高科技产业集群内企业间知识转移影响因素研究
|
摘要
随着知识经济的到来,企业快速有效获取知识的能力逐渐成为企业竞争优势的来源之一。对于企业,尤其是对知识更新速度快、科技水平高的高科技企业来说能否快速有效的获取知识变得越来越重要。本研究选择高科技产业集群内的企业为研究对象,在对国内外相关研究文献进行分析的基础上,分析了其企业间知识转移的特点,并按照知识转移的一般过程以及参与知识转移的客体、主体,系统地归纳了知识转移影响因素,然后对不同影响因素间以及影响因素与知识转移结果间的关系进行了研究。本文将知识转移影响因素分为四类:知识源因素、知识接收方因素、情境因素和被转移知识特性因素四类,构建了高科技产业集群内企业间知识转移影响因素模型,最后基于构思效度检验和实证分析的结果修正并验证了该模型。
本文通过理论研究和实证分析发现:(1)软件、游戏、IT行业、机电行业的企业与培训教育以及销售营销行业的企业在企业间知识转移结果上存在显著差异,造成差异可能的原因是这两类行业的企业在进行知识转移时企业间关系亲密度程度不同。(2)当前,浙大科技园内的企业进行企业间知识转移时,关系亲密度、模糊嵌入性、发送动机与意愿对知识转移结果影响最大,是影响该高科技集群内企业间知识转移效果的最主要因素,而广为被学者所强调的吸收能力并不是主要影响因素,其原因可能是该集群内企业所接收知识的模糊性和嵌入性低,因而对接收方吸收能力的要求较低。(3)关系亲密度对知识特性与企业间知识转移结果起到调节作用。即相对于高关系亲密度,当关系密度低时,知识特性对知识转移结果影响作用更大。
With the advent and development of knowledge economy, the ability of quickly and efficiently achieving the knowledge they need is gradually becoming an essential resource for enterprises to obtain competitive advantage, especially to the high-tech companies. Based on the review and analysis of relevant reseaches, this research selected enterprise in a high-tech industry cluster as research objects to analyze their charactors of knowledge transfer and summed up the influence factors. We concluded the affecting factors and divided them into four aspects: the knowledge source factors, the knowledge receptor factors, the knowledge factors and the situational factors, and built an influencing factors model of knowledge transfer. And this thesis also did Reliability Analysis and Validity Analysis to adjust this model, and did an empirical analysis to verify this model and relevant hypothesises.
Through this research, we found that: (1) There is a significant difference between the two industry groups in knowledge transfer results.The first group are composed by software, electronic game, IT and electromechanical industries, and the second group includes the education&training industry and sales&marketing industries. By analysis, we found the difference may be from the differenct levels of the trustiness of the relationship. (2) The most important factors which affected the knowledge transfer results of the enterprises of Zhejiang University High-tech Park are the degree of the intimate and trusty relationship between knowledge transfer enterprises, the ambiguility and embeddedness degree of the transferred knowledge and the knowledge source's transferring motivation &willingness. But the absorptive capacity which were emphersized by many scholars is not a main factors in this research, the reason can be the low ambiguility and embeddedness degree of the transferred knowledge which does not need high absorptive capacity. (3) The relationship between the two enterprises played a moderating role between the knowledge factors and transfer results.
本文通过理论研究和实证分析发现:(1)软件、游戏、IT行业、机电行业的企业与培训教育以及销售营销行业的企业在企业间知识转移结果上存在显著差异,造成差异可能的原因是这两类行业的企业在进行知识转移时企业间关系亲密度程度不同。(2)当前,浙大科技园内的企业进行企业间知识转移时,关系亲密度、模糊嵌入性、发送动机与意愿对知识转移结果影响最大,是影响该高科技集群内企业间知识转移效果的最主要因素,而广为被学者所强调的吸收能力并不是主要影响因素,其原因可能是该集群内企业所接收知识的模糊性和嵌入性低,因而对接收方吸收能力的要求较低。(3)关系亲密度对知识特性与企业间知识转移结果起到调节作用。即相对于高关系亲密度,当关系密度低时,知识特性对知识转移结果影响作用更大。
With the advent and development of knowledge economy, the ability of quickly and efficiently achieving the knowledge they need is gradually becoming an essential resource for enterprises to obtain competitive advantage, especially to the high-tech companies. Based on the review and analysis of relevant reseaches, this research selected enterprise in a high-tech industry cluster as research objects to analyze their charactors of knowledge transfer and summed up the influence factors. We concluded the affecting factors and divided them into four aspects: the knowledge source factors, the knowledge receptor factors, the knowledge factors and the situational factors, and built an influencing factors model of knowledge transfer. And this thesis also did Reliability Analysis and Validity Analysis to adjust this model, and did an empirical analysis to verify this model and relevant hypothesises.
Through this research, we found that: (1) There is a significant difference between the two industry groups in knowledge transfer results.The first group are composed by software, electronic game, IT and electromechanical industries, and the second group includes the education&training industry and sales&marketing industries. By analysis, we found the difference may be from the differenct levels of the trustiness of the relationship. (2) The most important factors which affected the knowledge transfer results of the enterprises of Zhejiang University High-tech Park are the degree of the intimate and trusty relationship between knowledge transfer enterprises, the ambiguility and embeddedness degree of the transferred knowledge and the knowledge source's transferring motivation &willingness. But the absorptive capacity which were emphersized by many scholars is not a main factors in this research, the reason can be the low ambiguility and embeddedness degree of the transferred knowledge which does not need high absorptive capacity. (3) The relationship between the two enterprises played a moderating role between the knowledge factors and transfer results.
引文
[1] Argote, L. Organizational learning: Creating, Retaining and Transferring Knowledge. Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999, 62.
[2] Argote, L. & Ingram, P. Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000, 82(1), 150-169.
[3] Row, K. Economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 2002,29,155-172
[4] Almeida, P. & Kogut. Loacalization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks. Management Science, 1999,45(7), 905-917.
[5] Audretsch, D. & Feldman. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 1996(86), 630-640.
[6] Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. E. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management system: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 2001,25(1), 107-136.
[7] Bettenhasen, K., & Murnighan. The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. 1985(30), 350-372.
[8] Capello, R., & Faggian, A. Collective learning and relational capital in local innovation processes. Regional Studies, 2005, 39 (1), 75-87.
[9] Carlsson, S. A. Gaining competitive advantage through shared knowledge creation: in search of a new design theory for strategic information system. The fourth European conference on information systems. Lisbon, 1996, 1067-1075.
[10] Contractor, F. J. & Raw. How knowledge attributes influence alliance governance choice: a theory development note. Journal of International Management, 2002(8), 11-27.
[11]Commings, J. Knowledge transfer across R&D unit: an empirical investigation of the factors affecting successful knowledge transfer across intra and inter organizational units. An unpublished doctor dissert, Washington University, 2001.
[12]Cummings, J. L., & Bing, S. T. Transfer R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2003, 20, 40-68
[13] Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998.
[14]Dhanaraj, C. etal. Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: the role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business studies, 2004(35), 428-442.
[15]Dixon, N. M. The organizational leaning cycle: How we can learn collectively. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[16]Doz, Y. L. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: initial conditions or learning process. Strategic management journal, 1996(17), 55-83.
[17]Doz, Y, & Santos, J. F. P. On the management of knowledge: from the transparency of collocation and cosetting to the quandary of dispersion and differentiation. Fontainebleau: INSEAD Working Paper Series. 97/119/SM., 1997.
[18] Eric, D. D., & Terri, R. K. An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000.82(5), 28-44.
[19]Feldman, M. Location and innovation: the new economic geography of innovation, spillovers, and agglomeration. Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford University Press, 2000, 373-394.
[20]Galbraith, C. S. Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high technology firms. California Management Review, 1990, 32(4),56-70.
[21]Gertler. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the indefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 2003(3), 75-99.
[22] Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 2005, 34(1), 47-68.
[23] Gupta, A. K. & Becerra, M. Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organization Science, 2003,14(1), 32-44.
[24] Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. Knowledge flow within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21(4), 473-496.
[25]Hamel, G. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal 1991, 12, 83-11.
[26]Hullinshead, A. B. & Brandon, D.P. Potential benefits of communication in transactive memory system. Human Communication Research, 2003(29), 607-615.
[27] Joseph, L. Alliance speed knowledge transfer. Planning Review, 1991, 19(2), 30-50.
[28]Hooff, B. V. & Ridder, J.A. Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2004, 8(6), 117-130
[29]Kogut, B. & Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multination. Journal of International Business Studies,1993,24(4), 625-645.
[30]Kogut, B. & Zander, U. What firm do: Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 1996, 7(5), 502-518
[31] Lam, A. Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and innovation: A societal perspective. Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics (DRUID) research paper. Copenhagen, 1998,45, 98-22.
[32] Lam, A. Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 2000,21(3), 487-513
[33]Lane, P. J. & Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 1998,19,461-477.
[34] Lee, J. N. The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information & Management, 2001(38), 323-335
[35]Makhija, M. V.etal. The relationship between control and partner learning in learning-related joint ventures. Organization Science, 1997, 18(5), 508-528.
[36]Maskell, & Malmberg. Localized learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1999, 23(2), 167-186.
[37]McEvily, B., Perrone, V. & Zaheer, A. Trust as an organizing principle [J]. Organization Science, 2003,14(1), 91-103.
[38]Mooradian, T., Renzl, B. & Matzler, K. Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge sharing. Management Learning, 2006, 37(4), 523-540.
[39]Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital and the creation of value in firms. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 1997, 35-39
[40]Nelson & Winter. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harved University press, 1982.
[41]Nonaka, I. Creating Organizational Order Out of Chaos: Self-Renewal in Japanese Firms. Californian Management Review, 1988, 30 (3), 57-73
[42]Nonaka, I. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 1991, 69(6), 96-103.
[43]Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 1994, 5(1), 14-37
[44] Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W.W. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 2004, 15 (1), 5-21.
[45]Knorringa, P. & Meyer, J. New Dimensions in Enterprise Cooperation and Development :From Clusters to Industrial Districts. 1998, (10) .
[46]Senge, P. M. Sharing knowledge. Executive Excellence, 1998(15), 11-12.
[47]Senge, P. M. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency, 1990.
[48]Polanyi, M. Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958, The tacit dimension.London: Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1966.
[49] Polanyi, M. The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 1966(41), 1 -13.
[50]Polanyi, M. The Logic of Tacit. Inference Knowing and Being. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1969.
[51]Polanyi, M. Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge, 1998 [1958], 428.
[52] Porter, M. E. On Competition. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. 1998.
[53] Szulanzki, G Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice with the firm. Strategic Management Journal 1996, 17, 27-43.
[54] Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R. & Jensen, R.J. When and how trustworthiness matters: Knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity. Organization Science, 2004,15(5), 600-613.
[55]Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganziational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 2001,44(5), 996-1004.
[56]Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T.A. Implications of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 2000(18), 137-185.
[57] Von, H. E. "Sticky information" and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 1994,40(4), 429-439.
[58] Von, H. E. Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 1987(16), 291-302.
[59]Walter,J.,Lechner,C.& Kellermanns,F.Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners:Private versus collective benefits of social capital.Journal of Business Research,2007(60),698-710.
[60]Wicks,A.C.,Berman,S.L.& Jones,T.M.The structure of optimal trust:Moral and strategic implications.Academy of Management Review,1999,24(1),99-116.
[61]Wu,W.L.,Hsu,B.F.& Yeh,R.S.Fostering the determinants of knowledge transfer:a team-level analysis.Journal of Information Science,2007,33(3),326-339
[62]Yong,S.,Lan,P.,Technology transfer to China through foreign direct investment.Regional studies,1997,31(7),669-679.
[63]Zander,U.Exploiting a technological edge:Voluntary and involuntary dissemination of technology.Stockholm:Institute of International Business,1991,89-95.
[64]Zander,U.& Kogut,B.Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities:An empirical test.Organization Science,1995,6(1),76--92.
[65]彼得·德鲁克.知识管理.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000:11-13.
[66]蔡宁,黎常.知识分享及其研究理论基础.情报科学,2007,25(1),30-36
[67]陈菲琼.我国企业与跨国公司知识联盟的知识转移层次.科研管理,2001,22(2),66-73.
[68]富立友.基于知识共享的组织文化研究.博士学位论文,复旦大学,2004
[69]关涛.跨国公司内部知识转移过程与影响因素的实证研究.博士学位论文,复旦大学,2005.
[70]何晓群,刘文卿.应用回归分析.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[71]李红.知识密集型服务业集群研究述评.科学管理研究,2005(23),85-90.
[72]林东清.知识管理理论与实务.北京:电子工业出版社,2005.
[73]马庆国.管理统计:数据获取、统计原理、SPSS工具与应用研究.北京:科学出版社,2002.
[74]马庆国.管理科学研究方法与研究生学位论文的评判参考标准.管理世界,2004(12):99-109.
[75]迈克尔波特.国家竞争优势.北京:华夏出版社,2002.
[76]彭灿.基于国际战略联盟的模仿创新:我国优秀企业实现创新模式进化的一条捷径.科研管理,2005(3),23-28.
[77]宋建元,陈劲.企业隐性知识共享的效率分析.科学学与科学技术管理,2005,(2),58-61.
[78]王冰.簇族的知识共享机制和信任机制.外国经济与管理,2000(5),2-7.
[79]王缉慈.创新的空间:企业集群与区域发展.北京大学出版社.2001.
[80]王缉慈.地方产业群战略.中国工业经济,2002,3.
[81]王毅.产学研合作中粘滞知识的成因与转移机制研究.科研管理,2001(11),114-121.
[82]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2),268-274.
[83]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰.有中介的调节变量和有调节的中介变量.心理学报,2006,38(3),448-452.
[84]魏江,企业集群总的技术学习分工和知识流动.科学学与科学技术管理,2002(9),95-96.
[85]魏守华,石碧华.论企业集群的竞争优势.中国工业经济,2002,(1),59-65.
[86]吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务.北京:科学出版社,2003.
[87]奚雷,彭灿.战略联盟中组织间知识转移的影响因素与对策建.科技管理研究,2006(3):165-169.
[88]肖小勇,文亚青.组织间知识转移的主要影响因素.理论与探索,2005(4),354-358.
[89]徐金发,徐强,顾惊雷.企业知识转移的情境分析模型.科研管理,2003,24(2),54-60.
[90]徐康宁.开放经济条件下的产业集群及竞争力.中国工业经济,2001(7),22-27.
[91]张方华,陈劲.知识创造:企业知识管理的核心.科学学与科学技术管理,2002(10),36-40.
[92]朱伟民.高新技术产业集群中的知识转移.郑州轻工业学院学报(社会科学版),2005(6),38-41.
[93]庄亚明,李金生.高技术企业知识联盟中的知识转移研究.科研管理,2004,25(6),50-57.
[2] Argote, L. & Ingram, P. Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000, 82(1), 150-169.
[3] Row, K. Economic implications of learning by doing. Review of Economic Studies, 2002,29,155-172
[4] Almeida, P. & Kogut. Loacalization of Knowledge and the Mobility of Engineers in Regional Networks. Management Science, 1999,45(7), 905-917.
[5] Audretsch, D. & Feldman. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production. American Economic Review, 1996(86), 630-640.
[6] Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. E. Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management system: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 2001,25(1), 107-136.
[7] Bettenhasen, K., & Murnighan. The emergence of norms in competitive decision-making groups. 1985(30), 350-372.
[8] Capello, R., & Faggian, A. Collective learning and relational capital in local innovation processes. Regional Studies, 2005, 39 (1), 75-87.
[9] Carlsson, S. A. Gaining competitive advantage through shared knowledge creation: in search of a new design theory for strategic information system. The fourth European conference on information systems. Lisbon, 1996, 1067-1075.
[10] Contractor, F. J. & Raw. How knowledge attributes influence alliance governance choice: a theory development note. Journal of International Management, 2002(8), 11-27.
[11]Commings, J. Knowledge transfer across R&D unit: an empirical investigation of the factors affecting successful knowledge transfer across intra and inter organizational units. An unpublished doctor dissert, Washington University, 2001.
[12]Cummings, J. L., & Bing, S. T. Transfer R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2003, 20, 40-68
[13] Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998.
[14]Dhanaraj, C. etal. Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in IJVs: the role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business studies, 2004(35), 428-442.
[15]Dixon, N. M. The organizational leaning cycle: How we can learn collectively. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[16]Doz, Y. L. The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: initial conditions or learning process. Strategic management journal, 1996(17), 55-83.
[17]Doz, Y, & Santos, J. F. P. On the management of knowledge: from the transparency of collocation and cosetting to the quandary of dispersion and differentiation. Fontainebleau: INSEAD Working Paper Series. 97/119/SM., 1997.
[18] Eric, D. D., & Terri, R. K. An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000.82(5), 28-44.
[19]Feldman, M. Location and innovation: the new economic geography of innovation, spillovers, and agglomeration. Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography. Oxford University Press, 2000, 373-394.
[20]Galbraith, C. S. Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high technology firms. California Management Review, 1990, 32(4),56-70.
[21]Gertler. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the indefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography, 2003(3), 75-99.
[22] Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 2005, 34(1), 47-68.
[23] Gupta, A. K. & Becerra, M. Perceived trustworthiness within the organization: The moderating impact of communication frequency on trustor and trustee effects. Organization Science, 2003,14(1), 32-44.
[24] Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. Knowledge flow within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21(4), 473-496.
[25]Hamel, G. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal 1991, 12, 83-11.
[26]Hullinshead, A. B. & Brandon, D.P. Potential benefits of communication in transactive memory system. Human Communication Research, 2003(29), 607-615.
[27] Joseph, L. Alliance speed knowledge transfer. Planning Review, 1991, 19(2), 30-50.
[28]Hooff, B. V. & Ridder, J.A. Knowledge sharing in context: The influence of organizational commitment, communication climate and CMC use on knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2004, 8(6), 117-130
[29]Kogut, B. & Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multination. Journal of International Business Studies,1993,24(4), 625-645.
[30]Kogut, B. & Zander, U. What firm do: Coordination, identity, and learning. Organization Science, 1996, 7(5), 502-518
[31] Lam, A. Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and innovation: A societal perspective. Danish Research Unit for Industrial Dynamics (DRUID) research paper. Copenhagen, 1998,45, 98-22.
[32] Lam, A. Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 2000,21(3), 487-513
[33]Lane, P. J. & Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 1998,19,461-477.
[34] Lee, J. N. The impact of knowledge sharing, organizational capability and partnership quality on IS outsourcing success. Information & Management, 2001(38), 323-335
[35]Makhija, M. V.etal. The relationship between control and partner learning in learning-related joint ventures. Organization Science, 1997, 18(5), 508-528.
[36]Maskell, & Malmberg. Localized learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1999, 23(2), 167-186.
[37]McEvily, B., Perrone, V. & Zaheer, A. Trust as an organizing principle [J]. Organization Science, 2003,14(1), 91-103.
[38]Mooradian, T., Renzl, B. & Matzler, K. Who trusts? Personality, trust and knowledge sharing. Management Learning, 2006, 37(4), 523-540.
[39]Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital and the creation of value in firms. Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings, 1997, 35-39
[40]Nelson & Winter. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harved University press, 1982.
[41]Nonaka, I. Creating Organizational Order Out of Chaos: Self-Renewal in Japanese Firms. Californian Management Review, 1988, 30 (3), 57-73
[42]Nonaka, I. The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 1991, 69(6), 96-103.
[43]Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 1994, 5(1), 14-37
[44] Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W.W. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: the effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 2004, 15 (1), 5-21.
[45]Knorringa, P. & Meyer, J. New Dimensions in Enterprise Cooperation and Development :From Clusters to Industrial Districts. 1998, (10) .
[46]Senge, P. M. Sharing knowledge. Executive Excellence, 1998(15), 11-12.
[47]Senge, P. M. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday Currency, 1990.
[48]Polanyi, M. Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958, The tacit dimension.London: Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1966.
[49] Polanyi, M. The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy, 1966(41), 1 -13.
[50]Polanyi, M. The Logic of Tacit. Inference Knowing and Being. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul, 1969.
[51]Polanyi, M. Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge, 1998 [1958], 428.
[52] Porter, M. E. On Competition. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press. 1998.
[53] Szulanzki, G Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice with the firm. Strategic Management Journal 1996, 17, 27-43.
[54] Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R. & Jensen, R.J. When and how trustworthiness matters: Knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity. Organization Science, 2004,15(5), 600-613.
[55]Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganziational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 2001,44(5), 996-1004.
[56]Uhl-Bien, M., Graen, G.B., & Scandura, T.A. Implications of Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) for strategic human resource management systems: Relationships as social capital for competitive advantage. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management, 2000(18), 137-185.
[57] Von, H. E. "Sticky information" and the locus of problem solving: Implications for innovation. Management Science, 1994,40(4), 429-439.
[58] Von, H. E. Cooperation between rivals: Informal know-how trading. Research Policy, 1987(16), 291-302.
[59]Walter,J.,Lechner,C.& Kellermanns,F.Knowledge transfer between and within alliance partners:Private versus collective benefits of social capital.Journal of Business Research,2007(60),698-710.
[60]Wicks,A.C.,Berman,S.L.& Jones,T.M.The structure of optimal trust:Moral and strategic implications.Academy of Management Review,1999,24(1),99-116.
[61]Wu,W.L.,Hsu,B.F.& Yeh,R.S.Fostering the determinants of knowledge transfer:a team-level analysis.Journal of Information Science,2007,33(3),326-339
[62]Yong,S.,Lan,P.,Technology transfer to China through foreign direct investment.Regional studies,1997,31(7),669-679.
[63]Zander,U.Exploiting a technological edge:Voluntary and involuntary dissemination of technology.Stockholm:Institute of International Business,1991,89-95.
[64]Zander,U.& Kogut,B.Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities:An empirical test.Organization Science,1995,6(1),76--92.
[65]彼得·德鲁克.知识管理.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000:11-13.
[66]蔡宁,黎常.知识分享及其研究理论基础.情报科学,2007,25(1),30-36
[67]陈菲琼.我国企业与跨国公司知识联盟的知识转移层次.科研管理,2001,22(2),66-73.
[68]富立友.基于知识共享的组织文化研究.博士学位论文,复旦大学,2004
[69]关涛.跨国公司内部知识转移过程与影响因素的实证研究.博士学位论文,复旦大学,2005.
[70]何晓群,刘文卿.应用回归分析.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[71]李红.知识密集型服务业集群研究述评.科学管理研究,2005(23),85-90.
[72]林东清.知识管理理论与实务.北京:电子工业出版社,2005.
[73]马庆国.管理统计:数据获取、统计原理、SPSS工具与应用研究.北京:科学出版社,2002.
[74]马庆国.管理科学研究方法与研究生学位论文的评判参考标准.管理世界,2004(12):99-109.
[75]迈克尔波特.国家竞争优势.北京:华夏出版社,2002.
[76]彭灿.基于国际战略联盟的模仿创新:我国优秀企业实现创新模式进化的一条捷径.科研管理,2005(3),23-28.
[77]宋建元,陈劲.企业隐性知识共享的效率分析.科学学与科学技术管理,2005,(2),58-61.
[78]王冰.簇族的知识共享机制和信任机制.外国经济与管理,2000(5),2-7.
[79]王缉慈.创新的空间:企业集群与区域发展.北京大学出版社.2001.
[80]王缉慈.地方产业群战略.中国工业经济,2002,3.
[81]王毅.产学研合作中粘滞知识的成因与转移机制研究.科研管理,2001(11),114-121.
[82]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2),268-274.
[83]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰.有中介的调节变量和有调节的中介变量.心理学报,2006,38(3),448-452.
[84]魏江,企业集群总的技术学习分工和知识流动.科学学与科学技术管理,2002(9),95-96.
[85]魏守华,石碧华.论企业集群的竞争优势.中国工业经济,2002,(1),59-65.
[86]吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务.北京:科学出版社,2003.
[87]奚雷,彭灿.战略联盟中组织间知识转移的影响因素与对策建.科技管理研究,2006(3):165-169.
[88]肖小勇,文亚青.组织间知识转移的主要影响因素.理论与探索,2005(4),354-358.
[89]徐金发,徐强,顾惊雷.企业知识转移的情境分析模型.科研管理,2003,24(2),54-60.
[90]徐康宁.开放经济条件下的产业集群及竞争力.中国工业经济,2001(7),22-27.
[91]张方华,陈劲.知识创造:企业知识管理的核心.科学学与科学技术管理,2002(10),36-40.
[92]朱伟民.高新技术产业集群中的知识转移.郑州轻工业学院学报(社会科学版),2005(6),38-41.
[93]庄亚明,李金生.高技术企业知识联盟中的知识转移研究.科研管理,2004,25(6),50-57.