摘要
互联网信息技术的高速发展,不仅给后发企业的追赶带来了新的契机,而且使他们从相对封闭的环境直接进入了以互联网技术为支撑的全球化价值网络的竞争中。不同于早期西方发达国家后进企业和新兴工业化国家的后发企业,这些新背景下的后发企业利用商业模式设计进行后发优势的发挥和劣势克服,通过与技术创新战略的协同作用,实现对国际领先企业的技术追赶,不断改变着原有的竞争格局。从商业模式设计与技术创新战略的匹配视角进行技术追赶的研究,是信息网络时代后发企业管理实践与理论研究中需要重点关注的话题。然而,已有的理论研究虽然对商业模式与技术创新的关系进行了初探,并在商业模式能给企业带来竞争优势方面基本达成共识。但是对于后发情境中商业模式设计如何作用于技术追赶绩效,尤其是基于与技术创新战略的匹配视角,却甚少关注,相关的案例研究和实证研究都较为缺乏。
中国是新时期下后发经济体的主要代表之一,以阿里巴巴、腾讯、网易等为代表的一大批现代服务业后发企业正进入快速追赶阶段。本文以中国现代服务业企业为研究样本,围绕“商业模式设计如何影响后发企业技术追赶绩效”这一基本问题,在借鉴以往大量研究成果的基础上,逐层深入地探究了以下四个逻辑紧密相关的研究问题：(1)商业模式设计如何具体影响后发企业技术追赶绩效?(2)商业模式设计与技术创新战略的匹配对后发企业技术追赶绩效的影响机制如何?(3)在不同的技术体制下,这种影响机制会有何不同?(4)后发企业技术追赶的过程中,商业模式设计与技术创新战略如何共同演变?
本文采用理论分析与实证研究相结合、文献梳理与调研访谈相结合、定性研究与定量研究相结合的方法,通过四个子研究逐层深入进行论述,阐明了上述研究问题。
子研究一在梳理分析前人研究成果的基础上,初步提出了商业模式设计及其与技术创新战略的匹配对技术追赶绩效影响的理论构想,并通过6家浙江省现代服务业企业的探索性案例研究进行分析归纳,探寻商业模式设计及其与技术创新战略的匹配对技术追赶绩效的影响机制,为后续研究提供源于实践的理论构想。
子研究二结合子研究一的初步结论,做进一步文献展开,由此提出商业模式设计及其与技术创新战略的匹配对技术追赶绩效影响机制的概念模型,并通过对326家中国现代服务业企业的问卷调研,运用探索性因子分析、验证性因子分析、多元回归分析等方法进行实证分析,从而对商业模式设计及其与技术创新战略的匹配对技术追赶绩效影响机制的概念模型进行调整修正。
子研究三在子研究二的基础上,引入技术创新独占性和技术创新累积性两类调节变量,考察了不同的技术环境下商业模式设计与技术创新战略的匹配对技术追赶绩效的影响机制,并通过对326家中国现代服务业企业的问卷调研,运用探索性因子分析、验证性因子分析、多元回归分析等方法进行实证分析,识别出技术体制中技术创新独占性与技术创新累积性两个维度对商业模式设计与技术创新战略的匹配与技术追赶绩效关系的影响。
鉴于后发企业的技术追赶是一个不断发展演变的过程,子研究四在前述机制模型的基础上,进一步利用纵向案例研究方法展现了后发企业技术追赶过程中商业模式设计、技术创新战略与技术环境的共演过程。
通过上述研究工作,本文主要得出以下观点和结论：
(1)效率型和新颖型商业模式设计对后发企业技术追赶绩效有显著的正向影响。
通过对6家浙江省现代服务业企业的探索性案例研究和326家中国现代服务业企业的大样本调研问卷研究,不仅证实了商业模式设计这两类主题引用的有效性,而且有力的证实了效率型和新颖型商业模式设计都对后发企业技术追赶绩效有促进作用,且新颖型的促进作用大于效率型。
(2)商业模式设计与技术创新战略的匹配对促进后发企业的技术追赶有增强型交互效应。
根据创新的来源将技术创新战略分为自主研发战略和技术引进战略,与两类商业模式设计主题形成四种匹配关系,不同的匹配关系对后发企业技术追赶的影响存在着差异性：效率型商业模式设计与技术引进战略、新颖型商业模式设计与自主研发战略、新颖型商业模式设计与技术引进战略呈现良好的匹配,对促进技术追赶绩效的提升具有增强型交互作用。而效率型模式设计与自主研发战略的匹配没有得到验证。
(3)技术创新独占性和技术创新累积性在商业模式设计与技术创新战略的匹配对技术追赶绩效的影响中有调节效应。
在不同的技术体制下,商业模式设计与技术创新战略的不同匹配对技术追赶的共同作用存在着差异：技术创新独占性分别对效率型商业模式设计与技术引进战略的匹配、新颖型商业模式设计与技术引进战略的匹配起正向调节效应；技术创新累积性对效率型商业模式设计与技术引进战略的匹配起负向调节效应,对新颖型商业模式设计与自主研发战略的匹配起正向调节效应。
(4)后发企业的技术追赶是一个商业模式设计、技术创新战略与技术环境共演的过程。
通过对阿里巴巴的纵向单案例研究,使得对商业模式设计、技术创新战略和技术追赶之间关系的认识得到了加深拓宽：企业会根据技术环境进行商业模式设计和技术创新战略的选择,并对技术追赶产生影响。企业的商业模式设计以及技术能力和技术水平的积累、提升也会作用于技术环境；企业的商业模式设计和技术创新战略都会作用于技术追赶,而技术能力与技术水平的积累会对商业模式设计进行及时的反馈,使得商业模式设计能够保持有效性,提高效率性或新颖性的程度。同时,经过一段较长时间积累的技术能力和技术水平,或是技术追赶方面质的突破,也会使企业在商业模式设计和技术创新战略上做出相应的调整。
纵观全文,本文主要在以下三个方面进行了拓展和深化：
(1)理论上提出并实证检验商业模式设计对后发企业技术追赶绩效的影响。
(2)理论上探索并实证检验商业模式设计与技术创新战略的匹配对后发企业技术追赶绩效的影响。
(3)理论上系统研究并实证检验技术体制对商业模式设计与技术创新战略的匹配对技术追赶绩效影响的调节效应。
The rapid development of information technology not only brings new opportunities for latecomer firms to catch-up, but also makes it possible for them to experience the process from closed environment to globalization value network which is supported by information technology. Unlike the late entrants firms from early western developed countries and latecomer firms from emerging industrialized countries, these latecomer firms use business model design to exploit the advantages and overcome the disadvantages of latecomer. With the synergy of business model design and technological innovation strategy, they are changing the existing competition structure constantly and achieve the aim of technological catching-up of the international leading firms. The research of technological catch-up from the perspective of the fit between business model design and technological innovation strategy, is becoming a needed issue in practical and theoretical study of management. Although the existing theoretical research had already done pilot study on business model and technology innovation, and reached an concensus on what business model can bring in terms of competitive advantages. Little has been done as to how business model design influences technological catch-up performance especially from the perspective of fitting with technological innovation strategy. It also lacks in case study and empirical study.
China is one of the main representatives of latecomer economies in the new peroid. A large number of latecomer firms from China, such as Alibaba, Tencent, NetEase and other modern service firms, are entering the fast catching—up phase. In the dissertation, the author takes Chinese modern service firms as the research sample, focusing on "How business model design influences latecomer firms' technological catch-up", referring to lots of relative research results, exploring the following four closely related sub-questions step by step. First, how business model design specificly influences latecomer firms' technological catch-up performance? Second, what is the mechanism of the fit between business model design and technology innovation strategy on latecomer firms' technology catch-up performance? Third, what impacts will be brought about on this mechanism in various technological regime? Fourth, during the process of latecomer firms' technological catch-up, how does business model design and technology innovation strategy co-evaluate?
By applying both theoretical and empirical study, literature review and interview, as well as qualitative and quantitative research, this dissertation explores, in four sub-researches, the above-mentioned questions.
Based on previous literature review, the first sub-research brings forward a primary theoretical supposition that the fit between business model design and technology innovation strategy influences technological catch-up performance. This study analyzes explorative cases of six modern Zhejiang service firms, with an aim to explore the influence mechanism of the fit between business model design and technology innovation strategy upon technological catch-up performance, so as to provide a theoretical conception based on practice for future study.
On the basis of the first sub-research, the second sub-research goes on for further literature review and puts forward a concept model of relational embeddedness influence mechanism.326Chinese modern service firms are investigated via questionnaires, and Explorative Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and multiple regression analysis are conducted to do the empirical analysis and applied to testify and modify the concept model.
Grounded on the results of the former two sub-researches, the third sub-research introduces two types of moderate variables as the appropriability of technological innovation and the cumulativeness of technological innovation to examine the influential mechanism of the fit between business model design and technology innovation strategy on technological catch-up performance.326Chinese modern service firms are investigated via questionnaires, and Explorative Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and multiple regression analysis are conducted to do the empirical analysis and identified the influence mechanisms of these two moderate variables.
Considering that technological catch-up is a dynamic changing process, the fourth sub-research explores the co-evolution relationship among business model design, technology innovation strategy and environment in the process of technogical catch-up with a longitudinal case study.
Drawing on the above researches, this dissertation draws the following conclusions:
(1) Both efficiency-centered business model design and novelty-centered business model design have positive effects on latecomer firm's technological catch-up performance. Empirical studies not only show that these two themes are effective, but also confirms the positive impact of both themes of business model design on latecomer firm's technological catch-up performance.
(2) The fit between business model design and technology innovation strategy has contingent effects on latecomer firm's technological catch-up performance. Depending on the source of innovation, this dissertation classifies technology innovation strategy into independent R&D strategy and technology transfer strategy. There are four different types of fit relationship and their impacts on technological catch-up performance are various. Coupling an efficiency-centered business model design with a technology transfer strategy represents good fit and has a positive joint effect on technological catch-up performance, and the fit between a novelty-centered business model design and either a technology innovation strategy both represents good and has a positive joint effect on technological catch-up performance.
(3) The appropriability of technological innovation and the cumulativeness of technological innovation play important moderating roles in the mechanism that the fit between business model design and technology innovation strategy influences technological catch-up performance. In different technological regimes, the mechanism is different. In detail, the appropriability of technological innovation plays a positive role in the mechanism that couples an efficiency-centered business model design with a technology transfer strategy, and couples a novelty-centered business design model with a technology transfer strategy. The cumulativeness of technological innovation plays a negative role in the mechanism that couples an efficiency-centered business model design with a technology transfer strategy, whereas it plays a positive role in the mechanism that couples an novelty-centered business model design with a independent R&D strategy.
(4) The process of latecomer firm's technological catch-up is the co-evolution of business model design, technology innovation strategy and environment. Through the study of the single case of Alibaba, this disseration provides a discription of the relationship among business model design, technology innovation strategy and technological catch-up. Firms will choose different business model design and technology innovation strategy according to environmental factors which will influence technologyical catch-up. Business model design and the improvement of technological capability will affect external technological environment. While the business model design and technological innovation strategy affects technological catch-up, the technological capability is a timely reflection of the business model design, which will in turn keep business model design effective, thus improve its efficiency and novelty. At the same time, the accumulation of technology capability or breakthrough of technological catch-up will also help the business model design and technology innovation strategy to make appropriate adjustments.
To conclude, this dissertation managed to expend and deepen the research in the following aspects:
(1) This dissertation theoretically puts forward and empirically examines the effect of business model design on latecomer firms' technological catch-up performance.
(2) This dissertation theoretically explores and empirically examines the effect of the fit between business model design and technological innovation strategy on latecomer firms'technological catch-up performance.
(3) This dissertation systematically and empirically examines the moderating effect of technology regime on the relationship between the fit of business model design and technological innovation strategy and latecomer firms'technological catch-up performance.
引文
1 源自原中国国家副主席习近平在都柏林举行的中国-爱尔兰经贸投资论坛上的致辞,见《习近平在中国-爱尔兰经贸投资论坛上的讲话(全文)》,网址http://news.xinhuanet.com/world/2012-02/21/c 122729568.htm。
[1]Adler, P. S., & Shenbar, A. Adapting your technological base:the organizational challenge. Sloan Management Review,1990,32(1),25-37.
[2]Afuah, A. Innovation management:strategies, implementation and profits. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003.
[3]Afuah, A. Business models:A strategic management approach. New York: McGraw-Hill,2004.
[4]Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. Internet Business Models and Strategies:Text and Cases. New York:McGraw-Hill,2001.
[5]Ahuja, G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation:A longitudinal study. Administrative science quarterly,2000,45(3),425-455.
[6]Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. Multiple regression:Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA, US:Sage Publications,1991.
[7]Alcorta, L., Tomlinson, M., & Liang, A. T. Knowledge generation and innovation in manufacturing firms in China. Industry and Innovation,2009, 16(4-5),435-461.
[8]Aldrich, H. Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA, US:Sage Publications, 1999.
[9]Allen, T. Managing the flow of Technology. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press,1986.
[10]Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. The exploration of technological diversity and geographic localization in innovation:start-up firms in the semiconductor industry. Small Business Economics,1997,9(1),21-31.
[11]Alt, R., & Zimmermann, H.-D. Introduction to special section-business models. Electronic Markets-The International Journal,2001,11(1),1019-6781.
[12]Amburgey, T. L., & Dacin, T. As the left foot follows the right? The dynamics of strategic and structural change. Academy of Management Journal,1994,37(6), 1427-1452.
[13]Amit, R., & Zott, C. Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 2001,22(6-7),493-520.
[14]Amit, R., & Zott, C. Business model innovation:Creating value in times of change. http://www.iese.edu/research/pdfs/DI-0870-E.pdf,2013-10-11
[15]Anchordoguy, M. Japan's software industry:a failure of institutions? Research Policy,2000,29(3),391-408.
[16]Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. Structural equation modeling in practice:A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological bulletin,1988, 103(3),411.
[17]Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs:A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative science quarterly,1990,35(4),604-633.
[18]Ansoff, H. I., & Stewart, J. M. Strategies for a technology-based business. Harvard Business Review,1967,45(6),71-83.
[19]Applegate, L. M., & Collura, M. Emerging E-Business Models:Lessons from the Field. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press,2000.
[20]Arora, A., & Gambardella, A. Complementarity and external linkages:the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. Journal of industrial economics, 1990,38(4),361-379.
[21]Arrow, K. Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In, The rate and direction of inventive activity:Economic and social factors. Princton:Princeton University Press,1962,609-626.
[22]Arundel, A., & Kabla, I. What percentage of innovations are patented? Empirical estimates for European firms. Research Policy,1998,27(2),127-141.
[23]Audretsch, D. B. Innovation, growth and survival. International journal of industrial organization,1995,13(4),441-457.
[24]Awate, S., Larsen, M. M., & Mudambi, R. EMNE catch-up strategies in the wind turbine industry:Is there a trade-off between output and innovation capabilities? Global Strategy Journal,2012,2(3),205-223.
[25]Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, M. S. Business Models as Models. Long Range Planning,2010,43(2-3),156-171.
[26]Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative science quarterly,1991,36(3),421-458.
[27]Bain, J. Barriers to new competition. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press, 1956.
[28]Baldwin, J. R., & Johnson, J. Entry, innovation and firm growth. In Acs, Z. J. (Editor), Are Small Firms Important? Their Role and Impact. US:Springer, 1999,51-77.
[29]Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,1991,17(1),99-120.
[30]Baum, J. A., & Korn, H. J. Dynamics of dyadic competitive interaction. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(3),251-278.
[31]Baum, J. A., & Singh, J. V. Evolutionary dynamics of organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1994.
[32]Bell, M., & Pavitt, K. Technological Accumulation and Industrial Growth: Contrasts Between Developed and Developing Countries. Industrial and Corporate Change,1993,2(1),157-210.
[33]Bellman, R., Clark, C. E., Malcolm, D. G., et al. On the construction of a multi-stage, multi-person business game. Operations Research,1957,5(4), 469-503.
[34]Betz, F. Strategic Business Models. Engineering Management Journal,2002, 14(1),21.
[35]Bjorkdahl, J. Technology cross-fertilization and the business model:The case of integrating ICTs in mechanical engineering products. Research Policy, 2009, 38(9),1468-1477.
[36]Bonanno, G., & Haworth, B. Intensity of competition and the choice between product and process innovation. International journal of industrial organization, 1998,16(4),495-510.
[37]Boons, F., & Ludeke-Freund, F. Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production,2012,45(4),9-10.
[38]Bower, G. H. Imagery as a relational organizer in associative learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,1970,9(5),529-533.
[39]Breschi, S., Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. Technological regimes and Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. The Economic Journal,2000,110(463), 388-410.
[40]Brinckmann, J., Salomo, S., & Gemuenden, H. G. Financial Management Competence of Founding Teams and Growth of New Technology-Based Firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,2011,35(2),217-243.
[41]Brouwer, E., & Kleinknecht, A. Innovative output, and a firm's propensity to patent.:An exploration of CIS micro data. Research Policy, 1999, 28(6), 615-624.
[42]Bruton, G. D., & White, M. A. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation. Canada:Cengage Learning,2011.
[43]Burgelman, R. A., Maidique, M. A., & Wheelwright, S. C. Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation. New York:McGraw-Hill,1996.
[44]Cai, J., & Tylecote, A. Corporate governance and technological dynamism of Chinese firms in mobile telecommunications:A quantitative study. Research Policy,2008,37(10),1790-1811.
[45]Calia, R. C., Guerrini, F. M., & Mourac, G. L. Innovation networks:From technological development to business model reconfiguration. Technovation, 2007,27(8),426-432.
[46]Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications,1979.
[47]Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics. Long Range Planning,2010,43(2-3),195-215.
[48]Chakravarthy, B. S., & Doz, Y. Strategy process research:Focusing on corporate self-renewal. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(S1),5-14.
[49]Chandler, A. D. Strategy and structure:Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. USA:MIT Press,1990.
[50]Chesbrough, H. Business model innovation:it's not just about technology anymore. Strategy & leadership,2007,35(6),12-17.
[51]Chesbrough, H. Business Model Innovation:Opportunities and Barriers. Long Range Planning,2010,43(2-3),354-363.
[52]Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation:evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change,2002,11 (3), 529-555.
[53]Chesbrough, H., & Schwartz, K. Innovating business models with co-development partnerships. Research-Technology Management,2007,50(1), 55-59.
[54]Cho, D.-S., Kim, D.-J., & Rhee, D. K. Latecomer strategies:evidence from the semiconductor industry in Japan and Korea. Organization Science,1998,9(4), 489-505.
[55]Cho, H.-D., & Lee, J.-K. The developmental path of networking capability of catch-up players in Korea's semiconductor industry. R&D Management,2003, 33(4),411-423.
[56]Christensen, C. M. The past and future of competitive advantage. Sloan Management Review,2001,42(2),105-109.
[57]Churchill Jr, G. A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research,1979,16(1),64-73.
[58]Clarysse, B., Wright, M., & Van de Velde, E. Entrepreneurial Origin, Technological Knowledge, and the Growth of Spin-Off Companies. Journal of Management Studies,2011,48(6),1420-1442.
[59]Clemons, E. K., & Row, M. C. Information technology and industrial cooperation:the changing economics of coordination and ownership. Journal of Management Information Systems,1992,9(2),9-28.
[60]Coase, R. The nature of the firm. Economica,1937, (4),386-405.
[61]Cockburn, I. M., & Henderson, R. M. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. The Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46(2),157-182.
[62]Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., et al. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2003.
[63]Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. Innovation and learning:the two faces of R & D. The Economic Journal,1989,99(397),569-596.
[64]Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. Basics of qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications,1998.
[65]Coye, M. J., Haselkorn, A., & DeMello, S. Remote Patient Management: Technology-Enabled Innovation And Evolving Business Models For Chronic Disease Care. Health Affairs,2009,28(1),126-135.
[66]Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,1951,16(3),297-334.
[67]Dahlman, C. J., Ross-Larson, B., & Westphal, L. E. Managing technological development: Lessons from the newly industrializing countries. World Development,1987,15(6),759-775.
[68]Danila, N. Strategic evaluation and selection of R&D projects. R&D Management,1989,19(1),47-62.
[69]Doganova, L., & Eyquem-Renault, M. What do business models do? Innovation devices in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 2009, 38(10), 1559-1570.
[70]Donath, J. S. Identity and deception in the virtual community. http://smg.media.mit.edu/people/Judith/Identity/IdentityDeception.html, 2013-11-12
[71]Dosi, G. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories:a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy,1982,11(3),147-162.
[72]Dosi, G., Marsili, O., Orsenigo, L., et al. Learning, market selection and the evolution of industrial structures. Small Business Economics,1995,7(6), 411-436.
[73]Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative science quarterly,1985,30(4),514-539.
[74]Dubosson-Torbay, M., Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. E-business model design, classification, and measurements. Thunderbird International Business Review,2002,44(1),5-23.
[75]Dunn, S. C., Seaker, R. F., & Waller, M. A. Latent variables in business logistics research:scale development and validation. Journal of Business Logistics,1994, 15(2),145-145.
[76]Dutrenit, G. Building technological capabilities in latecomer firms:a review essay. Science Technology & Society,2004,9(2),209-241.
[77]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4),532-550.
[78]Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. Theory building from cases:opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(1),25-32.
[79]Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation:Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science,1996,7(2),136-150.
[80]Elliott, S. Electronic Commerce:B2C strategies and models. New York:John Wiley & Sons,2007.
[81]Ernst, D., & Kim, L. Global production networks, knowledge diffusion, and local capability formation. Research Policy,2002,31(8),1417-1429.
[82]Ernst, H. Evaluation of dynamic technological developments by means of patent data. In Brockhoff, K., Chakrabarti, A. K., & Hauschildt, J. (Editors), The Dynamic of Innovation. Berlin Heidelberg:Springer,1999.
[83]Estrin, S., Hanousek, J., Kocenda, E., et al. The effects of privatization and ownership in transition economies. Journal of Economic Literature,2009,47(3), 699-728.
[84]Falkenberg, A. W., & Falkenberg, J. Ethics in International Value Chain Networks:The Case of Telenor in Bangladesh. Journal of Business Ethics,2009, 90(3),355-369.
[85]Fauchart, E., & Keilbach, M. Testing a model of exploration and exploitation as innovation strategies. Small Business Economics,2009,33(3),257-272.
[86]Fowler, F. J. Survey Research Methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1988.
[87]Freeman, C., & Soete, L. The Economics of industrial innovation (2 ed). Oxford: Routledge,1997.
[88]Friar, J., & Horwitch, M. The emergence of technology strategy: A new dimension of strategic management. Technology in Society, 1985, 7(2), 143-178.
[89]Galbraith, J. R. Organization Design:An Information Processing View. Interface, 1977,4(3),28-36.
[90]Gambardella, A. Competitive advantages from in-house scientific research:the US pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s. Research Policy, 1992, 21(5), 391-407.
[91]Gambardella, A., & McGahan, A. M. Business-Model Innovation:General Purpose Technologies and their Implications for Industry Structure. Long Range Planning,2010,43(2-3),262-271.
[92]Geoffrion, A. M., & Krishnan, R. E-Business and Management Science:Mutual Impacts (Part 1 of 2). Management Science,2003a,49(10),1275-1286.
[93]Geoffrion, A. M., & Krishnan, R. E-business and management science:Mutual impacts (Part 2 of 2). Management Science,2003b,49(11),1445-1456.
[94]Geroski, P. A. Innovation, technological opportunity, and market structure. Oxford economic papers,1990,42(3),586-602.
[95]Gerschenkron, A. Economic backwardness in historical perspective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1962.
[96]Gersick, C. J. Pacing strategic change:The case of a new venture. Academy of Management Journal,1994,37(1),9-45.
[97]Ghaziani, A., & Ventresca, M. J. Keywords and cultural change:Frame analysis of Business model public talk,1975-2000. Sociological Forum,2005,20(4), 523-559.
[98]Gilbert, J. T. Choosing an innovation strategy: Theory and practice. Business Horizons,1994,37(6),16-22.
[99]Gordijn, J., Akkermans, H.,& Van Vliet, J. Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE Intelligent Systems,2001,16(4),11-17.
[100]Gort, M.,& Klepper, S. Time paths in the diffusion of product innovations. Economic journal,1982,92(367),630-653.
[101]Granstrand, O., Bohlin, E., Oskarsson, C, et al. External technology acquisition in large multi-technology corporations. R&D Management,1992,22(2), 111-134.
[102]Greve, H. R. Exploration and exploitation in product innovation. Industrial and Corporate Change,2007,16(5),945-975.
[103]Griffin, K., & Knight, J. B. Human development and the international development strategy for the 1990s. Basingstoke, Hants:MacMillan Press, 1990.
[104]Guo, B., Gao, J., & Chen, X. Technology strategy, technological context and technological catch-up in emerging economies:industry-level findings from Chinese manufacturing. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2013, 25(2),219-234.
[105]Gupta, A. K., & Wang, H. China as an innovator, not just an imitator. Business Week,2009, (3).
[106]Hagedoorn, J. Organizational modes of inter-firm co-operation and technology transfer. Technovation,1990,10(1),17-30.
[107]Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. Measuring innovative performance:is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy,2003,32(8), 1365-1379.
[108]Hamel, G. Leading the revolution::an interview with Gary Hamel. Strategy & leadership,2001,29(1),4-10.
[109]Hamel, G., & Prahalad, C. K. Strategy as stretch and leverage. Harvard Business Review,1992,71(2),75-84.
[110]Hammer, M. Deep change. Harvard business review,2004,82(4),84-93.
[111]Harkness, J. A., Van de Vijver, F. J., Mohler, P. P., et al. Cross-cultural survey methods. New York:Wiley-Interscience Hoboken,2003.
[112]Hart, S. L., & Christensen, C. M. The great leap. Sloan Management Review, 2002,44(1),51-56.
[113]Hawkins, R. The phantom of the marketplace:searching for new e-commerce business models. Communications & Strategies,2002,46(2),297-329.
[114]Hinkin, T. R. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management,1995,21(5),967-988.
[115]Hobday, M. East Asian latecomer firms:learning the technology of electronics. World development,1995,23(7),1171-1193.
[116]Hobday, M., Rush, H., & Bessant, J. Approaching the innovation frontier in Korea:the transition phase to leadership. Research Policy,2004,33(10), 1433-1457.
[117]Horowitz, A. W., & Lai, E. L.-C. Patent length and the rate of innovation. International Economic Review,1996,37(4),785-801.
[118]Hruby, F. M. TechnoLeverage:Using the power of technology to outperform the competition. New York:AMACOM 1999.
[119]Hu, A. G., & Jaffe, A. B. Patent citations and international knowledge flow:the cases of Korea and Taiwan. International journal of industrial organization,2003, 21(6),849-880.
[120]Jaffe, A., M. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1993,108(3),577-598.
[121]Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. Market orientation:antecedents and consequences. The Journal of marketing,1993,57(3),53-70.
[122]Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. Reinventing your business model. Harvard business review,2008,86(12),57-68.
[123]Joo, J. A business model and its development strategies for electronic tourism markets. Information Systems Management,2002,19(3),58-69.
[124]Juma, C., & Clark, N. Technological catch-up:Opportunities and challenges for developing countries. Scottish Universities Policy Research and Advice Network, SUPRA Working Series Papers,2002,28(2),1-24.
[125]Jung, M., & Lee, K. Sectoral systems of innovation and productivity catch-up: determinants of the productivity gap between Korean and Japanese firms. Industrial and Corporate Change,2010,19(4),1037-1069.
[126]Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. Something old, something new:A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal,2002,45(6),1183-1194.
[127]Kauffman, S. The origins of order:Self organization and selection in evolution. New York:Oxford University Press,1993.
[128]Kelley, M. R., & Brooks, H. External learning opportunities and the diffusion of process innovations to small firms:the case of programmable automation. In, Diffusion of Technologies and Social Behavior. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 1991,341-381.
[129]Kerin, R. A., Varadarajan, P. R., & Peterson, R. A. First-mover advantage:A synthesis, conceptual framework, and research propositions. Journal of Marketing,1992,56(4),33-52.
[130]Kim, C. W., & Lee, K. Innovation, technological regimes and organizational selection in industry evolution:a'History friendly model'of the DRAM industry. Industrial and Corporate Change,2003,12(6),1195-1221.
[131]Kim, D.-J., & Kogut, B. Technological platforms and diversification. Organization Science,1996,7(3),283-301.
[132]Kim, L. Stages of development of industrial technology in a developing country: a model. Research Policy,1980,9(3),254-277.
[133]Kim, L. Imitation to innovation:The dynamics of Korea's technological learning. USA:Harvard Business School Press,1997.
[134]Kim, W., Shi, Y., & Gregory, M. Transition from imitation to innovation:lessons from a Korean multinational corporation. International Journal of Business, 2004,9(4),329-346.
[135]Kim, Y., & Lee, B. Patterns of technological learning among the strategic groups in the Korean Electronic Parts Industry. Research Policy,2002,31(4), 543-567.
[136]Klein, M. H. Poverty Alleviation through sustainable strategic business models: essays on poverty alleviation as a business strategy. Netherlands:Erasmus University Rotterdam,2008.
[137]Klepper, S. Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. The American Economic Review,1996,86(3),562-583.
[138]Kogut, B. Country capabilities and the permeability of borders. Strategic Management Journal 1991,12(S1),33-47.
[139]Kogut, B., & Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science,1992,3(3),383-397.
[140]Krippendorff, K. Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research,2004,30(3),411-433.
[141]Laamanen, T., & Wallin, J. Cognitive dynamics of capability development paths. Journal of Management Studies,2009,46(6),950-981.
[142]Lall, S. Technological capabilities and industrialization. World development, 1992,20(2),165-186.
[143]Lambe, C. J., & Spekman, R. E. Alliances, external technology acquisition, and discontinuous technological change. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1997,14(2),102-116.
[144]Langlois, R. N. Transaction-cost economics in real time. Industrial and Corporate Change,1992,1(1),99-127.
[145]Laurie, D. L., Doz, Y. L., & Sheer, C. P. Creating new growth platforms. Harvard Business Review,2006,84(5),80.
[146]Laursen, K., & Meliciani, V. The relative importance of international vis-a-vis national technological spillovers for market share dynamics. Industrial and Corporate Change,2002,11(4),875-894.
[147]Lee, C. C., & Yang, J. Knowledge value chain. Journal of management development,2000,19(9),783-794.
[148]Lee, J., Bae, Z. t., & Choi, D. k. Technology development processes: a model for a developing country with a global perspective. R&D Management,1988, 18(3),235-250.
[149]Lee, K., & Lim, C. Technological regimes, catching-up and leapfrogging: findings from the Korean industries. Research Policy,2001,30(3),459-483.
[150]Lee, M., & Om, K. A conceptual framework of technological innovation management. Technovation,1994,14(1),7-16.
[151]Lewin, A. Y., & Volberda, H. W. Prolegomena on coevolution:A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization Science,1999, 10(5),519-534.
[152]Li, J., & Kozhikode, R. K. Knowledge management and innovation strategy: The challenge for latecomers in emerging economies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2008,25(3),429-450.
[153]Li, S., & Xia, J. The roles and performance of state firms and non-state firms in China's economic transition. World development,2008,36(1),39-54.
[154]Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. First-mover advantages. Strategic Management Journal,1988,9(S1),41-58.
[155]Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. First-mover (dis) advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(12),1111-1125.
[156]Linder, J. C., & Cantrell, S. Five business-model myths that hold companies back. Strategy & leadership,2001,29(6),13-18.
[157]Lucking-Reiley, D., & Spulber, D. F. Business-to-business electronic commerce. Journal of Economic Perspectives,2001,15(1),55-68.
[158]Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. E-business strategies and Internet business models:How the Internet adds value. Organizational Dynamics,2004,33(2), 161-173.
[159]Lundvall, B.-A. National Systems of Innovation:Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London:Pinter Publishers,1993.
[160]Makinen, S., & Seppanen, M. Assessing business model concepts with taxonomical research criteria: A preliminary study. Management Research News, 2007,30(10),735-748.
[161]Ma, R., Wu, X., & Zheng, S. The evolution of technological capabilities at Chery automobiles:A dynamic resource-based analysis. In International Conference on Management Science and Engineering. Lille,2006,1761-1766.
[162]Magretta, J. Why business models matter. Harvard Business Review,2002, 80(5),86-92.
[163]Malerba, F. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 2002,31(2),247-264.
[164]Malerba, F., & Nelson, R. Learning and catching up in different sectoral systems: evidence from six industries. Industrial and Corporate Change,2011,20(6), 1645-1675.
[165]Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. Technological regimes and patterns of innovation:a theoretical and empirical investigation of the Italian case. In Heertje, A., & Perlman, M. (Editors), Evolving technology and market structure. USA: University of Michigan Press,1990,283-305.
[166]Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. Technological regimes and firm bebavior. Industrial and Corporate Change,1993,2(1),45-71.
[167]Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. Schumpeterian patterns of innovation. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1995,19(1),47-65.
[168]Malerba, F., & Orsenigo, L. Schumpeterian patterns of innovation are technology-specific. Research Policy,1996,25(3),451-478.
[169]Mansfield, E. Technical change and the rate of imitation. Econometrica:Journal of The Econometric Society,1961,29(4),741-766.
[170]Mantovani, A. Complementarity between product and process innovation in a monopoly setting. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2006,15(3), 219-234.
[171]March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1),71-87.
[172]Markides, C. C. A dynamic view of strategy. Sloan Management Review,1999, 40(3),55-63.
[173]Marsili, O. Technological regimes and sources of entrepreneurship. Small Business Economics,2002,19(3),217-231.
[174]Marsili, O., & Verspagen, B. Technological regimes and innovation:looking for regularities in Dutch manufacturing. Identifing Technological Innovation,2001, 32(4),158-176.
[175]Mathews, J. A. Competitive advantages of the latecomer firm: A resource-based account of industrial catch-up strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2002,19(4),467-488.
[176]Mathews, J. A. Dragon multinationals:New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2006,23(1),5-27.
[177]Mathews, J. A., & Cho, D. S. Combinative capabilities and organizational learning in latecomer firms:The case of the Korean semiconductor industry. Journal of World Business,1999,34(2),139-156.
[178]Mayo, M. C., & Brown, G. S. Building a competitive business model. Ivey Business Journal,1999,63(3),18-23.
[179]McArthur, A. W., & Nystrom, P. C. Environmental dynamism, complexity, and munificence as moderators of strategy-performance relationships. Journal of Business Research,1991,23(4),349-361.
[180]McKelvey, B. Perspective-Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science,1997,8(4),352-380.
[181]Mendelson, H. Organizational architecture and success in the information technology industry. Management Science,2000,46(4),513-529.
[182]Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal,1993,36(6), 1175-1195.
[183]Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. Qualitative data analysis:An expanded sourcebook. London:Sage Publications,1994.
[184]Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., et al. Organizational strategy, structure, and process. Academy of Management Review,1978,3(3),546-562.
[185]Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of accounting and economics, 1995,19(2),179-208.
[186]Milgrom, P. R., & Roberts, J. Economics, organization and management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall,1992.
[187]Miller, A., Gartner, W. B., & Wilson, R. Entry order, market share, and competitive advantage:A study of their relationships in new corporate ventures. Journal of business venturing,1989,4(3),197-209.
[188]Miller, D. Relating Porter's business strategies to environment and structure: analysis and performance implications. Academy of Management Journal,1988, 31(2),280-308.
[189]Miller, D. Configurations revisited. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(7), 505-512.
[190]Mintzberg, H. The structuring of organizations:A synthesis of the research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall,1979.
[191]Mintzberg, H. The design school:reconsidering the basic premises of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1990,11(3),171-195.
[192]Morgan, R. E., & Berthon, P. Market Orientation, Generative Learning, Innovation Strategy and Business Performance Inter-Relationships in Bioscience Firms. Journal of Management Studies,2008,45(8),1329-1353.
[193]Morris, M., Schindehutte, M., & Allen, J. The entrepreneur's business model: toward a unified perspective. Journal of business research, 2005, 58(6), 726-735.
[194]Mu, Q., & Lee, K. Knowledge diffusion, market segmentation and technological catch-up:The case of the telecommunication industry in China. Research Policy, 2005,34(6),759-783.
[195]Murmann, J. P. Knowledge and competitive advantage: the coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[196]Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. Strategic organization design:Concepts, tools & processes. Glenview: Scott, Foresman 1988.
[197]Nadler, D., & Tushman, M. Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. New York:Oxford University Press,1997.
[198]Narayanan, V. K. Managing technology and innovation for competitive advantage. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall,2001.
[199]Nelson, R. R. Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal,1991,12(S2),61-74.
[200]Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. In search of useful theory of innovation. Research Policy,1977,6(1),36-76.
[201]Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American Economic Review,1982,72(1),114-132.
[202]Neuman, W. L. Social Research Methods:Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches(3rd ed). Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon,1997.
[203]Norgaard, R. B. Environmental economics:an evolutionary critique and a plea for pluralism. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,1985, 12(4),382-394.
[204]Nunnally, J. Psychometric theory(2nd ed). New York:McGraw-Hill,1978.
[205]Oakey, R. Technical entreprenenurship in high technology small firms:some observations on the implications for management. Technovation,2003,23(8), 679-688.
[206]Ojala, A., & Tyrvainen, P. Business models and market entry mode choice of small software firms. Journal of International Entrepreneurship, 2006, 4(2), 69-81.
[207]Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Oliveira, M. A.-Y., et al. Business Model Generation:A handbook for visionaries, game changers and challengers. Hoboken, New Jersey:John Wiley & Sons,2011.
[208]Paci, R., & Usai, S. Innovative efforts, technological opportunity and changes in market structure in Italian manufacturing. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,1998,7(4),345-369.
[209]Park, K.-H., & Lee, K. Linking the technological regime to the technological catch-up:analyzing Korea and Taiwan using the US patent data. Industrial and Corporate Change,2006,15(4),715-753.
[210]Pasternak, B., & Viscio, A. The centerless corporation. New York: Simon and Shuster,1998.
[211]Pavitt, K. Sectoral patterns of technical change:towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy,1984,13(6),343-373.
[212]Peng, M. W., & Luo, Y. Managerial ties and firm performance in a transition economy: The nature of a micro-macro link. Academy of Management Journal, 2000,43(3),486-501.
[213]Peng, M. W., Tan, J., & Tong, T. W. Ownership Types and Strategic Groups in an Emerging Economy. Journal of Management Studies,2004,41(7), 1105-1129.
[214]Perez, C., & Soete, L. Catching up in technology: entry barriers and windows of opportunity. In, Technical change and economic theory. New York:Frances Pinter,1988,458-479.
[215]Perrini, F., Rossi, G., & Rovetta, B. Does ownership structure affect performance? Evidence from the Italian market. Corporate Governance:An International Review,2008,16(4),312-325.
[216]Petrovic, O., Kittl, C., & Teksten, R. Developing business models for ebusiness. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658505,2013-09-12
[217]Pettigrew, A. M. The awakening giant:Continuity and change in Imperial Chemical Industries. Oxford:Blackwell,1985.
[218]Pettigrew, A. M. Longitudinal field research on change:theory and practice. Organization Science,1990,1(3),267-292.
[219]Poel, I. v. d. The transformation of technological regimes. Research Policy,2003, 32(1),49-68.
[220]Porter, M. E. Competitive strategy:techniques for analyzing industries and competitors:with a new introduction. New York:Free Press,1980.
[221]Porter, M. E. Competitive advantage:Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York:Free Press,1985.
[222]Porter, M. E., & Millar, V. E. How information gives you competitive advantage. Harvard Business Review,1985,63(4),149-160.
[223]Prajogo, D. I., & McDermott, C. M. The relationship between total quality management practices and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2005,25(11),1101-1122.
[224]Radnor, M. Technology acquisition strategies and processes:a reconsideration of the make versus buy decision. International Journal of Technology Management,1991,7(4/5),113-135.
[225]Rapp, A., Rapp, T., & Schillewaert, N. An empirical analysis of e-service implementation:antecedents and the resulting value creation. Journal of Services Marketing,2008,22(1),24-36.
[226]Rappa, A. L. Modernity & Consumption:Theory, Politics and the Public in Singapore and Malaysia. Singapore:World Scientific,2002.
[227]Rappa, M. Business models on the web. In Wang, P. (Editor), Evaluate e-business models. Raleigh:North Carolina State University,2000.
[228]Rayport, J. F.,& Jaworski, B. J. Introduction to e-Commerce. UK: McGraw-Hill,2002.
[229]Ricart, J. E., Enright, M. J., Ghemawat, P., et al. New frontiers in international strategy. Journal of International Business Studies,2004,35(3),175-200.
[230]Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., et al. Measuring organizational performance:Towards methodological best practice. Journal of Management, 2009,35(3),718-804.
[231]Rip, A., & Kemp, R. Technological Change. In S., R., & E.L., M. (Editors), Resources and Technology. Columbus:Battelle Press,1998,327-399.
[232]Robinson, W. T., Fornell, C., & Sullivan, M. Are market pioneers intrinsically stronger than later entrants? Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(8), 609-624.
[233]Rumelt, R. Theory, strategy, and entrepreneurship. Cambridge, MA:Ballinger Publishing Company,1987.
[234]Schmalensee, R. Product differentiation advantages of pioneering brands. The American Economic Review,1982,72(3),349-365.
[235]Schnaars, S. P. Managing imitation strategies. New York:Free Press,2002.
[236]Schumpeter, E. The theory of economic development. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1934.
[237]Seddon, P. B., Lewis, G. P., Freeman, P., et al. The Case for Viewing Business Models as Abstractions of Strategy. Communications of the association for Information Systems,2004,13(1),427-442.
[238]Shafer, S. M., Smith, H. J., & Linder, J. C. The power of business models. Business Horizons,2005,48(3),199-207.
[239]Shimizu, K., Hitt, M. A., Vaidyanath, D., et al. Theoretical foundations of cross-border mergers and acquisitions:A review of current research and recommendations for the future. Journal of International Management,2004, 10(3),307-353.
[240]Siggelkow, N. Change in the presence of fit:The rise, the fall, and the renaissance of Liz Claiborne. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(4), 838-857.
[241]Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. Temporarily divide to conquer:Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science,2003,14(6),650-669.
[242]Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value:Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review,2007,32(1),273-292.
[243]Stake, R. E. Multiple case study analysis. New York:Guilford Press,2013.
[244]Steiger, J. H. Structural model evaluation and modification:An interval estimation approach. Multivariate behavioral research,1990,25(2),173-180.
[245]Stewart, D. W., & Zhao, Q. Internet marketing, business models, and public policy. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,2000,19(2),287-296.
[246]Stolpe, M. Determinants of knowledge diffusion as evidenced in patent data:the case of liquid crystal display technology. Research Policy,2002,31(7), 1181-1198.
[247]Suhomlinova, O. Toward a Model of Organizational Co-Evolution in Transition Economies. Journal of Management Studies,2006,43(7),1537-1558.
[248]Swann, P., & Gill, J. Corporate vision and rapid technological change:The evolution of market structure. London:Routledge,2002.
[249]Teece, D. J. Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy,1986, 15(6),285-305.
[250]Teece, D. J. Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning,2010,43(2-3),172-194.
[251]Tian, Z., Hafsi, T., & Wu, W. Institutional Determinism and Political Strategies An Empirical Investigation. Business & Society,2009,48(3),284-325.
[252]Timmer, M. P. Technological development and rates of return to investment in a catching-up economy:the case of South Korea. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,2003,14(4),405-425.
[253]Timmers, P. Business models for electronic markets. Electronic markets,1998, 8(2),3-8.
[254]Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5),996-1004.
[255]Tushman, M., & Nadler, D. Organizing for innovation. California Management Review,1986,28(3),74-92.
[256]Van Den Bosch, F. A., Volberda, H. W., & De Boer, M. Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment:Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization Science,1999,10(5),551-568.
[257]Venkatraman, N. The concept of fit in strategy research:toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(3), 423-444.
[258]Veugelers, R. Internal R & D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy,1997,26(3),303-315.
[259]Veugelers, R., & Cassiman, B. Make and buy in innovation strategies:evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms. Research Policy,1999,28(1),63-80.
[260]Volberda, H. W., & Lewin, A. Y. Co-evolutionary Dynamics Within and Between Firms:From Evolution to Co-evolution. Journal of Management Studies,2003,40(8),2111-2136.
[261]Wei, J., & Jiang, S. Ownership and visibility:a pattern of industrial technology catching-up in transition economies. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation,2009,4(4),327-340.
[262]Weill, P.,& Vitale, M. What IT infrastructure capabilities are needed to implement e-business models? Mis Quarterly,2002,1(1),17-34.
[263]Weiss, P. Adoption of product and process innovations in differentiated markets: The impact of competition. Review of Industrial Organization,2003,23(3-4), 301-314.
[264]Wernerfelt, B., & Montgomery, C. A. Tobin'sq and the importance of focus in firm performance. American Economic Review,1988,78(1),246-250.
[265]Westergren, U. H., & Holmstrom, J. Exploring preconditions for open innovation:Value networks in industrial firms. Information and Organization, 2012,22(4),209-226.
[266]Williamson, O. Markets and Hierarchies:analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York:Free Press,1975.
[267]Winter, S. G. Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,1984,5(3),287-320.
[268]Wirtz, B. W., Schilke, O., & Ullrich, S. Strategic Development of Business Models Implications of the Web 2.0 for Creating Value on the Internet. Long Range Planning,2010,43(2-3),272-290.
[269]Wu, J., Guo, B., & Shi, Y. Customer knowledge management and IT-enabled business model innovation:A conceptual framework and a case study from China. European Management Journal,2013,31(4),359-372.
[270]Wu, X., Ma, R., & Shi, Y. How do latecomer firms capture value from disruptive technologies? A secondary business-model innovation perspective. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on,2010,57(1),51-62.
[271]Wu, X., Ma, R., & Xu, G. Secondary innovation:the experience of Chinese enterprises in learning, innovation and capability building. In Globelics 2006. India,2006.
[272]Wu, X. B., Yao, M. M., & Chen, S. C. An analytical framework of business model based on the value network. In 2012 Intertional Symposium on Management of Technology, ISMOT 2012. Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China,2012a, 602-607.
[273]Wu, X. B., Yao, M. M., Wu, Z. H., et al. The inspiration of business model innovation based on the comparative analysis between Chinese and overseas GEM. In 2012 Intertional Symposium on Management of Technology, ISMOT 2012. Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China,2012b,608-613.
[274]Yan, A., & Gray, B. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-China joint ventures:a comparative case study. Academy of Management Journal,1994,37(6),1478-1517.
[275]Yao, M. M., Wu, D., Wu, X. B., et al. Business model innovation of modern service company:A value network perspective. In 2012 Intertional Symposium on Management of Technology, ISMOT 2012. Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China, 2012,76-80.
[276]Yin, R. K. Case study research:Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA:Sage Publications,2009.
[277]Yin, X., & Zajac, E. J. The strategy/governance structure fit relationship:Theory and evidence in franchising arrangements. Strategic Management Journal,2004, 25(4),365-383.
[278]Yip, G. S. Using strategy to change your business model. Business Strategy Review,2004,15(2),17-24.
[279]Zahra, S. A., & Schulte, W. D. International entrepreneurship:Beyond myth and folklore. International Journal of Commerce and Management,1994,4(1/2), 85-95.
[280]Zhu, K., Kraemer, K., & Xu, S. Electronic business adoption by European firms: a cross-country assessment of the facilitators and inhibitors. European Journal of Information Systems,2003,12(4),251-268.
[281]Zikmund, W. G. Business resesarch methods(5th ed). USA:The Dryden Press, 1998.
[282]Zott, C. Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance:insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(2),97-125.
[283]Zott, C., & Amit, R. Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science,2007,18(2),181-199.
[284]Zott, C., & Amit, R. The fit between product market strategy and business model:implications for firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2008, 29(1),1-26.
[285]Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. The business model:Recent developments and future research. Journal of Management,2011,37(4),1019-1042.
[286]别华荣.基于技术体制的企业技术战略与创新绩效关系研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[287]曹体杰.基于资源观的企业技术创新战略选择—以信息电子行业为例.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[288]陈爱贞,刘志彪,吴福象.下游动态技术引进对装备制造业升级的市场约束——基于我国纺织缝制装备制造业的实证研究.管理世界,2008,(2),72-81.
[289]陈德智,王浣尘,肖宁川.基于旋进方法论的技术跨越模式研究.科技管理研究,2004,(1),123-130.
[290]陈利君,陈雪松.印度IT产业发展现状及其原因——基于国家竞争优势理论的分析.东南亚南亚研究,2011,(4),51-55.
[291]陈琦.企业电子商务商业模式设计：IT资源前因与绩效结果.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2010.
[292]陈晓玲.中国制造业追赶情境特殊性对产业追赶绩效的影响机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2013.
[293]陈晓萍,徐淑英,樊景立.组织与管理研究的实证方法.北京：北京大学出版社,2008.
[294]傅家骥.技术创新学.北京：清华大学出版社,1998.
[295]高钰.中国制造业跨国企业母子公司双向知识转移机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2013.
[296]龚丽敏,江诗松.产业集群龙头企业的成长演化：商业模式视角.科研管理,2012,33(7),137-145.
[297]龚丽敏,江诗松,魏江.试论商业模式构念的本质,研究方法及未来研究方向.外国经济与管理,2011,33(3),1-8.
[298]郭斌.后发优势与后发劣势的转换：对发展中国家追赶问题的重新认识.自然辩证法通讯,1996,(06),31-39.
[299]郭俊华,万君康.我国医药产业技术创新战略选择.科技进步与对策,1998,15(5),46-47.
[300]江诗松,龚丽敏,魏江.转型经济背景下后发企业的能力追赶：一个共演模型——以吉利集团为例.管理世界,2011,(4),122-137.
[301]姜雁斌.交易成本视角下的包容性发展促进机制及其对社会满意度的影响.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2012.
[302]李怀祖.管理研究方法论.西安：西安交通大学出版社,2004.
[303]李燕.现代服务业系统研究.博士学位论文,天津大学,2011.
[304]李正卫.基于技术能力之上的技术追赶战略动态模式.自然辩证法研究,2005,21(1),58-62.
[305]李志强,赵卫军.企业技术创新与商业模式创新的协同研究.中国软科学,2012,(10),117-124.
[306]刘洋,魏江,应瑛.组织二元性：管理研究的一种新范式.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2011,(6),132-142.
[307]刘洋,应瑛.架构理论研究脉络梳理与未来展望.外国经济与管理,2012,34(6),74-80.
[308]路风.自主创新需要勇气.华东科技,2006,(3),10.
[309]路风,慕玲.本土创新,能力发展和竞争优势.管理世界,2003,(12),57-82.
[310]吕鸿江,刘洪.基于匹配视角的商业模式与战略关系分析.东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2011,13(2),46-52.
[311]吕一博.模块化背景下后发国家产业技术追赶研究.硕士学位论文,大连理工大学,2007.
[312]马庆国.管理统计.北京：科学出版社,2002.
[313]彭新敏.企业网络对技术创新绩效的作用机制研究：利用性-探索性学习的中介效应.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[314]彭新敏,吴晓波,吴东.基于二次创新动态过程的企业网络与组织学习平衡模式演化——海天1971～2010年纵向案例研究.管理世界,2011,(4),138-149.
[315]石韵臻,胡豪,王一涛.自主研发还是外部获取?——中国生物制药商业模式的技术考量.管理案例研究与评论,2012,5(3),205-212.
[316]宋泓,柴瑜,张泰.市场开放,企业学习及适应能力和产业成长模式转型——中国汽车产业案例研究.管理世界,2004,(8),61-74.
[317]宋加艳.全球化条件下中国企业技术追赶路径研究,大连理工大学,2011.
[318]宋耘,曾进泽.技术体制对企业自主创新程度影响的实证研究.学术研究,2007,(6),56-62.
[319]孙连才,王宗军.基于动态能力理论的商业生态系统下企业商业模式指标评价体系.管理世界,2011,(5),184-185.
[320]王方瑞.我国企业自主创新路径研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[321]王振,史占中.IC产业的商业模式创新与技术赶超.情报科学,2005,23(4),605-609.
[322]韦影.企业社会资本对技术创新绩效的影响.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2005.
[323]魏江,刘洋,应瑛.商业模式内涵与研究框架建构.科研管理,2012,33(5),107-114.
[324]文亮.商业模式与创业绩效及其影响因素关系研究.博士学位论文,中南大学,2011.
[325]吴朝晖,吴晓波,姚明明.现代服务业商业模式创新：价值网络视角.北京：科学出版社,2013.
[326]吴东.战略谋划,产业变革与对外直接投资进入模式研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2011.
[327]吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实条.北京：科学出版社,2003.
[328]吴明隆.结构方程模型——AMOS的操作与应用重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.
[329]吴晓波.二次创新的进化过程.科研管理,1995a,16(2),27-35.
[330]吴晓波.二次创新的周期与企业组织学习模式.管理世界,1995b,(3),168-172.
[331]吴晓波,黄娟.技术体制对FDI溢出效应的影响：基于中国制造业的计量分析.科研管理,2007,28(5),18-24.
[332]吴晓波,马如飞,毛茜敏.基于二次创新动态过程的组织学习模式演进——杭氧1996-2008纵向案例研究.管理世界,2009,(2),152-164.
[333]吴晓波,许庆瑞.二次创新竞争模型与后发优势分析.管理工程学报,1995,9(1),7-15.
[334]吴晓波,姚明明,吴朝晖等.基于价值网络视角的商业模式分类研究：以现代服务业为例.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2014,44(2),64-77.
[335]吴晓波,朱培忠,吴东等.后发者如何实现快速追赶?——一个二次商业模式创新和技术创新的共演模型.科学学研究,2013,31(11),1726-1735.
[336]吴玉满,吴玉柱.我国技术引进的问题及发展研究.当代社科视野,2008,(1]),33-35.
[337]项保华,张建东.案例研究方法和战略管理研究.自然辩证法通讯,2005,27(5),62-68.
[338]谢伟.技术学习过程的新模式.科研管理,1999,20(4),1-7.
[339]邢小强,全允桓,陈晓鹏.金字塔底层市场的商业模式：一个多案例研究.管理世界,2011,(10),108-124.
[340]许冠南.关系嵌入性对技术创新绩效的影响研究-基于探索型学习的中介机制.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[341]杨圣明.当代世界服务业发展新趋势.经济学动态,2009,(9),38-42.
[342]原磊.国外商业模式理论研究评介.外国经济与管理,2007,10,1 7-25.
[343]张方华.资源获取与技术创新绩效关系的实证研究.科学学研究,2006,24(4),635-640.
[344]张宏云.技术能力,创新战略与创新绩效关系之实证研究.硕士学位论文,西北工业大学,2007.
[345]张云龙.技术体制对行业技术创新活动影响的研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[346]赵立龙.制造企业服务创新战略对竞争优势的影响机制研究,浙江大学,2012.
[347]郑素丽.组织间资源对企业创新绩效的作用机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
