of Strategy and Structure in Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations [J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1995, 26: 729-754.
22. B.J. Jaworski and A.K. Kohli. Market orientation: antecedents and consequences [J]. Journal of Marketing 57(1993)(July), pp. 53–70.
23. Brandenberger, Adam and Stuart, Harborne. Value-based strategy. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. 1996,(5): 5-24.
24. Cardinal, Laura B. Technological Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Use of Organizational Control in Managing Research and Development [J]. Organization Science, 2001, 12(1): 19–36.
25. Catherine L. Wang, Pervaiz K. Ahmed. Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda [J]. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2007, Volume 9 Issue 1:31–51.
26. Chandy, Rajesh K. and Tellis, Gerard J. The Incumbent‘s Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product Innovation [J]. Journal of Marketing, 2000, 64(3):1–17.
27. Chandy, Rajesh K. and Tellis, Gerard J. Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize [J]. Journal of Marketing Research , 1998, 35(4):474–87.
28. Charitou, C. and Markides, C. Reponses to Disruptive Strategic Innovation [J]. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2003, Winter 55-63.
29. Chesbrough, Henry. The Organizational Impact of Technological Change: A Comparative Theory of National Institutional Factors[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1999, 8(3):447–85.
30. Christensen, Clayton M. and Joseph L. Bower. Customer Power, Strategic Investment and the Failure of Leading Firms [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(March): 197–218.
31. Christensen CM, R Bohmer, J Kenagy. Will disruptive innovations cure health care[J]. Harvard Business Review, 2000.
32. Christensen, Clayton M..The Ongoing Process of Building a Theory of Disruption [J].Journal of Product Innovation Management.2002,23:1:39-55
33. Christensen, Clay M. and Raynor, Michael. The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth[M]. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. 2003
34. Cockburn, Iain M., Rebecca M. Henderson, Scott Stern.Untangling the Origins ofCompetitive Advantage [J].Strategic Management Journal. 2000, 21(October–November Special Issue): 1123–45.
35. Colbert, Barry A. .The Complex Resource-Based View: Implications for Theory and Practice of Strategic Human Resource Management [J].Academy of Management Review. 2004,29(3), 341–58.
36. Constantinos Markides. Disruptive Innovation: In Need of Better Theory [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006, 23:1,19-26
37. Cohen, W. , D. Levinthal. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1990, 35: 128-152.
38. Cooper, C. L., D. M. Rousseau(eds.) Trends in Organizational Behaviour [M]. 1999 Volume 6. The Virtual Organization. New York: Wiley.
39. Cooper R G, Kleinschmidt E J. New product success in the chemical industry[J].Industrial Marketing Management,1993,22(2):85-99.
40. Cooper R G, Kleinschmidt E J.New product performance: Keys to success, rofitability & cycle time reduction [J].Journal of Marketing Management, 1995, 24:315-337.
41. Cummings,J.L.,& Bing-Sheng Teng. Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success [J],.Journal Engineering Technology Management.2003,20:39-68.
42. Danneels, Erwin. The Dynamics of Product Innovation and Firm Competencies [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2002, 23(12): 1095–1121.
43. Danneels, Erwin. Tight-Loose Coupling with Customers: The Enactment of Customer Orientation [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2003, 24(6):559–576.
44. Danneels Erwin. Disruptive Technology Reconsidered: A Critique and Research Agenda[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2004,Volume 21 Issue 4
45. Danneels Erwin. Dialogue on the Effects of Disruptive Technology on Firms and Industries[J], Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006, 23:1, 2-4
46. D'Aveni, Richard A. Hypercompetition: managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering [ N ]. Free Press. 1994.
47. Day,G.S..Managing market relationships [J].Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.2000,Vol.28 No.1: 24-30.
48. DeGeus, Arie(1997). The living company: Habits for survival in a turbulent business environment. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
49. Dess, G.G., D.W. Beard.Dimensions of Organizational Task Environments [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984,29: 52-73.
50. Dew, Nick, Goldfarb, Brent and Sarasvathy, Saras. Optimal inertia: When organizations should fail[J]. Ecology and Strategy. 2006, 23: 73-99.
51. Dosi Giovanni. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: A suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change [J]. Research Policy, Elsevier, 1982, 22(2): 102-103.
52. Dougherty, Deborah. A Practice-centered Model of Organizational Renewal through Product Innovation [J].Strategic Management Journal. 1992, 13(Spring): 77–92.
53. Doz, Y. L. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: Initial conditions or learning processes[J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1996, 17: 55-83
54. Duncan, R.B. The Ambidextrous organization: Designing Dual Structures for Innovation, in R. Kilman & L. Pondy(eds.) The Management of Organizational Design [M]. 1976. New York: North Holland: 167-188
55. Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. and Martin, Jeffrey A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? [J] Strategic Management Journal. 2000, 21: 1105-1121.
56. F. Damanpour, S. Gopalakrishnan. Theories of organizational structure and innovation adoption: the role of environmental change [J]. English Technology Management. 1998, volume 15: 1-24
57. Foster, Richard and Kaplan, Sarah. Creative destruction: Why companies are built to last and underperform the market—and how to successfully transform them. New York: Currency,2001
58. Galunic, D. Charles and Simon Rodan. Resource Recombinations in the Firm: Knowledge Structures and the Potential for Schumpeterian Innovation[J].Strategic Management Journal, 1998,19(December): 1193–1201.
59. Gatignon, Hubert and Jean-Marc Xuereb. Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance [J]. Journal of Marketing Research, 1997, 34:77-90.
60. G. Day, The capabilities of market-driven organizations, Journal of Marketing 58(1994), pp. 37–52.
61. Gerard J. Tellis. Disruptive Technology or Visionary Leadership? [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,(23) : 34-39
62. Gilbert, C. and Bower, J.L. Disruptive change: When trying harder is part of the problem[M]. Harvard Business Review, 2002.
63. Gibson, Cristina B. and Birkenshaw, Julian. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity [J]. Academy of Management Journal.2004, 47: 209-226.
64. Gilbert, Clark. Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2005, 48: 741-763
65. G.J. Hooley, G.E. Greenley, J.W. Cadogan and J. Fahy, The performance impact of marketing resources, J Bus Res 58(2005), pp. 18–27.
66. Grant, Robert M.. Prospering in Dynamically Competitive Environments: Organizational Capability and Knowledge Integration [J]. Organization Science. 1996, 7(July): 375–87.
67. Grewal, Rajdeep and Patriya Tansuhaj. Building Organizational Capabilities for Managing Economic Crisis: The Role of Market Orientation and Strategic Flexibility [J]. Journal of Marketing. 2001 65(April): 67–80.
68. Gupta A K,Govindarajan V. Knowledge Flows and the Structure of Control within Multinational Corporations[J].Academy of Management Review,2000(4):473-496.
69. Greenley, G. E.. Market Orientation and Company performance: empirical evidence from UK Companies. British journal of Management. 1995,6: 1-13.
70. Gupta, Anil K., Smith Ken, G. and Shalley, Christina E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation [J].Academy of Management Journal.2006, 49: 693-706.
71. Hamel, G. Leading the Revolution [M]. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Massachusetts. 2000.
72. Han, Jin K., Namwoon Kim, and Rajendra K. Srivastava. Market and OrganizationalPerformance: Is Innovation the Missing Link [J]. Journal of Marketing. 1998 62(October): 30–45.
73. Harreld, J. Bruce, O’Reilly, Charles A. and Tushman, Michael L. Dynamic capabilities at IBM: Driving strategy into action[Z]. Stanford GSB Working Paper. 2007.
74. Helfat, Constance E. and Peteraf, Margaret A. The dynamic resource-based view: Capability lifecycles[J]. Strategic Management Journal. 2003, 24: 997-1010
75. Henderson, Rebecca and Iain Cockburn. Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm Effects in Pharmaceutical Research[J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1994, 15(Winter Special Issue): 63–84.
76. He, Zi-lin and Wong, Poh-Kam. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of ambidexterity[J]. Organization Science.2004, 15: 481-494.
77. H.G Jones. Tetra Pak– a model for successful innovation [J]. Long Range planning. 1982, 15,(6): 31-37
78. Hitt, Michael A., Robert E. Hoskisson, Richard A. Johnson, Douglas D. Moesel. The Market for Corporate Control and Firm Innovation[J] Academy of Management Journal. 1996, 33(October): 1084–1119.
79. Holmqvist, M. , C. Maravelias. Organizing the extended organization [P].Paper presented at MICT conference 1999, Copenhagen, 14-16 September.
80. Hopkins D.S. New product winners and losers[J].Conference Board Report,1980:773
81. Huff, James O., Anne S. Huff, and Howard Thomas. Strategic Renewal and the Interaction of Cumulative Stress and Inertia [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, 13(Special Issue Summer): 55–75.
82. Hunt, S. and R. Morgan 1995. 'The Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition' Journal of Marketing 59: 1-15.
83. Hurley, Robert F. and G. Tomas M. Hult. Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination [J]. Journal of Marketing. 1998,62(July): 42–54.
84. J. Birkinshaw, C. Gibson. Building ambidexterity into an organization [J]. MIT Sloan Management Review. 2004, 45(4):47-55.
85. J. McCann, J.R. Galbraith. Interdepartmental relations; in: Handbook of Organizational Design[M]. P.C. Nystrom, W.H. Starbuck, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, New York, 1982.
86. Kassicieh S.K.; Kirchhoff B.A.; Walsh S.T.; McWhorter P.J. The role of small firms in the transfer of disruptive technologies [J], Technovation, 2002, Volume 22, Number 11, November pp. 667-674(8)
87. Kassicieh, S.K. Walsh, S.T. Romig, A. Cummings, J. McWhorter, P. Williams, D. An empirical analysis of differences between sustaining and disruptive technology innovations [J]. Management of Engineering and Technology, 2001. PICMET '01. Portland International Conference on
88. Kassicieh, S.K.Anderson, S.W.Romig, A.Cummings, J.McWhorter, P. Williams, D. A model for technology assessment and commercialization for innovative disruptive technologies[J], Engineering Management Society, 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE
89. Kim, Chan W. and Mauborne, Renee. Value innovation: the strategic logic of high growth[J].Harvard Business Review. 1997.
90. King, Andrew A. and Tucci, Christopher L. Incumbent Entry into New Market Niches: The Role of Experience and Managerial Choice in the Creation of Dynamic Capabilities [J]. Management Science, 2002, 48(2):171–86.
91. Kogut, Bruce and Udo Zander. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities and the Replication of Technology [J]. Organization Science. 1992, 3(August): 383–97.
92. Kostoff RN , Boylan R., Simons GR. Disruptive technology roadmaps[J],Technological Forecasting and Social Change, January 2004, vol. 71
93. Kumar, R., K. O. Nti. Differential learning and interaction in alliance dynamics: A process and outcome discrepancy model [J]. Organization Science. 1998, 9: 356-367.
94. Kyriakopoulos, Kyriakos and Christine Moorman. Tradeoff in Marketing Exploitation and Exploration Strategies: The Overlooked Role of Market Orientation [J]. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 2004, 21(September): 219–40.
95. Lane, P., M. Lubatkin. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1998, 19: 461-477.
96. Langrish, J., Gibbons, M., Evans, W. G., & Jevons, F. R. Wealth from knowledge: A study of innovation in industry[M]. New York: Halsted, 1972.
97. Lee M,Na D.Determinants of technical success in product development when innovative radicalness is considered[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management 1994,11:62–8.
98. Leonard-Barton, Dorothy. Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New Product Development [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992 13(Summer): 111–25.
99. Levinthal, Daniel A. and James G. March. The Myopia of Learning [J].Strategic Management Journal. 1993, 14(February): 95–112.
100. Levinthal, Daniel A., and Jennifer Myatt. Co-evolution of Capabilities and Industry: The Evolution of Mutual Fund Processing [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1994, 15(Winter Special Issue): 45–62
101. Levinthal, D., J. G. March. The myopia of learning [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1993,14: 95-112.
102. Lewin, A.Y., C.P. Long, T.N. Caroll. The Coevolution of New Organizational Forms[J]. Organization Science,1999,10: 535-550.
103. Liebeskind, J. P., A. L. Oliver, L. Zucker, & M. Brewer.Social networks, learning, and flexibility: Sourcing scientific knowledge in new biotechnology firms [J]. Organization Studies. 1996, 7: 428-441.
104. Li, Haiyang,Kwaku Atuahene-Gima. Product Innovation Strategy and Performance of New Technology Ventures in China[J]. Academy of Management Journal. 2001, 44(6): 1123–34.
105. Li, Haiyang,Kwaku Atuahene-Gima. Adoption of Agency Business Activity, Product Innovation, and Performance in Chinese Technology Ventures [J].Strategic Management Journal. 2002, 23(June):469–90.
106. Louca, Francisco and Mendonca, Sandro(2002). Steady change: The 200 largest US manufacturing firms throughout the 20th century. Industrial and Corporate Change, 4: 817-845.
107. Louis E.Boone & Dvaid L.Kurtz. Contemporary Marketing Wired-9th,北京:机械工业出版社,1997一14
108. L Peterson, T Anderson, D Culler, T Roscoe ,A blueprint for introducing disruptive technology into the Internet[J]. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2003.
109. Lubatkin, Michael H., Simsek, Zeki, Ling, Yan and Veiga, John F. Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of TMT behavioral integration[J]. Journal of Management.2006, 32: 1-27
110. Lukas, Bryan A. and O.C. Ferrell. The Effect of Market Orientation on Product Innovation [J]. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2000,28(2):239–47.
111. Luo, Yadong. Capability Exploitation and Building in a Foreign Market: Implications for Multinational Enterprises [J]. Organization Science. 2002 ,13(1): 48–63.
112. Luo, Yadong, Seung Ho Park.Strategic Alignment and Performance of Market-Seeking MNCS in China [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 2001,22(February): 141–55.
113. Maidique M, Ziger B.A study of success and failure in product innovation: The case of The U.S.electronics industry [J].IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management, 1984,31(4):192-203.
114. March, James G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning [J]. Organization Science. 1991, 2: 71-87.
115. March, James G. Understanding organizational adaptation[C]. Paper presented at the Budapest University of Economics and Public Administration, April 2. 2003.
116. March, J G., M. Schulz, X. Zhou. The Dynamics of Rules [M]. 2000. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
117. Markides, Constantinos & Charitou, Constantinos. Competing with dual business models: A contingency approach[J]. Academy of Management Executive. 2004, 18: 22-36.
118. Matsuno, Ken and John T. Mentzer. The Effects of Strategy Type on the Market Orientation–Performance Relationship [J].Journal of Marketing.2000,64: 1–16.
119. McLaughlin, R. L., M. M. Ferguson, and D. L. G. Noakes. Adaptive peaks and alternative foraging tactics in brook charr: evidence of short-term divergent selection for sitting-and-waiting nd actively searching [J]. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol, 1999, 45:386–395.
120. Meyer, Robert. And Eric J. Johnson.. Empirical generalizations in the modeling of consumer choice [J]. Marketing Science. Summer 1995, v14n3(Part 2), p. G180-G189
121. Miller, D. What happens after success: The perils of excellence [J]. Journal of Management Studies. 1994,31: 326-358.
122. Narver,J. C,and Slater.F.S.The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability[J].Journal of Marketing.1990,54(10):20-35.
123. Noble, Charles H., Rajiv K. Sinha, and Ajith Kumar. Market Orientation and Alternative Strategic Orientations: A Longitudinal Assessment of Performance Implications [J].Journal of Marketing, 2002, 66 : 25–39.
124. Nobeoka, Kentaro and Cusumano, Michael A. Multiproduct strategy and sales growth: The benefits of rapid design transfer in new product development [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1998, 18: 169-186.
125. O’Reilly, C.A., & Tushman, M. The Ambidextrous Organization [J]. Harvard Business Review. 2004, 82: 74-82.
126. Pete Thomond, Torsten Herzberg and Fiona Lettice. Disruptive Innovation: Removing the Innovators’Dilemma [J]. British Academy of Management 2003 Conference Proceedings
127. P.M. Norman, L.E. Palich, L.P. Livingstone, G.R. Carini. The role of paradoxical logic in innovation: The case of Intel [J]. Journal of high technology management research. 2004, 15(1): 51-72
128. Powell, W., K. Koput, L. Smith-Doerr. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1996, 41: 116-145.
129. Rafi, F. and Kampas, P.J. How to Identify Your Enemies Before They Destroy You[J]. Harvard Business Review On Point November, 2002.
130. Raisch, Sebastian. Exploration vs. exploitation: A metaparadigm view of ambidextrous organizational forms[C]. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management, Atlanta, GA August. 2006.
131. Rappa, M. A. The utility business model and the future of computing services[J].IBM Systems Journal, 2004, 43(1): 32-42.
132. Rebecca Henderson. The Innovator's Dilemma as a Problem of Organizational Competence[J], Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006, 23:1, 5-11.
133. Reed, Richard and Robert J. DeFillippi. Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage [J]. Academy of Management Review. 1990,15(1): 88–102.
134. Rice, M.P., Kelly, D., Peters, L., O'Connor and Gina Colarelli. Radical Innovation: triggering initiation of opportunity recognition and evaluation [J]. R&D Management, 2001, 31(4): 409-420.
135. Rindfleisch, Aric, Christine Moorman.The Acquisition and Utilization of Information in New Product Alliances:A Strength-of-Ties Perspective[J].Journal of Marketing, 2001, 65(April): 1–18.
136. R. L. Daft. Organization theory and design: 7th edition [M]. South-Western College Publishing, Cincinnatti.2001.
137. R.N.Foster.Working the S-curve:Assessing technological threats.Research Management,1986(7):17-22
138. Rosenbloom RS. Leadership, Capabilities, and Technological Change: The Transformation of NCR in The Electronic Era [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 2000, 21(10-11):1083一1103.
139. Rotemberg, Julio and Saloner, Garth. Visionaries, managers, and strategic direction [J]. RAND Journal of Economics. 2000, 31: 693-716
140. R.M. Kanter. The middle manager as innovator [J]. Harvard Business Review. 2004, 82(7/8): 150-161
141. Rotemberg, Julio and Saloner, Garth. Visionaries, managers, and strategic direction [J]. RAND Journal of Economics.2000, 31: 693-716.
142. Sandberg, Birgitta, Creating the market for disruptive innovation: Market proactiveness at the launch stage, Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 2002, Vol. 11,2.
143. Sahal, Devendra.. Technological guideposts and innovation avenues [J]. Research Policy, 1985, 14: 61-82.
144. Schilling,Melissa A,2005, Strategic management og technological Innovation. New York:McGraw-Hill-Irwin.
145. Schroeder, Roger G., Kimberly A. Bates, and Mikko A. Junttila. A Resource-Based View of Manufacturing Strategy and the Relationship to Manufacturing Performance [J].Strategic Management Journal. 2002, 23(2): 105–117.
146. S.D. Saleh, C.K. Wang. The Management of Innovation: Strategy, Structure and Organizational Climate [J].IEEE Transactions on engineering Management. 1993, 40(1): 14-21
147. S.F. Slater and J.C. Naver.The positive effect of a market orientation on business profitability: A balanced replication[J]. Journal of Business Research 48(2000):69–73.
148. Slater, Stanley F., Kwaku Atuahene-Gima. Conducting Survey Research in Strategic Management,”in Research Methodology in Strategy and Management [M]. Vol. 1, David J. Ketchen Jr. and Don D. Bergh, eds. Amsterdam: Elsevier/JAI Press, 2004, 227–50.
149. Slater, Stanley F., John C. Narver. Market Orientation and the Learning Organization [J].Journal of Marketing. 1995, 59: 63–74.
150. Slater, Stanley F. and Narver, John C.(1998). Customer-Led and Market-Oriented: Let’s Not Confuse the Two. Strategic Management Journal 19(10):1001–6.
151. Smith, Wendy and Tushman, Michael L. Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams [J]. Organization Science. 2005, 16: 522-536.
152. Siggelkow, Nicolaj and Rivkin, Jan. When exploration backfires: Unintended consequences of organizational search[J]. Academy of Management Journal. 2006, 49: 779-796.
153. Sorescu, Alina B., Rajesh K. Chandy, and Jaideep C. Prabhu. Sources and Financial Consequences of Radical Innovation: Insights from Pharmaceuticals [J].Journal of Marketing. 2003, 67(October): 82–102.
154. Srivastava, Rajendra K., Tasadduq A. Shervani, and Liam Fahey. Market-Based Assets and Shareholder Value: A Framework for Analysis[J]. Journal of Marketing, 1998 62(January): 2–18.
155. Stanley F. Slater and Jakki J. Mohr. Successful Development and Commercialization of Technological Innovation: Insights Based on Strategy Type [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,23:1, 26-33
156. Steven T. Walsh, Member, IEEE, Bruce A. Kirchhoff, and Scott Newbert. Differentiating Market Strategies for Disruptive Technologies[J].IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT.2002, VOL. 49: 341-352
157. Sull, Donald N. The dynamics of standing still: Firestone Tire & Rubber and the radial revolution [J]. Business History Review. 1999,73: 430-464
158. Szulanski, Gabriel. Exploring Internal Stickiness: Impediments to the Transfer of Best Practices Within the Firm[J].Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17: 27–44.
159. Teece, David J.Explicating dynamic capabilities:The nature and microfoundations of(sustainable) enterprise performance[Z]. Haas School of Business Working Paper, Dec.22.,2006.
160. Teece, David J., Pisano, Gary and Shuen, Amy. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 1997, 18: 509-533.
161. Thomas, James B., Shawn M. Clark, and Dennis A. Gioia. Strategic Sensemaking and Organizational Performance: Linkages Among Scanning, Interpretation, Action and Outcomes [J]. Academy of Management Journal. 1993, 36: 239–70.
162. Tripsas, M. Surviving radical technological change through dynamic capabilities: evidence from the typesetter industry [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change. 1997, 6: 341–377.
163. Tripsas, Mary and Gavetti, Giovanni. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 2000, 21: 1147-1161.
164. Trott, P. The role of market research in the development of discontinuous new products [J]. European Journal of Innovation Management,2001,4, 117-125.
165. Tushman, Michael L. and O’Reilly, Charles A. The ambidextrous organization: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change[J]. California Management Review.1996, 38: 1- 23.
166. Tushman, Michael L. and O’Reilly, Charles A. Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal [M]. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press. 1997.
167. Van Looy, Bart, Martens, Thierry and Debackere, Koenraad. Organizing for continuous innovation: On the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations [J]. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2005, 14: 208-221
168. Van de Ven,Andrew H.and Douglas Polley(1992).Learning While Innovating. Organization Science, Vol.3, No.1.92-117.
169. Vijay Govindarajan and Praveen K. Kopalle. The Usefulness of Measuring Disruptiveness of Innovations Ex Post in Making Ex Ante Predictions[J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,23:1, 12-18
170. Vijay Govindarajan, Praveen K. Kopalle(2006) Disruptiveness of innovations: measurement and an assessment of reliability and validity[J],Strategic Management Journal, Volume 27, Issue 2,: 189-199
171. Vijay Govindarajan, Anilk. Gupta. Strategic innovation: A conceptual road map [J]. Business Horizons, 2001, Vol. 44 Issue 4:3-112
172. Wiggins, Robert R. and Ruefli, Timothy W. Sustained competitive advantage, temporal dynamics and the incidence and persistence of superior economic erformance[J]. Organization Science, 2002 13: 81-105.
173. White, J. Chris, P. Rajan Varadarajan, and Peter A. Dacin. Market Situation Interpretation and Response: The Role of Cognitive Style, Organizational Culture, and Information Use [J]. Journal of Marketing. 2003, 67(July): 63–79.
174. Williamson, Peter J. Strategy as Options on the Future [J]. Sloan Management Review. 1999,40(3): 117–26.
175. Winter, Sidney G. Understanding dynamic capabilities [J]. Strategic Management Journal. 2003, 24: 991-995.
176. Zahra, S.A. Technology Strategy and Financial Performance: Examining the Moderating Role of the Firm’s Competitive Environment [J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 1996, 11:189-219.
177. Zahra, S.A., W.C. Bogner. Technology Strategy and Software new Venture’s Performance: Exploring Effect of the Competitive Environment [J]. Journal of Business Venturing, 1999,15 :135-173.
178. Zahra, Shaker A., R. Duane Ireland, Michael A. Hitt. International Expansion by New Venture Firms: Internal Diversity, Mode of Entry, Technological Learning, and Performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2000, 43(5): 925–50.
179. Zahra, Shaker A., R. Duane Ireland, Anders P. Nielson. Sources of Capabilities, Integration and Technology Commercialization [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2002, 23(5): 377–98.
180. Zollo, Maurizio and Winter, Sidney G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities [J]. Organization Science. 2002, 13: 339-351.
181.克雷顿.克里斯滕森著,吴潜龙译,创新者的窘境[M],江苏人民出版社,2001;
182.克雷顿.M.克里斯滕森,迈克尔.E.雷纳著,容冰译,困境与出路[M],中信出版社,2004;
183.吴贵生,“颠覆性创新”与组织响应[J],科学学研究,1997/04;
184.陈京民,大型企业技术突破性创新管理研究[J],科技进步与对策,2000/11;
185.陈劲,突破性创新及其识别[J],科技管理研究,2002/05;
186.付玉秀,张洪石,突破性创新:概念界定与比较[J].数量经济技术经济研究, 2004(3);
187.理查德& L.达夫特.组织理论与设计[M].王凤彬,等译.北京:清华大学出版社,2003;
188.赵明剑,司春林.通过突破性技术实现我国企业技术跨越[J].科学管理研究,2003(6);
189.田红云、陈继祥、田伟.颠覆性创新理论研究综述[J].经济学动态, 2006(12);
190.张洪石、陈劲.突破性创新的组织模式研究[J].科学学研究, 2005(8);
191.花俊国.利乐营销启示录[J].企业活力,2005年06期;
192.克雷顿.克里斯滕森著,吴潜龙译.创新者的窘境[M].江苏人民出版社,2001;
193.克雷顿.M.克里斯滕森,迈克尔.E.雷纳著,容冰译.困境与出路[M].中信出版社,2004;
194.吴国荣.迎接挑战的利乐公司[J],中国包装工业,2003;
195.闵捷,颜春龙,叶明,何宁.网络经济新模式———面向顾客的直接定制[J],中国软科学,2001;
196.加里·哈默尔等.《领导企业变革》,北京,人民邮电出版社,200;
197.孙英辉.关于商业模式创新的探讨[J].中国地质矿产经济,2003;
198.虞立琪.我们要让市场感动——访佳能亚洲营销集团总裁、佳能(中国)有限公司CEO小泽秀树[J].商务周刊, 2006;
199.乔·吉拉德著,汪洋,唐骏.戴尔直销[M],哈尔滨出版社;
200.尹美群.价值链的价值剖析及其解构[J].科研管理,2006;
201.克雷顿.克里斯滕森著,吴潜龙译.创新者的窘境[M],江苏人民出版社,2001;
202.克雷顿.M.克里斯滕森,迈克尔.E.雷纳著,容冰译.困境与出路[M].中信出版社.2004;
203.邓小健,赵艳萍.基于自组织理论的虚拟企业组织模式研究.商业研究.2006,第六期;
204.陈剑,冯蔚东.虚拟企业构建与管理[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2002;
205.刘彬.我国现代企业发展模式研究[M].上海:复旦大学出版社;
206.南方.企业组织模式研究[D].大连理工大学技术经济学院.2000;
207.王是,王津成,石巍.试论技术创新企业战略[J].科学管理研究2004(6);
208.赵玉林.创新经济学[M].北京:中国经济出版社,2006;
209.黄仁伟.论中国崛起的国内外环境制约(上)[J].社会科学,2003(1);
210.汪斌,赵张耀.国际产业转移理论述评[J].浙江社会科学,2003,11(6);
211.蓝海林,谢洪明.企业战略的抽象群及其演化引论[J].管理工程学报.2003年04期;
212.吕政.中国能成为世界工厂吗[M].北京:经济管理出版社,2003;
213. Michesl E·Porter著,李明轩等译.国家竞争优势[M].北京:华夏出版社,2002;
214.官建成,何颖.基于DEA方法的区域创新系统评价[J].科学学研究,2005(4);
215.杨东奇.企业产品创新力的分解与确定[J].哈尔滨工程大学学报, 2001,22,(5);
216.沈必扬,王晓明.基于吸纳能力、技术机遇和知识溢出的企业创新绩效分析[J] .科技进步与对策,2006,04;
217.刘满凤.民营科技企业创新特点与创新绩效提高[J].科技管理研究,2006(04);
218.何伟胜.企业创新系统要素之相关分析模型[J].辽宁大学学报(哲学社会科学版)2003(03);
219.韩廷香.企业创新的模式与影响因素分析[J].科学、经济、社会,2002,(2);
220.许小东.技术创新的成败归因及其对创新行为的影响研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2002,(2);
221.克莱顿.M.克里斯坦森.创新与总经理[M].中国人民大学出版社,2005;
222.克莱顿.M.克里斯滕森,斯科特.D.安东尼,埃里克.A.罗恩.远见——用变革理论预测产业未来[M].商务印书局,2006;
223.周晓东,项保华.复杂动态环境、动态能力及战略与环境的匹配关系[J].经济管理,2003,20;
224.张玉利,李乾文.双元型组织研究评介[J].外国经济与管理,2006,第28卷第1期.
225.于畅海.创新型组织研究的新动态:双重性组织研究综述[J].2007,03.
226.姚志坚著.技术跨越的理论与实证[M].北京:科学出版社,2005;
227.郑学益,张春晓,张亚光。中国民营企业启示录[M]。北京大学出版社,2005;
228.杜跃平,高雄,赵红菊.路径依赖与企业顺沿技术轨道的演化创新[J].研究与发展管理,2004,16(4);
229.笛德,本珊特,帕维特著.金马工作室译.创新管理:技术变革、市场变革和组织变革的整合[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2004;