开放式创新中合作伙伴异质性对创新绩效的影响机制研究
|
摘要
开放式创新是创新管理理论和实践的重要发展方向,为企业有效利用和整合外部创新资源,提高创新绩效提供了一种全新的模式。然而,现有文献对开放式创新的研究发现企业开放度与创新绩效之间存在倒U型曲线关系,搜索成本和技术溢出会导致高水平的开放度不利于企业的创新。因此,企业只能保持适当水平的开放度,开放式创新对企业创新绩效的促进作用受到了限制。
本文认为,解决这一问题的关键是选择异质性的合作伙伴。开放度的概念虽然讨论了合作伙伴的“量”对创新绩效的影响,但是忽略了对合作伙伴“质”的讨论。随着开放度的提高,同质性的合作伙伴为企业提供的知识存在重叠,企业为搜索新的合作伙伴支付了成本,但获得的外部知识却可能是企业内部或其他合作伙伴已有的知识；此外,同质性的合作伙伴之间由于技术背景、产业背景和产品之间的相似性,更容易在合作过程中发生技术溢出的可能。因此,在开放式创新中必须更重视对合作伙伴异质性的研究。
在此背景下,本研究综合运用资源观理论、组织学习理论和交易成本理论,围绕“合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效的影响机制”这一核心问题展开研究。具体而言,本研究由浅至深提出以下研究问题：(1)合作伙伴异质性的内涵和维度是什么?(2)合作伙伴异质性和企业创新绩效之间有什么样的关系?(3)环境动态性下合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效的影响有何不同?(4)合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效有什么样的影响机制?
本文综合运用理论研究、探索性案例分析、层次回归分析和结构方程模型等研究方法,通过定性研究和定量研究相结合,对上述问题展开深入研究,主要得出以下研究结论：
(1)合作伙伴异质性是指开放式创新中的合作伙伴在知识、技术、能力等方面的差异化和多样化程度。结合理论演绎和案例解释,本研究将合作伙伴异质性分为组织异质性、产业异质性和国家异质性三个维度,并且基于Blau指数提出了对合作伙伴异质性的科学测量方法,为后续实证研究奠定了基础。
(2)合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效有积极的影响作用。通过对217家制造业企业的问卷调研和大样本实证研究,本文发现合作伙伴的组织异质性、产业异质性和国家异质性都对企业创新绩效有显著的促进作用。具体而言,尽管异质性的合作伙伴需要企业在开放式创新中付出更多的搜索成本和管理成本,但是合作伙伴带来的异质性的创新资源,以及合作过程对企业学习能力的促进作用,可以显著提高企业的创新绩效。
(3)环境动态性是影响合作伙伴异质性与企业创新绩效的重要情境因素。研究结果表明,技术动荡性正向调节组织异质性和国家异质性与创新绩效的关系。市场动荡性在国家异质性与创新绩效的关系中也起到了正向调节作用。但是,技术动荡性和市场动荡性对产业异质性与创新绩效关系的调节效应不显著。结果表明,在技术发展变化较快的环境中,与知识合作伙伴及国际同行之间的创新合作能够弱化技术动荡带来的不利影响,增加企业获得前沿知识和先进技术的机会：在市场环境变化较快的环境中,国际化的创新合作可以为企业开拓更多的市场和机会。
(4)组织学习能力对合作伙伴异质性和创新绩效关系有显著的中介作用。研究结果表明,探索式学习和开发式学习对组织异质性和创新绩效有完全中介作用,表明组织异质性通过组织学习能力间接作用于创新绩效；其次,探索式学习和开发式学习对国家异质性和创新绩效有部分中介作用,表明国家异质性对创新绩效有直接作用,同时通过组织学习能力间接作用于创新绩效；最后,产业异质性与创新绩效之间只受到探索式学习的部分中介作用,表明产业异质性对创新绩效有直接作用,同时只通过探索式学习间接作用于创新绩效。
上述研究结论深化了合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效影响机制的理解,使得本研究具有了一定的探索意义。总的来说,本研究在以下三个方面进行了深化和拓展：
(1)对合作伙伴异质性的概念进行了有益的梳理和提炼。研究通过严密的理论分析提出开放式创新中的合作伙伴异质性的概念内涵,并为后续研究提供了可靠的测量工具，为合作伙伴异质性的定量研究奠定基础。此外,现有文献对合作伙伴异质性的维度划分仍然没有统一的共识,本研究在对相关文献的整理基础上,将开放式创新中的合作伙伴异质性区分为组织异质性、产业异质性和国家异质性三个构成维度,为开放式创新中合作伙伴异质性的理论研究做出有利的探索。
(2)深化了合作伙伴异质性促进企业创新的新观点。现有文献对开放式创新的研究表明企业开放度对创新绩效的促进作用存在局限,过度开放不利于创新。本研究在此基础上提出,解决这一问题的关键是重视合作伙伴的异质性。研究以中国制造业企业为样本,通过实证方法检验了组织异质性、产业异质性和国家异质性对企业创新绩效的正向效应,并系统地研究不同的外部环境动态性情境下合作伙伴异质性影响创新绩效的关系机制,有利于深入理解合作伙伴异质性对创新绩效的影响机制,突破了开放式创新不能过度开放的局限性。
(3)基于组织学习理论为开放式创新提供新视角。本研究在资源观理论和交易成本理论的基础上进一步整合了组织学习理论的基本观点,强调合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效的长远影响,进一步丰富了开放式创新中合作伙伴异质性研究的理论视角,为有效地应对开放式创新中外部合作伙伴的选择问题提供了新的研究视角和研究路径。
Open innovation is an important developing direction for the innovation management theory and practice, which provides a completely novel model for firms to effectively utilize and integrate external innovation resources and improve their innovation performance. However, existing researches on open innovation found an inverted U-shaped relationship between openness and innovation performance. Because of searching costs and technology spillover, a high level of openness is not conducive to innovation performance. Therefore, firms need to keep a moderate level of openness and the benefit from open innovation is limited.
We believe that the key of resolving this problem is partner heterogeneity. The concept of openness discussed the effect of 'quantity' of external partners on innovation performance, rather ignored the important role of the 'quality' of partners in open innovation. With the increasing openness, knowledge from homogeneity partner has overlap. Firms paid costs to acquire knowledge, but they or other partners may have already had this knowledge. Addition, because of the similarity of technology background, industry background and products, the technology spillover may occur easily between homogeneous partners. Therefore, researches on open innovation must pay more attention to partner heterogeneity.
In this context, we therefore center our research on the core issue of'The Mechanism of Partner Heterogeneity Affecting Innovative Performance'based on resource-based view, organizational learning theory and transaction cost theory. Specifically, our research explores the following questions from the shallower to the deeper:(1) what is the connotation and dimensions of partner heterogeneity?(2) what kind of relationship is between partner heterogeneity and firm innovative performance?(3) how does the effect of partner heterogeneity on innovation performance with environmental turbulence?(4) what are the mechanism of partner heterogeneity impacting on innovative performance?
All around these above issues, this article comprehensively utilizes theoretical research, exploratory case analysis, hierarchical regression analysis and structural equation modeling and other research methods, through combination of qualitative and quantitative research, and mainly drives to the following conclusions:
(1) Partner heterogeneity refers to the differentiation and diversification of partners in knowledge, skills, abilities and some other aspects in open innovation. Combining with theoretical interpretation and case explanation, this research divides partner heterogeneity into three dimensions including organizational heterogeneity, industry heterogeneity and national heterogeneity. Also, based on Blau index, we propose a scientific method for measurement of partner heterogeneity, which lays a solid foundation for subsequent empirical researches.
(2) Partner heterogeneity has a positive influence on innovative performance. Through the questionnaire survey and large-sample empirical research on217manufacturing firms, we find that partner organizational heterogeneity, industry heterogeneity and national heterogeneity all have a significant role in promoting innovation performance. Specifically, despite partner heterogeneity requires firms to pay higher searching and management costs in open innovation, but the heterogeneous innovative resources of partners and the promotion to learning ability of firms in the cooperation process can significantly improve the innovation performance.
(3) The effect of partner heterogeneity on innovation performance is influenced by environmental turbulence. The results show that technology turbulence positively and significantly impact the relationship between organizational heterogeneity and innovation performance, and also between national heterogeneity and innovation performance. Market turbulence also plays a positive moderate role in relationship between national heterogeneity and innovation performance. However, technology turbulence and market turbulence do not significant affect the relationship between industry heterogeneity and innovation performance. The results show that in a circumstance that technology develops and changes rapidly, innovative cooperation with knowledge partners and international counterparts can moderate the adverse effects of technology instability and increase access to cutting-edge knowledge and advanced technology; in a circumstance that market develops and changes rapidly, international innovative cooperation can open up more markets and opportunities for firms.
(4) Organizational learning capability plays a significant intermediary role in relevance between partner heterogeneity and innovation performance. First, the results show that organizational heterogeneity has indirect and positive impact on firm's innovation performance through the mediating role of exploratory learning and exploitative learning. Second, national heterogeneity has direct and positive impact on firm's innovation performance, and also has indirect and positive effect on innovation performance through the mediating role of exploratory learning and exploitative learning; Finally, industry heterogeneity has direct and positive impact on firm's innovation performance, but has indirect and positive effect on innovation performance only through the mediating role of exploratory learning.
These above conclusions have improved the understanding of the mechanism of how partner heterogeneity affects innovation performance and endowed this research some exploration significance. Overall, this study deepens and expands in the following three aspects:
(1) A beneficial summary and refining of the conception of partner heterogeneity. Through rigorous theoretical analysis, our research has proposed the connotation and concept of partner heterogeneity in open innovation, which provides a reliable measurement tool for follow-up studies and lays a solid foundation for quantitative study of partner heterogeneity. In addition, existing studies have not reached a consensus on dividing the dimensions of partner heterogeneity. Based on relevant literature, this study divides partner heterogeneity in open innovation into three constituent dimensions including organizational heterogeneity, industry heterogeneity and national heterogeneity, which makes a favorable exploration of partner heterogeneity theory in open innovation.
(2) Expansion of the new idea that partner heterogeneity promotes firm innovation. The problem what kind of impact different dimensions of partner heterogeneity will produce on innovation performance is critical to business decision makers in open innovation. However, existing studies have not conducted systematic research on this problem. This research takes Chinese manufacturing firms as study samples, examines effects of organizational heterogeneity, industry heterogeneity and national heterogeneity on innovation performance through empirical methods, and systematically studies the mechanisms how partner heterogeneity affects innovation performance under different external environmental turbulences. This is conducive to in-depth understanding of mechanism of partner heterogeneity impacting innovation performance and expansion of open innovation.
(3) Organizational learning theory provides a new perspective for open innovation. This study has further integrated basic perspectives of organizational learning based on previous resource-based view and transaction cost theory emphasizing the long-term effect of partner heterogeneity on innovative performance, and has further enriched the perspectives of partner heterogeneity theoretical research in open innovation, which provides a new perspective and research paths to the selection of external partner in open innovation.
本文认为,解决这一问题的关键是选择异质性的合作伙伴。开放度的概念虽然讨论了合作伙伴的“量”对创新绩效的影响,但是忽略了对合作伙伴“质”的讨论。随着开放度的提高,同质性的合作伙伴为企业提供的知识存在重叠,企业为搜索新的合作伙伴支付了成本,但获得的外部知识却可能是企业内部或其他合作伙伴已有的知识；此外,同质性的合作伙伴之间由于技术背景、产业背景和产品之间的相似性,更容易在合作过程中发生技术溢出的可能。因此,在开放式创新中必须更重视对合作伙伴异质性的研究。
在此背景下,本研究综合运用资源观理论、组织学习理论和交易成本理论,围绕“合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效的影响机制”这一核心问题展开研究。具体而言,本研究由浅至深提出以下研究问题：(1)合作伙伴异质性的内涵和维度是什么?(2)合作伙伴异质性和企业创新绩效之间有什么样的关系?(3)环境动态性下合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效的影响有何不同?(4)合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效有什么样的影响机制?
本文综合运用理论研究、探索性案例分析、层次回归分析和结构方程模型等研究方法,通过定性研究和定量研究相结合,对上述问题展开深入研究,主要得出以下研究结论：
(1)合作伙伴异质性是指开放式创新中的合作伙伴在知识、技术、能力等方面的差异化和多样化程度。结合理论演绎和案例解释,本研究将合作伙伴异质性分为组织异质性、产业异质性和国家异质性三个维度,并且基于Blau指数提出了对合作伙伴异质性的科学测量方法,为后续实证研究奠定了基础。
(2)合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效有积极的影响作用。通过对217家制造业企业的问卷调研和大样本实证研究,本文发现合作伙伴的组织异质性、产业异质性和国家异质性都对企业创新绩效有显著的促进作用。具体而言,尽管异质性的合作伙伴需要企业在开放式创新中付出更多的搜索成本和管理成本,但是合作伙伴带来的异质性的创新资源,以及合作过程对企业学习能力的促进作用,可以显著提高企业的创新绩效。
(3)环境动态性是影响合作伙伴异质性与企业创新绩效的重要情境因素。研究结果表明,技术动荡性正向调节组织异质性和国家异质性与创新绩效的关系。市场动荡性在国家异质性与创新绩效的关系中也起到了正向调节作用。但是,技术动荡性和市场动荡性对产业异质性与创新绩效关系的调节效应不显著。结果表明,在技术发展变化较快的环境中,与知识合作伙伴及国际同行之间的创新合作能够弱化技术动荡带来的不利影响,增加企业获得前沿知识和先进技术的机会：在市场环境变化较快的环境中,国际化的创新合作可以为企业开拓更多的市场和机会。
(4)组织学习能力对合作伙伴异质性和创新绩效关系有显著的中介作用。研究结果表明,探索式学习和开发式学习对组织异质性和创新绩效有完全中介作用,表明组织异质性通过组织学习能力间接作用于创新绩效；其次,探索式学习和开发式学习对国家异质性和创新绩效有部分中介作用,表明国家异质性对创新绩效有直接作用,同时通过组织学习能力间接作用于创新绩效；最后,产业异质性与创新绩效之间只受到探索式学习的部分中介作用,表明产业异质性对创新绩效有直接作用,同时只通过探索式学习间接作用于创新绩效。
上述研究结论深化了合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效影响机制的理解,使得本研究具有了一定的探索意义。总的来说,本研究在以下三个方面进行了深化和拓展：
(1)对合作伙伴异质性的概念进行了有益的梳理和提炼。研究通过严密的理论分析提出开放式创新中的合作伙伴异质性的概念内涵,并为后续研究提供了可靠的测量工具，为合作伙伴异质性的定量研究奠定基础。此外,现有文献对合作伙伴异质性的维度划分仍然没有统一的共识,本研究在对相关文献的整理基础上,将开放式创新中的合作伙伴异质性区分为组织异质性、产业异质性和国家异质性三个构成维度,为开放式创新中合作伙伴异质性的理论研究做出有利的探索。
(2)深化了合作伙伴异质性促进企业创新的新观点。现有文献对开放式创新的研究表明企业开放度对创新绩效的促进作用存在局限,过度开放不利于创新。本研究在此基础上提出,解决这一问题的关键是重视合作伙伴的异质性。研究以中国制造业企业为样本,通过实证方法检验了组织异质性、产业异质性和国家异质性对企业创新绩效的正向效应,并系统地研究不同的外部环境动态性情境下合作伙伴异质性影响创新绩效的关系机制,有利于深入理解合作伙伴异质性对创新绩效的影响机制,突破了开放式创新不能过度开放的局限性。
(3)基于组织学习理论为开放式创新提供新视角。本研究在资源观理论和交易成本理论的基础上进一步整合了组织学习理论的基本观点,强调合作伙伴异质性对企业创新绩效的长远影响,进一步丰富了开放式创新中合作伙伴异质性研究的理论视角,为有效地应对开放式创新中外部合作伙伴的选择问题提供了新的研究视角和研究路径。
Open innovation is an important developing direction for the innovation management theory and practice, which provides a completely novel model for firms to effectively utilize and integrate external innovation resources and improve their innovation performance. However, existing researches on open innovation found an inverted U-shaped relationship between openness and innovation performance. Because of searching costs and technology spillover, a high level of openness is not conducive to innovation performance. Therefore, firms need to keep a moderate level of openness and the benefit from open innovation is limited.
We believe that the key of resolving this problem is partner heterogeneity. The concept of openness discussed the effect of 'quantity' of external partners on innovation performance, rather ignored the important role of the 'quality' of partners in open innovation. With the increasing openness, knowledge from homogeneity partner has overlap. Firms paid costs to acquire knowledge, but they or other partners may have already had this knowledge. Addition, because of the similarity of technology background, industry background and products, the technology spillover may occur easily between homogeneous partners. Therefore, researches on open innovation must pay more attention to partner heterogeneity.
In this context, we therefore center our research on the core issue of'The Mechanism of Partner Heterogeneity Affecting Innovative Performance'based on resource-based view, organizational learning theory and transaction cost theory. Specifically, our research explores the following questions from the shallower to the deeper:(1) what is the connotation and dimensions of partner heterogeneity?(2) what kind of relationship is between partner heterogeneity and firm innovative performance?(3) how does the effect of partner heterogeneity on innovation performance with environmental turbulence?(4) what are the mechanism of partner heterogeneity impacting on innovative performance?
All around these above issues, this article comprehensively utilizes theoretical research, exploratory case analysis, hierarchical regression analysis and structural equation modeling and other research methods, through combination of qualitative and quantitative research, and mainly drives to the following conclusions:
(1) Partner heterogeneity refers to the differentiation and diversification of partners in knowledge, skills, abilities and some other aspects in open innovation. Combining with theoretical interpretation and case explanation, this research divides partner heterogeneity into three dimensions including organizational heterogeneity, industry heterogeneity and national heterogeneity. Also, based on Blau index, we propose a scientific method for measurement of partner heterogeneity, which lays a solid foundation for subsequent empirical researches.
(2) Partner heterogeneity has a positive influence on innovative performance. Through the questionnaire survey and large-sample empirical research on217manufacturing firms, we find that partner organizational heterogeneity, industry heterogeneity and national heterogeneity all have a significant role in promoting innovation performance. Specifically, despite partner heterogeneity requires firms to pay higher searching and management costs in open innovation, but the heterogeneous innovative resources of partners and the promotion to learning ability of firms in the cooperation process can significantly improve the innovation performance.
(3) The effect of partner heterogeneity on innovation performance is influenced by environmental turbulence. The results show that technology turbulence positively and significantly impact the relationship between organizational heterogeneity and innovation performance, and also between national heterogeneity and innovation performance. Market turbulence also plays a positive moderate role in relationship between national heterogeneity and innovation performance. However, technology turbulence and market turbulence do not significant affect the relationship between industry heterogeneity and innovation performance. The results show that in a circumstance that technology develops and changes rapidly, innovative cooperation with knowledge partners and international counterparts can moderate the adverse effects of technology instability and increase access to cutting-edge knowledge and advanced technology; in a circumstance that market develops and changes rapidly, international innovative cooperation can open up more markets and opportunities for firms.
(4) Organizational learning capability plays a significant intermediary role in relevance between partner heterogeneity and innovation performance. First, the results show that organizational heterogeneity has indirect and positive impact on firm's innovation performance through the mediating role of exploratory learning and exploitative learning. Second, national heterogeneity has direct and positive impact on firm's innovation performance, and also has indirect and positive effect on innovation performance through the mediating role of exploratory learning and exploitative learning; Finally, industry heterogeneity has direct and positive impact on firm's innovation performance, but has indirect and positive effect on innovation performance only through the mediating role of exploratory learning.
These above conclusions have improved the understanding of the mechanism of how partner heterogeneity affects innovation performance and endowed this research some exploration significance. Overall, this study deepens and expands in the following three aspects:
(1) A beneficial summary and refining of the conception of partner heterogeneity. Through rigorous theoretical analysis, our research has proposed the connotation and concept of partner heterogeneity in open innovation, which provides a reliable measurement tool for follow-up studies and lays a solid foundation for quantitative study of partner heterogeneity. In addition, existing studies have not reached a consensus on dividing the dimensions of partner heterogeneity. Based on relevant literature, this study divides partner heterogeneity in open innovation into three constituent dimensions including organizational heterogeneity, industry heterogeneity and national heterogeneity, which makes a favorable exploration of partner heterogeneity theory in open innovation.
(2) Expansion of the new idea that partner heterogeneity promotes firm innovation. The problem what kind of impact different dimensions of partner heterogeneity will produce on innovation performance is critical to business decision makers in open innovation. However, existing studies have not conducted systematic research on this problem. This research takes Chinese manufacturing firms as study samples, examines effects of organizational heterogeneity, industry heterogeneity and national heterogeneity on innovation performance through empirical methods, and systematically studies the mechanisms how partner heterogeneity affects innovation performance under different external environmental turbulences. This is conducive to in-depth understanding of mechanism of partner heterogeneity impacting innovation performance and expansion of open innovation.
(3) Organizational learning theory provides a new perspective for open innovation. This study has further integrated basic perspectives of organizational learning based on previous resource-based view and transaction cost theory emphasizing the long-term effect of partner heterogeneity on innovative performance, and has further enriched the perspectives of partner heterogeneity theoretical research in open innovation, which provides a new perspective and research paths to the selection of external partner in open innovation.
引文
[1]Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., Levine, D. I. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization science,1999,10 (1):43-68.
[2]Agrawal, A. K. University-to-industry knowledge transfer:literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2003,3 (4):285-302.
[3]Aharoni, Y. The foreign investment decision process. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1966.
[4]Ahlstrom, D. Innovation and growth:How business contributes to society. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2010,24 (3):11-24.
[5]Ahuja, G. The duality of collaboration:Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic management journal,2000,21(3): 317-343.
[6]Ahuja, G., Katila, R. Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms:A longitudinal study. Strategic management journal,2001, 22 (3):197-220.
[7]Ahuja, G., Katila, R. Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic management journal,2004,25 (8-9): 887-907.
[8]Alegre, J., Lapiedra, R., Chiva, R. A measurement scale for product innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management,2006,9 (4): 333-346.
[9]Alegre, J., Chiva, R. Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance:An empirical test. Technovation,2008, 28 (6):315-326.
[10]Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., Salter, A. Does IP strategy have to cripple open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,2009,51 (1):71-77.
[11]Allen, R. C. Collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,1983,4(1):1-24.
[12]Alter, C., Hage, J. Organizations working together:Sage Publications Newbury Park, CA,1993.
[13]Amit, R., Schoemaker, P. J. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic management journal,1993,14 (1):33-46.
[14]Arbussa, A., Coenders, G. Innovation activities, use of appropriation instruments and absorptive capacity: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research policy,2007,36 (10):1545-1558.
[15]Argyris, C., Schon, D. Organizational Learning:A theory of action perspective. Massachusetts:Addision Wesley Reading,1978.
[16]Arora, A., Arunachalam, V. S., Asundi, J., Fernandes, R. The Indian software services industry. Research policy,2001,30 (8):1267-1287.
[17]Arora, A., Gambardella, A. Ideas for rent:an overview of markets for technology. Industrial and corporate change,2010,19 (3):775-803.
[18]Arrow, K. J. The economic implications of learning by doing. The review of economic studies,1962,29 (3):155-173.
[19]Atuahene-Gima, K. Resolving the Capability-Rigidity Paradox in New Product Innovation. Journal of Marketing,2005,69 (4):61-83.
[20]Atuahene-Gima, K., Li, H., De Luca, L. M. The contingent value of marketing strategy innovativeness for product development performance in Chinese new technology ventures. Industrial Marketing Management,2006, 35 (3):359-372.
[21]Atuahene-Gima, K., Murray, J. Y. Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development:a social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing,2007,15 (2):1-29.
[22]Baden-Fuller, C., Volberda, H. W. Strategic Renewal in Large Complex Organizations:A Competence Based View. In A. Heene & R. Sanchez (Eds.), Competence-Based Strategic Management. Chichester:Wiley & Sons,1997: 89-110.
[23]Baker, W. E. Market networks and corporate behavior. American journal of sociology,1990,96 (3):589-625.
[24]Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., Von Hippel, E. How user innovations become commercial products:A theoretical investigation and case study. Research policy,2006,35 (9):1291-1313.
[25]Barkema, H. G., Bell, J. H., Pennings, J. Foreign entry, cultural barriers and learning. Strategic management journal,1996,17 (2):151-166.
[26]Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management,1991,17 (1):99-120.
[27]Barney, J. B. Strategic factor markets:expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management science,1986,32 (10):1231-1241.
[28]Barney, J. B. How a firm's capabilities affect boundary decisions. Sloan Management Review,1999,40 (3):137-145.
[29]Beamish, P. W., Lupton, N. C. Managing joint ventures. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2009,23 (2):75-94.
[30]Becker, G. S. Investment in human capital:A theoretical analysis. The journal of political economy,1962,70 (5):9-49.
[31]Beckman, C.M., Haunschild, P. R., Phillips, D. J. Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization science,2004,15 (3):259-275.
[32]Beckman, C. M. The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management journal,2006,49 (4):741-758.
[33]Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B. Complementarity in R&D cooperation strategies. Review of Industrial Organization,2006,28 (4):401-426.
[34]Benner, M. J., Tushman, M. L. Exploitation, exploration, and process management:The productivity dilemma revisited. The Academy of Management Review,2003,28 (2):238-256.
[35]Blau, P. M. Inequality and heterogeneity:A primitive theory of social structure: Free Press New York,1977.
[36]Bogers, M., Afuah, A., Bastian, B. Users as innovators:a review, critique, and future research directions. Journal of management,2010,36 (4):857-875.
[37]Brady, T., Davies, A. Building project capabilities:from exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization studies,2004,25 (9):1601-1621.
[38]Branzei, O. Product innovation in heterogeneous R&D networks pathways to exploration and exploitation. University of British Columbia,2004.
[39]Brown, S. L., Eisenhardt, K. M. Competing on the edge:Strategy as structured chaos:Harvard Business Press,1998.
[40]Bruyaka, O. Alliance Partner Diversity and Biotech Firms'Exit:Differing Effects on Dissolution versus Divestment. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings,2008.
[41]Buckley, P. J., Casson, M. The future of the multinational enterprise: Macmillan London,1976.
[42]Burgers, W. P., Hill, C. W., Kim, W. C. A theory of global strategic alliances:the case of the global auto industry. Strategic management journal, 1993,14 (6):419-432.
[43]Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., Tsakanikas, A. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources:complements or substitutes for innovative performance?. Technovation,2004,24 (1):29-39.
[44]Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., Zhang, H. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization science, 2009,20 (4):781-796.
[45]Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy:internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management science,2006,52 (1):68-82.
[46]Chesbrough, H. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2003a,44 (3):35-41.
[47]Chesbrough, H. Open innovation:The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology:Harvard Business Press,2003b.
[48]Chesbrough, H. Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management,2004,47 (1):23-26.
[49]Chesbrough, H., Crowther, A. K. Beyond high tech:early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management,2006,36(3):229-236.
[50]Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. Open innovation:Researching a new paradigm. New York:Oxford University Press,2006.
[51]Chesbrough, H., Schwartz, K. Innovating business models with co-development partnerships. Research-Technology Management,2007,50 (1):55-59.
[52]Chesbrough, H. W. Open Business Models:How To Thrive In The New Innovation Landscape. Boston:Harvard Business Press,2006.
[53]Child, J. Learning through strategic alliances. In A. Dierkes & B. Antal & J. Child & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford, U. K:Oxford University Press,2001:657-680.
[54]Chiva, R., Alegre, J., Lapiedra, R. Measuring organisational learning capability among the workforce. International Journal of Manpower,2007, 28 (3/4):224-242.
[55]Choi, C. J., Lee, S. H. A knowledge -based view of cooperative interorganizational relationships, Cooperative strategies:European perspectives, Vol.2. San Francisco, CA:New Lexington Press,1997: 33-58.
[56]Christensen, J. F., Olesen, M. H., Kjasr, J. S. The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation-Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research policy,2005,34 (10):1533-1549.
[57]Chung, S. A., Singh, H., Lee, K. Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic management journal, 2000,21 (1):1-22.
[58]Churchill Jr, G. A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research,1979,16 (1):64-73.
[59]Clark, K. B. Project scope and project performance:the effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management science,1989, 35 (10):1247-1263.
[60]Clark, K. B., Fujimoto, T. Product development performance:Strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry:Harvard Business Press,1991.
[61]Coase, R. H. The nature of the firm. economica,1937,4 (16):386-405.
[62]Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly,1990,35 (1): 128-152.
[63]Conner, K. R., Prahalad, C. K. A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization science,1996,7 (5):477-501.
[64]Contractor, F. J., Lorange, P. Why should firms cooperate? The strategy and economics basis for cooperative ventures.In F. J. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds), Cooperative strategies in international business. Lexington (MA):Lexington Books,1988:3-30.
[65]Corsaro, D., Cantu, C., Tunisini, A. Actors' Heterogeneity in Innovation Networks. Industrial Marketing Management,2012,41 (5):780-789.
[66]Cui, A., O'Connor, G. Alliance portfolio resource diversity and firm innovation. Journal of Marketing, Forthcoming,2012,76 (4):24-43.
[67]Cummings, L. L., O'Connell, M. J. Organizational innovation:A model and needed research. Journal of Business Research,1978,6(1):33-50.
[68]Daft, R. L., Weick, K. E. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of management review,1984,9 (2):284-295.
[69]Dahlander, L., Gann, D. M. How open is innovation?. Research policy, 2010,39 (6):699-709.
[70]Darr, E. D., Kurtzberg, T. R. An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000,82 (1):28-44.
[71]Das, T. K., Teng, B. S. A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of management,2000,26 (1):31-61.
[72]Davis, J. L., Harrison, S. S. Edison in the boardroom:How leading companies realize value from their intellectual assets. New York:John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2001.
[73]Deeds, D. L., Decarolis, D. M. The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance:An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic management journal,1999,20 (10): 953-968.
[74]Devinney, T. M. How well do patents measure new product activity?. Economics Letters,1993,41 (4):447-450.
[75]Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J., Nonaka, I. Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003.
[76]Ding, L., Velicer, W. F., Harlow, L. L. Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling:A Multidisciplinary Journal,1995,2 (2):119-143.
[77]Dittrich, K., Duysters, G. Networking as a means to strategy change:the case of open innovation in mobile telephony. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2007,24 (6):510-521.
[78]Doz, Y. L. Technology partnerships between larger and smaller firms:some critical issues, International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol.17. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books,1988:317-338.
[79]Doz, Y. L., Hamel, G. Alliance advantage:The art of creating value through partnering. Boston, MA:Harvard Business Press,1998.
[80]Droge, C., Calantone, R., Harmancioglu, N. New product success:is it really controllable by managers in highly turbulent environments?. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2008,25 (3):272-286.
[81]Duncan, R. B. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly,1972,17(3): 313-327.
[82]Duncan, R. B. The ambidextrous organization:Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. Kilman & L. Pondy (Eds.), The management of organization. New York:North Holland,1976:167-188.
[83]Dunn, S. C., Seaker, R. F., Waller, M. A. Latent variables in business logistics research:scale development and validation. Journal of Business Logistics,1994,15:145-145.
[84]Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., Mitchell, W. Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strategic management journal,2000,21 (2):99-126.
[85]Duysters, G., Jacob, J., Lemmens, C., Jintian, Y. Internationalization and technological catching up of emerging multinationals:a comparative case study of China's Haier group. Industrial and corporate change,2009,18(2): 325-349.
[86]Duysters, G., Lokshin, B. Determinants of Alliance Portfolio Complexity and Its Effect on Innovative Performance of Companies*. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2011,28 (4):570-585.
[87]Duysters, G., Heimeriks, K. H., Lokshin, B., Meijer, E., Sabidussi, A. Do Firms Learn to Manage Alliance Portfolio Diversity? The Diversity-Performance Relationship and the Moderating Effects of Experience and Capability. European Management Review,2012,9 (3):139-152.
[88]Dyer Jeffrey, H., Kentaro, N. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network:the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, Chichester,2000,21 (3):345-367.
[89]Dyer, J. H., Singh, H. The relational view:Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review,1998,23 (4):660-679.
[90]Ebben, J. J., Johnson, A. C. Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic management journal, 2005,26 (13):1249-1259.
[91]Edmondson, A., Moingeon, B. From organizational learning to the learning organization. Management Learning,1998,29 (1):5-20.
[92]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review,1989,14 (4):532-550.
[93]Eisenhardt, K. M., Schoonhoven, C. B. Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation:Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization science,1996,7 (2):136-150.
[94]Eisenhardt, K. M., Martin, J. A. Dynamic capabilities:what are they?. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21 (Special Issue):1105-1121.
[95]Elenkov, D. S. Strategic uncertainty and environmental scanning:the case for institutional influences on scanning behavior. Strategic management journal, 1997,18 (4):287-302.
[96]Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., Chesbrough, H. Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management,2009,39 (4):311-316.
[97]Faems, D., Van Looy, B., Debackere, K. Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation:Toward a Portfolio Approach. Journal of product innovation management,2005,22 (3):238-250.
[98]Fischer, E., Reuber, A. R. Support for Rapid-Growth Firms:A Comparison of the Views of Founders, Government Policymakers, and Private Sector Resource Providers. Journal of small business management,2003,41 (4): 346-365.
[99]Floyd, S. W., Lane, P. J. Strategizing throughout the organization:Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of management review,2000, 25 (1):154-177.
[100]Ford, C. M. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management review,1996,21 (4):1112-1142.
[101]Fosfuri, A. The licensing dilemma:understanding the determinants of the rate of technology licensing. Strategic management journal,2006,27(12):1141-1158.
[102]Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., Stern, S. The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research policy,2002,31 (6):899-933.
[103]Gales, L., Mansour-Cole, D. User involvement in innovation projects: Toward an information processing model. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,1995,12 (1):77-109.
[104]Garvin, D. A. Building a learning organization. Harvard business review, 1993,71 (4):78-91.
[105]Gassmann, O. Opening up the innovation process:towards an agenda. R&D Management,2006,36 (3):223-228.
[106]Gertler, M. S. Best practice? Geography, learning and the institutional limits to strong convergence. Journal of Economic Geography,2001,1 (1):5-26.
[107]Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., Kumar, N. Make, buy, orally: a transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of Management journal, 2006,49 (3):519-543.
[108]Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., Zedeck, S. Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. New York:WH Freeman,1981.
[109]Gibson, C. B., Birkinshaw, J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management journal,2004, 47 (2):209-226.
[110]Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J. A., Shleifer, A. Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy,1992,100 (6):1126-1152.
[111]Goerzen, A., Beamish, P. W. The effect of alliance network diversity on multinational enterprise performance. Strategic management journal,2005, 26 (4):333-354.
[112]Golder, P. N. Historical method in marketing research with new evidence on long-term market share stability. Journal of Marketing Research,2000,156-172.
[113]Grant, R. M., Baden-Fuller, C. A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings,1995.
[114]Grant, R. M. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization science,1996, 7 (4):375-387.
[115]Grant, R. M., Baden-Fuller, C. A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies,2004,41 (1):61-84.
[116]Grindley, P. C., Teece, D. J. Managing intellectual capital:licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review,1997,39 (2):8-41.
[117]Gulati, R. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management journal,1995,38 (1):85-112.
[118]Gulati, R. Network location and learning:The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic management journal, 1999,20 (5):397-420.
[119]Gulati, R., Lawrence, P. Organizing vertical networks:A design perspective. Paper presented at the SMJ Special Issue Conference, Northwestern University,1999.
[120]Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., Shalley, C. E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management journal,2006,49 (4):693-706.
[121]Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., Salgado, J. F. Team-level predictors of innovation at work:A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology,2009,94(5):1128.
[122]Hagedoorn, J. Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Nterorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic management journal,1993,14 (5):371-385.
[123]Hagedoorn, J., Cloodt, M. Measuring innovative performance:is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?. Research policy,2003,32 (8): 1365-1379.
[124]Hamel, G. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic management journal,1991,12(S1): 83-103.
[125]Hargadon, A., Sutton, R. I. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42 (4):716-749.
[126]Hargadon, A. Firms as knowledge brokers. California management review, 1998,40 (3):209-227.
[127]Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., Von Hippel, E. Profiting from voluntary information spillovers:how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research policy,2003,32 (10):1753-1769.
[128]Harrigan, K. R. Joint ventures and competitive strategy. Strategic management journal,1988,9 (2):141-158.
[129]He, Z.-L., Wong, P.-K. Exploration vs. exploitation:An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science,2004,15 (4): 481-494.
[130]Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece,D., Winter, S.G. Dynamic capabilities:Understanding strategic change in organizations. Oxford:Blackwell,2009.
[131]Henkel, J. Selective revealing in open innovation processes:The case of embedded Linux. Research policy,2006,35 (7):953-969.
[132]Herstatt, C., Von Hippel, E. From experience:Developing new product concepts via the lead user method:A case study in a. Journal of product innovation management,1992,9 (3):213-221.
[133]Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Ireland, R. D. A mid-range theory of the interactive effects of international and product diversification on innovation and performance. Journal of management,1994,20 (2):297-326.
[134]Hitt, M. A., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., Arregle, J. L., Borza, A. Partner Selection in Emerging and Developed Market Contexts:Resource-Based and Organizational Learning Perspectives. Academy of Management journal,2000, 43 (3):449-467.
[135]Hoang, H., Rothaermel, F. T. The effect of general and partner-specific alliance experience on joint R&D project performance. Academy of Management journal,2005,48 (2):332-345.
[136]Hoang, H., Rothaermel, F. T. Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance. Strategic management journal,2010,31 (7):734-758.
[137]Holmqvist, M. A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning. Organization studies,2003,24 (1):95-123.
[138]Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Hill, C. W. Managerial incentives and investment in R&D in large multiproduct firms. Organization science,1993, 4 (2):325-341.
[139]Howells, J. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research policy,2006,35 (5):715-728.
[140]Hsu, Y.-H., Fang, W. Intellectual capital and new product development performance:The mediating role of organizational learning capability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2009,76 (5): 664-677.
[141]Hussinger, K. On the importance of technological relatedness:SMEs versus large acquisition targets. Technovation,2010,30 (1):57-64.
[142]Huston, L., Sakkab, N. Connect and develop. Harvard business review, 2006,84 (3):58-66.
[143]Hymer, S. The international operations of national firms:A study of direct foreign investment:MIT press Cambridge, MA,1976.
[144]Ingram, P. Interorganizational learning. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations. Oxford, U.K.:Oxford Blackwell Business,2002:642-633.
[145]Inkpen, A. C., Tsang, E. W. K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of management review,2005,30 (1):146-165.
[146]Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., Augier, M. Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research policy,2006,35 (8):1200-1221.
[147]Jacobs, J. The economy of cities. New York:Random House,1969.
[148]Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations, the Quarterly journal of Economics,1993,108 (3):577-598.
[149]Jane Zhao, Z., Anand, J. A multilevel perspective on knowledge transfer: evidence from the Chinese automotive industry. Strategic management journal, 2009,30 (9):959-983.
[150]Jansen, J., Volberda, H. W., Van Den Bosch, F. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity:The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review,2005,57(4): 351-363.
[151]Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., "Volberda, H. W. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity:how do organizational antecedents matter?. The Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(6):999-1015.
[152]Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., Volberda, H. W. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance:Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science,2006,52 (11):1661-1674.
[153]Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K. Market orientation:antecedents and consequences. The Journal of marketing,1993,57 (3):53-70.
[154]Jerez-Gomez, P., Cespedes-Lorente, J., Valle-Cabrera, R. Organizational learning capability:a proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research, 2005,58 (6):715-725.
[155]Jiang, R. J., Tao, Q. T., Santoro, M. D. Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance. Strategic management journal,2010,31 (10):1136-1144.
[156]Johnston, W. J., Leach, M. P., Liu, A. H. Theory testing using case studies in business-to-business research. Industrial Marketing Management, 1999,28 (3):201-213.
[157]Katila, R., Ahuja, G. Something old, something new:A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management journal,2002,45 (6):1183-1194.
[158]Kaufman, A., Wood, C. H., Theyel, G. Collaboration and technology linkages:a strategic supplier typology. Strategic management journal,2000, 21 (6):649-663.
[159]Khanna, T., Gulati, R., Nohria, N. The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic management journal, 1998,19 (3):193-210.
[160]Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research policy,1995,24 (2):185-205.
[161]Knott, A. M.2002, Exploration and exploitation as complements. In N. Bontis & C. W. Choo (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge:339-358. New York:Oxford University Press.
[162]Kogut, B. Joint ventures:Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic management journal,1988,9 (4):319-332.
[163]Kogut, B., Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization science,1992,3 (3):383-397.
[164]Kogut, B., Kulatilaka, N. Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value of a multinational network. Management science,1994, 40 (1):123-139.
[165]Koza, M. P., Lewin, A. Y. The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization science,1998,9 (3):255-264.
[166]Kraatz, M. S. Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management journal,1998, 41 (6):621-643.
[167]Kumar, R., Nti, K. O. Differential learning and interaction in alliance dynamics:A process and outcome discrepancy model. Organization science, 1998,9 (3):356-367.
[168]Kyriakopoulos, K., Moorman, C. Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies:The overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing,2004,21 (3):219-240.
[169]Lakhani, K. R., Von Hippel, E. How open source software works:"free" user-to-user assistance. Research policy,2003,32 (6):923-943.
[170]Lane, H. W., Beamish, P. W. Cross-cultural cooperative behavior in joint ventures in LDCs. Management International Review,1990,30 (Special Issue):87-102.
[171]Lane, P. J., Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic management journal,1998,19 (5):461-477.
[172]Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E., Lyles, M. A. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic management journal, 2001,22 (12):1139-1161.
[173]Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of management review,2006,31 (4):833-863.
[174]Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., Sparks, J. The interorganizational learning dilemma:collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization science,1998,9 (3):285-305.
[175]Laursen, K., Salter, A. Open for innovation:the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic management journal,2006,27 (2):131-150.
[176]Lavie, D. The interconnected firm:evolution, strategy, and performance. University of Pennsylvania,2004.
[177]Lavie, D. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms:An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of management review,2006,31 (3): 638-658.
[178]Lavie, D., Rosenkopf, L. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management journal,2006,49 (4):797-818.
[179]Lavie, D., Miller, S. R. Alliance portfolio internationalization and firm performance. Organization science,2008,19 (4):623- 646.
[180]Lavie, D., Kang, J., Rosenkopf, L. Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organization science,2011,22 (6):1517-1538.
[181]Lee, C., Lee, K., Pennings, J. M. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance:A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic management journal,2001,22 (6-7):615-640.
[182]Lenox, M., King, A. Prospects for developing absorptive capacity through internal information provision. Strategic management journal,2004,25 (4): 331-345.
[183]Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic management journal,1992, 13 (SI):111-125.
[184]Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., Gemuenden, H. G. Users' contributions to radical innovation:evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. R&D Management,2006,36 (3):251-272.
[185]Levinthal, D. A., March, J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic management journal,1993,14 (S2):95-112.
[186]Levitas, E., McFadyen, M. Managing liquidity in research-intensive firms: signaling and cash flow effects of patents and alliance activities. Strategic management journal,2009,30 (6):659-678.
[187]Lewin, A. Y., Volberda, H. W. Prolegomena on coevolution:A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization science, 1999,10 (5):519-534.
[188]Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. External technology commercialization in large firms:results of a quantitative benchmarking study. R&D Management,2007a, 37 (5):383-397.
[189]Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. Developing reputation to overcome the imperfections in the markets for knowledge. Research policy,2007b,36(1): 37-55.
[190]Lichtenthaler, U. Relative capacity:Retaining knowledge outside a firm's boundaries. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2008,25 (3):200-212.
[191]Lichtenthaler,. U. Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance:examining environmental influences. R&D Management,2009a, 39 (4):317-330.
[192]Lichtenthaler, U. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management journal,2009b,52 (4):822-846.
[193]Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. Opening up the innovation process:the role of technology aggressiveness. R&D Management,2009a,39 (1):38-54.
[194]Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. Technology licensing strategies:the interaction of process and content characteristics. Strategic Organization,2009b,7(2): 183-221.
[195]Lichtenthaler, U., Lichtenthaler, E. A Capability-Based Framework for Open Innovation:Complementing Absorptive Capacity. Journal of Management Studies,2009,46 (8):1315-1338.
[196]Lichtenthaler, U. Open innovation:Past research, current debates, and future directions. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2011,25 (1):75-93.
[197]Lin, H. Cross-sector alliances for corporate social responsibility partner heterogeneity moderates environmental strategy outcomes. Journal of business ethics,2012,110 (2):219-229.
[198]Lorange, P., Roos, J. Strategic alliances:formation, implementation, and evolution. Cambridge:Blackwell Oxford,1992.
[199]Lord, M. D., Mandel, S. W., Wager, J. D. Spinning out a star. Harvard business review,2002,80 (6):115.
[200]Lorenzoni, G., Lipparini, A. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability:A longitudinal study. Strategic management journal,1999,20 (4):317-338.
[201]Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., Veiga, J. F. Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms:The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of management,2006,32 (5):646-672.
[202]March, J., Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York:Wiley,1958.
[203]March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science,1991,2(1):71-87.
[204]March, J. G. Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41 (2):278-287.
[205]March, J. G. Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic management journal,2006,27 (3):201-214.
[206]Marshall, A. Principles of economics:an Introductory volume, eight edition: London:The Macmillan Press. (First edition published 1890),1920.
[207]Marshall, A. Principles of Economics,8th ed.. New York:Macmillan, 1948.
[208]Martin, X., Mitchell, W. The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market. Research policy,1998,26 (7):753-771.
[209]McEvily, B., Marcus, A. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic management journal,2005,26 (11):1033-1055.
[210]McGrath, R. G. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management journal,2001,44 (1):118-131.
[211]Mintzberg, H. The structuring of organizations:A synthesis of the research. NJ:Prentice-Hall:Englewood Cliffs,1979.
[212]Monjon, S., Waelbroeck, P. Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: evidence from French firm-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2003,21 (9):1255-1270.
[213]Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., Silverman, B. S. Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation:implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research policy,1998,27 (5):507-523.
[214]Narasimhan, O., Rajiv, S., Dutta, S. Absorptive capacity in high-technology markets:The competitive advantage of the haves. Marketing Science,2006,25 (5):510-524.
[215]Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press,1982.
[216]Nishiguchi, T. Strategic industrial sourcing:The Japanese advantage. New York:Oxford University Press,1994.
[217]Nohria, N., Garcia-Pont, C. Global strategic linkages and industry structure. Strategic management journal,1991,12 (S1):105-124.
[218]Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,1994,5 (1):14-37.
[219]Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., Van den Oord, A. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research policy,2007,36 (7):1016-1034.
[220]Nuvolari, A. Collective invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the case of the Cornish pumping engine. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2004,28 (3):347-363.
[221]Ocasio, W. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic management journal,1997,18 (S1):187-206.
[222]Page, A. L., Schirr, G. R. Growth and Development of a Body of Knowledge: 16 Years of New Product Development Research,1989-2004*. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2008,25 (3):233-248.
[223]Paladino, A. Analyzing the Effects of Market and Resource Orientations on Innovative Outcomes in Times of Turbulence*. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2008,25 (6):577-592.
[224]Parkhe, A. Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and longevity in global strategic alliances. Journal of international business studies,1991,22 (4): 579-601.
[225]Perry-Smith, J. E. Social yet creative:The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. The Academy of Management Journal ARCHIVE,2006,49 (1):85-101.
[226]Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorin, J. F., Claver-Oortes, E. Competitive strategy, structure and firm performance:A comparison of the resource-based view and the contingency approach. Management Decision, 2010,48 (8):1282-1303.
[227]Peteraf, M. A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage:a resource-based view. Strategic management journal,1993,14 (3):179-191.
[228]Peters, T. J., Waterman, R. H. In search of excellence:Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York:Harper and Row,1982.
[229]Petruzzelli, A. M. The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations:A joint-patent analysis. Technovation,2011,31 (7):309-319.
[230]Phelps, C. C. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management journal,2010,53 (4):890-913.
[231]Pisano, G. P. The R&D boundaries of the firm:an empirical analysis. Administrative science quarterly,1990,35 (1):153-176.
[232]Poole, M. S., Vande Ven, A. H. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of management review,1989,14(4):562-578.
[233]Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41 (1):116-145.
[234]Powell, W. W. Learning from collaboration. California management review, 1998,40 (3):228-240.
[235]Prahalad, C., Hamel, G. The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard business review,1990,68 (3):79-91.
[236]Prahalad, C. K., Bettis, R. A. The dominant logic:A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic management journal,1986,7(6):485-501.
[237]Prajogo, D. I., McDermott, C. M. The relationship between total quality management practices and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2005,25 (11):1101-1122.
[238]Pulendran, S., Speed, R., Widing, R. E. The antecedents and consequences of market orientation in Australia. Australian Journal of Management,2000, 25 (2):119-143.
[239]Raesfeld, A. v., Geurts, P., Jansen, M., Boshuizen, J., Luttge, R. Influence of partner diversity on collaborative public R&D project outcomes:A study of application and commercialization of nanotechnologies in the Netherlands. Technovation,2012,32 (3-4):227-233.
[240]Rangan, S. The problem of search and deliberation in economic action:When social networks really matter. Academy of management review,2000,25 (4): 813-828.
[241]Rigby, D., Zook, C. Open-market innovation. Harvard Business Review, 2002,80 (10):80-93.
[242]Romer, P. M..Increasing returns and long-run growth. The Journal of Political Economy,1986,94 (5):1002-1037.
[243]Roper, S., Crone, M. Knowledge complementarity and coordination in the local supply chain:Some empirical evidence. British Journal of Management, 2003,14 (4):339-355.
[244]Rosenberg, N. Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?. Research policy,1990,19 (2):165-174.
[245]Rosenkopf, L., Nerkar, A. Beyond local search:boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic management journal,2001,22 (4):287-306.
[246]Roth, K., Schweiger, D. M., Morrison, A. J. Global strategy implementation at the business unit level:Operational capabilities and administrative mechanisms. Journal of international business studies,1991,22 (3):369-402.
[247]Rothaermel, F. T. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic management journal,2001,22(6-7):687-699.
[248]Rothaermel, F. T., Deeds, D. L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology:A system of new product development. Strategic management journal,2004,25 (3):201-221.
[249]Rumelt, R. Towards a strategic theory of the firm. InN. J. Foss (Ed.), Resources, firms, andstrategies:A reader in the resource -based perspective. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1984:131-145.
[250]Sammarra, A., Biggiero, L. Heterogeneity and.specificity of Inter-Firm knowledge flows in innovation networks. Journal of Management Studies, 2008,45 (4):800-829.
[251]Sampson, R. C. R&D alliances and firm performance:the impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management journal,2007,50 (2):364-386.
[252]Schwartz, K., Huff, B. The story of Eli Lilly's open innovation journey-How one company developed a mature model. PDMA Visions,2010, 19-22.
[253]Shane, S. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization science,2000,11 (4):448-469.
[254]Sharfman, M. P., Dean, J. W. Conceptualizing and measuring the organizational environment:A multidimensional approach. Journal of management,1991,17 (4):681-700.
[255]Siggelkow, N., Rivkin, J. W. When exploration backfires:Unintended consequences of multilevel organizational search. Academy of Management journal,2006,49 (4):779-795.
[256]Slater, S. F., Narver, J. C. Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship?. The Journal of marketing, 1994,58 (1):46-55.
[257]Slater, S. F., Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization. The Journal of marketing,1995,63-74.
[258]Smircich,L., Stubbart, C. Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of management review,1985,10 (4):724-736.
[259]Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., Clark, K. D. Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management journal,2005,48 (2):346-357.
[260]Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., Knockaert, M. Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 2011,31 (1):10-21.
[261]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic management journal,1996,17 (Special Issue):27-43.
[262]Teece, D. J. Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research policy,1986, 15 (6):285-305.
[263]Teece, D. J. Competition, cooperation, and innovation:Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,1992,18 (1):1-25.
[264]Teece, D. J. Capturing value from knowledge assets. California management review,1998,40 (3):55-79.
[265]Teece, D. J. Explicating dynamic capabilities:the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal,2007,28 (13):1319-1350.
[266]Terjesen, S., Patel, P. C., Covin, J. G. Alliance diversity, environmental context and the value of manufacturing capabilities among new high technology ventures. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29 (1): 105-115.
[267]Tether, B. S. Who co-operates for innovation, and why::An empirical analysis. Research policy,2002,31 (6):947-967.
[268]Tijssen, R. J. Quantitative assessment of large heterogeneous R&D networks: the case of process engineering in the Netherlands. Research policy,1998, 26 (7):791-809.
[269]Todorova, G., Durisin, B. Absorptive capacity:valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of management review,2007,32 (3):774-786.
[270]Tsai, K.-H., Wang, J.-C. External technology acquisition and firm performance:A longitudinal study. Journal of Business Venturing,2008, 23 (1):91-112.
[271]Tsai, W., Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation:The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of management journal,1998,41 (4):464-476.
[272]Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management journal,2001,44(5):996-1004.
[273]Tushman, M. L., Anderson, P. Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986,31 (3):439-465.
[274]Tushman, M. L., O'Reilly Ⅲ, C. A. Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review,1996,38 (4):8-28.
[275]Tyler, B. B., Kevin Steensma, H. Evaluating technological collaborative opportunities:A cognitive modeling perspective. Strategic management journal,1995,16 (S1):43-70.
[276]Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., Zahra, S. A. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance:analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic management journal,2009,30 (2):221-231.
[277]Urban, G. L., Von Hippel, E. Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management science,1988,34 (5):569-582.
[278]Van De Vrande, V., Lemmens, C., Vanhaverbeke, W. Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management,2006,36(3): 347-363.
[279]Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P., Vanhaverbeke, W., De Rochemont, M. Open innovation in SMEs:Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation,2009,29 (6):423-437.
[280]Van Den Bosch, F. A., Volberda, H. W., De Boer, M. Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment:Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization science,1999,10 (5):551-568.
[281]Vanhaverbeke, W., Van de Vrande, V., Chesbrough, H. Understanding the advantages of open innovation practices in corporate venturing in terms of real options. Creativity and Innovation Management,2008,17 (4):251-258.
[282]Venkatraman, N., Lee, C.-H., Iyer, B. Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth:A longitudinal test in the software sector. Paper presented at the Unpublished Manuscript (earlier version presented at the Academy of Management Meetings,2005),2007.
[283]Verspagen, B., Duysters, G. The small worlds of strategic technology alliances. Technovation,2004,24 (7):563-571.
[284]Volberda, H. W. Building the flexible firm:How to remain competitive. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1998.
[285]Volberda, H. W., Baden-Fuller, C., Van Den Bosch, F. A. Mastering strategic renewal:Mobilising renewal journeys in multi-unit firms. Long Range Planning,2001,34 (2):159-178.
[286]Von Hippel, E. Lead users:a source of novel product concepts. Management science,1986,32 (7):791-805.
[287]Von Hippel, E. The sources of innovation. New York:Oxford University Press, 1988:111-120.
[288]Von Hippel, E. Horizontal innovation networks-by and for users. Industrial and corporate change,2007,16 (2):293-315.
[289]Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic management journal,1984,5 (2):171-180.
[290]Wernerfelt, B. The resource-based view of the firm:Ten years after. Strategic management journal,1995,16 (3):171-174.
[291]West, J.2006, Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation. In H. Chesbrough & W. Vanhaverbeke & J. J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm:109-133. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[292]West, J., Lakhani, K. R. Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Industry and Innovation,2008,15 (2):223-231.
[293]Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., Shortell, S. M. Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42 (2):366-394.
[294]Wheelwright, S. C., Clark, K. B. Revolutionizing product development: quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality:Free Pr,1992.
[295]Williamson, O. E. Transaction-cost economics:the governance of contractual relations. Journal of law and economics,1979,22 (2):233-261.
[296]Williamson, O. E. The economics of organization:The transaction cost approach. American journal of sociology,1981,87 (3):548-577.
[297]Williamson, O. E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press,1985.
[298]Williamson, O. E. Comparative economic organization:The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly,1991,36 (2):269-296.
[299]Woodcock, C. P., Beamish, P. W., Makino, S. Ownership-Based Entry Mode Strategies and International Performance. Journal of international business studies,1994,25 (2):253-273.
[300]Wuyts, S., Colombo, M. G., Dutta, S., Nooteboom, B. Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2005,58 (2):277-302.
[301]Wuyts, S., Dutta, S. Benefiting from Alliance Portfolio Diversity:The Role of Past Internal Knowledge Creation Strategy. Journal of management,2012, XX (X):1-22.
[302]Wyld, D. C., Maurin, R. Keys to Innovation:The Right Measures and the Right Culture?. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2009,23 (2): 96-98.
[303]Wyld, D. C. Speaking up for customers:can sales professionals spark product innovation?. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2010,24 (2): 80-82.
[304]Yan, A., Gray, B. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-China joint ventures:a comparative case study. Academy of Management journal,1994,37 (6):1478-1517.
[305]Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic management journal,2001,22 (6-7):587-613.
[306]Zaheer, A., Gozubuyiik, R., Milanov, H. It's the connections:The network perspective in interorganizational research. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2010,24 (1):62-77.
[307]Zaheer, S. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management journal,1995,38 (2):341-363.
[308]Zahra, S. A., George, G. Absorptive capacity:A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of management review,2002,27(2):185-203.
[309]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.
[310]Zhang, Y., Li, H., Li, Y., Zhou, L. A. FDI spillovers in an emerging market:the role of foreign firms' country origin diversity and domestic firms' absorptive capacity. Strategic management journal,2010,31 (9):969-989.
[311]Zhou, K. Z., Wu, F. Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic management journal,2010,31 (5):547-561.
[312]陈国权,王晓辉,李倩,雷家.组织授权对组织学习能力和战略柔性影响研究.科研管理,2012,33(6)：128—136.
[313]陈劲.全球化背景下的开放式创新：理论构建和实证研究.北京：科学出版社,2013：1—23.
[314]陈劲,唐孝威.脑与创新——神经创新学研究评述.北京：科学出版社,2013：173—187.
[315]陈钰芬.开放式创新的机理与动态模式研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[316]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放度对企业技术创新绩效的影响.科学学研究,2008,26(2)：419—426.
[317]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放式创新促进创新绩效的机理研究.科研管理,2009,30(4)：1—9.
[318]党兴华,李雅丽,张巍.资源异质性对企业核心性形成的影响研究——基于技术创新网络的分析.科学学研究,2010,28(2)：299—306.
[319]冯军政.环境动荡性,动态能力对企业不连续创新的影响作用研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2012.
[320]葛沪飞,全允桓,高旭东.开放式创新下组织吸收能力概念拓展.科学学与科学技术管理,2010,31(2)：46—52.
[321]郭爱芳.DUI学习与技术创新绩效关系研究.博士学位论文，浙江大学,2010.
[322]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：经济科学出版社,2004：75—96.
[323]黄芳铭.结构方程模式：理论与应用.北京：中国税务出版社,2005：93—107.
[324]李剑力.探索性创新,开发性创新及其平衡研究前沿探析.外国经济与管理,2009,31(3)：23—29.
[325]李垣,陈浩然,赵文红.组织间学习,控制方式与自主创新关系研究——基于两种技术差异情景的比较分析.科学学研究,2008,26(1)：199—204.
[326]李正卫.动态环境条件下的组织学习与企业绩效.浙江大学博士学位论文.2003.
[327]刘顺忠.组织学习能力对新服务开发绩效的影响机制研究.科学学研究,2009,27(03)：411—416.
[328]刘洋,魏江,应瑛.组织二元性：管理研究的一种新范式.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2011,41(6)：132—142.
[329]罗炜.企业合作创新理论研究.上海：复旦大学出版社,2002：45—68.
[330]马庆国.管理统计：数据获取,统计原理,SPSS工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2002：261—336.
[331]彭新敏.企业网络对技术创新绩效的作用机制研究：利用性—探索性学习的中介效应.杭州：浙江大学博士学位论文.2009.
[332]王飞绒.基于组织间学习的技术联盟与企业创新绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[333]王鹏飞.外向开放式创新对创新绩效的影响研究—基于网络嵌入性的视角.硕士学位论文，浙江大学,2010.
[334]吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务.北京：科学出版社,2003：46—71.
[335]喻红阳,李海婴,袁付礼.合作关系中的组织间学习——一个动态的学习观.科技管理研究,2005,25(8)：76—78.
[336]朱朝晖.基于开放式创新的技术学习协同与机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[2]Agrawal, A. K. University-to-industry knowledge transfer:literature review and unanswered questions. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2003,3 (4):285-302.
[3]Aharoni, Y. The foreign investment decision process. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1966.
[4]Ahlstrom, D. Innovation and growth:How business contributes to society. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2010,24 (3):11-24.
[5]Ahuja, G. The duality of collaboration:Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic management journal,2000,21(3): 317-343.
[6]Ahuja, G., Katila, R. Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms:A longitudinal study. Strategic management journal,2001, 22 (3):197-220.
[7]Ahuja, G., Katila, R. Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic management journal,2004,25 (8-9): 887-907.
[8]Alegre, J., Lapiedra, R., Chiva, R. A measurement scale for product innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management,2006,9 (4): 333-346.
[9]Alegre, J., Chiva, R. Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovation performance:An empirical test. Technovation,2008, 28 (6):315-326.
[10]Alexy, O., Criscuolo, P., Salter, A. Does IP strategy have to cripple open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review,2009,51 (1):71-77.
[11]Allen, R. C. Collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,1983,4(1):1-24.
[12]Alter, C., Hage, J. Organizations working together:Sage Publications Newbury Park, CA,1993.
[13]Amit, R., Schoemaker, P. J. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strategic management journal,1993,14 (1):33-46.
[14]Arbussa, A., Coenders, G. Innovation activities, use of appropriation instruments and absorptive capacity: Evidence from Spanish firms. Research policy,2007,36 (10):1545-1558.
[15]Argyris, C., Schon, D. Organizational Learning:A theory of action perspective. Massachusetts:Addision Wesley Reading,1978.
[16]Arora, A., Arunachalam, V. S., Asundi, J., Fernandes, R. The Indian software services industry. Research policy,2001,30 (8):1267-1287.
[17]Arora, A., Gambardella, A. Ideas for rent:an overview of markets for technology. Industrial and corporate change,2010,19 (3):775-803.
[18]Arrow, K. J. The economic implications of learning by doing. The review of economic studies,1962,29 (3):155-173.
[19]Atuahene-Gima, K. Resolving the Capability-Rigidity Paradox in New Product Innovation. Journal of Marketing,2005,69 (4):61-83.
[20]Atuahene-Gima, K., Li, H., De Luca, L. M. The contingent value of marketing strategy innovativeness for product development performance in Chinese new technology ventures. Industrial Marketing Management,2006, 35 (3):359-372.
[21]Atuahene-Gima, K., Murray, J. Y. Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development:a social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing,2007,15 (2):1-29.
[22]Baden-Fuller, C., Volberda, H. W. Strategic Renewal in Large Complex Organizations:A Competence Based View. In A. Heene & R. Sanchez (Eds.), Competence-Based Strategic Management. Chichester:Wiley & Sons,1997: 89-110.
[23]Baker, W. E. Market networks and corporate behavior. American journal of sociology,1990,96 (3):589-625.
[24]Baldwin, C., Hienerth, C., Von Hippel, E. How user innovations become commercial products:A theoretical investigation and case study. Research policy,2006,35 (9):1291-1313.
[25]Barkema, H. G., Bell, J. H., Pennings, J. Foreign entry, cultural barriers and learning. Strategic management journal,1996,17 (2):151-166.
[26]Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management,1991,17 (1):99-120.
[27]Barney, J. B. Strategic factor markets:expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management science,1986,32 (10):1231-1241.
[28]Barney, J. B. How a firm's capabilities affect boundary decisions. Sloan Management Review,1999,40 (3):137-145.
[29]Beamish, P. W., Lupton, N. C. Managing joint ventures. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2009,23 (2):75-94.
[30]Becker, G. S. Investment in human capital:A theoretical analysis. The journal of political economy,1962,70 (5):9-49.
[31]Beckman, C.M., Haunschild, P. R., Phillips, D. J. Friends or strangers? Firm-specific uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization science,2004,15 (3):259-275.
[32]Beckman, C. M. The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management journal,2006,49 (4):741-758.
[33]Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Lokshin, B. Complementarity in R&D cooperation strategies. Review of Industrial Organization,2006,28 (4):401-426.
[34]Benner, M. J., Tushman, M. L. Exploitation, exploration, and process management:The productivity dilemma revisited. The Academy of Management Review,2003,28 (2):238-256.
[35]Blau, P. M. Inequality and heterogeneity:A primitive theory of social structure: Free Press New York,1977.
[36]Bogers, M., Afuah, A., Bastian, B. Users as innovators:a review, critique, and future research directions. Journal of management,2010,36 (4):857-875.
[37]Brady, T., Davies, A. Building project capabilities:from exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization studies,2004,25 (9):1601-1621.
[38]Branzei, O. Product innovation in heterogeneous R&D networks pathways to exploration and exploitation. University of British Columbia,2004.
[39]Brown, S. L., Eisenhardt, K. M. Competing on the edge:Strategy as structured chaos:Harvard Business Press,1998.
[40]Bruyaka, O. Alliance Partner Diversity and Biotech Firms'Exit:Differing Effects on Dissolution versus Divestment. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Proceedings,2008.
[41]Buckley, P. J., Casson, M. The future of the multinational enterprise: Macmillan London,1976.
[42]Burgers, W. P., Hill, C. W., Kim, W. C. A theory of global strategic alliances:the case of the global auto industry. Strategic management journal, 1993,14 (6):419-432.
[43]Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., Tsakanikas, A. Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources:complements or substitutes for innovative performance?. Technovation,2004,24 (1):29-39.
[44]Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., Zhang, H. Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization science, 2009,20 (4):781-796.
[45]Cassiman, B., Veugelers, R. In search of complementarity in innovation strategy:internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management science,2006,52 (1):68-82.
[46]Chesbrough, H. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2003a,44 (3):35-41.
[47]Chesbrough, H. Open innovation:The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology:Harvard Business Press,2003b.
[48]Chesbrough, H. Managing open innovation. Research-Technology Management,2004,47 (1):23-26.
[49]Chesbrough, H., Crowther, A. K. Beyond high tech:early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management,2006,36(3):229-236.
[50]Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. Open innovation:Researching a new paradigm. New York:Oxford University Press,2006.
[51]Chesbrough, H., Schwartz, K. Innovating business models with co-development partnerships. Research-Technology Management,2007,50 (1):55-59.
[52]Chesbrough, H. W. Open Business Models:How To Thrive In The New Innovation Landscape. Boston:Harvard Business Press,2006.
[53]Child, J. Learning through strategic alliances. In A. Dierkes & B. Antal & J. Child & I. Nonaka (Eds.), Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford, U. K:Oxford University Press,2001:657-680.
[54]Chiva, R., Alegre, J., Lapiedra, R. Measuring organisational learning capability among the workforce. International Journal of Manpower,2007, 28 (3/4):224-242.
[55]Choi, C. J., Lee, S. H. A knowledge -based view of cooperative interorganizational relationships, Cooperative strategies:European perspectives, Vol.2. San Francisco, CA:New Lexington Press,1997: 33-58.
[56]Christensen, J. F., Olesen, M. H., Kjasr, J. S. The industrial dynamics of Open Innovation-Evidence from the transformation of consumer electronics. Research policy,2005,34 (10):1533-1549.
[57]Chung, S. A., Singh, H., Lee, K. Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic management journal, 2000,21 (1):1-22.
[58]Churchill Jr, G. A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research,1979,16 (1):64-73.
[59]Clark, K. B. Project scope and project performance:the effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development. Management science,1989, 35 (10):1247-1263.
[60]Clark, K. B., Fujimoto, T. Product development performance:Strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry:Harvard Business Press,1991.
[61]Coase, R. H. The nature of the firm. economica,1937,4 (16):386-405.
[62]Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly,1990,35 (1): 128-152.
[63]Conner, K. R., Prahalad, C. K. A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization science,1996,7 (5):477-501.
[64]Contractor, F. J., Lorange, P. Why should firms cooperate? The strategy and economics basis for cooperative ventures.In F. J. Contractor & P. Lorange (Eds), Cooperative strategies in international business. Lexington (MA):Lexington Books,1988:3-30.
[65]Corsaro, D., Cantu, C., Tunisini, A. Actors' Heterogeneity in Innovation Networks. Industrial Marketing Management,2012,41 (5):780-789.
[66]Cui, A., O'Connor, G. Alliance portfolio resource diversity and firm innovation. Journal of Marketing, Forthcoming,2012,76 (4):24-43.
[67]Cummings, L. L., O'Connell, M. J. Organizational innovation:A model and needed research. Journal of Business Research,1978,6(1):33-50.
[68]Daft, R. L., Weick, K. E. Toward a model of organizations as interpretation systems. Academy of management review,1984,9 (2):284-295.
[69]Dahlander, L., Gann, D. M. How open is innovation?. Research policy, 2010,39 (6):699-709.
[70]Darr, E. D., Kurtzberg, T. R. An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000,82 (1):28-44.
[71]Das, T. K., Teng, B. S. A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of management,2000,26 (1):31-61.
[72]Davis, J. L., Harrison, S. S. Edison in the boardroom:How leading companies realize value from their intellectual assets. New York:John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2001.
[73]Deeds, D. L., Decarolis, D. M. The impact of stocks and flows of organizational knowledge on firm performance:An empirical investigation of the biotechnology industry. Strategic management journal,1999,20 (10): 953-968.
[74]Devinney, T. M. How well do patents measure new product activity?. Economics Letters,1993,41 (4):447-450.
[75]Dierkes, M., Antal, A. B., Child, J., Nonaka, I. Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003.
[76]Ding, L., Velicer, W. F., Harlow, L. L. Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling:A Multidisciplinary Journal,1995,2 (2):119-143.
[77]Dittrich, K., Duysters, G. Networking as a means to strategy change:the case of open innovation in mobile telephony. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2007,24 (6):510-521.
[78]Doz, Y. L. Technology partnerships between larger and smaller firms:some critical issues, International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol.17. Lexington, MA:Lexington Books,1988:317-338.
[79]Doz, Y. L., Hamel, G. Alliance advantage:The art of creating value through partnering. Boston, MA:Harvard Business Press,1998.
[80]Droge, C., Calantone, R., Harmancioglu, N. New product success:is it really controllable by managers in highly turbulent environments?. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2008,25 (3):272-286.
[81]Duncan, R. B. Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly,1972,17(3): 313-327.
[82]Duncan, R. B. The ambidextrous organization:Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. Kilman & L. Pondy (Eds.), The management of organization. New York:North Holland,1976:167-188.
[83]Dunn, S. C., Seaker, R. F., Waller, M. A. Latent variables in business logistics research:scale development and validation. Journal of Business Logistics,1994,15:145-145.
[84]Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., Mitchell, W. Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strategic management journal,2000,21 (2):99-126.
[85]Duysters, G., Jacob, J., Lemmens, C., Jintian, Y. Internationalization and technological catching up of emerging multinationals:a comparative case study of China's Haier group. Industrial and corporate change,2009,18(2): 325-349.
[86]Duysters, G., Lokshin, B. Determinants of Alliance Portfolio Complexity and Its Effect on Innovative Performance of Companies*. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2011,28 (4):570-585.
[87]Duysters, G., Heimeriks, K. H., Lokshin, B., Meijer, E., Sabidussi, A. Do Firms Learn to Manage Alliance Portfolio Diversity? The Diversity-Performance Relationship and the Moderating Effects of Experience and Capability. European Management Review,2012,9 (3):139-152.
[88]Dyer Jeffrey, H., Kentaro, N. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network:the Toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, Chichester,2000,21 (3):345-367.
[89]Dyer, J. H., Singh, H. The relational view:Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of management review,1998,23 (4):660-679.
[90]Ebben, J. J., Johnson, A. C. Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic management journal, 2005,26 (13):1249-1259.
[91]Edmondson, A., Moingeon, B. From organizational learning to the learning organization. Management Learning,1998,29 (1):5-20.
[92]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review,1989,14 (4):532-550.
[93]Eisenhardt, K. M., Schoonhoven, C. B. Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation:Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization science,1996,7 (2):136-150.
[94]Eisenhardt, K. M., Martin, J. A. Dynamic capabilities:what are they?. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21 (Special Issue):1105-1121.
[95]Elenkov, D. S. Strategic uncertainty and environmental scanning:the case for institutional influences on scanning behavior. Strategic management journal, 1997,18 (4):287-302.
[96]Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., Chesbrough, H. Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management,2009,39 (4):311-316.
[97]Faems, D., Van Looy, B., Debackere, K. Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation:Toward a Portfolio Approach. Journal of product innovation management,2005,22 (3):238-250.
[98]Fischer, E., Reuber, A. R. Support for Rapid-Growth Firms:A Comparison of the Views of Founders, Government Policymakers, and Private Sector Resource Providers. Journal of small business management,2003,41 (4): 346-365.
[99]Floyd, S. W., Lane, P. J. Strategizing throughout the organization:Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of management review,2000, 25 (1):154-177.
[100]Ford, C. M. A theory of individual creative action in multiple social domains. Academy of Management review,1996,21 (4):1112-1142.
[101]Fosfuri, A. The licensing dilemma:understanding the determinants of the rate of technology licensing. Strategic management journal,2006,27(12):1141-1158.
[102]Furman, J. L., Porter, M. E., Stern, S. The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research policy,2002,31 (6):899-933.
[103]Gales, L., Mansour-Cole, D. User involvement in innovation projects: Toward an information processing model. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,1995,12 (1):77-109.
[104]Garvin, D. A. Building a learning organization. Harvard business review, 1993,71 (4):78-91.
[105]Gassmann, O. Opening up the innovation process:towards an agenda. R&D Management,2006,36 (3):223-228.
[106]Gertler, M. S. Best practice? Geography, learning and the institutional limits to strong convergence. Journal of Economic Geography,2001,1 (1):5-26.
[107]Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B. E., Kumar, N. Make, buy, orally: a transaction cost theory meta-analysis. Academy of Management journal, 2006,49 (3):519-543.
[108]Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P., Zedeck, S. Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. New York:WH Freeman,1981.
[109]Gibson, C. B., Birkinshaw, J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management journal,2004, 47 (2):209-226.
[110]Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J. A., Shleifer, A. Growth in cities. Journal of Political Economy,1992,100 (6):1126-1152.
[111]Goerzen, A., Beamish, P. W. The effect of alliance network diversity on multinational enterprise performance. Strategic management journal,2005, 26 (4):333-354.
[112]Golder, P. N. Historical method in marketing research with new evidence on long-term market share stability. Journal of Marketing Research,2000,156-172.
[113]Grant, R. M., Baden-Fuller, C. A knowledge-based theory of inter-firm collaboration. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Best Paper Proceedings,1995.
[114]Grant, R. M. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization science,1996, 7 (4):375-387.
[115]Grant, R. M., Baden-Fuller, C. A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies,2004,41 (1):61-84.
[116]Grindley, P. C., Teece, D. J. Managing intellectual capital:licensing and cross-licensing in semiconductors and electronics. California Management Review,1997,39 (2):8-41.
[117]Gulati, R. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management journal,1995,38 (1):85-112.
[118]Gulati, R. Network location and learning:The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic management journal, 1999,20 (5):397-420.
[119]Gulati, R., Lawrence, P. Organizing vertical networks:A design perspective. Paper presented at the SMJ Special Issue Conference, Northwestern University,1999.
[120]Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., Shalley, C. E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management journal,2006,49 (4):693-706.
[121]Hulsheger, U. R., Anderson, N., Salgado, J. F. Team-level predictors of innovation at work:A comprehensive meta-analysis spanning three decades of research. Journal of Applied Psychology,2009,94(5):1128.
[122]Hagedoorn, J. Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Nterorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic management journal,1993,14 (5):371-385.
[123]Hagedoorn, J., Cloodt, M. Measuring innovative performance:is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?. Research policy,2003,32 (8): 1365-1379.
[124]Hamel, G. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic management journal,1991,12(S1): 83-103.
[125]Hargadon, A., Sutton, R. I. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42 (4):716-749.
[126]Hargadon, A. Firms as knowledge brokers. California management review, 1998,40 (3):209-227.
[127]Harhoff, D., Henkel, J., Von Hippel, E. Profiting from voluntary information spillovers:how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations. Research policy,2003,32 (10):1753-1769.
[128]Harrigan, K. R. Joint ventures and competitive strategy. Strategic management journal,1988,9 (2):141-158.
[129]He, Z.-L., Wong, P.-K. Exploration vs. exploitation:An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science,2004,15 (4): 481-494.
[130]Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece,D., Winter, S.G. Dynamic capabilities:Understanding strategic change in organizations. Oxford:Blackwell,2009.
[131]Henkel, J. Selective revealing in open innovation processes:The case of embedded Linux. Research policy,2006,35 (7):953-969.
[132]Herstatt, C., Von Hippel, E. From experience:Developing new product concepts via the lead user method:A case study in a. Journal of product innovation management,1992,9 (3):213-221.
[133]Hitt, M. A., Hoskisson, R. E., Ireland, R. D. A mid-range theory of the interactive effects of international and product diversification on innovation and performance. Journal of management,1994,20 (2):297-326.
[134]Hitt, M. A., Dacin, M. T., Levitas, E., Arregle, J. L., Borza, A. Partner Selection in Emerging and Developed Market Contexts:Resource-Based and Organizational Learning Perspectives. Academy of Management journal,2000, 43 (3):449-467.
[135]Hoang, H., Rothaermel, F. T. The effect of general and partner-specific alliance experience on joint R&D project performance. Academy of Management journal,2005,48 (2):332-345.
[136]Hoang, H., Rothaermel, F. T. Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, and R&D project performance. Strategic management journal,2010,31 (7):734-758.
[137]Holmqvist, M. A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning. Organization studies,2003,24 (1):95-123.
[138]Hoskisson, R. E., Hitt, M. A., Hill, C. W. Managerial incentives and investment in R&D in large multiproduct firms. Organization science,1993, 4 (2):325-341.
[139]Howells, J. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research policy,2006,35 (5):715-728.
[140]Hsu, Y.-H., Fang, W. Intellectual capital and new product development performance:The mediating role of organizational learning capability. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,2009,76 (5): 664-677.
[141]Hussinger, K. On the importance of technological relatedness:SMEs versus large acquisition targets. Technovation,2010,30 (1):57-64.
[142]Huston, L., Sakkab, N. Connect and develop. Harvard business review, 2006,84 (3):58-66.
[143]Hymer, S. The international operations of national firms:A study of direct foreign investment:MIT press Cambridge, MA,1976.
[144]Ingram, P. Interorganizational learning. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.), The Blackwell companion to organizations. Oxford, U.K.:Oxford Blackwell Business,2002:642-633.
[145]Inkpen, A. C., Tsang, E. W. K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of management review,2005,30 (1):146-165.
[146]Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., Augier, M. Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research policy,2006,35 (8):1200-1221.
[147]Jacobs, J. The economy of cities. New York:Random House,1969.
[148]Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations, the Quarterly journal of Economics,1993,108 (3):577-598.
[149]Jane Zhao, Z., Anand, J. A multilevel perspective on knowledge transfer: evidence from the Chinese automotive industry. Strategic management journal, 2009,30 (9):959-983.
[150]Jansen, J., Volberda, H. W., Van Den Bosch, F. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity:The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents. Schmalenbach Business Review,2005,57(4): 351-363.
[151]Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., "Volberda, H. W. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity:how do organizational antecedents matter?. The Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(6):999-1015.
[152]Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., Volberda, H. W. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance:Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science,2006,52 (11):1661-1674.
[153]Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K. Market orientation:antecedents and consequences. The Journal of marketing,1993,57 (3):53-70.
[154]Jerez-Gomez, P., Cespedes-Lorente, J., Valle-Cabrera, R. Organizational learning capability:a proposal of measurement. Journal of Business Research, 2005,58 (6):715-725.
[155]Jiang, R. J., Tao, Q. T., Santoro, M. D. Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance. Strategic management journal,2010,31 (10):1136-1144.
[156]Johnston, W. J., Leach, M. P., Liu, A. H. Theory testing using case studies in business-to-business research. Industrial Marketing Management, 1999,28 (3):201-213.
[157]Katila, R., Ahuja, G. Something old, something new:A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management journal,2002,45 (6):1183-1194.
[158]Kaufman, A., Wood, C. H., Theyel, G. Collaboration and technology linkages:a strategic supplier typology. Strategic management journal,2000, 21 (6):649-663.
[159]Khanna, T., Gulati, R., Nohria, N. The dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope. Strategic management journal, 1998,19 (3):193-210.
[160]Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research policy,1995,24 (2):185-205.
[161]Knott, A. M.2002, Exploration and exploitation as complements. In N. Bontis & C. W. Choo (Eds.), The strategic management of intellectual capital and organizational knowledge:339-358. New York:Oxford University Press.
[162]Kogut, B. Joint ventures:Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic management journal,1988,9 (4):319-332.
[163]Kogut, B., Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization science,1992,3 (3):383-397.
[164]Kogut, B., Kulatilaka, N. Operating flexibility, global manufacturing, and the option value of a multinational network. Management science,1994, 40 (1):123-139.
[165]Koza, M. P., Lewin, A. Y. The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization science,1998,9 (3):255-264.
[166]Kraatz, M. S. Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management journal,1998, 41 (6):621-643.
[167]Kumar, R., Nti, K. O. Differential learning and interaction in alliance dynamics:A process and outcome discrepancy model. Organization science, 1998,9 (3):356-367.
[168]Kyriakopoulos, K., Moorman, C. Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies:The overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing,2004,21 (3):219-240.
[169]Lakhani, K. R., Von Hippel, E. How open source software works:"free" user-to-user assistance. Research policy,2003,32 (6):923-943.
[170]Lane, H. W., Beamish, P. W. Cross-cultural cooperative behavior in joint ventures in LDCs. Management International Review,1990,30 (Special Issue):87-102.
[171]Lane, P. J., Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic management journal,1998,19 (5):461-477.
[172]Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E., Lyles, M. A. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures. Strategic management journal, 2001,22 (12):1139-1161.
[173]Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R., Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of management review,2006,31 (4):833-863.
[174]Larsson, R., Bengtsson, L., Henriksson, K., Sparks, J. The interorganizational learning dilemma:collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organization science,1998,9 (3):285-305.
[175]Laursen, K., Salter, A. Open for innovation:the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic management journal,2006,27 (2):131-150.
[176]Lavie, D. The interconnected firm:evolution, strategy, and performance. University of Pennsylvania,2004.
[177]Lavie, D. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms:An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of management review,2006,31 (3): 638-658.
[178]Lavie, D., Rosenkopf, L. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management journal,2006,49 (4):797-818.
[179]Lavie, D., Miller, S. R. Alliance portfolio internationalization and firm performance. Organization science,2008,19 (4):623- 646.
[180]Lavie, D., Kang, J., Rosenkopf, L. Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organization science,2011,22 (6):1517-1538.
[181]Lee, C., Lee, K., Pennings, J. M. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance:A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic management journal,2001,22 (6-7):615-640.
[182]Lenox, M., King, A. Prospects for developing absorptive capacity through internal information provision. Strategic management journal,2004,25 (4): 331-345.
[183]Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic management journal,1992, 13 (SI):111-125.
[184]Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., Gemuenden, H. G. Users' contributions to radical innovation:evidence from four cases in the field of medical equipment technology. R&D Management,2006,36 (3):251-272.
[185]Levinthal, D. A., March, J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic management journal,1993,14 (S2):95-112.
[186]Levitas, E., McFadyen, M. Managing liquidity in research-intensive firms: signaling and cash flow effects of patents and alliance activities. Strategic management journal,2009,30 (6):659-678.
[187]Lewin, A. Y., Volberda, H. W. Prolegomena on coevolution:A framework for research on strategy and new organizational forms. Organization science, 1999,10 (5):519-534.
[188]Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. External technology commercialization in large firms:results of a quantitative benchmarking study. R&D Management,2007a, 37 (5):383-397.
[189]Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. Developing reputation to overcome the imperfections in the markets for knowledge. Research policy,2007b,36(1): 37-55.
[190]Lichtenthaler, U. Relative capacity:Retaining knowledge outside a firm's boundaries. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2008,25 (3):200-212.
[191]Lichtenthaler,. U. Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance:examining environmental influences. R&D Management,2009a, 39 (4):317-330.
[192]Lichtenthaler, U. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management journal,2009b,52 (4):822-846.
[193]Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. Opening up the innovation process:the role of technology aggressiveness. R&D Management,2009a,39 (1):38-54.
[194]Lichtenthaler, U., Ernst, H. Technology licensing strategies:the interaction of process and content characteristics. Strategic Organization,2009b,7(2): 183-221.
[195]Lichtenthaler, U., Lichtenthaler, E. A Capability-Based Framework for Open Innovation:Complementing Absorptive Capacity. Journal of Management Studies,2009,46 (8):1315-1338.
[196]Lichtenthaler, U. Open innovation:Past research, current debates, and future directions. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2011,25 (1):75-93.
[197]Lin, H. Cross-sector alliances for corporate social responsibility partner heterogeneity moderates environmental strategy outcomes. Journal of business ethics,2012,110 (2):219-229.
[198]Lorange, P., Roos, J. Strategic alliances:formation, implementation, and evolution. Cambridge:Blackwell Oxford,1992.
[199]Lord, M. D., Mandel, S. W., Wager, J. D. Spinning out a star. Harvard business review,2002,80 (6):115.
[200]Lorenzoni, G., Lipparini, A. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability:A longitudinal study. Strategic management journal,1999,20 (4):317-338.
[201]Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., Veiga, J. F. Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms:The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of management,2006,32 (5):646-672.
[202]March, J., Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York:Wiley,1958.
[203]March, J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science,1991,2(1):71-87.
[204]March, J. G. Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41 (2):278-287.
[205]March, J. G. Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic management journal,2006,27 (3):201-214.
[206]Marshall, A. Principles of economics:an Introductory volume, eight edition: London:The Macmillan Press. (First edition published 1890),1920.
[207]Marshall, A. Principles of Economics,8th ed.. New York:Macmillan, 1948.
[208]Martin, X., Mitchell, W. The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market. Research policy,1998,26 (7):753-771.
[209]McEvily, B., Marcus, A. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic management journal,2005,26 (11):1033-1055.
[210]McGrath, R. G. Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management journal,2001,44 (1):118-131.
[211]Mintzberg, H. The structuring of organizations:A synthesis of the research. NJ:Prentice-Hall:Englewood Cliffs,1979.
[212]Monjon, S., Waelbroeck, P. Assessing spillovers from universities to firms: evidence from French firm-level data. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2003,21 (9):1255-1270.
[213]Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., Silverman, B. S. Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation:implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Research policy,1998,27 (5):507-523.
[214]Narasimhan, O., Rajiv, S., Dutta, S. Absorptive capacity in high-technology markets:The competitive advantage of the haves. Marketing Science,2006,25 (5):510-524.
[215]Nelson, R. R., Winter, S. G. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA:Belknap Press,1982.
[216]Nishiguchi, T. Strategic industrial sourcing:The Japanese advantage. New York:Oxford University Press,1994.
[217]Nohria, N., Garcia-Pont, C. Global strategic linkages and industry structure. Strategic management journal,1991,12 (S1):105-124.
[218]Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science,1994,5 (1):14-37.
[219]Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., Van den Oord, A. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research policy,2007,36 (7):1016-1034.
[220]Nuvolari, A. Collective invention during the British Industrial Revolution: the case of the Cornish pumping engine. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 2004,28 (3):347-363.
[221]Ocasio, W. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic management journal,1997,18 (S1):187-206.
[222]Page, A. L., Schirr, G. R. Growth and Development of a Body of Knowledge: 16 Years of New Product Development Research,1989-2004*. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2008,25 (3):233-248.
[223]Paladino, A. Analyzing the Effects of Market and Resource Orientations on Innovative Outcomes in Times of Turbulence*. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2008,25 (6):577-592.
[224]Parkhe, A. Interfirm diversity, organizational learning, and longevity in global strategic alliances. Journal of international business studies,1991,22 (4): 579-601.
[225]Perry-Smith, J. E. Social yet creative:The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. The Academy of Management Journal ARCHIVE,2006,49 (1):85-101.
[226]Pertusa-Ortega, E. M., Molina-Azorin, J. F., Claver-Oortes, E. Competitive strategy, structure and firm performance:A comparison of the resource-based view and the contingency approach. Management Decision, 2010,48 (8):1282-1303.
[227]Peteraf, M. A. The cornerstones of competitive advantage:a resource-based view. Strategic management journal,1993,14 (3):179-191.
[228]Peters, T. J., Waterman, R. H. In search of excellence:Lessons from America's best-run companies. New York:Harper and Row,1982.
[229]Petruzzelli, A. M. The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations:A joint-patent analysis. Technovation,2011,31 (7):309-319.
[230]Phelps, C. C. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management journal,2010,53 (4):890-913.
[231]Pisano, G. P. The R&D boundaries of the firm:an empirical analysis. Administrative science quarterly,1990,35 (1):153-176.
[232]Poole, M. S., Vande Ven, A. H. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Academy of management review,1989,14(4):562-578.
[233]Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., Smith-Doerr, L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41 (1):116-145.
[234]Powell, W. W. Learning from collaboration. California management review, 1998,40 (3):228-240.
[235]Prahalad, C., Hamel, G. The Core Competence of the Corporation. Harvard business review,1990,68 (3):79-91.
[236]Prahalad, C. K., Bettis, R. A. The dominant logic:A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic management journal,1986,7(6):485-501.
[237]Prajogo, D. I., McDermott, C. M. The relationship between total quality management practices and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2005,25 (11):1101-1122.
[238]Pulendran, S., Speed, R., Widing, R. E. The antecedents and consequences of market orientation in Australia. Australian Journal of Management,2000, 25 (2):119-143.
[239]Raesfeld, A. v., Geurts, P., Jansen, M., Boshuizen, J., Luttge, R. Influence of partner diversity on collaborative public R&D project outcomes:A study of application and commercialization of nanotechnologies in the Netherlands. Technovation,2012,32 (3-4):227-233.
[240]Rangan, S. The problem of search and deliberation in economic action:When social networks really matter. Academy of management review,2000,25 (4): 813-828.
[241]Rigby, D., Zook, C. Open-market innovation. Harvard Business Review, 2002,80 (10):80-93.
[242]Romer, P. M..Increasing returns and long-run growth. The Journal of Political Economy,1986,94 (5):1002-1037.
[243]Roper, S., Crone, M. Knowledge complementarity and coordination in the local supply chain:Some empirical evidence. British Journal of Management, 2003,14 (4):339-355.
[244]Rosenberg, N. Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?. Research policy,1990,19 (2):165-174.
[245]Rosenkopf, L., Nerkar, A. Beyond local search:boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic management journal,2001,22 (4):287-306.
[246]Roth, K., Schweiger, D. M., Morrison, A. J. Global strategy implementation at the business unit level:Operational capabilities and administrative mechanisms. Journal of international business studies,1991,22 (3):369-402.
[247]Rothaermel, F. T. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic management journal,2001,22(6-7):687-699.
[248]Rothaermel, F. T., Deeds, D. L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology:A system of new product development. Strategic management journal,2004,25 (3):201-221.
[249]Rumelt, R. Towards a strategic theory of the firm. InN. J. Foss (Ed.), Resources, firms, andstrategies:A reader in the resource -based perspective. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1984:131-145.
[250]Sammarra, A., Biggiero, L. Heterogeneity and.specificity of Inter-Firm knowledge flows in innovation networks. Journal of Management Studies, 2008,45 (4):800-829.
[251]Sampson, R. C. R&D alliances and firm performance:the impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management journal,2007,50 (2):364-386.
[252]Schwartz, K., Huff, B. The story of Eli Lilly's open innovation journey-How one company developed a mature model. PDMA Visions,2010, 19-22.
[253]Shane, S. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization science,2000,11 (4):448-469.
[254]Sharfman, M. P., Dean, J. W. Conceptualizing and measuring the organizational environment:A multidimensional approach. Journal of management,1991,17 (4):681-700.
[255]Siggelkow, N., Rivkin, J. W. When exploration backfires:Unintended consequences of multilevel organizational search. Academy of Management journal,2006,49 (4):779-795.
[256]Slater, S. F., Narver, J. C. Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship?. The Journal of marketing, 1994,58 (1):46-55.
[257]Slater, S. F., Narver, J. C. Market orientation and the learning organization. The Journal of marketing,1995,63-74.
[258]Smircich,L., Stubbart, C. Strategic management in an enacted world. Academy of management review,1985,10 (4):724-736.
[259]Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., Clark, K. D. Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management journal,2005,48 (2):346-357.
[260]Spithoven, A., Clarysse, B., Knockaert, M. Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation, 2011,31 (1):10-21.
[261]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic management journal,1996,17 (Special Issue):27-43.
[262]Teece, D. J. Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research policy,1986, 15 (6):285-305.
[263]Teece, D. J. Competition, cooperation, and innovation:Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,1992,18 (1):1-25.
[264]Teece, D. J. Capturing value from knowledge assets. California management review,1998,40 (3):55-79.
[265]Teece, D. J. Explicating dynamic capabilities:the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic management journal,2007,28 (13):1319-1350.
[266]Terjesen, S., Patel, P. C., Covin, J. G. Alliance diversity, environmental context and the value of manufacturing capabilities among new high technology ventures. Journal of Operations Management,2011,29 (1): 105-115.
[267]Tether, B. S. Who co-operates for innovation, and why::An empirical analysis. Research policy,2002,31 (6):947-967.
[268]Tijssen, R. J. Quantitative assessment of large heterogeneous R&D networks: the case of process engineering in the Netherlands. Research policy,1998, 26 (7):791-809.
[269]Todorova, G., Durisin, B. Absorptive capacity:valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of management review,2007,32 (3):774-786.
[270]Tsai, K.-H., Wang, J.-C. External technology acquisition and firm performance:A longitudinal study. Journal of Business Venturing,2008, 23 (1):91-112.
[271]Tsai, W., Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation:The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of management journal,1998,41 (4):464-476.
[272]Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management journal,2001,44(5):996-1004.
[273]Tushman, M. L., Anderson, P. Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1986,31 (3):439-465.
[274]Tushman, M. L., O'Reilly Ⅲ, C. A. Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California management review,1996,38 (4):8-28.
[275]Tyler, B. B., Kevin Steensma, H. Evaluating technological collaborative opportunities:A cognitive modeling perspective. Strategic management journal,1995,16 (S1):43-70.
[276]Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., Zahra, S. A. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance:analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic management journal,2009,30 (2):221-231.
[277]Urban, G. L., Von Hippel, E. Lead user analyses for the development of new industrial products. Management science,1988,34 (5):569-582.
[278]Van De Vrande, V., Lemmens, C., Vanhaverbeke, W. Choosing governance modes for external technology sourcing. R&D Management,2006,36(3): 347-363.
[279]Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P., Vanhaverbeke, W., De Rochemont, M. Open innovation in SMEs:Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation,2009,29 (6):423-437.
[280]Van Den Bosch, F. A., Volberda, H. W., De Boer, M. Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment:Organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organization science,1999,10 (5):551-568.
[281]Vanhaverbeke, W., Van de Vrande, V., Chesbrough, H. Understanding the advantages of open innovation practices in corporate venturing in terms of real options. Creativity and Innovation Management,2008,17 (4):251-258.
[282]Venkatraman, N., Lee, C.-H., Iyer, B. Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth:A longitudinal test in the software sector. Paper presented at the Unpublished Manuscript (earlier version presented at the Academy of Management Meetings,2005),2007.
[283]Verspagen, B., Duysters, G. The small worlds of strategic technology alliances. Technovation,2004,24 (7):563-571.
[284]Volberda, H. W. Building the flexible firm:How to remain competitive. Oxford:Oxford University Press,1998.
[285]Volberda, H. W., Baden-Fuller, C., Van Den Bosch, F. A. Mastering strategic renewal:Mobilising renewal journeys in multi-unit firms. Long Range Planning,2001,34 (2):159-178.
[286]Von Hippel, E. Lead users:a source of novel product concepts. Management science,1986,32 (7):791-805.
[287]Von Hippel, E. The sources of innovation. New York:Oxford University Press, 1988:111-120.
[288]Von Hippel, E. Horizontal innovation networks-by and for users. Industrial and corporate change,2007,16 (2):293-315.
[289]Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic management journal,1984,5 (2):171-180.
[290]Wernerfelt, B. The resource-based view of the firm:Ten years after. Strategic management journal,1995,16 (3):171-174.
[291]West, J.2006, Does appropriability enable or retard open innovation. In H. Chesbrough & W. Vanhaverbeke & J. J. West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm:109-133. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
[292]West, J., Lakhani, K. R. Getting clear about communities in open innovation. Industry and Innovation,2008,15 (2):223-231.
[293]Westphal, J. D., Gulati, R., Shortell, S. M. Customization or conformity? An institutional and network perspective on the content and consequences of TQM adoption. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42 (2):366-394.
[294]Wheelwright, S. C., Clark, K. B. Revolutionizing product development: quantum leaps in speed, efficiency, and quality:Free Pr,1992.
[295]Williamson, O. E. Transaction-cost economics:the governance of contractual relations. Journal of law and economics,1979,22 (2):233-261.
[296]Williamson, O. E. The economics of organization:The transaction cost approach. American journal of sociology,1981,87 (3):548-577.
[297]Williamson, O. E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press,1985.
[298]Williamson, O. E. Comparative economic organization:The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly,1991,36 (2):269-296.
[299]Woodcock, C. P., Beamish, P. W., Makino, S. Ownership-Based Entry Mode Strategies and International Performance. Journal of international business studies,1994,25 (2):253-273.
[300]Wuyts, S., Colombo, M. G., Dutta, S., Nooteboom, B. Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2005,58 (2):277-302.
[301]Wuyts, S., Dutta, S. Benefiting from Alliance Portfolio Diversity:The Role of Past Internal Knowledge Creation Strategy. Journal of management,2012, XX (X):1-22.
[302]Wyld, D. C., Maurin, R. Keys to Innovation:The Right Measures and the Right Culture?. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2009,23 (2): 96-98.
[303]Wyld, D. C. Speaking up for customers:can sales professionals spark product innovation?. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2010,24 (2): 80-82.
[304]Yan, A., Gray, B. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-China joint ventures:a comparative case study. Academy of Management journal,1994,37 (6):1478-1517.
[305]Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic management journal,2001,22 (6-7):587-613.
[306]Zaheer, A., Gozubuyiik, R., Milanov, H. It's the connections:The network perspective in interorganizational research. The Academy of Management Perspectives,2010,24 (1):62-77.
[307]Zaheer, S. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management journal,1995,38 (2):341-363.
[308]Zahra, S. A., George, G. Absorptive capacity:A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of management review,2002,27(2):185-203.
[309]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.
[310]Zhang, Y., Li, H., Li, Y., Zhou, L. A. FDI spillovers in an emerging market:the role of foreign firms' country origin diversity and domestic firms' absorptive capacity. Strategic management journal,2010,31 (9):969-989.
[311]Zhou, K. Z., Wu, F. Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic management journal,2010,31 (5):547-561.
[312]陈国权,王晓辉,李倩,雷家.组织授权对组织学习能力和战略柔性影响研究.科研管理,2012,33(6)：128—136.
[313]陈劲.全球化背景下的开放式创新：理论构建和实证研究.北京：科学出版社,2013：1—23.
[314]陈劲,唐孝威.脑与创新——神经创新学研究评述.北京：科学出版社,2013：173—187.
[315]陈钰芬.开放式创新的机理与动态模式研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[316]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放度对企业技术创新绩效的影响.科学学研究,2008,26(2)：419—426.
[317]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放式创新促进创新绩效的机理研究.科研管理,2009,30(4)：1—9.
[318]党兴华,李雅丽,张巍.资源异质性对企业核心性形成的影响研究——基于技术创新网络的分析.科学学研究,2010,28(2)：299—306.
[319]冯军政.环境动荡性,动态能力对企业不连续创新的影响作用研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2012.
[320]葛沪飞,全允桓,高旭东.开放式创新下组织吸收能力概念拓展.科学学与科学技术管理,2010,31(2)：46—52.
[321]郭爱芳.DUI学习与技术创新绩效关系研究.博士学位论文，浙江大学,2010.
[322]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：经济科学出版社,2004：75—96.
[323]黄芳铭.结构方程模式：理论与应用.北京：中国税务出版社,2005：93—107.
[324]李剑力.探索性创新,开发性创新及其平衡研究前沿探析.外国经济与管理,2009,31(3)：23—29.
[325]李垣,陈浩然,赵文红.组织间学习,控制方式与自主创新关系研究——基于两种技术差异情景的比较分析.科学学研究,2008,26(1)：199—204.
[326]李正卫.动态环境条件下的组织学习与企业绩效.浙江大学博士学位论文.2003.
[327]刘顺忠.组织学习能力对新服务开发绩效的影响机制研究.科学学研究,2009,27(03)：411—416.
[328]刘洋,魏江,应瑛.组织二元性：管理研究的一种新范式.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2011,41(6)：132—142.
[329]罗炜.企业合作创新理论研究.上海：复旦大学出版社,2002：45—68.
[330]马庆国.管理统计：数据获取,统计原理,SPSS工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2002：261—336.
[331]彭新敏.企业网络对技术创新绩效的作用机制研究：利用性—探索性学习的中介效应.杭州：浙江大学博士学位论文.2009.
[332]王飞绒.基于组织间学习的技术联盟与企业创新绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[333]王鹏飞.外向开放式创新对创新绩效的影响研究—基于网络嵌入性的视角.硕士学位论文，浙江大学,2010.
[334]吴明隆.SPSS统计应用实务.北京：科学出版社,2003：46—71.
[335]喻红阳,李海婴,袁付礼.合作关系中的组织间学习——一个动态的学习观.科技管理研究,2005,25(8)：76—78.
[336]朱朝晖.基于开放式创新的技术学习协同与机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.