企业技术创新能力演进规律研究
|
摘要
转型经济背景下的中国,面临着企业技术创新能力难以演进的问题。我国大多数企业仍处于仿造为主的阶段,缺乏技术集成与原创能力,企业能力结构现状和环境需求不匹配。其原因有三点：一,企业不明确转型背景下技术创新能力随环境适应性演进路径；二,企业难以通过企业边界内各子能力之间的协同发展促进技术创新能力的演进,以适应外部环境的变化；三,在快速变化的转型经济环境下,很多企业对环境、自身战略和能力的全面感知能力弱,导致难以根据新机会及时地引发战略柔性和技术创新能力的协同演进。
现有理论尚无法解决实际问题。将适应性演化视角和协同视角结合起来研究技术创新能力演化,有助于均衡“柔性”和“效率”,更加全面深入地揭示技术创新能力演化的规律。一方面,适应性演化视角有助于揭示为了适应环境,技术创新能力演进过程中动态目标的调整。另一方面,协同视角有助于揭示为了实现适应性演化,企业创新能力内部如何通过子能力间的协同发展实现各演进阶段的静态目标。但仍有局限性：一,缺乏对于技术创新能力随环境适应性演进路径的实证研究；二,企业创新能力内部协同机理不明；三,缺乏认知因素促进企业技术创新能力演进路径跃迁途径的研究。第一个问题是“why”和“what'’的问题,涉及到技术创新能力演进的原因和路径。第二、三个问题都是“how”的问题,涉及到实现技术创新能力演进路径的机理和途径。
沿着“认知基础→协同创新→适应性演化”的主导逻辑,基于实际问题和理论问题的交集,本文提出研究问题：转型背景下,企业如何通过战略构架这一认知因素促进企业创新能力内部协同,以实现技术创新能力演进路径跃迁,适应动态环境?围绕这一基本问题,本文设计了四个子研究：1)基于适应性演化和协同视角的企业技术创新能力演进规律性的探索性案例研究；2)企业技术创新能力随环境适应性演进路径的实证研究；3)企业创新能力内部子能力间协同机理；4)战略构架推动企业技术创新能力演进路径跃迁的途径。
子研究—从实际问题出发,跳出了创新能力演化的静态分割观这一旧有论证思路,基于适应性演化和协同理论,应用案例数据、理论阐述和研究模型相互印证的探索性多案例研究方法(信雅达、华为、福建邮科),通过国内三家不同行业和所有制企业的资料编码和分析归纳,讨论了转型背景下企业技术创新能力演进规律性：一,跨企业边界宏观适应性演进规律：企业技术创新能力对环境存在随时间的适应性演化规律；二,企业边界内协同规律：在合适的战略构架驱动下,企业创新能力内部子能力(战略柔性、组织柔性和技术创新能力)间存在着跨层次随时间的协同规律。
子研究二基于子研究一案例研究中适应性演化规律展开,针对现有文献缺乏技术创新能力随环境适应性演进路径的实证研究的缺口,通过实证研究比较了技术创新能力的三种构成子能力(吸收能力、集成能力、原创能力)对创新绩效的影响以及环境动态性在此过程中的调节作用,确定了一条技术创新能力演进的重要路径：“吸收能力主导沿吸收、集成能力为主向吸收、集成、原创能力高水平均衡发展”。且环境越动态,其演进方向越明确。这一“从单一到复合”的演进路径,是对环境的动态适应过程。
子研究三基于子研究一案例研究中提出的协同规律展开,分别就两种协同行为产生的机理进行深入探讨。1)首先,对于能力间补充／互补的协同行为,针对现有文献中存在的知识源搜寻能力间关系是互补或替代的争论,通过文献综述、探索性案例研究、概念模型构建和统计实证等过程,以横向研究的方式揭示了在组织柔性的调节下,战略柔性对技术创新能力类型选择的作用机理：a)表现为跨外部边界搜寻能力和跨内部边界搜寻能力互补的战略柔性,更易引发吸收能力主导的技术创新能力类型(相比于其他能力结构类型)；表现为跨外部边界搜寻能力和本地搜寻互补的战略柔性更易引发吸收、集成能力为主的技术创新能力类型(相比于其他能力结构类型)；表现为跨外部边界搜寻行为的战略柔性,更易引发吸收、集成、原创能力高水平均衡发展的技术创新能力类型(相比于其他能力结构类型)。b)组织柔性对战略柔性的补充更易引发吸收能力主导型的技术创新能力。2)对于能力间良性互动的协同行为,本文从动态视角出发,针对技术创新能力演进领域中存在的创新能力内部协同机理和认知因素的缺口,通过规范的探索性案例分析方法(朗讯、UT斯达康、诺基亚),对企业战略柔性和技术创新能力间的协同演进机理进行进一步考察。结果发现：一,聚焦的战略构架导致企业难以感知环境中的新机会,技术创新能力和战略柔性会出现一同衰退的现象,阻碍二者的协同演进(因为若企业未感知到环境中的新机会,技术创新能力的演进会缩小企业的知识缺口,进而削弱战略柔性和知识搜寻行为的广度。)；二,战略柔性和技术创新能力协同演进的驱动力在认知层面。复杂的战略构架通过加大感知的知识缺口,防止技术创新能力演进带来的惯性,促发战略柔性和技术创新能力的协同演进。
子研究四为了弥补现有实证研究在技术创新能力演进途径力面的不足,基于前文分析和理论基础(上层梯队理论、认知理论和知识结构视角),构建了从搜寻知识到创造知识的系统动力学模型,通过量化战略构架、战略柔性和技术创新能力之间的关系,发现了技术创新能力的演化路径和跃迁途径。研究发现：一,技术创新能力沿着从单一能力到复合能力的路径(“吸收能力主导→吸收、集成能力为主→吸收、集成和原创能力高水平均衡发展”)演进,辅证了子研究二的结论；二,调节战略构架的复杂度是促进战略柔性和技术创新能力协同演进,从而实现技术创新能力演化路径跃迁的重要途径。
本文在理论上的创新点体现在以下三点。第一,揭示了技术创新能力随环境适应性演进规律及“从单一能力到复合能力”的演进路径。第二,揭示了在组织柔性的调节下,战略柔性对技术创新能力类型选择的机理及协同效应,调节了在技术创新能力演进过程中多种知识源搜寻之间是互补还是替代关系的争论。第三,揭示了战略构架促进战略柔性和技术创新能力协同演进的机理,且调节战略构架复杂度是提升企业技术创新能力的途径,维持在20%-50%区间内的战略构架复杂度有助于技术创新能力的演进路径的跃迁。
除此之外,本文还具有实际意义。第一,企业在技术创新能力发展初期就需要有能力演进的意识,并在能力发展过程中不断保持强化这一意识,这才能从认知上避免刚性,有意识地为能力演进最好准备。另外,由于企业资源的有限性和发展阶段的局限性,需要有重点地,分阶段实现技术创新能力沿着“吸收能力主导型→吸收能力、集成能力为主型→吸收、集成、原创能力高水平均衡发展型”路径演进。第二,为了实现技术创新能力的演进,企业应该协同表现为不同搜寻行为的战略柔性,选择合适的知识搜寻战略。为了形成吸收能力主导型技术创新能力结构,需要加强企业外部知识源和部门/产品线间知识源的互补；为了形成吸收、集成能力为主的能力结构,需要加强企业外部知识源和产品线内知识源的互补；为了形成吸收、集成、原创能力均衡发展型能力结构,需要更加重视企业外部知识源,促进创意的产生。第三,企业是一个整体,需要战略柔性、组织柔性、技术创新能力、市场/环境感知能力等多种能力的协同发展,才能实现对环境的动态适应。如果感知不到环境中的新机会,技术创新能力和战略柔性会出现一同衰退现象。合适的战略构架是促进技术创新能力和战略柔性协同演进的关键。只有维持一定的战略构架的复杂性(20%-50%),才会不断发现已有知识的不足,进而引发外部搜寻,进一步提高知识结构的多样性,才会不断促进原创能力的提升。具体而言,在决策制定过程中,注重“自上而下”和“自下而上”信息流的融合；引入异质化的管理团队,保证企业家团队对环境、战略和自身能力的全面认识。
Under the context of economy transition, China faced with the problem that enterprise technologic innovation capability is being evoluted hardly. The majority of Chinese enterprises are still in the stage of imitation, which lacks the capability of technology integration and creation. The existing situation of enterprise capability structure does not match the demand of environment. There are three reasons as follows:first, enterprise was not clear about the evolution trajectory of technological innovation capability in the context of transition; second, enterprises cannot promote the evolution of technological innovation capability through the synergic development of each internal sub-capacity within the organizational boundary to adapt to changes of external environment; third, in rapidly changing environment of economy transition, the overall perception of many enterprises is weak, especially on the environment, its own strategy and capability, which resulted that it is difficult to initiate synergistic evolution of strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability timely, based on new opportunities.
The existing theories still cannot solve practical problem. Integration of adaptive evolution perspective and synergy perspective is helpful to study the evolution of technological innovation capability, as well as to balance "flexibility" and "efficiency", which reveal the rule of technological innovation capability evolution more comprehensive and in-depth. On the one hand, the perspective of adaptive evolution helps to reveal that in order to reach adaptive evolution of environment, how dynamic objectives adjust during the process of technological innovation capability evolution. On the other hand, synergic perspective helps to reveal that in order to achieve adaptive evolution, how enterprise innovation capability reaches static objectives of each stage of evolution, through the synergic development of each sub-capacity. However, there are still limitations:first, empirical study about the environment adaptive evolution path for technological innovation capability was insufficient; second, internal synergy mechanism of enterprise innovation capability is still unclear; Third, rare studies was focused on the factors that contribute to the transition way of enterprise technological innovation capability evolution path. The first question is the issues of "why" and "what", related to the cause of trajectory of technological innovation capability. The second and third questions are the issue of "how", involved with the mechanism and pathways of achieving technological innovation capability evolution.
Based on the dominant logic of "cognition base→synergetic innovation→adaptive evolution", this paper proposed the research question:in the transition context, how enterprises promoted internal synergy evolution of enterprise innovation capability through the cognitive factor, strategic schema, to achieve evolution trajectory transition of technological innovation capability and adapt to the dynamic environment? Based on this basic problem, this paper designed four sub-studies:1) the exploratory case study about evolution rule of enterprise technological innovation capability, based on the perspective of adaptive evolution and synergy;2) the empirical study of adaptive evolution trajectory of enterprise technological innovation capability according to environment;3) the synergetic evolution mechanism of internal sub-capability of enterprise innovation capability;4) the pathway of strategic schema, promoting the transition of evolution trajectory of enterprise technology innovation capability.
Sub-study Ⅰ proceed from the practical problems and jumped out of the old argument idea, the static segmentation concept of innovation capability evolution, based on the adaptive evolution and synergy theory, and the multiple case study method (Sunyard, Huawei, Fujian Youke) verified by data of application cases, theoretical explanations and research models. Through the data coding and analysis summary of three domestic enterprises which are in different industries and ownership types, it discusses the evolution rule of enterprise technological innovation capability in the context of transition:first, an adaptive evolution rule across enterprise boundaries:in order to adapt to environment, enterprise technological innovation capability evolutes over time; second, synergy rule within enterprise boundaries: under driven of suitable strategic schema, a cross-level and over time co-evolution rule exists among internal sub-capacity of enterprise innovation capacity (strategic flexibility, organizational flexibility and technological innovation capability).
Sub-study Ⅱ commenced from the adaptive evolution rule based on the case study of sub-study Ⅰ. In order to contribute the research gap that the shortage of empirical study of technological innovation capability according to environment adaptive evolution path, it compares the impact of three constitution sub-capacities (realized absorptive capacity, integration capability, knowledge creation capability) on innovation performance and discusses the moderate role of environment dynamism during this process through empirical study. We determines one important direction of technological innovation capability evolution:"absorptive capacity dominant→absorption、integration capabilities lead→absorptive, integration, creation capabilities at a high level under balanced development ". What's more, more dynamic the environment was, clearer the evolution direction was. This evolution trajectory is a dynamic adaptation process to environment.
Sub-study Ⅲ commenced from the synergy rule proposed in case study of sub-study Ⅰ, which was divided into two parts:1) First, about the argument of the relationship between the search capabilities of technology sources is complementary or alternative in the existing literature, it reveals the impacting mechanism of strategic flexibility on type selection of technological innovation capability by the way of cross-sectional study, through literature review, exploratory case study, conceptual model construction and statistical empirical verification:a) the strategic flexibility, complementary of external boundary spanning searching and internal boundary spanning searching, is more likely to lead the technological innovation capability type oriented by absorptive capacity (compared to other capability structure types)。The strategic flexibility, complementary of external boundary spanning searching and local searching, is more likely to lead the technological innovation capability type oriented by absorptive and integration capabilities (compared to other capability structure types); The strategic flexibility, shown as external boundary spanning searching activities, is more likely to lead the technological innovation capability type that capabilities of absorption, integration and creation are at high level under balanced development (compared to other capability structure types). b) complementary of organization flexibility to strategic flexibility is more likely to lead the technological innovation capability type oriented by absorptive capability.2) In order to contribute the research gap that the shortage of innovation capability self-organization evolution mechanism and cognitive factors existed in the field of technological innovation capability evolution, this paper starts from the dynamic perspective and commences further investigation of synergetic mechanism between enterprise strategic flexibility and technological innovation capabilities, through standard exploratory case analysis method (Lucent, UT Starcom, Nokia). The results show:first, if enterprise has not perceived new opportunities in the environment, technological innovation capability and strategic flexibility will happen the phenomenon of jointly recession, hindering the synergetic evolution of both (Since if the enterprise fails to perceive new opportunities in the environment, the evolution of technological innovation capability will reduce the knowledge gap of enterprise, which weaken the breadth and depth of strategic flexibility and knowledge searching activities.); second, the driver of synergetic evolution of strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability is from the cognitive level. Complicated strategic schema prevents the inertia brought by technological innovation capability evolution and promotes the synergistic evolution of strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability, through increasing the perceived knowledge gap.
In order to contribute the research gap that the shortage of evolution path of technological innovation capability in existing empirical researches, Sub-study IV build a system dynamics model(SD Model) from knowledge searching to knowledge creation, based on foregoing analysis and theoretical foundation (the upper echelon theory, cognitive theory and knowledge structure perspective). Through quantitating the relationship between strategic framework, strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability, it finds the evolution and transition paths of technological innovation capability. The study finds:first, technological innovation capability evoluted along the trajectory that from single capability to composite capabilities ('absorptive capacity dominant→absorption、integration capabilities lead→absorptive, integration, creation capabilities at a high level under balanced development'), which verify the conclusion of Sub-study Ⅱ; second, adjusting the complexity of strategic schema is important to promotes the co-evolution of strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability and achieves transition of technological innovation capability evolution trajectory.
This paper has three innovation points. First, it reveals that adaptive evolution rule of technological innovation capability according to environment and the evolution path'from single capability to composite capabilities'. Second, it reveals that under the moderate of organization flexibility, the mechanism of strategic flexibility when selecting technological innovation capability types. It moderates the argument that the searching between multiple knowledge sources is complementary or alternative during the evolution process of technological innovation capability. Third, it reveals the mechanism that strategic schema promotes the synergetic evolution of strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability. Meanwhile, adjusting the complexity of strategic schema is an important pathway to leverage enterprise technological innovation capability. The complexity of strategic schema, maintaining between20%-50%, helps to the transition of evolution trajectory of technological innovation capability.
In addition, this paper also has practical implications. First, in the early development stage of technological innovation capability, enterprise shall have the sense of capability evolution and also continuously reinforces this sense during the process of capability development, which can avoid cognition rigidity and make the best preparing for capability evolution. Since the limitation of enterprise resources and restriction of development stage, enterprise need to achieve the technological innovation capability with different focus in each stage, along the evolution trajectory "absorptive capacity dominant->absorption、integration capabilities lead→absorptive, integration, creation capabilities at a high level under balanced development ".Second, in order to achieve the evolution of technological innovation capability, enterprise should balance the different strategic flexibility, which reflected as different searching activities and choose the suitable knowledge searching strategy. In order to form the technological innovation capability structure oriented by absorptive capability, enterprise needs to reinforce the complement between enterprise external knowledge sources and departmental/production line knowledge sources:in order to form the technological innovation capability structure oriented by absorptive and integration capabilities, enterprise needs to reinforce the complement between enterprise external knowledge sources and production line internal knowledge sources; in order to form the balanced development capability structure with absorptive, integration and creation capability, enterprise needs to focus on enterprise external knowledge sources and promote creativity. Third, enterprise is an integrated system and it needs a synergic development of multiple capabilities, such as strategic flexibility, organization flexibility, technological innovation capability, market/environment perceiving capability, to achieve the dynamic adaption of environment. If enterprise cannot perceive new opportunities of environment, technological innovation capability and strategic flexibility will happen jointly recession. Suitable strategic schema is the key to promote the synergetic evolution of technological innovation capability and strategic flexibility. Only maintaining the complexity of strategic schema (20%-50%), enterprise can continuously find the knowledge gap, lead external searching, and improve the diversity of the knowledge structure and leveraging of knowledge creation capability. Specifically, during the process of strategy formulation, enterprise shall focus on the fusion of information flow of "top-down" and "bottom-up", introduce heterogeneous top management team and ensure that top management team has a comprehensive understanding of environment, strategy and capability.
现有理论尚无法解决实际问题。将适应性演化视角和协同视角结合起来研究技术创新能力演化,有助于均衡“柔性”和“效率”,更加全面深入地揭示技术创新能力演化的规律。一方面,适应性演化视角有助于揭示为了适应环境,技术创新能力演进过程中动态目标的调整。另一方面,协同视角有助于揭示为了实现适应性演化,企业创新能力内部如何通过子能力间的协同发展实现各演进阶段的静态目标。但仍有局限性：一,缺乏对于技术创新能力随环境适应性演进路径的实证研究；二,企业创新能力内部协同机理不明；三,缺乏认知因素促进企业技术创新能力演进路径跃迁途径的研究。第一个问题是“why”和“what'’的问题,涉及到技术创新能力演进的原因和路径。第二、三个问题都是“how”的问题,涉及到实现技术创新能力演进路径的机理和途径。
沿着“认知基础→协同创新→适应性演化”的主导逻辑,基于实际问题和理论问题的交集,本文提出研究问题：转型背景下,企业如何通过战略构架这一认知因素促进企业创新能力内部协同,以实现技术创新能力演进路径跃迁,适应动态环境?围绕这一基本问题,本文设计了四个子研究：1)基于适应性演化和协同视角的企业技术创新能力演进规律性的探索性案例研究；2)企业技术创新能力随环境适应性演进路径的实证研究；3)企业创新能力内部子能力间协同机理；4)战略构架推动企业技术创新能力演进路径跃迁的途径。
子研究—从实际问题出发,跳出了创新能力演化的静态分割观这一旧有论证思路,基于适应性演化和协同理论,应用案例数据、理论阐述和研究模型相互印证的探索性多案例研究方法(信雅达、华为、福建邮科),通过国内三家不同行业和所有制企业的资料编码和分析归纳,讨论了转型背景下企业技术创新能力演进规律性：一,跨企业边界宏观适应性演进规律：企业技术创新能力对环境存在随时间的适应性演化规律；二,企业边界内协同规律：在合适的战略构架驱动下,企业创新能力内部子能力(战略柔性、组织柔性和技术创新能力)间存在着跨层次随时间的协同规律。
子研究二基于子研究一案例研究中适应性演化规律展开,针对现有文献缺乏技术创新能力随环境适应性演进路径的实证研究的缺口,通过实证研究比较了技术创新能力的三种构成子能力(吸收能力、集成能力、原创能力)对创新绩效的影响以及环境动态性在此过程中的调节作用,确定了一条技术创新能力演进的重要路径：“吸收能力主导沿吸收、集成能力为主向吸收、集成、原创能力高水平均衡发展”。且环境越动态,其演进方向越明确。这一“从单一到复合”的演进路径,是对环境的动态适应过程。
子研究三基于子研究一案例研究中提出的协同规律展开,分别就两种协同行为产生的机理进行深入探讨。1)首先,对于能力间补充／互补的协同行为,针对现有文献中存在的知识源搜寻能力间关系是互补或替代的争论,通过文献综述、探索性案例研究、概念模型构建和统计实证等过程,以横向研究的方式揭示了在组织柔性的调节下,战略柔性对技术创新能力类型选择的作用机理：a)表现为跨外部边界搜寻能力和跨内部边界搜寻能力互补的战略柔性,更易引发吸收能力主导的技术创新能力类型(相比于其他能力结构类型)；表现为跨外部边界搜寻能力和本地搜寻互补的战略柔性更易引发吸收、集成能力为主的技术创新能力类型(相比于其他能力结构类型)；表现为跨外部边界搜寻行为的战略柔性,更易引发吸收、集成、原创能力高水平均衡发展的技术创新能力类型(相比于其他能力结构类型)。b)组织柔性对战略柔性的补充更易引发吸收能力主导型的技术创新能力。2)对于能力间良性互动的协同行为,本文从动态视角出发,针对技术创新能力演进领域中存在的创新能力内部协同机理和认知因素的缺口,通过规范的探索性案例分析方法(朗讯、UT斯达康、诺基亚),对企业战略柔性和技术创新能力间的协同演进机理进行进一步考察。结果发现：一,聚焦的战略构架导致企业难以感知环境中的新机会,技术创新能力和战略柔性会出现一同衰退的现象,阻碍二者的协同演进(因为若企业未感知到环境中的新机会,技术创新能力的演进会缩小企业的知识缺口,进而削弱战略柔性和知识搜寻行为的广度。)；二,战略柔性和技术创新能力协同演进的驱动力在认知层面。复杂的战略构架通过加大感知的知识缺口,防止技术创新能力演进带来的惯性,促发战略柔性和技术创新能力的协同演进。
子研究四为了弥补现有实证研究在技术创新能力演进途径力面的不足,基于前文分析和理论基础(上层梯队理论、认知理论和知识结构视角),构建了从搜寻知识到创造知识的系统动力学模型,通过量化战略构架、战略柔性和技术创新能力之间的关系,发现了技术创新能力的演化路径和跃迁途径。研究发现：一,技术创新能力沿着从单一能力到复合能力的路径(“吸收能力主导→吸收、集成能力为主→吸收、集成和原创能力高水平均衡发展”)演进,辅证了子研究二的结论；二,调节战略构架的复杂度是促进战略柔性和技术创新能力协同演进,从而实现技术创新能力演化路径跃迁的重要途径。
本文在理论上的创新点体现在以下三点。第一,揭示了技术创新能力随环境适应性演进规律及“从单一能力到复合能力”的演进路径。第二,揭示了在组织柔性的调节下,战略柔性对技术创新能力类型选择的机理及协同效应,调节了在技术创新能力演进过程中多种知识源搜寻之间是互补还是替代关系的争论。第三,揭示了战略构架促进战略柔性和技术创新能力协同演进的机理,且调节战略构架复杂度是提升企业技术创新能力的途径,维持在20%-50%区间内的战略构架复杂度有助于技术创新能力的演进路径的跃迁。
除此之外,本文还具有实际意义。第一,企业在技术创新能力发展初期就需要有能力演进的意识,并在能力发展过程中不断保持强化这一意识,这才能从认知上避免刚性,有意识地为能力演进最好准备。另外,由于企业资源的有限性和发展阶段的局限性,需要有重点地,分阶段实现技术创新能力沿着“吸收能力主导型→吸收能力、集成能力为主型→吸收、集成、原创能力高水平均衡发展型”路径演进。第二,为了实现技术创新能力的演进,企业应该协同表现为不同搜寻行为的战略柔性,选择合适的知识搜寻战略。为了形成吸收能力主导型技术创新能力结构,需要加强企业外部知识源和部门/产品线间知识源的互补；为了形成吸收、集成能力为主的能力结构,需要加强企业外部知识源和产品线内知识源的互补；为了形成吸收、集成、原创能力均衡发展型能力结构,需要更加重视企业外部知识源,促进创意的产生。第三,企业是一个整体,需要战略柔性、组织柔性、技术创新能力、市场/环境感知能力等多种能力的协同发展,才能实现对环境的动态适应。如果感知不到环境中的新机会,技术创新能力和战略柔性会出现一同衰退现象。合适的战略构架是促进技术创新能力和战略柔性协同演进的关键。只有维持一定的战略构架的复杂性(20%-50%),才会不断发现已有知识的不足,进而引发外部搜寻,进一步提高知识结构的多样性,才会不断促进原创能力的提升。具体而言,在决策制定过程中,注重“自上而下”和“自下而上”信息流的融合；引入异质化的管理团队,保证企业家团队对环境、战略和自身能力的全面认识。
Under the context of economy transition, China faced with the problem that enterprise technologic innovation capability is being evoluted hardly. The majority of Chinese enterprises are still in the stage of imitation, which lacks the capability of technology integration and creation. The existing situation of enterprise capability structure does not match the demand of environment. There are three reasons as follows:first, enterprise was not clear about the evolution trajectory of technological innovation capability in the context of transition; second, enterprises cannot promote the evolution of technological innovation capability through the synergic development of each internal sub-capacity within the organizational boundary to adapt to changes of external environment; third, in rapidly changing environment of economy transition, the overall perception of many enterprises is weak, especially on the environment, its own strategy and capability, which resulted that it is difficult to initiate synergistic evolution of strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability timely, based on new opportunities.
The existing theories still cannot solve practical problem. Integration of adaptive evolution perspective and synergy perspective is helpful to study the evolution of technological innovation capability, as well as to balance "flexibility" and "efficiency", which reveal the rule of technological innovation capability evolution more comprehensive and in-depth. On the one hand, the perspective of adaptive evolution helps to reveal that in order to reach adaptive evolution of environment, how dynamic objectives adjust during the process of technological innovation capability evolution. On the other hand, synergic perspective helps to reveal that in order to achieve adaptive evolution, how enterprise innovation capability reaches static objectives of each stage of evolution, through the synergic development of each sub-capacity. However, there are still limitations:first, empirical study about the environment adaptive evolution path for technological innovation capability was insufficient; second, internal synergy mechanism of enterprise innovation capability is still unclear; Third, rare studies was focused on the factors that contribute to the transition way of enterprise technological innovation capability evolution path. The first question is the issues of "why" and "what", related to the cause of trajectory of technological innovation capability. The second and third questions are the issue of "how", involved with the mechanism and pathways of achieving technological innovation capability evolution.
Based on the dominant logic of "cognition base→synergetic innovation→adaptive evolution", this paper proposed the research question:in the transition context, how enterprises promoted internal synergy evolution of enterprise innovation capability through the cognitive factor, strategic schema, to achieve evolution trajectory transition of technological innovation capability and adapt to the dynamic environment? Based on this basic problem, this paper designed four sub-studies:1) the exploratory case study about evolution rule of enterprise technological innovation capability, based on the perspective of adaptive evolution and synergy;2) the empirical study of adaptive evolution trajectory of enterprise technological innovation capability according to environment;3) the synergetic evolution mechanism of internal sub-capability of enterprise innovation capability;4) the pathway of strategic schema, promoting the transition of evolution trajectory of enterprise technology innovation capability.
Sub-study Ⅰ proceed from the practical problems and jumped out of the old argument idea, the static segmentation concept of innovation capability evolution, based on the adaptive evolution and synergy theory, and the multiple case study method (Sunyard, Huawei, Fujian Youke) verified by data of application cases, theoretical explanations and research models. Through the data coding and analysis summary of three domestic enterprises which are in different industries and ownership types, it discusses the evolution rule of enterprise technological innovation capability in the context of transition:first, an adaptive evolution rule across enterprise boundaries:in order to adapt to environment, enterprise technological innovation capability evolutes over time; second, synergy rule within enterprise boundaries: under driven of suitable strategic schema, a cross-level and over time co-evolution rule exists among internal sub-capacity of enterprise innovation capacity (strategic flexibility, organizational flexibility and technological innovation capability).
Sub-study Ⅱ commenced from the adaptive evolution rule based on the case study of sub-study Ⅰ. In order to contribute the research gap that the shortage of empirical study of technological innovation capability according to environment adaptive evolution path, it compares the impact of three constitution sub-capacities (realized absorptive capacity, integration capability, knowledge creation capability) on innovation performance and discusses the moderate role of environment dynamism during this process through empirical study. We determines one important direction of technological innovation capability evolution:"absorptive capacity dominant→absorption、integration capabilities lead→absorptive, integration, creation capabilities at a high level under balanced development ". What's more, more dynamic the environment was, clearer the evolution direction was. This evolution trajectory is a dynamic adaptation process to environment.
Sub-study Ⅲ commenced from the synergy rule proposed in case study of sub-study Ⅰ, which was divided into two parts:1) First, about the argument of the relationship between the search capabilities of technology sources is complementary or alternative in the existing literature, it reveals the impacting mechanism of strategic flexibility on type selection of technological innovation capability by the way of cross-sectional study, through literature review, exploratory case study, conceptual model construction and statistical empirical verification:a) the strategic flexibility, complementary of external boundary spanning searching and internal boundary spanning searching, is more likely to lead the technological innovation capability type oriented by absorptive capacity (compared to other capability structure types)。The strategic flexibility, complementary of external boundary spanning searching and local searching, is more likely to lead the technological innovation capability type oriented by absorptive and integration capabilities (compared to other capability structure types); The strategic flexibility, shown as external boundary spanning searching activities, is more likely to lead the technological innovation capability type that capabilities of absorption, integration and creation are at high level under balanced development (compared to other capability structure types). b) complementary of organization flexibility to strategic flexibility is more likely to lead the technological innovation capability type oriented by absorptive capability.2) In order to contribute the research gap that the shortage of innovation capability self-organization evolution mechanism and cognitive factors existed in the field of technological innovation capability evolution, this paper starts from the dynamic perspective and commences further investigation of synergetic mechanism between enterprise strategic flexibility and technological innovation capabilities, through standard exploratory case analysis method (Lucent, UT Starcom, Nokia). The results show:first, if enterprise has not perceived new opportunities in the environment, technological innovation capability and strategic flexibility will happen the phenomenon of jointly recession, hindering the synergetic evolution of both (Since if the enterprise fails to perceive new opportunities in the environment, the evolution of technological innovation capability will reduce the knowledge gap of enterprise, which weaken the breadth and depth of strategic flexibility and knowledge searching activities.); second, the driver of synergetic evolution of strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability is from the cognitive level. Complicated strategic schema prevents the inertia brought by technological innovation capability evolution and promotes the synergistic evolution of strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability, through increasing the perceived knowledge gap.
In order to contribute the research gap that the shortage of evolution path of technological innovation capability in existing empirical researches, Sub-study IV build a system dynamics model(SD Model) from knowledge searching to knowledge creation, based on foregoing analysis and theoretical foundation (the upper echelon theory, cognitive theory and knowledge structure perspective). Through quantitating the relationship between strategic framework, strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability, it finds the evolution and transition paths of technological innovation capability. The study finds:first, technological innovation capability evoluted along the trajectory that from single capability to composite capabilities ('absorptive capacity dominant→absorption、integration capabilities lead→absorptive, integration, creation capabilities at a high level under balanced development'), which verify the conclusion of Sub-study Ⅱ; second, adjusting the complexity of strategic schema is important to promotes the co-evolution of strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability and achieves transition of technological innovation capability evolution trajectory.
This paper has three innovation points. First, it reveals that adaptive evolution rule of technological innovation capability according to environment and the evolution path'from single capability to composite capabilities'. Second, it reveals that under the moderate of organization flexibility, the mechanism of strategic flexibility when selecting technological innovation capability types. It moderates the argument that the searching between multiple knowledge sources is complementary or alternative during the evolution process of technological innovation capability. Third, it reveals the mechanism that strategic schema promotes the synergetic evolution of strategic flexibility and technological innovation capability. Meanwhile, adjusting the complexity of strategic schema is an important pathway to leverage enterprise technological innovation capability. The complexity of strategic schema, maintaining between20%-50%, helps to the transition of evolution trajectory of technological innovation capability.
In addition, this paper also has practical implications. First, in the early development stage of technological innovation capability, enterprise shall have the sense of capability evolution and also continuously reinforces this sense during the process of capability development, which can avoid cognition rigidity and make the best preparing for capability evolution. Since the limitation of enterprise resources and restriction of development stage, enterprise need to achieve the technological innovation capability with different focus in each stage, along the evolution trajectory "absorptive capacity dominant->absorption、integration capabilities lead→absorptive, integration, creation capabilities at a high level under balanced development ".Second, in order to achieve the evolution of technological innovation capability, enterprise should balance the different strategic flexibility, which reflected as different searching activities and choose the suitable knowledge searching strategy. In order to form the technological innovation capability structure oriented by absorptive capability, enterprise needs to reinforce the complement between enterprise external knowledge sources and departmental/production line knowledge sources:in order to form the technological innovation capability structure oriented by absorptive and integration capabilities, enterprise needs to reinforce the complement between enterprise external knowledge sources and production line internal knowledge sources; in order to form the balanced development capability structure with absorptive, integration and creation capability, enterprise needs to focus on enterprise external knowledge sources and promote creativity. Third, enterprise is an integrated system and it needs a synergic development of multiple capabilities, such as strategic flexibility, organization flexibility, technological innovation capability, market/environment perceiving capability, to achieve the dynamic adaption of environment. If enterprise cannot perceive new opportunities of environment, technological innovation capability and strategic flexibility will happen jointly recession. Suitable strategic schema is the key to promote the synergetic evolution of technological innovation capability and strategic flexibility. Only maintaining the complexity of strategic schema (20%-50%), enterprise can continuously find the knowledge gap, lead external searching, and improve the diversity of the knowledge structure and leveraging of knowledge creation capability. Specifically, during the process of strategy formulation, enterprise shall focus on the fusion of information flow of "top-down" and "bottom-up", introduce heterogeneous top management team and ensure that top management team has a comprehensive understanding of environment, strategy and capability.
引文
[1]Aaker, D.A.,& Mascarenhas, B. The need for strategic flexibility. Journal of Business Strategy,1984,5(2),74-82.
[2]Abreu, D.,& Pearce, D. Barging, reputation, and equilibrium selection in repeated games with contracts. Econometrica,2007,75(3),653-710.
[3]Adams, M.E., Day, G.S.,& Dougherty, D. Enhancing new product development performance:An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1998,15(5),403-422.
[4]Aiken, L.S.,& West, S.G Multiple Regression:Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publication, Newbury Park, CA,1991.
[5]Amit, R.,& Schoemaker, P.J.H. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14 (1),33-46.
[6]Andrews, K.R. The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Irwin:Homewood, IL,1971.
[7]Ashby,W.R. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London:Chapman & Hall,1956, 35-54.
[8]Bahrami, H. The emerging flexible organization:perspectives from Silicon Valley. California Management Review,1992,12(1),33-52.
[9]Barney, J. Firm resouraces and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management,1991,17(1),99-120.
[10]Barreto,I. Dynamic capabilities:A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management,2010,36(3),256-280.
[11]Barton,L.D. Core capabilities and core rigidities. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, Summer special issue,111-126.
[12]Baum,J.,& Wally, S. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(11),1107-1130.
[13]Beneito,P. The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R& D in terms of patents and utility models.2006,35(3),502-517.
[14]Bogner, W.C.,& Barr, P.S. Making sense in hypercompetitive environments:a cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Research Policy,2000,11(2),212-226.
[15]Bosch, F.A.J.V., Volberta, H.,W.,& Boer, M. Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment:organizational forms. Organization Science,1999,10(5),551-568.
[16]Bourgeois, L.J.,& Eisenhardt, K.M. Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments:four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science,1988,34(4),816-835.
[17]Brown, S.L.,& Eisenhardt, K.M. The art of continuous change:linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),1-34
[18]Burgelman, R., Maidique, M.A., Wheelwright, S.C. Strategic management of technology and innovation. McGraw Hill, New York,2004.
[19]Calori, R., Baden, F.C.,& Hunt B. Managing change of Novotel:back to the future. Long Range Planning,2000,33(3),779-804.
[20]Calori,R., Johnson, G.,& Sarnin, P. CEOs'cognitive maps and the scope of the organization. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(6),437-457.
[21]Carley, K.,& Palmquist, M. Extracting, Representing and analyzing mental models. Social Forces,1992,70(3),601-636.
[22]Cassidy,M., Gerg,H.,& Strobl, E. Knowledge accumulation and productivity: Evidence from plant-level data for Ireland. Scottish Journal of Political Economy,2005,52(3),344-358.
[23]Castel, P.,& Friedberg, E. Institutional change as an interactive process:the case of the modernization of the French cancer centers. Organization Science,2010,21:311-330.
[24]Chiang, Y. H.,& Huang, K.P. Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows. R&D management,2010,40(3),292-299.
[25]Clark, K. B. The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy,1985,14(5),235-251.
[26]Cockburn, I.,& Henderson, R. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46(2),157-182.
[27]Cohen, W. M.,& Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly.1990, 35(1),128-152.
[28]Cottrell, T.& Nault B.A. Product variety and firm survival in the microcomputer software industry. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(10): 1005-1026.
[29]Cyert, R.M.,& March, J. G. The behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ,1963.
[30]Dacin, Goodstein & Scott. Institutional theory and institutional change: introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 2002,45(1),45-56.
[31]Daft,R.L.,& Weick, K.E. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review,1984,32(9),284-295.
[32]Davis,J.P., Eisenhardt, K.M.,& Bingham, C.B. Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly,2009,54(4),413-452.
[33]Dess, G.G.,& Beard, D.W. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1984,29(1),52-73.
[34]Drucker, P.F. Post-capita list society. New York:Butter worth Heineman,1993.
[35]Dutta,S., Narasimhan, O.,& Rajiv, S. Conceptualizing and measuring capabilities:methodology and empirical application. Strategic Management Joumal,2005,26 (3),277-285.
[36]Dutton, J. E., Fahey, L.,& Narayanan, V. K. Toward understanding strategic issue diagnosis. Strategic Management Journal,1983,4(4),124-157.
[37]Dieleman, A.,& Sachs, M. Coevolution of institutions and corporations in engineering economies:how the salim group morphed into an institution of Suharto's crony regime. Journal of Management Studies,2008, 45(5),1274-1300.
[38]Eden, C., Ackermann,F.,& Cropper,S. The analysis of cause maps. Journal of Management Studies,1992,29(3),309-324.
[39]Eisenhardt, K.M.,& Graebner, M.E. Theory building from cases:opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(l),25-40.
[40]Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities:what are they? Strategic Management Journal,2000, Special Issue 21(10-11),1105-1121.
[41]Eisenhardt, K. M. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal,1989,32(4),543-576.
[42]Ensign, P.C. Innovation in the multinational firm with globally dispersed R&D: Technological knowledge utilization and accumulation. Journal of High Technology Management Research,1999,10(2),203-221.
[43]Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A.,& Tribo, J. A. Managing knowledge spillovers:The impact of absorptive capacity on innovation performance. Research Policy, 2005,194-235
[44]Ferrier,W. Navigating the competitive landscape:the drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(8), 858-877.
[45]Fines,C.H. Clockspeed:Winning industry control in the age of temporary advantage. Perseus:Reading, MA,1998.
[46]Fiol,C.M., O'Connor, E.J. Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. Academy of Management Review,2003,28(1):54-70.
[47]Fisk,S.T.,& Taylor, S.E. Social Cognition (2nd edn).McGraw-Hill:New York,1991.
[48]Forsman,H. Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises. A comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors. Research Policy,2011,40(5),739-750.
[49]Fosfuri,A.,& Tribo, J.A. Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega,2008, 36(2),173-187.
[50]Garg V, Walters BA, Priem RL. Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance. Strategic-Management Journal,2003,24(8),725-744.
[51]Gcorgsdottir, A.S.,& Getz,l. How flexibility facilitates innovation and ways to manage it in organizations. Organization Science,2004,13(3),166-175.
[52]Gibson, C.B.,& Birkinshaw, J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal,2004, 47 (2),209-226.
[53]Gilsing, V.,& Nooteboom, B. Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems:the case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy,2006, 35(1),1-23.
[54]Gima, A.K. The effects of centrifugal and centripetal forces on product development speed and quality:How does problem solving matter? Academy of Management Journal,2003,46(3),359-373.
[55]Greenhalgh, C.,& Rogers, M. The value of innovation:the interaction of competition, R&D and IP. Research Policy,2006,35 (4),562-580.
[56]Greenhalgh, C.,& Rogers, M. Trade Marks and Market Value in UK Firms:Evidence of Schumpeterian Competition through Innovation. Working Paper,Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre,2007.
[57]Greenhalgh, C.,& Rogers, M. Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic Growth. Princeton University Press,2010.
[58]Griliches, Z.,1981. Market value, R&D and patents. Economic Letters 7 (2), 183-187.
[59]Griliches, Z., Hall, B.H.,& Pakes, A. R&D, patents, and market value revisited: is there a second (technological opportunity) factor? Journal of Economics of Innovation and New Technology,1991,1,183-201
[60]Griliches,Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators:A survey. Journal of Economic Literature,1990,28(4),1661-1707.
[61]Gulati, R. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19, 293-317.
[62]Gulati,R., Nohria,N.,& Zaheer, A. Strategic networks, Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(2),203-215.
[63]Gustafson,L.T.,& Reger, R. K. Using organizational identity to achieve stability and change in high velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal Best Papers Proceedings,1995,464-468.
[64]Hagedoorn, J.,& Schakenraad, J.. The effect of strategic technology alliances on company performance. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15,291-310.
[65]Hambrick, D.C.,1983. High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal 26,687-708.
[66]Hamel, G. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances, Strategic Management Joural,1999,12(2):83-103.
[67]Hannan, M. T.,& Freeman, J. H. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review,1984,49:149-164.
[68]Hannan, M.T.,& Freeman, J.,1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociology Review 49 (2),149-164.
[69]He, Z.,& Wong, P.,2004. Exploration vs. exploitation:an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science 15,481-494.
[70]Heckman, J.,1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47,153-161.
[71]Helfat,C.E.,& Peteraf,M.A. The dynamic resource-based view:capability lifecycles. Strategic management journal,2003,24(4),997-1010.
[72]Henderson, Clark. Architectural innovation:The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firm. Administrative science quarterly,1990,35(1),9-30.
[73]Hernandez,E.M.,& Delgado,B.E. Product innovation in small manufacturers, market orientation and the industry's five competitive forces:empirical evidence from Spain. European Journal of Innovation Management,2009,12(4), 470-491.
[74]Hill, C.W.,& Rothaermel, F.T.,2003. The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review 28 (2),257-274.
[75]Hill, C.W.L.,1988. Differentiation versus low cost or differentiation and low cost:a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review 13,401-423.
[76]Hodgkinson G.Cognitive inertia in a turbulent market:the case of UK residential estate agents. Journal of Management Studies,1997,34(3),921-945.
[77]Huff, A. S. A current and future agenda for cognitive research in organizations. Journal of Management Studies,1997,34(6),947-952.
[78]Iansiti, M.,& Clark, K. B. Integration and dynamic capability:evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Industrial and corporate change,1994,3(3),557-605.
[79]Jansen,J.P.R, Tempelaar,M.P., Bosch,F.A.J.,& Volberda, H.W. Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity:The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. Organization Science,2009,20(4),797-811.
[80]Jiang, R.J., Tao, Q.T., Santoro, M.D. Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31 (10),1136-1144.
[81]Keisler,S.,& Sproull, L. Managerial response to changing environments: perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Administrative Science Quarterly,1982,27(4),548-570.
[82]Zhou, K.Z.& Wu, F. Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(5),547-561.
[83]King, D.R., Dalton, D.R., Daily, C.M.,& Covin, J.G. Meta-analyses of post acquisition performance:indications of unidentified moderators. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25,187-200.
[84]Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L., Muller, K.E. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods,2nd ed. PWS-Kent, Boston, MA,1988.
[85]Kotha, S., Nair, A. Strategy and environment as determinants of performance: Evidence from the Japanese machine tool industry. Strategic Management Journal,1995,16,497-519.
[86]Koza, M.P., Lewin, A.Y. The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science,1998,3,255-264.
[87]Kratzer, J., Gemuenden, H.G., Lettl, C. Revealing dynamics and consequences of fit and misfit between formal and informal networks in multi-institutional product development collaborations. Research Policy,2008,37 (8),1356-1370.
[88]Laamanen, T.,& Wallin, J. Cognitive Dynamics of Capability Development Paths. Journal of Management Studies,2009,46(10),950-981.
[89]Lane,P.J., Koka,B.R.,& Pathak,S. The reification of absorptive capacity:a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. The Academy of Management Review,2006,31 (4),833-863.
[90]Lant,T.K., Milliken, F.J.,& Batra, B. The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation:an empirical exploration. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(8),585-608.
[91]Lavie, D. Capability reconfiguration:an analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(1),153-174.
[92]Lavie, D.,2006. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms:an extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review 31 (3), 638-658.
[93]Lavie, D.,2007. Alliance portfolios and firm performance:a study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal 28 (12),1187-1212.
[94]Lavie, D.,& Rosenkopf, L.,2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal 49 (4),797-818.
[95]Leiponen, A.,& Helfat, C.E. Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth, Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(2):224-236.
[96]Leonard-Barton, D. Wellsprings of Knowledge:Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA,1995.
[97]Levinthal, D.A.,& March, J.G The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14,95-113.
[98]Levitt, B.,& March, J.G. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 1988,14,319-340.
[99]Lewin,A.Y.,& Volberda, H.W. Prolegomena on co-evolution:a framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms, Organization Science, 1999,10(5):519-534.
[100]Li, A.,& Calantone, K. The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage:conceptualization and empirical examination. The Journal of Marketing,1998,62(5):13-29.
[101]Li, G, Ji, P., Sun, L.Y.,& Lee, W.B. Modeling and simulation of supply network evolution based on complex adaptive system and fitness landscape. Computers & Industrial Engineering,2009,56(3),839-853.
[102]Li,H.,& Atuahene, G.K. Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal,2011, 44(10),1123-1134.
[103]Li,M.,& Gao,F. Why Nonaka highlights tacit knowledge:A critical review Journal of Knowledge Management,2003,7(4),6-14.
[104]Li,Y., Su,Z.F.,& Liu,Y. Can strategic flexibility help firms profit from product innovation. Technovation,2010,30(5-6),300-309.
[105]Liao,S.H., Wu,C.C.,&Hu,C.D.,& Tsuei, G.A. Knowledge acquisition, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability:An empirical study of Taiwan's knowledge-intensive industries. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,2009,53(2),160-167.
[106]Liao,S.H., et al. Knowledge Acquisition, Absorptive Capacity, and Innovation Capability:An Empirical Study of Taiwan's Knowledge-Intensive Industries, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 2009,53(2),160-167.
[107]Lichtenthaler, U. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarily of organizational learning process. Academy of Management Journal,2009,52(4),822-845.
[108]Lichtenthaler, U.,& Lichtenthaler, E. A capability-based framework for open innovation:complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management studies, 2009,46(8),1315-1338.
[109]Lin, Z., Yang, H.,& Arya, B. Alliance partners and firm performance:resource complementarity and status association. Strategic Management Journal,2009,30, 921-940.
[110]Lin, Z., Yang, H.,& Demirkan, I. The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations:empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science,2007,53,1645-1658.
[111]Lomi,A.,& Larsen,E.R. Dynamics of Organizations:computational modeling and organization theories. Mit Press,2001
[112]Lu,Y, Tsang,E.,& Peng,P. Knowledge management and innovation strategy in the Asia pacific:toward an institution-based view,Asia pacific Journal of management,2008,25:361-374.
[113]Lyles, M. A.,& Schwenk, C. R. Top management, strategy and organizational knowledge structures. Journal of Management Studies,1992,29(2),155-174.
[114]MacCallum, R.C.,& Austin, J. T. Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology,2000,51,201-226.
[115]Magali,D.,& Michael,T. Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box, Strategic Management Journal,2008,29,1027-1055.
[116]Makri, M., HITT, M.A.,& Lane, P.J. Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31 (6),602-628.
[117]Margetta J. The power of integration:an interview with Michael Dell. Harvard Business Review,1998,76(2),72-85.
[118]Marsh ML, Balla JR,& Me Donald RP. Goodness of fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis:the effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin,1988,103(3): 391-410.
[119]Mary, M.C.,& Marina, A. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation:a system review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies,2010,47(6),1154-1191.
[120]Mathews, J. A. Competitive advantages of the latecomer firm:a resource-based account of industrial catch-up strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2002,19:467-488.
[121]McGahan, A. How industries change. Harvard Business Review,2004,82(10), 87-94.
[122]Mendelson H,& Pillai RR. Industry clockspeed:measurement and operational implications. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management,1999,1:1-20.
[123]Meyer, Utterback. The product family & the dynamics of core capability, Sloan Review,1993,15(1):1-32.
[124]Mickwitz, P., Hyvattinen, H., Kivimaa, P. The role of policy instruments in the innovation and diffusion of environmentally friendlier technologies:popular claims versus case study experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production,2008, 16(2),162-170.
[125]Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. McGraw-Hill, New York,1978.
[126]Miller, D.,& Chen, M. The simplicity of competitive repertoires:an empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(6),419-439.
[127]Miller, D., Lant,T.K, Milliken, F.J.,& Korn, H. J. The evolution of strategic repertoires:exploring two models of organizational adaptation. Journal of Management,1996,22:863-888.
[128]Miller, D. The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 1993,18(1),116-138.
[129]Miller,D.,& Chen,M.The simplicity of competitive repertoires:an empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(6),419-439.
[130]Miller,D., Lant,T.K., Milliken,F.J.,& Korn,H.J. The evolution of strategic repertoires:exploring two models of organizational adaptation. Journal of Management,1996,22(9),863-888.
[131]Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J.,& Cardinal, L.B. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(2),308-326.
[132]Nadkarni, S.,& Narayanan, V. K. Validity of the structural properties of text-based causal maps:an empirical assessment. Organizational Research Methods,2005,8(1),9-40.
[133]Nadkarni, S.,& Narayanan, V. K. Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility and firm performance:the moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(3),243-270.
[134]Nahapiet,J.,& Ghoshal,S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,1998,23(2),242-266.
[135]Nair, A.,& Filer, L. Co-integration of firm strategies within groups:a long-run analysis of firm behavior in the Japanese steel industry. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24,145-159.
[136]Nelson, R. R.,& Winter,S.G. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press:Cambridge, MA,1982,124-132.
[137]Nerkar A,& Roberts P.W. Technological and product market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal,2004, Special Issue,25(8-9):779-800.
[138]Noda, T., Bower, J. Strategy making as iterated process of resource allocation. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17 (7),159-192.
[139]Nonaka,I.,& Takeuchi,H. The knowledge creating company. New York:Oxford University Press,1995
[140]O'Reilly, C.A.,& Tushman, M.L. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review,2004,82,74-81.
[141]Oliver, C. Sustainable competitive advantage:Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18,697-713.
[142]Ozcan,P.,& Eisenhardt, K. M. Origin of alliance portfolios:entrepreneurs, network strategies and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal,2009,52(2),246-279.
[143]Park, N.K., Mezias, J.M.,& Song, J.A. Resource-based view of strategic alliances and firm value in the electronic marketplace. Journal of Management, 2004,30(1),7-27.
[144]Park, S.H., Chen, R., Gallagher, S. Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups.Academy of Management Journal,2002,45,527-546.
[145]Parmigiani,A.,& Mitchel,W. Complementary,capabilities, and the boundaries of the firm:the impact of within-firm and interfirm expentise on concurrent sourcing of complementary components, Strategic Management Journal,2009,30(10),1065-1091.
[146]Pisano, G.P. The R&D boundaries of the firm:an empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly,1991,35,153-177.
[147]Pisano, G.P. Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning:an empirical analysis of process development. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15 (1), 85-100.
[148]Porac, J. F.,& Rosa, J.A. In praise of managerial narrow mindedness. Journal of Management Inquiry,1996,5(1),35-42.
[149]Porter, M. E. What is a strategy? Harvard Business Review,1996, November-December,61-78.
[150]Porter, M. Competitive Strategy:Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Free Press, New York,1980.
[151]Porter, M. What is strategy. Harvard Business Review,1996,74 (6),61-79.
[152]Prahalad,C.K.,& Bettis, R.A. The dominant logic:a new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal,1986,7(6),485-501.
[153]Prencipe A. Technological competencies and products evolutionary dynamics:A case study from the acro engine industry. Research Policy,1997,25(12),1261-1276.
[154]Priem, R.L., Butler, J.E. Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review,2001,26 (1),22-40.
[155]Provan, K.G. Environment, department power, and strategic decision making in organizations:a proposed integration. Journal of Management,1989,15 (1), 21-35.
[156]Puller, S. L. The strategic use of innovation to influence regulatory standards. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2006,52,690-706.
[157]Quatraro, F. Knowledge coherence, variety and economic growth: Manufacturing evidence from Italian regions. Research Policy,2010,39, 1289-1302.
[158]Andreu, R.,& Ciborra,C. Organisational learning and core capabilities development:the role of IT, Journal of Strategic Information Systems,1996, 5,111-127
[159]Raisch, S.,& Birkinshaw, J. Organizational ambidexterity:antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management,2008,34 (3),375-409.
[160]Rajagopalan, N.,& Deepaic, K. CEO characteristics:does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal,1996,39,197-215.
[161]Rajagopalan,N.,& Spreitzer, G. Toward theory of strategic change:a multi-lens perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review,1997, 22(1),48-80.
[162]Ram,M.,& Tim,S. Proactive R&D management and firm growth:a punctuated equilibrium model, Research Policy,2011,40,429-440
[163]Rawski, T.G. Chinese industrial reform:accomplishments, prospects and implications. American Economic Review,1994,84,271-275.
[164]Reger,R.K.,& Palmer,T.B. Managerial categorization of competitors:using old maps to navigate new environments. Organization Science,1996,7(1),22-39.
[165]Rivkin, J.W.,& Siggelkow, N.,2003. Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among elements or organizational design. Organization Science 49,290-311.
[166]Grant,R.M. Strategic planning in a turbulent environment:evidence from the oil majors. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24,491-517.
[167]Robertson, T.S.,& Gatignon, H. Technology development mode:transaction cost conceptualization. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19,515-532.
[168]Rodan,S.,& Galunic, C. More than network structure:how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(6):541-563.
[169]Rodrigues,S.B.,& Child,J. Corporate Co-evolution:A Political Perspective. Chichester, West Sussex, England:Wiley,2008
[170]Rosenkopf, L.,& Nerkar,A. Beyond Local search:Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(3),287-306.
[171]Rothaermel, F.T. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via inter-firm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal,2001a.,22, 687-699.
[172]Rothaermel, F.T. Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent's advantage:An empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy,2001b,30 (8),1235-1250.
[173]Rothaermel, F.T.,& Deeds, D.L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology:a system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25,201-221.
[174]Rowley, T., Behrens, D.,& Krackhardt, D. Redundant governance structures:an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal 21,369-386,2000.
[175]Ruiz-Ortega, M.J.,& Garcia-Villaverde, P.M. Capabilities and competitive tactics influences on performance:implications of the moment of entry. Journal of Business Research,2008,61,332-345.
[176]Rumelt, R.P. Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance. Harvard University Press, Boston, MA,1974.
[177| Rychen DS, Salganik LH (eds). Hogrefe & Huber:Seattle, WA; 45-65.
[178]Sanchez. Preparing for uncertain future:managing organizations for strategic flexibility. Int. Studies of Management and Organization,1997,2,71-94.
[179]SanJay, S.,& Harrie V. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities, Strategic management Journal,2009,19:729-753
[180]Sastry,M.A. Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly.1997,23(3),237-275.
[181]Scherer, F.M., Ross, D. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance.Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA,1990.
[182]Schreiner, M., Kale, P.,& Corsten, D.,2009. What really is alliance management capability and how does it impact alliance outcomes and success? Strategic Management Journal 30,1395-1419.
[183]Schreyo,G.,& Eberl, M. K. How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards adual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28,913-933.
[184]Scott, D. J., Joeseph, C. O.,& Dankwa, R.T. Understanding strategic responses to interest group pressures, Strategic Management Journal,2008,29:963-984.
[185]Scott, J. E. Facilitating inter-organizational learning with information technology. Journal of Management Information Systems,2000,17(2):81-113.
[186]Shane,S. Prior knowledge and discovery of entrepreneurial activities. Organization Science,2000,11(4),448-469.
[187]Sharfman, M.P.,& Dean, J.W. Conceptualizing and measuring the organizational environment:a multidimensional approach. Journal of Management,1991,17(4),681-700.
[188]Smith,K.G, Collins,C.J.,& Clark,K.D. Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology Firms.Academy of Management Journal,2005,32 (2),346-357.
[189]Soh, P.,& Roberts, E.B. Networks of innovators:a longitudinal perspective.Research Policy,2003,32 (9),1569-1588.
[190]Spanos, Y.E., Zaralis, G., Lioukas, S. Strategy and industry effects on profitability:evidence from Greece. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25, 139-166.
[191]StabelI,C. Integrative complexity of environment perception and information use:an empirical investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,1978,22(2),116-142.
[192]Sterman,J.D. Business dynamics:systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston et al:Irwin McGraw-Hill.2000,110.
[193]Stinchcombe, A.L. Social structure and organizations. In:March, J.G. (Ed.),Handbook of Organizations. Rand McNally, Chicago,1965,153-193.
[194]Stuart, T.E., Hoang. H.,& Hybels, R.C. Inter-organizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999,44,315-349.
[195]Sutton, J. Gibrat's legacy. Journal of Economic Literature,,1997,35,40-59.
[196]Suzana B. Rodrigues and John Child.Corporate Co-evolution:A Political Perspective. Chichester, West Sussex, England:Wiley,2008.
[197]Szeto,l Innovation capacity:working towards a mechanism for improving innovation within an inter-organizational network. The TQM Magazine,2000,12 (2),149-158.
[198]Teece,D.J.,Pisano,G.,Shuen,A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7),509-533.
[199]Teece,D.J. Explicating dynamic capabilities:the nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise performance. Strategic management Journal,2007,28(13),1319-1350.
[200]Thomas,J.B., Clark,S.M., Gioia,D.A. Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance:linkages among scanning, interpretation, action and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,1993,36(3),239-270.
[201]Thompson, J.D.,1967. Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.
[202]Tidd J. Measuring strategic competencies:technological, market and organizational indicators of innovation. Imperial College Press, London,2000
[203]Todorova, G.,& Durisin, B. Absorptive Capacity:Valuing a Reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review,2007,32(3),774-786.
[204]Tripsas M, Gavetti G. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia:evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal,2000, Special Issue 21(10-11): 1147-1161.
[205]Tsai,W. Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks:effect of network position and intra-organizational networks:effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit Innovation and performance.Academy of Managements Journal,2001,44(5),996-1004.
[206]Tushman, M.L., Newman,W.H.,& Romanelli, E. Convergence and upheaval: managing the unsteady pace of organizational evolution. California Management Review,1986,24(1):29-44.
[207]Tushman, M.L.,& Anderson, P. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986,31, 439-465.
[208]Volberda,H.W. et al. Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity:How to Realize Its Potential in the Organization Field. Organization Science, 2010,21(4):931-951.
[209]Volberda. Structural differentiation and ambidexterity:The mediating role of integration mechanisms, Organization Science,2009,20(4),797-811.
[210]Wally,S., Baum,J.R. Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal,1994,37(4),932-956.
[211]Walsh JP. Selectivity and selective perception:an investigation of managers' belief structures. Academy of Management Journal,1988,31,973-896.
[212]WalshJ.P. Managerial and organizational cognition:Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science,1995,6(3),280-321.
[213]Wang,C.L.,& P.K.Ahmed. Dynamic capabilities:A review and research agenda,international journal of management reviews,2007,9(1),9-31.
[214]Weick KE, Roberts KH.1993. Collective mind in organizations:heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(3):357-381.
[215]Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (eds).2001. Managing the Unexpected:Assuring High-Performance in an Age of Complexity. Jossey-Bass:San Francisco, CA.
[216]Weick KE. Organization design:organizations as self-designing systems. Organizational Dynamics,1977,6(1),31-46.
[217]Weick KE. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations:the Man Gulch disaster. Harvard Business Review,1993,38(4),628-652.
[218]Weick,K.E.Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage:Thousand Oaks, CA,1995.
[219]Weinert FE.2001. Concept of competence:a conceptual clarification. In Defining and Selecting Key Competencies. Strategic Management Journal,2001,32(1),23-34.
[220]Wernerfelt B.1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5(2),171-180.
[221]Westphal JP, Bednar MK. Pluralistic ignorance in corporate boards and firm's strategic persistence to low firm performance. Administrative Science Quaterly, 2005,32(2),123-135.
[222]Williams JR. Strategy and the search for rents:the evolution of diversity among firms. In Fundamental Issues in Strategy, Rumelt R, Schendel DE, Teece DJ (eds). Harvard Business School Press:Boston, MA,1994,229-246.
[223]Williamson,O.E.New York:Markets and Hierarchies. Free Press,1975
[224]Winter SG. The satisficing principle in capability learning. StrategicManagement Journal, Special Issue,2000,21(10-11):981-996.
[225]Winter SG. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 2003,24(10):991-995.
[226]Wittenberg,J. On the very idea of a system dynamics model of Kuhnian science. System Dynamics Review,1992,8(1),21-33.
[227]Yam,R.C.M., Esther,W., Tang,P.Y,& Lau,A.K.W. An audit of technological innovation capabilities in Chinese firms:some empirical findings in Beijing, China. Research policy,2004,33(12),1123-1140.
[228]Yan, A.,& Gray, B.1994. "Bargaining Power, Management Control and Performance in U.S.-Chinese Joint Ventures:A Comparative Case Study." Academy of management journal 37(6),11-34.
[229]Yin,R, Case study research:design and methods, Thousands Oaks:Sage Publications,2003.
[230]Zahra, S. A.,& George, G. Absorptive Capacity:A Review, Reconceptualization and Extension. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2),185-203.
[231]Zhang,Y.,& Li,H. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties with service intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal,2010, 31(1):88-109.
[232]安东内利.创新经济学：新技术与结构变迁.刘刚等译。北京：高等教育出版社,2006.
[233]陈光.企业内部协同创新研究.博士学位论文.西南交通大学,2005.
[234]陈建勋,朱蓉,吴隆增.内部社会资本对技术创新的影响：知识创造的中介作用.科学学与科学技术管理,2008,5,90-93.
[235]陈力田.战略和愿景提升中小企业创新能力机制研究.管理工程学报,2009,23,18-23.
[236]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放式创新：机理与模式.北京：科学出版社,2008.
[237]程德俊,赵曙明.高参与工作系统与企业绩效：人力资本专用性和环境动态性的影响.管理世界,2006,3,86-93.
[238]葛沪飞,仝允桓,高旭东.企业自主研发选择差异及其影响因素实证研究.研究与发展管理,2010,22(4)：10-19.
[239]郭斌.基于核心能力的企业组合创新理论与实证研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,1998.
[240]郭水文.3G时代通信网络服务市场的竞争.中国科技论坛,2011,4(4),121-127.
[241]江旭,高山行.知识积累与获取对企业创新的交互作用研究.研究与发展管理,2010,22(6),8-14.
[242]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.管理世界,2011,4,122-137.
[243]焦丹琳.从孔茨的风险决策理论管窥.UT的非程序化决策.理论探讨,2010,188-189.
[244]焦豪.企业动态能力、环境动态性与绩效关系的实证研究.软科学,2008,22(4),112-117.
[245]康慧娟.朗讯科技公司产品导向型管理的失败案例分析.工商管理硕士学位论文,兰州大学,2008.
[246]刘益,李垣,汪应洛.柔性战略的理论,分析方法及其应用.中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[247]卢兵,岳亮,廖貅武.组织通过外部学习进行隐性知识转移的模型研究.系统工程理论与实践,2006,10,35-43.
[248]陆园园,郑刚.基于复杂性理论的企业创新要素协同研究.科技进步与对策,2009,26(2),66-70.
[249]吕中,二线品牌手机企业的成败分析,硕士学位论文,厦门大学,2006.
[250]马庆国.管理统计：数据获取、统计原理、SPSS工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2006.
[251]马文聪,朱桂龙.环境动态性对技术创新与绩效关系的调节作用.科学学研究,2010,29(3)：454-460.
[252]毛武兴,闫同柱,刘景江,许庆瑞.我国企业核心能力的培育与提高：战略、路径与案例研究,科研管理,2004,25(2),37-43.
[253]钱锡红,杨永福,徐万里.企业网络位置、吸收能力与创新绩效,《管理世界》,2010,5,118-129.
[254]任宗强.基于创新网络协同提升企业创新能力的机制与规律研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2012.
[255]松铁波,曾萍.多重制度压力与企业合法性倾向选择：一个理论模型.软科学,2011,4,112-116.
[256]王超,穆东.基于SD的制造企业物流运作成本仿真与优化.系统工程理论与实践.2012,32(6)：1241-1250.
[257]王慧.企业集团内部的知识协同研究[D].山东大学,2009.
[258]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.
[259]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.
[260]吴隆增,简兆权.组织学习、知识创造与新产品开发绩效的关系研究.科技进步与对策,2008,25(1),110-113.
[261]吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务一SPSS操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.
[262]徐二明,张晗.企业知识吸收能力与绩效的关系研究.管理学报,2008,11,841-848.
[263]许庆瑞.全面创新管理-理论与实践.北京：科学出版社,2007.
[264]许小火.兴衰诺基亚.营销个案,2010,72-75.
[265]杨燕,高山行.创新驱动、自主性与创新绩效的关系实证研究,科学学研究,2011,29(10),1568-1576.
[266]张明,江旭,高山行.战略联盟中组织学习、知识创造与创新绩效的实证研究,科学学研究,2008,26(4),868-873.
[267]张浩,彭纪生.承诺型人力资源实践与创新绩效的作用机制-知识创造能 力的中介作用.科技情报开发与经济,2009,19(26),185-201.
[268]张媛媛,张宗益.创新环境、创新能力与创新绩效的系统性研究-基于面板数据的经验分析,科技管理研究,2009,1(12),91-96.
[269]赵西萍,张长征,张伟伟.知识流失风险因素识别与控制.科研管理,2004,25(6),80-84.
[270]赵晓庆.浙商创新能力提升的模式,浙江大学出版社,2011.
[271]郑刚.基于TIM视角的企业技术创新过程中各要素全面协同机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[272]周泯非.集群治理与集群学习间关系及共同演化研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2011,128-130.
[273]朱建忠.我国制造企业面向产品.的技术集成机理研究.博士论文,浙江大学,2009,99-100.
[274]朱秀梅.知识溢出、吸收能力对高新技术产业集群创新的影响研究.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2006.
[2]Abreu, D.,& Pearce, D. Barging, reputation, and equilibrium selection in repeated games with contracts. Econometrica,2007,75(3),653-710.
[3]Adams, M.E., Day, G.S.,& Dougherty, D. Enhancing new product development performance:An organizational learning perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1998,15(5),403-422.
[4]Aiken, L.S.,& West, S.G Multiple Regression:Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publication, Newbury Park, CA,1991.
[5]Amit, R.,& Schoemaker, P.J.H. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14 (1),33-46.
[6]Andrews, K.R. The Concept of Corporate Strategy. Irwin:Homewood, IL,1971.
[7]Ashby,W.R. An Introduction to Cybernetics. London:Chapman & Hall,1956, 35-54.
[8]Bahrami, H. The emerging flexible organization:perspectives from Silicon Valley. California Management Review,1992,12(1),33-52.
[9]Barney, J. Firm resouraces and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management,1991,17(1),99-120.
[10]Barreto,I. Dynamic capabilities:A review of past research and an agenda for the future. Journal of Management,2010,36(3),256-280.
[11]Barton,L.D. Core capabilities and core rigidities. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, Summer special issue,111-126.
[12]Baum,J.,& Wally, S. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(11),1107-1130.
[13]Beneito,P. The innovative performance of in-house and contracted R& D in terms of patents and utility models.2006,35(3),502-517.
[14]Bogner, W.C.,& Barr, P.S. Making sense in hypercompetitive environments:a cognitive explanation for the persistence of high velocity competition. Research Policy,2000,11(2),212-226.
[15]Bosch, F.A.J.V., Volberta, H.,W.,& Boer, M. Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment:organizational forms. Organization Science,1999,10(5),551-568.
[16]Bourgeois, L.J.,& Eisenhardt, K.M. Strategic decision processes in high velocity environments:four cases in the microcomputer industry. Management Science,1988,34(4),816-835.
[17]Brown, S.L.,& Eisenhardt, K.M. The art of continuous change:linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),1-34
[18]Burgelman, R., Maidique, M.A., Wheelwright, S.C. Strategic management of technology and innovation. McGraw Hill, New York,2004.
[19]Calori, R., Baden, F.C.,& Hunt B. Managing change of Novotel:back to the future. Long Range Planning,2000,33(3),779-804.
[20]Calori,R., Johnson, G.,& Sarnin, P. CEOs'cognitive maps and the scope of the organization. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(6),437-457.
[21]Carley, K.,& Palmquist, M. Extracting, Representing and analyzing mental models. Social Forces,1992,70(3),601-636.
[22]Cassidy,M., Gerg,H.,& Strobl, E. Knowledge accumulation and productivity: Evidence from plant-level data for Ireland. Scottish Journal of Political Economy,2005,52(3),344-358.
[23]Castel, P.,& Friedberg, E. Institutional change as an interactive process:the case of the modernization of the French cancer centers. Organization Science,2010,21:311-330.
[24]Chiang, Y. H.,& Huang, K.P. Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows. R&D management,2010,40(3),292-299.
[25]Clark, K. B. The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy,1985,14(5),235-251.
[26]Cockburn, I.,& Henderson, R. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46(2),157-182.
[27]Cohen, W. M.,& Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly.1990, 35(1),128-152.
[28]Cottrell, T.& Nault B.A. Product variety and firm survival in the microcomputer software industry. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(10): 1005-1026.
[29]Cyert, R.M.,& March, J. G. The behavioral theory of the firm. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ,1963.
[30]Dacin, Goodstein & Scott. Institutional theory and institutional change: introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 2002,45(1),45-56.
[31]Daft,R.L.,& Weick, K.E. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of Management Review,1984,32(9),284-295.
[32]Davis,J.P., Eisenhardt, K.M.,& Bingham, C.B. Optimal structure, market dynamism, and the strategy of simple rules. Administrative Science Quarterly,2009,54(4),413-452.
[33]Dess, G.G.,& Beard, D.W. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1984,29(1),52-73.
[34]Drucker, P.F. Post-capita list society. New York:Butter worth Heineman,1993.
[35]Dutta,S., Narasimhan, O.,& Rajiv, S. Conceptualizing and measuring capabilities:methodology and empirical application. Strategic Management Joumal,2005,26 (3),277-285.
[36]Dutton, J. E., Fahey, L.,& Narayanan, V. K. Toward understanding strategic issue diagnosis. Strategic Management Journal,1983,4(4),124-157.
[37]Dieleman, A.,& Sachs, M. Coevolution of institutions and corporations in engineering economies:how the salim group morphed into an institution of Suharto's crony regime. Journal of Management Studies,2008, 45(5),1274-1300.
[38]Eden, C., Ackermann,F.,& Cropper,S. The analysis of cause maps. Journal of Management Studies,1992,29(3),309-324.
[39]Eisenhardt, K.M.,& Graebner, M.E. Theory building from cases:opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(l),25-40.
[40]Eisenhardt, K. M.,& Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities:what are they? Strategic Management Journal,2000, Special Issue 21(10-11),1105-1121.
[41]Eisenhardt, K. M. Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal,1989,32(4),543-576.
[42]Ensign, P.C. Innovation in the multinational firm with globally dispersed R&D: Technological knowledge utilization and accumulation. Journal of High Technology Management Research,1999,10(2),203-221.
[43]Escribano, A., Fosfuri, A.,& Tribo, J. A. Managing knowledge spillovers:The impact of absorptive capacity on innovation performance. Research Policy, 2005,194-235
[44]Ferrier,W. Navigating the competitive landscape:the drivers and consequences of competitive aggressiveness. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(8), 858-877.
[45]Fines,C.H. Clockspeed:Winning industry control in the age of temporary advantage. Perseus:Reading, MA,1998.
[46]Fiol,C.M., O'Connor, E.J. Waking up! Mindfulness in the face of bandwagons. Academy of Management Review,2003,28(1):54-70.
[47]Fisk,S.T.,& Taylor, S.E. Social Cognition (2nd edn).McGraw-Hill:New York,1991.
[48]Forsman,H. Innovation capacity and innovation development in small enterprises. A comparison between the manufacturing and service sectors. Research Policy,2011,40(5),739-750.
[49]Fosfuri,A.,& Tribo, J.A. Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega,2008, 36(2),173-187.
[50]Garg V, Walters BA, Priem RL. Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance. Strategic-Management Journal,2003,24(8),725-744.
[51]Gcorgsdottir, A.S.,& Getz,l. How flexibility facilitates innovation and ways to manage it in organizations. Organization Science,2004,13(3),166-175.
[52]Gibson, C.B.,& Birkinshaw, J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal,2004, 47 (2),209-226.
[53]Gilsing, V.,& Nooteboom, B. Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems:the case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy,2006, 35(1),1-23.
[54]Gima, A.K. The effects of centrifugal and centripetal forces on product development speed and quality:How does problem solving matter? Academy of Management Journal,2003,46(3),359-373.
[55]Greenhalgh, C.,& Rogers, M. The value of innovation:the interaction of competition, R&D and IP. Research Policy,2006,35 (4),562-580.
[56]Greenhalgh, C.,& Rogers, M. Trade Marks and Market Value in UK Firms:Evidence of Schumpeterian Competition through Innovation. Working Paper,Oxford Intellectual Property Research Centre,2007.
[57]Greenhalgh, C.,& Rogers, M. Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic Growth. Princeton University Press,2010.
[58]Griliches, Z.,1981. Market value, R&D and patents. Economic Letters 7 (2), 183-187.
[59]Griliches, Z., Hall, B.H.,& Pakes, A. R&D, patents, and market value revisited: is there a second (technological opportunity) factor? Journal of Economics of Innovation and New Technology,1991,1,183-201
[60]Griliches,Z. Patent statistics as economic indicators:A survey. Journal of Economic Literature,1990,28(4),1661-1707.
[61]Gulati, R. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19, 293-317.
[62]Gulati,R., Nohria,N.,& Zaheer, A. Strategic networks, Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(2),203-215.
[63]Gustafson,L.T.,& Reger, R. K. Using organizational identity to achieve stability and change in high velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal Best Papers Proceedings,1995,464-468.
[64]Hagedoorn, J.,& Schakenraad, J.. The effect of strategic technology alliances on company performance. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15,291-310.
[65]Hambrick, D.C.,1983. High profit strategies in mature capital goods industries: a contingency approach. Academy of Management Journal 26,687-708.
[66]Hamel, G. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances, Strategic Management Joural,1999,12(2):83-103.
[67]Hannan, M. T.,& Freeman, J. H. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review,1984,49:149-164.
[68]Hannan, M.T.,& Freeman, J.,1984. Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociology Review 49 (2),149-164.
[69]He, Z.,& Wong, P.,2004. Exploration vs. exploitation:an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science 15,481-494.
[70]Heckman, J.,1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47,153-161.
[71]Helfat,C.E.,& Peteraf,M.A. The dynamic resource-based view:capability lifecycles. Strategic management journal,2003,24(4),997-1010.
[72]Henderson, Clark. Architectural innovation:The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firm. Administrative science quarterly,1990,35(1),9-30.
[73]Hernandez,E.M.,& Delgado,B.E. Product innovation in small manufacturers, market orientation and the industry's five competitive forces:empirical evidence from Spain. European Journal of Innovation Management,2009,12(4), 470-491.
[74]Hill, C.W.,& Rothaermel, F.T.,2003. The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Academy of Management Review 28 (2),257-274.
[75]Hill, C.W.L.,1988. Differentiation versus low cost or differentiation and low cost:a contingency framework. Academy of Management Review 13,401-423.
[76]Hodgkinson G.Cognitive inertia in a turbulent market:the case of UK residential estate agents. Journal of Management Studies,1997,34(3),921-945.
[77]Huff, A. S. A current and future agenda for cognitive research in organizations. Journal of Management Studies,1997,34(6),947-952.
[78]Iansiti, M.,& Clark, K. B. Integration and dynamic capability:evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Industrial and corporate change,1994,3(3),557-605.
[79]Jansen,J.P.R, Tempelaar,M.P., Bosch,F.A.J.,& Volberda, H.W. Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity:The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. Organization Science,2009,20(4),797-811.
[80]Jiang, R.J., Tao, Q.T., Santoro, M.D. Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31 (10),1136-1144.
[81]Keisler,S.,& Sproull, L. Managerial response to changing environments: perspectives on problem sensing from social cognition. Administrative Science Quarterly,1982,27(4),548-570.
[82]Zhou, K.Z.& Wu, F. Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(5),547-561.
[83]King, D.R., Dalton, D.R., Daily, C.M.,& Covin, J.G. Meta-analyses of post acquisition performance:indications of unidentified moderators. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25,187-200.
[84]Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L., Muller, K.E. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods,2nd ed. PWS-Kent, Boston, MA,1988.
[85]Kotha, S., Nair, A. Strategy and environment as determinants of performance: Evidence from the Japanese machine tool industry. Strategic Management Journal,1995,16,497-519.
[86]Koza, M.P., Lewin, A.Y. The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science,1998,3,255-264.
[87]Kratzer, J., Gemuenden, H.G., Lettl, C. Revealing dynamics and consequences of fit and misfit between formal and informal networks in multi-institutional product development collaborations. Research Policy,2008,37 (8),1356-1370.
[88]Laamanen, T.,& Wallin, J. Cognitive Dynamics of Capability Development Paths. Journal of Management Studies,2009,46(10),950-981.
[89]Lane,P.J., Koka,B.R.,& Pathak,S. The reification of absorptive capacity:a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. The Academy of Management Review,2006,31 (4),833-863.
[90]Lant,T.K., Milliken, F.J.,& Batra, B. The role of managerial learning and interpretation in strategic persistence and reorientation:an empirical exploration. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(8),585-608.
[91]Lavie, D. Capability reconfiguration:an analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(1),153-174.
[92]Lavie, D.,2006. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms:an extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review 31 (3), 638-658.
[93]Lavie, D.,2007. Alliance portfolios and firm performance:a study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal 28 (12),1187-1212.
[94]Lavie, D.,& Rosenkopf, L.,2006. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal 49 (4),797-818.
[95]Leiponen, A.,& Helfat, C.E. Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth, Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(2):224-236.
[96]Leonard-Barton, D. Wellsprings of Knowledge:Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA,1995.
[97]Levinthal, D.A.,& March, J.G The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14,95-113.
[98]Levitt, B.,& March, J.G. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 1988,14,319-340.
[99]Lewin,A.Y.,& Volberda, H.W. Prolegomena on co-evolution:a framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms, Organization Science, 1999,10(5):519-534.
[100]Li, A.,& Calantone, K. The impact of market knowledge competence on new product advantage:conceptualization and empirical examination. The Journal of Marketing,1998,62(5):13-29.
[101]Li, G, Ji, P., Sun, L.Y.,& Lee, W.B. Modeling and simulation of supply network evolution based on complex adaptive system and fitness landscape. Computers & Industrial Engineering,2009,56(3),839-853.
[102]Li,H.,& Atuahene, G.K. Product innovation strategy and the performance of new technology ventures in China. Academy of Management Journal,2011, 44(10),1123-1134.
[103]Li,M.,& Gao,F. Why Nonaka highlights tacit knowledge:A critical review Journal of Knowledge Management,2003,7(4),6-14.
[104]Li,Y., Su,Z.F.,& Liu,Y. Can strategic flexibility help firms profit from product innovation. Technovation,2010,30(5-6),300-309.
[105]Liao,S.H., Wu,C.C.,&Hu,C.D.,& Tsuei, G.A. Knowledge acquisition, absorptive capacity, and innovation capability:An empirical study of Taiwan's knowledge-intensive industries. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology,2009,53(2),160-167.
[106]Liao,S.H., et al. Knowledge Acquisition, Absorptive Capacity, and Innovation Capability:An Empirical Study of Taiwan's Knowledge-Intensive Industries, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 2009,53(2),160-167.
[107]Lichtenthaler, U. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarily of organizational learning process. Academy of Management Journal,2009,52(4),822-845.
[108]Lichtenthaler, U.,& Lichtenthaler, E. A capability-based framework for open innovation:complementing absorptive capacity. Journal of Management studies, 2009,46(8),1315-1338.
[109]Lin, Z., Yang, H.,& Arya, B. Alliance partners and firm performance:resource complementarity and status association. Strategic Management Journal,2009,30, 921-940.
[110]Lin, Z., Yang, H.,& Demirkan, I. The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations:empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science,2007,53,1645-1658.
[111]Lomi,A.,& Larsen,E.R. Dynamics of Organizations:computational modeling and organization theories. Mit Press,2001
[112]Lu,Y, Tsang,E.,& Peng,P. Knowledge management and innovation strategy in the Asia pacific:toward an institution-based view,Asia pacific Journal of management,2008,25:361-374.
[113]Lyles, M. A.,& Schwenk, C. R. Top management, strategy and organizational knowledge structures. Journal of Management Studies,1992,29(2),155-174.
[114]MacCallum, R.C.,& Austin, J. T. Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology,2000,51,201-226.
[115]Magali,D.,& Michael,T. Organizational responses to environmental demands: Opening the black box, Strategic Management Journal,2008,29,1027-1055.
[116]Makri, M., HITT, M.A.,& Lane, P.J. Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31 (6),602-628.
[117]Margetta J. The power of integration:an interview with Michael Dell. Harvard Business Review,1998,76(2),72-85.
[118]Marsh ML, Balla JR,& Me Donald RP. Goodness of fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis:the effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin,1988,103(3): 391-410.
[119]Mary, M.C.,& Marina, A. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation:a system review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies,2010,47(6),1154-1191.
[120]Mathews, J. A. Competitive advantages of the latecomer firm:a resource-based account of industrial catch-up strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 2002,19:467-488.
[121]McGahan, A. How industries change. Harvard Business Review,2004,82(10), 87-94.
[122]Mendelson H,& Pillai RR. Industry clockspeed:measurement and operational implications. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management,1999,1:1-20.
[123]Meyer, Utterback. The product family & the dynamics of core capability, Sloan Review,1993,15(1):1-32.
[124]Mickwitz, P., Hyvattinen, H., Kivimaa, P. The role of policy instruments in the innovation and diffusion of environmentally friendlier technologies:popular claims versus case study experiences. Journal of Cleaner Production,2008, 16(2),162-170.
[125]Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C. Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. McGraw-Hill, New York,1978.
[126]Miller, D.,& Chen, M. The simplicity of competitive repertoires:an empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(6),419-439.
[127]Miller, D., Lant,T.K, Milliken, F.J.,& Korn, H. J. The evolution of strategic repertoires:exploring two models of organizational adaptation. Journal of Management,1996,22:863-888.
[128]Miller, D. The architecture of simplicity. Academy of Management Review, 1993,18(1),116-138.
[129]Miller,D.,& Chen,M.The simplicity of competitive repertoires:an empirical analysis. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(6),419-439.
[130]Miller,D., Lant,T.K., Milliken,F.J.,& Korn,H.J. The evolution of strategic repertoires:exploring two models of organizational adaptation. Journal of Management,1996,22(9),863-888.
[131]Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J.,& Cardinal, L.B. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(2),308-326.
[132]Nadkarni, S.,& Narayanan, V. K. Validity of the structural properties of text-based causal maps:an empirical assessment. Organizational Research Methods,2005,8(1),9-40.
[133]Nadkarni, S.,& Narayanan, V. K. Strategic schemas, strategic flexibility and firm performance:the moderating role of industry clockspeed. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(3),243-270.
[134]Nahapiet,J.,& Ghoshal,S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,1998,23(2),242-266.
[135]Nair, A.,& Filer, L. Co-integration of firm strategies within groups:a long-run analysis of firm behavior in the Japanese steel industry. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24,145-159.
[136]Nelson, R. R.,& Winter,S.G. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap Press:Cambridge, MA,1982,124-132.
[137]Nerkar A,& Roberts P.W. Technological and product market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal,2004, Special Issue,25(8-9):779-800.
[138]Noda, T., Bower, J. Strategy making as iterated process of resource allocation. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17 (7),159-192.
[139]Nonaka,I.,& Takeuchi,H. The knowledge creating company. New York:Oxford University Press,1995
[140]O'Reilly, C.A.,& Tushman, M.L. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review,2004,82,74-81.
[141]Oliver, C. Sustainable competitive advantage:Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18,697-713.
[142]Ozcan,P.,& Eisenhardt, K. M. Origin of alliance portfolios:entrepreneurs, network strategies and firm performance. Academy of Management Journal,2009,52(2),246-279.
[143]Park, N.K., Mezias, J.M.,& Song, J.A. Resource-based view of strategic alliances and firm value in the electronic marketplace. Journal of Management, 2004,30(1),7-27.
[144]Park, S.H., Chen, R., Gallagher, S. Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups.Academy of Management Journal,2002,45,527-546.
[145]Parmigiani,A.,& Mitchel,W. Complementary,capabilities, and the boundaries of the firm:the impact of within-firm and interfirm expentise on concurrent sourcing of complementary components, Strategic Management Journal,2009,30(10),1065-1091.
[146]Pisano, G.P. The R&D boundaries of the firm:an empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly,1991,35,153-177.
[147]Pisano, G.P. Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning:an empirical analysis of process development. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15 (1), 85-100.
[148]Porac, J. F.,& Rosa, J.A. In praise of managerial narrow mindedness. Journal of Management Inquiry,1996,5(1),35-42.
[149]Porter, M. E. What is a strategy? Harvard Business Review,1996, November-December,61-78.
[150]Porter, M. Competitive Strategy:Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. Free Press, New York,1980.
[151]Porter, M. What is strategy. Harvard Business Review,1996,74 (6),61-79.
[152]Prahalad,C.K.,& Bettis, R.A. The dominant logic:a new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal,1986,7(6),485-501.
[153]Prencipe A. Technological competencies and products evolutionary dynamics:A case study from the acro engine industry. Research Policy,1997,25(12),1261-1276.
[154]Priem, R.L., Butler, J.E. Is the resource-based "view" a useful perspective for strategic management research? Academy of Management Review,2001,26 (1),22-40.
[155]Provan, K.G. Environment, department power, and strategic decision making in organizations:a proposed integration. Journal of Management,1989,15 (1), 21-35.
[156]Puller, S. L. The strategic use of innovation to influence regulatory standards. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,2006,52,690-706.
[157]Quatraro, F. Knowledge coherence, variety and economic growth: Manufacturing evidence from Italian regions. Research Policy,2010,39, 1289-1302.
[158]Andreu, R.,& Ciborra,C. Organisational learning and core capabilities development:the role of IT, Journal of Strategic Information Systems,1996, 5,111-127
[159]Raisch, S.,& Birkinshaw, J. Organizational ambidexterity:antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management,2008,34 (3),375-409.
[160]Rajagopalan, N.,& Deepaic, K. CEO characteristics:does industry matter? Academy of Management Journal,1996,39,197-215.
[161]Rajagopalan,N.,& Spreitzer, G. Toward theory of strategic change:a multi-lens perspective and integrative framework. Academy of Management Review,1997, 22(1),48-80.
[162]Ram,M.,& Tim,S. Proactive R&D management and firm growth:a punctuated equilibrium model, Research Policy,2011,40,429-440
[163]Rawski, T.G. Chinese industrial reform:accomplishments, prospects and implications. American Economic Review,1994,84,271-275.
[164]Reger,R.K.,& Palmer,T.B. Managerial categorization of competitors:using old maps to navigate new environments. Organization Science,1996,7(1),22-39.
[165]Rivkin, J.W.,& Siggelkow, N.,2003. Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among elements or organizational design. Organization Science 49,290-311.
[166]Grant,R.M. Strategic planning in a turbulent environment:evidence from the oil majors. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24,491-517.
[167]Robertson, T.S.,& Gatignon, H. Technology development mode:transaction cost conceptualization. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19,515-532.
[168]Rodan,S.,& Galunic, C. More than network structure:how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(6):541-563.
[169]Rodrigues,S.B.,& Child,J. Corporate Co-evolution:A Political Perspective. Chichester, West Sussex, England:Wiley,2008
[170]Rosenkopf, L.,& Nerkar,A. Beyond Local search:Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(3),287-306.
[171]Rothaermel, F.T. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via inter-firm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal,2001a.,22, 687-699.
[172]Rothaermel, F.T. Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent's advantage:An empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy,2001b,30 (8),1235-1250.
[173]Rothaermel, F.T.,& Deeds, D.L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology:a system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25,201-221.
[174]Rowley, T., Behrens, D.,& Krackhardt, D. Redundant governance structures:an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal 21,369-386,2000.
[175]Ruiz-Ortega, M.J.,& Garcia-Villaverde, P.M. Capabilities and competitive tactics influences on performance:implications of the moment of entry. Journal of Business Research,2008,61,332-345.
[176]Rumelt, R.P. Strategy, Structure and Economic Performance. Harvard University Press, Boston, MA,1974.
[177| Rychen DS, Salganik LH (eds). Hogrefe & Huber:Seattle, WA; 45-65.
[178]Sanchez. Preparing for uncertain future:managing organizations for strategic flexibility. Int. Studies of Management and Organization,1997,2,71-94.
[179]SanJay, S.,& Harrie V. Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities, Strategic management Journal,2009,19:729-753
[180]Sastry,M.A. Problems and paradoxes in a model of punctuated organizational change. Administrative Science Quarterly.1997,23(3),237-275.
[181]Scherer, F.M., Ross, D. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance.Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA,1990.
[182]Schreiner, M., Kale, P.,& Corsten, D.,2009. What really is alliance management capability and how does it impact alliance outcomes and success? Strategic Management Journal 30,1395-1419.
[183]Schreyo,G.,& Eberl, M. K. How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards adual-process model of capability dynamization. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28,913-933.
[184]Scott, D. J., Joeseph, C. O.,& Dankwa, R.T. Understanding strategic responses to interest group pressures, Strategic Management Journal,2008,29:963-984.
[185]Scott, J. E. Facilitating inter-organizational learning with information technology. Journal of Management Information Systems,2000,17(2):81-113.
[186]Shane,S. Prior knowledge and discovery of entrepreneurial activities. Organization Science,2000,11(4),448-469.
[187]Sharfman, M.P.,& Dean, J.W. Conceptualizing and measuring the organizational environment:a multidimensional approach. Journal of Management,1991,17(4),681-700.
[188]Smith,K.G, Collins,C.J.,& Clark,K.D. Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology Firms.Academy of Management Journal,2005,32 (2),346-357.
[189]Soh, P.,& Roberts, E.B. Networks of innovators:a longitudinal perspective.Research Policy,2003,32 (9),1569-1588.
[190]Spanos, Y.E., Zaralis, G., Lioukas, S. Strategy and industry effects on profitability:evidence from Greece. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25, 139-166.
[191]StabelI,C. Integrative complexity of environment perception and information use:an empirical investigation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,1978,22(2),116-142.
[192]Sterman,J.D. Business dynamics:systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston et al:Irwin McGraw-Hill.2000,110.
[193]Stinchcombe, A.L. Social structure and organizations. In:March, J.G. (Ed.),Handbook of Organizations. Rand McNally, Chicago,1965,153-193.
[194]Stuart, T.E., Hoang. H.,& Hybels, R.C. Inter-organizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999,44,315-349.
[195]Sutton, J. Gibrat's legacy. Journal of Economic Literature,,1997,35,40-59.
[196]Suzana B. Rodrigues and John Child.Corporate Co-evolution:A Political Perspective. Chichester, West Sussex, England:Wiley,2008.
[197]Szeto,l Innovation capacity:working towards a mechanism for improving innovation within an inter-organizational network. The TQM Magazine,2000,12 (2),149-158.
[198]Teece,D.J.,Pisano,G.,Shuen,A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7),509-533.
[199]Teece,D.J. Explicating dynamic capabilities:the nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise performance. Strategic management Journal,2007,28(13),1319-1350.
[200]Thomas,J.B., Clark,S.M., Gioia,D.A. Strategic sensemaking and organizational performance:linkages among scanning, interpretation, action and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal,1993,36(3),239-270.
[201]Thompson, J.D.,1967. Organizations in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.
[202]Tidd J. Measuring strategic competencies:technological, market and organizational indicators of innovation. Imperial College Press, London,2000
[203]Todorova, G.,& Durisin, B. Absorptive Capacity:Valuing a Reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review,2007,32(3),774-786.
[204]Tripsas M, Gavetti G. Capabilities, cognition, and inertia:evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal,2000, Special Issue 21(10-11): 1147-1161.
[205]Tsai,W. Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks:effect of network position and intra-organizational networks:effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit Innovation and performance.Academy of Managements Journal,2001,44(5),996-1004.
[206]Tushman, M.L., Newman,W.H.,& Romanelli, E. Convergence and upheaval: managing the unsteady pace of organizational evolution. California Management Review,1986,24(1):29-44.
[207]Tushman, M.L.,& Anderson, P. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986,31, 439-465.
[208]Volberda,H.W. et al. Absorbing the concept of absorptive capacity:How to Realize Its Potential in the Organization Field. Organization Science, 2010,21(4):931-951.
[209]Volberda. Structural differentiation and ambidexterity:The mediating role of integration mechanisms, Organization Science,2009,20(4),797-811.
[210]Wally,S., Baum,J.R. Personal and structural determinants of the pace of strategic decision making. Academy of Management Journal,1994,37(4),932-956.
[211]Walsh JP. Selectivity and selective perception:an investigation of managers' belief structures. Academy of Management Journal,1988,31,973-896.
[212]WalshJ.P. Managerial and organizational cognition:Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science,1995,6(3),280-321.
[213]Wang,C.L.,& P.K.Ahmed. Dynamic capabilities:A review and research agenda,international journal of management reviews,2007,9(1),9-31.
[214]Weick KE, Roberts KH.1993. Collective mind in organizations:heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly 38(3):357-381.
[215]Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM (eds).2001. Managing the Unexpected:Assuring High-Performance in an Age of Complexity. Jossey-Bass:San Francisco, CA.
[216]Weick KE. Organization design:organizations as self-designing systems. Organizational Dynamics,1977,6(1),31-46.
[217]Weick KE. The collapse of sensemaking in organizations:the Man Gulch disaster. Harvard Business Review,1993,38(4),628-652.
[218]Weick,K.E.Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage:Thousand Oaks, CA,1995.
[219]Weinert FE.2001. Concept of competence:a conceptual clarification. In Defining and Selecting Key Competencies. Strategic Management Journal,2001,32(1),23-34.
[220]Wernerfelt B.1984. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 5(2),171-180.
[221]Westphal JP, Bednar MK. Pluralistic ignorance in corporate boards and firm's strategic persistence to low firm performance. Administrative Science Quaterly, 2005,32(2),123-135.
[222]Williams JR. Strategy and the search for rents:the evolution of diversity among firms. In Fundamental Issues in Strategy, Rumelt R, Schendel DE, Teece DJ (eds). Harvard Business School Press:Boston, MA,1994,229-246.
[223]Williamson,O.E.New York:Markets and Hierarchies. Free Press,1975
[224]Winter SG. The satisficing principle in capability learning. StrategicManagement Journal, Special Issue,2000,21(10-11):981-996.
[225]Winter SG. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 2003,24(10):991-995.
[226]Wittenberg,J. On the very idea of a system dynamics model of Kuhnian science. System Dynamics Review,1992,8(1),21-33.
[227]Yam,R.C.M., Esther,W., Tang,P.Y,& Lau,A.K.W. An audit of technological innovation capabilities in Chinese firms:some empirical findings in Beijing, China. Research policy,2004,33(12),1123-1140.
[228]Yan, A.,& Gray, B.1994. "Bargaining Power, Management Control and Performance in U.S.-Chinese Joint Ventures:A Comparative Case Study." Academy of management journal 37(6),11-34.
[229]Yin,R, Case study research:design and methods, Thousands Oaks:Sage Publications,2003.
[230]Zahra, S. A.,& George, G. Absorptive Capacity:A Review, Reconceptualization and Extension. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2),185-203.
[231]Zhang,Y.,& Li,H. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties with service intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal,2010, 31(1):88-109.
[232]安东内利.创新经济学：新技术与结构变迁.刘刚等译。北京：高等教育出版社,2006.
[233]陈光.企业内部协同创新研究.博士学位论文.西南交通大学,2005.
[234]陈建勋,朱蓉,吴隆增.内部社会资本对技术创新的影响：知识创造的中介作用.科学学与科学技术管理,2008,5,90-93.
[235]陈力田.战略和愿景提升中小企业创新能力机制研究.管理工程学报,2009,23,18-23.
[236]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放式创新：机理与模式.北京：科学出版社,2008.
[237]程德俊,赵曙明.高参与工作系统与企业绩效：人力资本专用性和环境动态性的影响.管理世界,2006,3,86-93.
[238]葛沪飞,仝允桓,高旭东.企业自主研发选择差异及其影响因素实证研究.研究与发展管理,2010,22(4)：10-19.
[239]郭斌.基于核心能力的企业组合创新理论与实证研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,1998.
[240]郭水文.3G时代通信网络服务市场的竞争.中国科技论坛,2011,4(4),121-127.
[241]江旭,高山行.知识积累与获取对企业创新的交互作用研究.研究与发展管理,2010,22(6),8-14.
[242]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.管理世界,2011,4,122-137.
[243]焦丹琳.从孔茨的风险决策理论管窥.UT的非程序化决策.理论探讨,2010,188-189.
[244]焦豪.企业动态能力、环境动态性与绩效关系的实证研究.软科学,2008,22(4),112-117.
[245]康慧娟.朗讯科技公司产品导向型管理的失败案例分析.工商管理硕士学位论文,兰州大学,2008.
[246]刘益,李垣,汪应洛.柔性战略的理论,分析方法及其应用.中国人民大学出版社,2005.
[247]卢兵,岳亮,廖貅武.组织通过外部学习进行隐性知识转移的模型研究.系统工程理论与实践,2006,10,35-43.
[248]陆园园,郑刚.基于复杂性理论的企业创新要素协同研究.科技进步与对策,2009,26(2),66-70.
[249]吕中,二线品牌手机企业的成败分析,硕士学位论文,厦门大学,2006.
[250]马庆国.管理统计：数据获取、统计原理、SPSS工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2006.
[251]马文聪,朱桂龙.环境动态性对技术创新与绩效关系的调节作用.科学学研究,2010,29(3)：454-460.
[252]毛武兴,闫同柱,刘景江,许庆瑞.我国企业核心能力的培育与提高：战略、路径与案例研究,科研管理,2004,25(2),37-43.
[253]钱锡红,杨永福,徐万里.企业网络位置、吸收能力与创新绩效,《管理世界》,2010,5,118-129.
[254]任宗强.基于创新网络协同提升企业创新能力的机制与规律研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2012.
[255]松铁波,曾萍.多重制度压力与企业合法性倾向选择：一个理论模型.软科学,2011,4,112-116.
[256]王超,穆东.基于SD的制造企业物流运作成本仿真与优化.系统工程理论与实践.2012,32(6)：1241-1250.
[257]王慧.企业集团内部的知识协同研究[D].山东大学,2009.
[258]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.
[259]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.
[260]吴隆增,简兆权.组织学习、知识创造与新产品开发绩效的关系研究.科技进步与对策,2008,25(1),110-113.
[261]吴明隆.问卷统计分析实务一SPSS操作与应用.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.
[262]徐二明,张晗.企业知识吸收能力与绩效的关系研究.管理学报,2008,11,841-848.
[263]许庆瑞.全面创新管理-理论与实践.北京：科学出版社,2007.
[264]许小火.兴衰诺基亚.营销个案,2010,72-75.
[265]杨燕,高山行.创新驱动、自主性与创新绩效的关系实证研究,科学学研究,2011,29(10),1568-1576.
[266]张明,江旭,高山行.战略联盟中组织学习、知识创造与创新绩效的实证研究,科学学研究,2008,26(4),868-873.
[267]张浩,彭纪生.承诺型人力资源实践与创新绩效的作用机制-知识创造能 力的中介作用.科技情报开发与经济,2009,19(26),185-201.
[268]张媛媛,张宗益.创新环境、创新能力与创新绩效的系统性研究-基于面板数据的经验分析,科技管理研究,2009,1(12),91-96.
[269]赵西萍,张长征,张伟伟.知识流失风险因素识别与控制.科研管理,2004,25(6),80-84.
[270]赵晓庆.浙商创新能力提升的模式,浙江大学出版社,2011.
[271]郑刚.基于TIM视角的企业技术创新过程中各要素全面协同机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[272]周泯非.集群治理与集群学习间关系及共同演化研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2011,128-130.
[273]朱建忠.我国制造企业面向产品.的技术集成机理研究.博士论文,浙江大学,2009,99-100.
[274]朱秀梅.知识溢出、吸收能力对高新技术产业集群创新的影响研究.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2006.