基于社会网络视角的企业间知识转移影响因素实证研究
|
摘要
自Granovetter(1973)探索性地应用社会网络理论分析信息传递现象,并提出弱联结优势理论以来,从社会网络视角研究知识转移问题已逐渐成为知识管理研究领域的一种趋势。相对于传统的研究,基于社会网络视角的知识转移研究不再将进行知识转移的两个主体独立于社会环境之外,开始关注知识转移主体以外的第三方联系可能对知识转移效果产生的影响,因此,能更真实地反映个人或组织间知识转移的现实状况。
本研究将社会网络的分析方法和传统的个体主义研究方法进行融合,通过探讨知识转移双方企业的网络特性与传统视角下的个体属性、知识特性等影响因素之间的相互关系,及其对知识转移效果的影响,揭示了社会网络环境下,知识转移双方网络特性对知识转移效果发生作用的内在机理。在当今战略联盟、产业集群等网络组织日益普遍的现实背景下,本文的研究,对于企业间知识转移活动具有重要的理论指导意义和现实意义。
本研究通过与国内通信电源产业内32家企业的技术负责人进行深度访谈,对199家相关企业进行大规模问卷调查,并运用SPSS15.0软件对问卷调查所获得的数据进行因子分析、方差分析、相关性分析以及逐步回归分析等,主要得到如下研究结论:
1.知识转移双方企业之间的联结强度、网络密度,以及知识转移双方企业各自不同的网络范围和网络中心度均能对企业间知识转移效果产生显著的正向影响。
2.知识转移双方企业的网络特性对知识转移效果的影响并不是直接实现的,必须经由知识转移双方意愿以及能力的中介作用,才能得以实现。
具体来说,知识源的发送意愿在其网络密度、网络中心度影响知识转移效果时具有显著的中介效应;知识源发送能力在其联结强度、网络范围、网络中心度影响知识转移效果时,具有显著的中介作用;知识接受企业接受意愿在其联结强度、网络密度影响知识转移效果时具有显著的中介作用;知识接受企业的吸收能力在其联结强度、网络范围、网络中心度影响知识转移效果时具有显著的中介作用。
3.知识源企业网络范围和网络中心度在知识缄默程度与知识转移效果之间具有显著的调节作用。但是知识转移双方企业之间的联结强度、网络密度,以及知识接受企业的网络范围和网络中心度并不具有显著的调节作用。
4.知识接受企业年销售收入显著正向影响知识源的发送意愿以及知识转移效果,但是当接受企业的年销售收入达到一定规模以后,知识源的发送意愿和知识转移效果不再有显著变化;知识接受企业员工人数对其吸收能力以及知识转移效果也有显著的影响,但是这个影响是阶段性跳跃式的,即接受企业员工规模只有在增长到一定程度以后,才会对其吸收能力以及知识转移效果产生显著影响,而且员工规模在达到一定程度以后若继续增长,其对吸收能力以及知识转移效果的影响会再次消失。
本研究主要的创新之处在于:
1.尝试性地将传统的知识转移研究中“知识源——知识接受方”的研究框架,与社会网络分析中“关系——结构”的分析方法相结合,对影响知识转移的网络特性进行探讨。
以往的基于社会网络视角的知识转移研究,基本可以区分为两类:一是仅从知识源或知识接受方一个角度出发,研究其网络特性对知识转移效果的影响,研究的理论框架本身并不完整;二是研究对知识源和知识接受方均有涉及,但是对知识源和知识接受方所扮演的角色并没有进行具体的区分,因此,只能对联结强度等少数与社会网络关系要素相关的网络特性进行分析,对与社会网络结构要素相关的网络特性则无法展开讨论,因为知识转移双方关于结构要素的网络特性并不相同。本文在探讨影响知识转移效果的网络特性时,同时从知识源和知识接受企业两个主体出发,分别探讨他们各自所具有的网络特性关系维度以及结构维度对知识转移效果的影响,较之以往的研究,本文的理论框架更为完整,所探讨的网络特性维度也更为全面。
在本文所研究的网络特性的相关维度中,知识源网络中心度以及知识接受方网络密度都是以往的研究所很少关注的。
2.从实证分析的角度揭示了知识转移双方网络特性影响知识转移效果的内在机理。
以往的大多数研究在解释网络特性何以对知识转移效果产生影响时,都仅在理论上探讨了网络特性如何通过促进知识转移双方个体属性(意愿以及能力),进而对知识转移效果产生积极影响,在实证分析时探讨的往往是网络特性与知识转移效果之间的直接关系。本文依据“知识转移双方网络特性——个体属性——知识转移效果”的研究思路,从实证分析的角度揭示网络特性发生作用的内在机理。实证分析结论部分证实了以往学者的理论分析,也得到了一些不同的结论,例如,本研究得出联结强度对知识源企业的发送意愿并没有显著的影响,这与Reagans&McEvily(2003)、Uzzi&Lancaster(2003)大多数学者所做的理论猜测截然相反。本文所得的结论说明个体在知识转移过程中的主观意愿并不完全受其所处的社会网络的制约,是Granovetter(1985)关于“个体行动者不会如奴隶般地依附于他或他们所属的社会类别赋予他们的角色”的镶嵌理论,在知识转移研究领域的进一步印证。
本文通过实证分析还发现了以往的研究所很少涉及的两个结论:知识源网络中心度对其发送意愿有显著的促进作用,知识接受企业网络范围对其吸收能力有显著的促进作用。前一结论说明居于网络中心的企业对相关技术的独占性欲望是有一定限度的,其知识分享决策受网络中具有相同网络地位或技术资源优势的其他竞争对手的影响,从而将Skvoretz,Fararo&Agneessens(2004)关于“网络中被选择的节点之间存在竞争”的相关观点进一步拓展至知识管理的研究领域。后一结论说明知识接受企业在知识转移过程中并不完全处于被动地位,接受企业可以通过在网络中建立广泛的合作关系,提高自己的吸收能力,由此增强在知识转移过程中的主动程度。
3.明晰了知识源和知识接受方网络特性在调节知识特性与知识转移效果之间的负向关系时所具有的差异性。
以往的相关研究,多从知识源角度探讨其网络特性与知识特性的交互作用对知识转移效果的影响。本研究通过总结分析,将网络特性与知识特性之间的交互作用,进一步确定为网络特性在知识特性影响知识转移效果时的调节作用,并在具体分析时,尝试不仅从知识源角度还从知识接受方角度出发,分别探讨二者所具有的网络特性在知识特性影响知识转移效果时的调节作用。
实证分析的结果显示,在知识特性与知识转移效果之间具有显著调节作用的都是知识源企业的网络特性(知识源网络范围、网络中心度),知识接受企业的网络特性并没有显著的调节作用,这一差异暗示了在缄默知识的转移过程中,取得知识源的积极配合比知识接受方自身的努力更为重要。
Since exploratory application of theory regarding social network analysis to information transmission and introduction of the theory about strength of weak tie by Granovetter(1973),studying knowledge transfer from the perspective of social network has become a trend in the research field of knowledge management. Compared with traditional research,knowledge transfer study based on the perspective of social network does not put bodies involved in the knowledge transfer out of social environment any more,and begins to pay attention to a third party that may have impact on the knowledge transfer.Therefore,it can more truly reflect knowledge transfer between individuals or organizations.
By integrating social network analysis with traditional individual analysis,this paper discusses the relationship between network characteristics and such impacting factors as knowledge characteristics,knowledge-source enterprise characteristics and knowledge-receiving enterprise characteristics,and the impact of the relationship on the effect of knowledge transfer,so as to explain the mechanism of how network characteristics affect knowledge transfer under the social network environment.Under today's backdrop of strategic alliance and industrial clusters being increasingly prevalent phenomena,this paper is of theoretical and practical significance to knowledge transfer between firms.
Based on in-depth interviews with chief technology officers in 32 enterprises and survey conducted on 199 firms in communication power supply industry,the author uses processing software SPSS15.0 to analyze data obtained in terms of factor analysis,ANOVA,correlation analysis and stepwise liner regression.The following conclusions are drawn:
1.Tie strength,network density,network ranges and network centralities of both the receiving enterprise and the source enterprise have a significantly positive effect on the effect of knowledge transfer.
2.The impact of network characteristics on inter-enterprise knowledge transfer is not direct.Instead,it must be dependent on the mediator of willingness and abilities of two parties.
Specifically,willingness of knowledge source enterprise has a significantly intermediate effect on result of knowledge transfer affected by network density and network centrality;transfer capacity of source enterprise has a significantly intermediate effect on result of knowledge transfer affected by tie strength,and its network range and centrality;willingness of receiving enterprise has a significantly intermediate effect on result of knowledge transfer affected by tie strength and network density;absorptive capacity of receiving enterprise has a significantly intermediate effect on result of knowledge transfer affected by tie strength,and its network range and density.
3.Network range and network centrality of source enterprise can significantly moderate the relationship between tacit of knowledge and effect of knowledge transfer.However,the moderating effect of tie strength,network density,and recipient's network range and network centrality are insignificant.
4.Recipient's annual sales revenue will positively affect knowledge source's willingness and effectiveness of knowledge transfer.However,if sales revenue exceeds a certain point the effect of sales revenue on knowledge source's willingness and effectiveness of knowledge transfer is not significant any more.The number of employees in recipient firm also has a significant effect on its absorptive capacity and effectiveness of knowledge transfer,however,such effect is stepwise.That is to say, only the number of employee in recipient firm reaches a certain point does it have a significant effect on absorptive capacity and effectiveness of knowledge transfer, moreover,if the number of employees continues to rise,this positive effect will diminish.
The innovative contributions of this paper can be classified into three points:
1.Integrate "knowledge of the source-knowledge of the recipient" framework in traditional knowledge transfer study and "relationship-structure" approach in social network analysis so as to explore the dimensions of network characteristics which affect knowledge transfer.
Regarding the effect of network characteristics on knowledge transfer,previous studies can be classified as the two kinds.One kind of researches only involves knowledge source or recipient to study the effect of network characteristics on knowledge transfer,which results from an incomplete theoretical framework.The other kind incorporates both source and recipient but doesn't distinguish between them.Therefore,only a few network characteristics related to social network's relationship such as tie strength are analyzed,and other network characteristics in relation to social network's structure have not been discussed,because network characteristics about structure of the two parties are different.This paper discusses the dimensions of network characteristics both from the perspective of source enterprise and receiving enterprise so that the effect of their respective network relationship dimensions and network structure dimensions is explored.This paper puts forward a more complete theoretical framework and explores more comprehensive network characteristics dimensions than previous studies.
The network centrality of source enterprise and the network density of receiving enterprise in this paper are neglected in previous studies.
2.Reveal the mechanism of how network characteristics affect knowledge transfer through empirical analysis.
Most previous studies only perform a theoretical discussion on the mediating effect of individual attributes(willingness and ability) when explaining how the network characteristics affect knowledge transfer.As for the empirical analysis only the direct relationship between network characteristics and effect of knowledge transfer is explored.This paper,based on "knowledge transfer network characteristics of the two sides-the individual attributes-the effect of knowledge transfer" research ideas,reveals the mechanism of how network characteristics affect knowledge transfer through empirical analysis.Empirical analysis has partly confirmed theoretical analysis of some scholars,and arrived at a number of different conclusions. For example,tie strength does not have a significant impact on willingness of source enterprise,which is completely different from theory held by most scholars including Reagans & McEvily(2003) and Uzzi & Lancaster(2003).Conclusions of this paper show that the willingness of individual in the knowledge transfer process is not entirely subject to social network,which has further verified Granavotter's(1985) conclusion that "individuals will not act upon roles defined by society like slaves" in the field of knowledge transfer.
In this paper,empirical analysis also found two conclusions that were little studied in the past:Firstly,the network centrality of source enterprise positively affects its willingness of sending knowledge,and further affects the effect of knowledge transfer.This conclusion reveals that there is limitation on desire of the source enterprise to monopolize some technology when it occupies central network position.Its knowledge-sharing decision is affected by competitors with similar status or technical resources.The theory proposed by Skvoretz,Fararo & Agneessens(2004) that there is competition between chosen network nodes is confirmed in the field of knowledge transfer.Secondly,the network range of receiving enterprise positively affects its absorptive capacity,and further affects the effect of knowledge transfer. This conclusion shows that recipient is not entirely in a passive position in the process of knowledge transfer,and recipient enterprise can build a broad range of business partnerships with firms in the network,so as to improve absorptive capacity,and enhance initiative in the course of knowledge transfer.
3.Clarify the difference of two parties' network characteristics when they moderate the negative relationship between knowledge characteristics and knowledge transfer effect.
Previous studies only discuss the impact of the interaction terms constructed by network characteristics and knowledge characteristics on the effect of knowledge transfer from the perspective of source enterprise.Based on past studies,this paper has further identified the interaction as the moderating effect of networks characteristics on the result that knowledge characteristics affect knowledge transfer. In specific analysis,the author tries to discuss such moderating effect from the perspective both source enterprise and receiving enterprise.
Empirical analysis of this paper shows that only the network characteristics of source enterprise have significant moderating effect,while the moderating effect of receiving enterprise's network characteristics have not found.This conclusion also implies during the transfer of knowledge with relatively high degree of tacit,it is more important to get active coordination from source enterprise than efforts of the receiving enterprise.
本研究将社会网络的分析方法和传统的个体主义研究方法进行融合,通过探讨知识转移双方企业的网络特性与传统视角下的个体属性、知识特性等影响因素之间的相互关系,及其对知识转移效果的影响,揭示了社会网络环境下,知识转移双方网络特性对知识转移效果发生作用的内在机理。在当今战略联盟、产业集群等网络组织日益普遍的现实背景下,本文的研究,对于企业间知识转移活动具有重要的理论指导意义和现实意义。
本研究通过与国内通信电源产业内32家企业的技术负责人进行深度访谈,对199家相关企业进行大规模问卷调查,并运用SPSS15.0软件对问卷调查所获得的数据进行因子分析、方差分析、相关性分析以及逐步回归分析等,主要得到如下研究结论:
1.知识转移双方企业之间的联结强度、网络密度,以及知识转移双方企业各自不同的网络范围和网络中心度均能对企业间知识转移效果产生显著的正向影响。
2.知识转移双方企业的网络特性对知识转移效果的影响并不是直接实现的,必须经由知识转移双方意愿以及能力的中介作用,才能得以实现。
具体来说,知识源的发送意愿在其网络密度、网络中心度影响知识转移效果时具有显著的中介效应;知识源发送能力在其联结强度、网络范围、网络中心度影响知识转移效果时,具有显著的中介作用;知识接受企业接受意愿在其联结强度、网络密度影响知识转移效果时具有显著的中介作用;知识接受企业的吸收能力在其联结强度、网络范围、网络中心度影响知识转移效果时具有显著的中介作用。
3.知识源企业网络范围和网络中心度在知识缄默程度与知识转移效果之间具有显著的调节作用。但是知识转移双方企业之间的联结强度、网络密度,以及知识接受企业的网络范围和网络中心度并不具有显著的调节作用。
4.知识接受企业年销售收入显著正向影响知识源的发送意愿以及知识转移效果,但是当接受企业的年销售收入达到一定规模以后,知识源的发送意愿和知识转移效果不再有显著变化;知识接受企业员工人数对其吸收能力以及知识转移效果也有显著的影响,但是这个影响是阶段性跳跃式的,即接受企业员工规模只有在增长到一定程度以后,才会对其吸收能力以及知识转移效果产生显著影响,而且员工规模在达到一定程度以后若继续增长,其对吸收能力以及知识转移效果的影响会再次消失。
本研究主要的创新之处在于:
1.尝试性地将传统的知识转移研究中“知识源——知识接受方”的研究框架,与社会网络分析中“关系——结构”的分析方法相结合,对影响知识转移的网络特性进行探讨。
以往的基于社会网络视角的知识转移研究,基本可以区分为两类:一是仅从知识源或知识接受方一个角度出发,研究其网络特性对知识转移效果的影响,研究的理论框架本身并不完整;二是研究对知识源和知识接受方均有涉及,但是对知识源和知识接受方所扮演的角色并没有进行具体的区分,因此,只能对联结强度等少数与社会网络关系要素相关的网络特性进行分析,对与社会网络结构要素相关的网络特性则无法展开讨论,因为知识转移双方关于结构要素的网络特性并不相同。本文在探讨影响知识转移效果的网络特性时,同时从知识源和知识接受企业两个主体出发,分别探讨他们各自所具有的网络特性关系维度以及结构维度对知识转移效果的影响,较之以往的研究,本文的理论框架更为完整,所探讨的网络特性维度也更为全面。
在本文所研究的网络特性的相关维度中,知识源网络中心度以及知识接受方网络密度都是以往的研究所很少关注的。
2.从实证分析的角度揭示了知识转移双方网络特性影响知识转移效果的内在机理。
以往的大多数研究在解释网络特性何以对知识转移效果产生影响时,都仅在理论上探讨了网络特性如何通过促进知识转移双方个体属性(意愿以及能力),进而对知识转移效果产生积极影响,在实证分析时探讨的往往是网络特性与知识转移效果之间的直接关系。本文依据“知识转移双方网络特性——个体属性——知识转移效果”的研究思路,从实证分析的角度揭示网络特性发生作用的内在机理。实证分析结论部分证实了以往学者的理论分析,也得到了一些不同的结论,例如,本研究得出联结强度对知识源企业的发送意愿并没有显著的影响,这与Reagans&McEvily(2003)、Uzzi&Lancaster(2003)大多数学者所做的理论猜测截然相反。本文所得的结论说明个体在知识转移过程中的主观意愿并不完全受其所处的社会网络的制约,是Granovetter(1985)关于“个体行动者不会如奴隶般地依附于他或他们所属的社会类别赋予他们的角色”的镶嵌理论,在知识转移研究领域的进一步印证。
本文通过实证分析还发现了以往的研究所很少涉及的两个结论:知识源网络中心度对其发送意愿有显著的促进作用,知识接受企业网络范围对其吸收能力有显著的促进作用。前一结论说明居于网络中心的企业对相关技术的独占性欲望是有一定限度的,其知识分享决策受网络中具有相同网络地位或技术资源优势的其他竞争对手的影响,从而将Skvoretz,Fararo&Agneessens(2004)关于“网络中被选择的节点之间存在竞争”的相关观点进一步拓展至知识管理的研究领域。后一结论说明知识接受企业在知识转移过程中并不完全处于被动地位,接受企业可以通过在网络中建立广泛的合作关系,提高自己的吸收能力,由此增强在知识转移过程中的主动程度。
3.明晰了知识源和知识接受方网络特性在调节知识特性与知识转移效果之间的负向关系时所具有的差异性。
以往的相关研究,多从知识源角度探讨其网络特性与知识特性的交互作用对知识转移效果的影响。本研究通过总结分析,将网络特性与知识特性之间的交互作用,进一步确定为网络特性在知识特性影响知识转移效果时的调节作用,并在具体分析时,尝试不仅从知识源角度还从知识接受方角度出发,分别探讨二者所具有的网络特性在知识特性影响知识转移效果时的调节作用。
实证分析的结果显示,在知识特性与知识转移效果之间具有显著调节作用的都是知识源企业的网络特性(知识源网络范围、网络中心度),知识接受企业的网络特性并没有显著的调节作用,这一差异暗示了在缄默知识的转移过程中,取得知识源的积极配合比知识接受方自身的努力更为重要。
Since exploratory application of theory regarding social network analysis to information transmission and introduction of the theory about strength of weak tie by Granovetter(1973),studying knowledge transfer from the perspective of social network has become a trend in the research field of knowledge management. Compared with traditional research,knowledge transfer study based on the perspective of social network does not put bodies involved in the knowledge transfer out of social environment any more,and begins to pay attention to a third party that may have impact on the knowledge transfer.Therefore,it can more truly reflect knowledge transfer between individuals or organizations.
By integrating social network analysis with traditional individual analysis,this paper discusses the relationship between network characteristics and such impacting factors as knowledge characteristics,knowledge-source enterprise characteristics and knowledge-receiving enterprise characteristics,and the impact of the relationship on the effect of knowledge transfer,so as to explain the mechanism of how network characteristics affect knowledge transfer under the social network environment.Under today's backdrop of strategic alliance and industrial clusters being increasingly prevalent phenomena,this paper is of theoretical and practical significance to knowledge transfer between firms.
Based on in-depth interviews with chief technology officers in 32 enterprises and survey conducted on 199 firms in communication power supply industry,the author uses processing software SPSS15.0 to analyze data obtained in terms of factor analysis,ANOVA,correlation analysis and stepwise liner regression.The following conclusions are drawn:
1.Tie strength,network density,network ranges and network centralities of both the receiving enterprise and the source enterprise have a significantly positive effect on the effect of knowledge transfer.
2.The impact of network characteristics on inter-enterprise knowledge transfer is not direct.Instead,it must be dependent on the mediator of willingness and abilities of two parties.
Specifically,willingness of knowledge source enterprise has a significantly intermediate effect on result of knowledge transfer affected by network density and network centrality;transfer capacity of source enterprise has a significantly intermediate effect on result of knowledge transfer affected by tie strength,and its network range and centrality;willingness of receiving enterprise has a significantly intermediate effect on result of knowledge transfer affected by tie strength and network density;absorptive capacity of receiving enterprise has a significantly intermediate effect on result of knowledge transfer affected by tie strength,and its network range and density.
3.Network range and network centrality of source enterprise can significantly moderate the relationship between tacit of knowledge and effect of knowledge transfer.However,the moderating effect of tie strength,network density,and recipient's network range and network centrality are insignificant.
4.Recipient's annual sales revenue will positively affect knowledge source's willingness and effectiveness of knowledge transfer.However,if sales revenue exceeds a certain point the effect of sales revenue on knowledge source's willingness and effectiveness of knowledge transfer is not significant any more.The number of employees in recipient firm also has a significant effect on its absorptive capacity and effectiveness of knowledge transfer,however,such effect is stepwise.That is to say, only the number of employee in recipient firm reaches a certain point does it have a significant effect on absorptive capacity and effectiveness of knowledge transfer, moreover,if the number of employees continues to rise,this positive effect will diminish.
The innovative contributions of this paper can be classified into three points:
1.Integrate "knowledge of the source-knowledge of the recipient" framework in traditional knowledge transfer study and "relationship-structure" approach in social network analysis so as to explore the dimensions of network characteristics which affect knowledge transfer.
Regarding the effect of network characteristics on knowledge transfer,previous studies can be classified as the two kinds.One kind of researches only involves knowledge source or recipient to study the effect of network characteristics on knowledge transfer,which results from an incomplete theoretical framework.The other kind incorporates both source and recipient but doesn't distinguish between them.Therefore,only a few network characteristics related to social network's relationship such as tie strength are analyzed,and other network characteristics in relation to social network's structure have not been discussed,because network characteristics about structure of the two parties are different.This paper discusses the dimensions of network characteristics both from the perspective of source enterprise and receiving enterprise so that the effect of their respective network relationship dimensions and network structure dimensions is explored.This paper puts forward a more complete theoretical framework and explores more comprehensive network characteristics dimensions than previous studies.
The network centrality of source enterprise and the network density of receiving enterprise in this paper are neglected in previous studies.
2.Reveal the mechanism of how network characteristics affect knowledge transfer through empirical analysis.
Most previous studies only perform a theoretical discussion on the mediating effect of individual attributes(willingness and ability) when explaining how the network characteristics affect knowledge transfer.As for the empirical analysis only the direct relationship between network characteristics and effect of knowledge transfer is explored.This paper,based on "knowledge transfer network characteristics of the two sides-the individual attributes-the effect of knowledge transfer" research ideas,reveals the mechanism of how network characteristics affect knowledge transfer through empirical analysis.Empirical analysis has partly confirmed theoretical analysis of some scholars,and arrived at a number of different conclusions. For example,tie strength does not have a significant impact on willingness of source enterprise,which is completely different from theory held by most scholars including Reagans & McEvily(2003) and Uzzi & Lancaster(2003).Conclusions of this paper show that the willingness of individual in the knowledge transfer process is not entirely subject to social network,which has further verified Granavotter's(1985) conclusion that "individuals will not act upon roles defined by society like slaves" in the field of knowledge transfer.
In this paper,empirical analysis also found two conclusions that were little studied in the past:Firstly,the network centrality of source enterprise positively affects its willingness of sending knowledge,and further affects the effect of knowledge transfer.This conclusion reveals that there is limitation on desire of the source enterprise to monopolize some technology when it occupies central network position.Its knowledge-sharing decision is affected by competitors with similar status or technical resources.The theory proposed by Skvoretz,Fararo & Agneessens(2004) that there is competition between chosen network nodes is confirmed in the field of knowledge transfer.Secondly,the network range of receiving enterprise positively affects its absorptive capacity,and further affects the effect of knowledge transfer. This conclusion shows that recipient is not entirely in a passive position in the process of knowledge transfer,and recipient enterprise can build a broad range of business partnerships with firms in the network,so as to improve absorptive capacity,and enhance initiative in the course of knowledge transfer.
3.Clarify the difference of two parties' network characteristics when they moderate the negative relationship between knowledge characteristics and knowledge transfer effect.
Previous studies only discuss the impact of the interaction terms constructed by network characteristics and knowledge characteristics on the effect of knowledge transfer from the perspective of source enterprise.Based on past studies,this paper has further identified the interaction as the moderating effect of networks characteristics on the result that knowledge characteristics affect knowledge transfer. In specific analysis,the author tries to discuss such moderating effect from the perspective both source enterprise and receiving enterprise.
Empirical analysis of this paper shows that only the network characteristics of source enterprise have significant moderating effect,while the moderating effect of receiving enterprise's network characteristics have not found.This conclusion also implies during the transfer of knowledge with relatively high degree of tacit,it is more important to get active coordination from source enterprise than efforts of the receiving enterprise.
引文
[1] Abbott, A. The sociology of work and occupations[J]. Annual Review of Sociology, 1993,19(1), 187-209.
[2] Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2001,25(1), 107-136.
[3] Albino, V., Garavelli, A. C. & Schiuma, G. Knowledge transfer and inter - firm relationships in industrial districts: the role of the leader firm[J]. Technovation, 1999,19(1), 53-63.
[4] Aldrich, H., & Zimmer, C. Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D. Sexton & R. Smiler(eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. New York: Ballinger, 1986, 3-23.
[5] Allen, Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977. [6] Allen R. Collective invention[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1983,4(1), 1-24.
[7] Appleyard, M. M. How does knowledge flow? Inter-firm patterns in the semi conductor industry[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(winter special issue), 137-154.
[8] Argote, L. & Ingram, P. Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage of firms[J]. Organizaitonal Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000, 82(1), 150-169.
[9] Argote, L., Ingram, P. & Levine, J. M., et al. Knowledge transfer in organiza ions: learning from the experience of others[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000, 82(1), 1 -8.
[10] Argote, L. Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency service units[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1982, 27(3), 420-434.
[11] Argote, L. Organizational learning: creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
[12] Argote, L., McEvily, B & Reagans, R. Introduction to the special issue on managing from the experience of others[J]. Management Science, 2003a, 49(4), v -viii.
[13] Argote, L., McEvily, B & Reagans, R. Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative framework and review of emerging themes[J]. Management Science, 2003b, 49(4), 571-582.
[14] Barbara Weber, ChristianaWeber. Corporate venture capaital as a means of radical innovation: relational fit, social capital, and knowledge transfer[J]. Engineering Technology Management, 2007, 24, 11 - 35.
[15] Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51(6), 1173-1182.
[16] Batjargal. Effects of social capital on entrepreneurial performance in Russia. in P. Reynolds, at el (Eds.), Fronitiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson: Babson College Mass, 2001.
[17] Berta, W. & Baker, R. Factors that impact the transfer and retention of best practices for reducing error in hosptials[J]. Health Care Management Review, 2004, 29(2), 90-97.
[18] Bian, Y. J. Bringing strong ties back in: indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China[J]. American Sociological Review, 1997,62, 366-385.
[19] Bock, G. W. & Kim, Y. G. Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of altitudes about knowledge sharing[J]. Information Resources Management Journal, 2002,15(2), 14-21.
[20] Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W. & Kim, Y. G., et al. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social- psychological forces, and organizational climate[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2005, 29(1), 87-111.
[21] Booty, I. Inter - personal and inter - action influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D and researcher across organizational boundaries [J]. Academy of Management Journal. 2000,43 (1), 50 - 60.
[22] Breaman, H., Birkiushaw, J. & Nobel, R. Knowledge transfer in international accountings[J]. Journal of Internation Business Studies, 1999, 30(3), 439-463.
[23] Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation[J]. Organization Science, 1991,2(1), 40-57.
[24] Burt, R. S. The contingent value of social capital[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997,42(2), 339-365.
[25] Burt, R. S. Social contagion and innovation: cohesion versus structural equivalence[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1987, 92(6), 1287 -1335.
[26] Burt, R. S. Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
[27] Burt, R. S. A note on social capital and network content[J]. Social Networks, 1997, 19(4), 355-373.
[28] Burt, R. S. The network structure of social capital[J]. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 2000, 22, 345-423.
[29] Claus, R. Imperfection, transfer failure, and the replication of knowledge: an interview with Gabriel Szulanski[J]. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2004,13(2), 141-150.
[30] Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(1), 128-152.
[31] Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1988, 94(Supplement), 95-120.
[32] Coleman, J. S. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.
[33] Collins, H. Structure of knowleage[J]. Social Research, 1993, 60(1), 95-116.
[34] Cummings, J. L. & Teng B. S. Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success[J]. Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 2003, 20, 39-68.
[35] Cummings, J. L. Knowledge transfer across R&D units: an empirical investigation of the factors affecting successful knowledge transfer across intra-and inter-organizational units. Ph.D., The George Washington University, 2002.
[36] Daghfous, A. Absorptive capacity and the implementation of knowledge- intensive best practices[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2004(Spring), 21-27.
[37] Darr, E. D. & Kurtzberg T. R. An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000, 82 (1), 28-44.
[38] Darvenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1998, 17-18.
[39] Davenport, T. H. Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system[J]. Harvard Busness Review, 1998, 76(4), 121-131.
[40] Diaz, N., Diaz, I. & Perez, P. Technological knowledge assets in industrial firms[J]. R&D Management, 2006,36(2), 189-203.
[41] Dodgson, M. Organizational learning: a review of some literatuers[J]. Organization studies, 1993,14(3), 375-394.
[42] Dong, L. Management influence on information systems(IS) implementation effectiveness. Ph.D., The University of Western Ontario, Canada, 2003.
[43] Dyer, J. H. & Nobeoka, K. Creating and managing a high-sharing network: the Toyota case[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(3), 345-367.
[44] Elfring, T. & Willem, H. Networks in entrepreneurship: the case of high- technology firms[J]. Small Business Economics, 2003,21(4), 409-422
[45] Freeman, L. C. Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification[J]. Social networks, 1979, 1,215-239.
[46] Galbraith, C. S. Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high tchnology firms[J]. California Management Review, 1990, 32(4), 56-70.
[47] Gammelgaard, J., Husted, K. & Michailova, S. Knowledge sharing behavior and post—acquisition integration failure. CKG WP, workingpaper, 2004.
[48] Garavelli, A. C., Gorgoglione, M. & Scozzi, B. Managing knowledge transfer by knowledge technologies[J]. Technovation Journal, 2000,22,269- 279.
[49] Geoffrey, B. G. Clusters, Networks, and firm innovativeness[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2005, 26(4), 287- 295.
[50] Gilbert, M. & Hayes, C. Understanding the process of knowledge transfer to achieve successful technological innovation[J]. Technovation, 1996, 16(6), 301- 312.
[51] Giuliani, E., Bell, M. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(1), 47-68.
[52] Gopalakrishnan, S. & Santoro, M. D. Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: the role of key organizational factors[J]. Engineer Management, IEEE Transactions on, 2004, 51(1), 57-69.
[53] Granovetter, M. S. The strength of weak ties[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1973,78(6), 1360-1380.
[54] Granovetter, M. S. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness[J]. The American Journal of Sociology. 1985, 91(3), 481-510.
[55] Granovetter, M. S. The social construction of economic institutions, asp Association Paper, 1990.
[56] Granovetter, M. S. Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles(eds.), Networks and Organizations:25-56. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992.
[57] Griffith, T. L., Sawyer J. E. & Neale M. A. Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2003,27(2), 265-287.
[58] Gulati, R. Social structure and alliance formation patterns: a longitudinal analysis[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995,40(4), 619-652.
[59] Gulati, R. Alliances and networks[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 19(4), 293-317.
[60] Gulati, R. Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1999, 20(5), 397-420.
[61] Gulati, R., Nohria, N. & Zaheer, A. Strategic network[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000c, 21(3), 203-215.
[62] Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational crporations[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1991, 16(4), 768-792.
[63] Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations[J]. Strategic Management Jounral, 2000a, 21(4), 473-496.
[64] Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. Knowledge management's social dimension: lessons from Nucor steel [J]. Sloan Management Review, 2000b, 42(1), 71 -80.
[65] Gupta, A. & Misra, L. The value of experiential learning by organizations: evidence from intenrational joint venture[J]. Journal of Financial Research, 2000c, 23(1), 77-102.
[66] Hansen, M. T. The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1999,44(1), 82-111.
[67] Hansen, M. T. Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies[J]. Organization Science, 2002, 13(3), 232-248.
[68] Hamel, G. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1991, 12 (Summer Special Issue), 83-104.
[69] Hedlund, G. A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1994,15(Summer), 73-90.
[70] Hendriks, P. Why share knowledge? the influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing[J]. Knowledge Process Management, 1999,6(2), 91-100.
[71] Hidding, G. J. & Catterall, S. M. Anatomy of a learning organization: turning knowledge into capital at Anderson[J]. Knowledge and Process Management, 1998, 5(1), 3-13.
[72] Hippel, V. Cooperation between rivals: informal know-how trading[J]. Research Policy, 1987,16(6), 291-302.
[73] Holtham, C. & Courtney, N. Developing managerial learning styles in the context of the strategic application if information and communications technologies[J]. International Journal of Training and Developing, 2001, 5(1), 23-33.
[74] Iansiti, M. & Clark, K. B. Integration and dynamic capability: evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe camputers[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1994, 3(3), 557-605.
[75] Ingram, P. & Roberts, P. W. Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 2000, 10(6), 387-423.
[76] Inkpen, A. Learning and knowledge acquisiiton th rough international strategic alliances[J]. Academy of Management Executive, 1998, 12(4), 69-80.
[77] Inkpen, A. Creating knowledge through collaboraiton[J]. California Management Review, 1996,39(1), 123-140.
[78] Inkpen, A. C. Learning through joint venture: a framework of knowledge acquisition[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2000, 37(7), 1019-1043.
[79] Inkpen, A. C. & Tsang, E. W. K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2005, 30(1), 146-165.
[80] Inkpen, A. C. A note on the dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2006, 21(8), 775 -779.
[81] Jensen, M. C, & Meckling, W. H. Specific and general knowledge, and organizational structure. In Paul S. Myers (Ed.) , Knowledge management and organizational design. Newton, MA: Butterworth- Heinemann, 1996,17-37.
[82] Joan, E., Van, A., & Mathieu P. Managing learning in informal inovation networks: overcoming the Daphne-dilemma[J]. R & D Management, 2000, 30(2), 139-149.
[83] Johannission, B. & Ramirez-Pasillas, M. Topography model of human, social entrepreneurship research conference, networking for entrepreneurship: building a cultural capital. Presented on Babson College Jonkoping Sweden, 2001.
[84] Joshi, K. D., Sarker, S. & Sarker, S. Knowledge transfer among face-to-face information systems development team members. Hawaii: Proceeding of the 37~(th) Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences-2004: I - II.
[85] Kane, A. A., Argote, L. & Levine, J. M. Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: effect of social identity and knowledge quality[J]. Organizational Behavior and Humman Decision Process, 2005, 96(1), 56-71.
[86] Karlsen, J. T. & Gottschalk, P. An empirical evaluation of knowledge transfer mechanisms for IT projects[J]. Journal of Computer Information System, 2003a, 44(1), 112-119.
[87] Karlsen, J. T., Silseth, P., et ah Knowledge, internationalization of the firm, and inward-outword connections[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2003b, 32(5), 385-396.
[88] Karlsen, J. T. & Gottschalk, P. Factors affecting knowledge transfer in IT projects[J]. Engineering Managemenr Journal, 2004,16(1), 3-10.
[89] Kilduff, M. & Krackhardt, D. Bringing the individual back in: a structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37(1), 87-108.
[90] Kim, L. Crisis construction and organizational learning: capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor[J]. Organization Science, 1998, 9(4), 506-521.
[91] King, A. & Zeithaml, C. Measuring organizational knowledge: a conceptual and methodological framework[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2003, 24(7), 763-772.
[92] Kogut, B. Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical perspectives[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1988,9(4), 319-332.
[93] Kogut, B. & Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm and the evoluitonary theory of the multinaitonal corporaiton[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1993, 24(4), 625-645.
[94] Kogut, B. & Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combination capability, and the repilcation of technology [J]. Organization Science, 1992, 3(3), 383-394.
[95] Kostova, T. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: a contextual perspective[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24(2), 308- 324.
[96] Kraatz, M. S. Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1998, 41(6), 612-643.
[97] Krackhardt, D. Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition, and power in organizations[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(2), 342-369.
[98] Lam, A. Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and social institutions: an in tegrated framework[J]. Organizaiton Studies, 2000, 21(3), 487-513.
[99] Lane, P. J. & Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive ability and interorganizational learning[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 19(5), 461-477.
[100] Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E. & Lyles, M. A. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2001,22(12), 1139-1161.
[101] Lane, P. J., Koka, B. & Pathaks, S. A thematic analysis and critical assessment of absorptive capacity research[J]. Academy of Management Proceeding, 2002 BPS,M1-M6.
[102] Leonard, B. D. & Sensiper S. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation [J]. California Management Review, 1998,40(3), 112-132.
[103] Leornard-Barton, D. Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the source of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1995, 21-23.
[104] Levin, D. & Cross, R. The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer[J]. Management Science, 2003, 50(11), 1477-1490.
[105] Levitt, B. & March, J. G. Organizational learning[J]. Anual Review of Sociology, 1988,14, 319-340.
[106] Lin, L .H ., Geng, X. J. & Whinston, A. B. A sender-receiver frame work for knowledge transfer[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2005, 29(2), 197-219.
[107] Lundvall, B. A. Why study national systems and national styles of innovation [J]. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 1998, 10(1), 407-421.
[108] Marsden, P. V. & Campbell, K. E. Measuring tie strength[J]. Social Forces, 1984,63(2), 482-501.
[109] Marsden, P. V. Network data and measurement[J]. Annual Review of Sociology, 1990, 16(1), 435-463.
[110] McEvily, B. & Zaheer, A. Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capability [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1999, 31(4), 35-55.
[111] McEvily, B., Perrone, V. & Zaheer, A. Trust as an organizing principle[J]. Organization Science, 2003, 14(1), 91-103.
[112] Mitchell, J. C. The concept and use of social networks. Mitchell, (des.), Social Network in Urban Situations. Manchester, Eng: Machester University Press, 1969.
[113] Mowery, D. E. & Oxley, J. E. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(Winter), 77-91.
[114] Mowery, D. C. & Oxley, J. E. Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: the role of national innovation systems[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1995, 19(1), 67-93.
[115] Nadler, J., Thompson, L. and Van Boven, L. Learning negotiation skills: four models of knowledge creation and transfer[J]. Management Science, 2003,49(4), 529-540.
[116] Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1998 , 23(2), 242 -266.
[117] Nelson, R. R. & Winter S. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard university Press, 1982, 87-92.
[118] Nielsen, B. B. The role of knowledge embeddedness in the creation of synergies in the strategies alliances[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2005, 58(9), 1194-1204.
[119] Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation[J]. Organization Science, 1994, 5(1), 14-37.
[120] Nonaka, I. The knowledge-creating company[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1991,6,96-105.
[121] Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P. & Borucki, C. Organizational knowledge creation theory: a first comprehensive test[J]. International Business Review, 1994, 3(4), 337-351.
[122] Nonaka, I. & Konno, N. The concept of 'Ba': building a foundation for knowledge creation [J]. California Management Review, 1998,40(3), 40-54.
[123] Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. The knowledge creating company[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995, 58.
[124] Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. The knowledge-creating theory revisited knowledge creation as a synthesizing process[J]. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2003, 1(1), 2-10.
[125] Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Konno, N. SECI, Ba and leadingship: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation[J]. Long Range Planning, 2000, 33(1), 5-34.
[126] Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation[J]. Organization Science, 1994, 5(1), 14-37.
[127] Nooteboom., V. & Gilsing, A. Density and strength of ties in innovation networks: a competence and governance view[J]. Ecis, 2004(1), 1- 44.
[128] OECD. The knowledge based economy. Paris: OECD, 1996: 12.
[129] Polanyi, M. The tacit dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966,4.
[130] Powell, W. W. Learning form colaboraiton: knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry[J]. Califonria Management Review, 1998,40(3), 228-240.
[131] Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W. & Smith, D. L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovaiton: networks of learning in biotechnology [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1996,41(1), 116-145.
[132] Putnam R.D. Bowling alone: American's declining social captial[J]. Journal of Democracy, 2000,6,65-78.
[133] Putnam R., Bowling Together, The American Prospect, 11th February 2002.
[134] Reagans, R. & Zuckerman, E. W. Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams[J]. Organization Science, 2001, 12(4), 502-517.
[135] Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E. W. & McEvily, B. How to make the team? Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective projects. Working paper, Columbia University Graduate School of Business, 2003.
[136] Reagans, R. & McEvily, B. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2003, 48(2), 240-267.
[137] Reed, R. & DeFillippi, R. J. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1990, 15(1), 88-102.
[138] Ring, P. S. & Van De Ven, A. H. Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, 13(7), 483-498.
[139] Rowley, T., Behrens, D. & Krackhardt, D. Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21(3), 369-386.
[140] Ryan K. L. & Michael M. B. Knowledge transfer and management consulting: a look at the firm[J]. Business Horizons, 2000(1-2), 65-74.
[141 ] Scott, J. Social network analysis: a handbook. London: SAGE, 2000, 83-85.
[142] Simon, H. A . Bounded rationality and organizational learning[J]. Organization Science, 1991,2(1), 125-134.
[143] Simonin, B. L. The importance of developing collaborative know-how: an empirical test of the learning organization[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1997,40(5), 1150-1174.
[144] Simonin, B. L. Transfer of marketing know-how in international strategic alliances: an empirical investigation of the role and antecedents of knowledge ambiguity[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1999a, 30(3), 463-490.
[145] Simonin, B. L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances[J]. Strategic Management Jounral, 1999b, 20(7), 595-623.
[146] Singley, M. K. & Anderson, J. R. The transfer of cognitive skill. New York: Harvard University Press, 1989, 112-115.
[147] Skvoretz, J., Fararo, T. J. & Agneessents, F. Advanced in biased net theory: definitions, derivations, and estimations[J]. Social Network, 2004, 26(2), 113-139.
[148] Szulanski, G. Intra-firm transfer of best practice, appropriative capabilities, and organizational barriers to appropriations. Academy of Management Based Papers Proceeding, 1993,47-51.
[149] Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(Summer special issue), 27-43.
[150] Szulanski, G. The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickiness[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000, 82(1), 9-27.
[151] Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R. & Jensen, R. J. When and how trustworthiness matters: knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity[J]. Organization Science, 2004, 15(5), 600-613.
[152] Teece, D. J. Technology transfer by multinational firms: the resource cost of transferring technological know-how[J]. The Economic Journal, 1977, 87(June), 242-261.
[153] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management[J]. Stratgaic Management Journal, 1997, 18(7), 509-533.
[154] Tiwana, A. & Ramesh, B. A design knowledge management system to support collaborative information product evolution[J]. Decision Support Systems, 2001, 31(2), 241-262.
[155] Toby E. Stuart Network positions and propensities to collaborate: an investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998,43(3), 668-698.
[156] Tsai,W .& Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation: the role of intra-firm networks[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1998,41(4), 464-476.
[157] Tsai W. Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance [J]. Academy o f Management Journal, 2001,44(5), 996-1004.
[158] Tsang, E .W. K. Managing learning inforeign-invested enterprises of China[J]. Management Intenrational Review, 2001,41(1), 29-51.
[159] Tsang, E. W. K. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint venture in a transition economy: leanring-by-doing and leanring myopia[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2002a, 23(9), 835-854.
[160] Tsang, E .W K.Sharing intenraitonal joint venture experience: a study of some key determinants[J]. Management Intenrational Review, 2002b, 42(2), 183-205.
[161] Turban, E. Expert systems and applied artificial intelligence. New York : Macmillan,1992,32.
[162]Tyler,B.B.The complementarity of cooperative and technological competencies:a resource-based perspective[J].Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2001,18,1-27.
[163]Uzzi,B.The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations:the network effect[J].American Sociology Review,1996,61(4),674-698.
[164]Uzzi,B.Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks:the paradox of embeddedness[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),35-67.
[165]Uzzi,B.Social relations and networks in the making of financial capital[J].American Sociology Review,1999,64,481-505.
[166]Uzzi,B.& Lancaster,R.Relational embeddedness and learning:the case of bank loan managers and their clients[J].Management Science,2003,49(4)383-399.
[167]Wasserman,S.& Faust,K.Social network analysis:methods and applications.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
[168]Wellman B.& Berkowitz,S.D.Social structures:a network approach.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1988.
[169]Winter,S.Knowledge and competence as strategic assets.Cambridge:Ballinger Publishing,1987.
[170]Yong Suhk,P.& Young-ryeol,P.A framework of knowledge transfer in cross-border joint ventures:an empirical test of the Korean context[J].Management International Review,2004,44(4),417-434.
[171]Young,S.& Lan,P.Technology transfer to China through foreign direct investment[J].Regional Studies,1997,31(7),669-679.
[172]Zander,U.& Kogut,B.Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities:an empirical test[J].Organization Science,1995,6(1),76-92.
[173]Zahra,S.A.& George,G.Absorptive capacity:a review reconceptualization,and extension[J].Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2),185-203.
[174]Zhao,L.& Aram,J.D.Contextual influence on the corporate entrepreneurship performance relationship[J].Journal of Business Venturing,1995,10,43-58.
[175]Coleman,J.S.社会理论的基础.北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999.
[176]Dixon,N.共有知识:企业知识共享的方法与案例.北京:人民邮电出版社,2002,31-33.
[177]Drucker,P.新现实——走向21世纪.北京:中国经济出版社,1993,203.
[178]Drucker,P.知识管理.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000,11-13.
[179]Kilduff,M.& Tsai,W.B.社会网络与组织.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[180]Polyani,M.个人知识——迈向后批判哲学.贵州:贵州人民出版社,2000.
[181]Putnam,R.D.使民主运转起来.南昌:江西人民出版社,2001.
[182]Scott,J.社会网络分析法.重庆:重庆大学出版社,2007.
[183]边燕杰.找回强关系[J].国外社会学,1998(2).
[184]常荔,邹珊刚.知识管理与企业核心竞争力的形成[J].科研管理,2000,21(2),13-19.
[185]甘路明,潘惠和刘景江等.企业技术知识管理研究[J].科学学研究,2003(2),201-204.
[186]耿宪良.组织内部知识市场、知识交易成本和知识分享[J].经济管理,2004(24),27-32.
[187]关涛.跨国公司内部知识转移过程和影响因素的实证研究[D].博士学位论文,复旦大学,2005.
[188]郭京京,尹秋霞.企业间缄默知识传递效果的影响因素研究[J].技术经济,2008,27(7),7-17.
[189]黄海云,陈莉平.嵌入社会网络的企业集群结构及其优势[J].现代管理科学,2005(5),70-71.
[190]黄洁.企业集群成长中的网络演化:机制与路径研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[191]黄芳铭.结构方程模式:理论与应用.北京:中国税务出版社,2005.
[192]侯吉刚,刘益和李西垚.基于企业网络结构属性的知识管理研究[J].科学管理研究,2008,26(1),74-77.
[193]江新,郑兰琴和黄荣怀.关于隐性知识的分类[J].开放教育研究,2005,11(1),28-31.
[194]姜进章.知识重建论:一种超越时代的管理哲学与方法论[M].北京:科学出版社,2004.
[195]柯江林,石金涛.驱动员工知识转移的组织社会资本功能探讨[J].科技管理研究,2006(2),144-149.
[196]柯江林,孙健敏和石金涛等.企业R&D团队之社会资本与团队效能关系的实证研究——以知识分享与知识整合为中介变量[J].管理世界,2007(3),89-101.
[197]邝宁华,胡奇英和杜荣.强联系与跨部门复杂知识转移困难的克服[J].研究与发展管理,2004,16(2),20-25.
[198]李纲,刘益.国内外企业知识转移的研究现状分析[J].情报杂志,2007,9,10-13.
[199]李怀祖.管理研究方法论.西安:西安交通大学出版社,2004.
[200]李树茁,韦艳和任义科.基于整体网络视角的农民工行为影响因素分析[J]. 人口与经济,2007(1),10-18.
[201]林南.构建社会资本的网络理论[J].国外社会学,2002(6),18-37.
[202]刘星,尹向东和赵泉午等.钢铁企业横向并购中知识转移影响因素的路径分析[J].科研管理,2006,27(4),61-70.
[203]刘军.社会网络分析导轮.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2004.
[204]刘军.法村社会支持网络——一个整体研究的视角.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[205]卢兵,岳亮和廖貅武.联盟中知识转移效果的研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2006(8),84-88.
[206]罗家德.社会网络分析讲义.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[207]罗家德.NQ风暴——关系管理的智慧.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2002.
[208]骆品亮,周勇.虚拟研发组织中知识转移的道德风险模型分析[J].研究与发展管理,2005,17(3),64-89.
[209]马费成,王晓光.知识转移的社会网络模型研究[J].江西社会科学,2006,24(11),38-44.
[210]马庆国.管理统计:数据获取、统计原理与SPSS工具与应用研究.北京:科学出版社,2002.
[211]马刚.基于战略网络视角的产业区企业竞争优势实证研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2005.
[212]彭澎.基于社会网络视角的高技术企业集群式成长机制研究.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2007.
[213]卜长莉.当代社会发展中的社会资本问题.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2003.
[214]浦根祥.科学知识本性的哲学与社会学解释之争述评[J].自然辩证法研究,1996(10),1-6.
[215]沈瑶.非正式网络中隐性知识传递效果的影响机制研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[216]斯蒂芬·P·罗宾斯.管理学.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003,5.
[217]疏礼兵.技术创新视角下企业研发团队内部知识转移影响因素的实证分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008,7,108-114.
[218]疏礼兵.团队内部知识转移的过程机制与影响因素研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[219]谭大鹏,霍国庆.知识转移一般过程研究[J].当代经济管理,2006,28(3),11-14.
[220]汤建影,黄瑞华.合作研发企业间知识共享的微观机制[J].科学管理研究,2004(12),71-75.
[221]托马斯·布朗.社会资本理论综述[J].马克思主义与现实,2000(2),41-46.
[222]田慧敏,李南和邓丹.弱连接在促进隐藏隐性知识转移中的作用[J].科技进步与对策,2005(6),18-20.
[223]王得禄.知识管理:竞争力之源.南京:江苏人民出版社,1999,41.
[224]王开明,万君康.论知识的转移与扩散[J].外国经济与管理,2000(10),2-7.
[225]王清晓,杨忠.跨国公司内部网络结点之间知识转移的影响因素分析——一个概念模型[J].科研管理,2006(3),102-107.
[226]王三义,刘新梅和万威武.社会资本关系维度对知识转移的影响路径研究[J].科技进步与对策,2007a,24(9),84-87.
[227]王三义,刘新梅和万威武.社会资本结构维度对企业间知识转移影响的实证研究[J].科技进步与对策,2007b,24(4),105-107.
[228]王三义,何风林.社会资本的认知维度对知识转移的影响路径研究[J].财经论坛,2007c(3),122-123.
[229]王铜安.个体、群体、组织间知识转移影响因素的实证研究.硕士学位论文,西北工业大学,2005.
[230]王夏洁,刘红丽.基于社会网络理论的知识链分析[J].情报杂志,2007(2):18-21.
[231]王晓娟.知识网络与集群企业竞争优势研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[232]王毅,吴贵生.产学研合作中粘滞知识的成因与转移机制研究[J].科研管理,2001(6),114-121.
[233]魏江,王铜安.个体、群组、组织间知识转移影响因素的实证研究[J].科学学研究,2006(2),91-97.
[234]温忠麟,张雷和侯杰泰.中介效应检验程序及其应用[J].心理学报,2004,36(5),614-620.
[235]温忠麟,侯杰泰和张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用[J].心理学报,2005,37(2),268-274.
[236]吴承惠.组织内个体层面知识转移的影响因素研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[237]吴结兵.基于企业网络结构与动态能力的产业集群竞争优势研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[238]吴绍波,顾新.知识链组织之间合作的关系强度研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008(2),113-118.
[239]邬爱其.集群企业网络化成长机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[240]肖广岭.隐性知识、隐性认知和科学研究[J].自然辨证法研究,1999(8),18-21.
[241]肖鸿.试析当代社会网研究的若干进展[J].社会学研究,1999(3),1-11.
[242]谢荷锋,水常青.个体间非正式知识转移研究述评[J].研究与发展管理,2006,18(4),54-62.
[243]谢荷锋.企业员工知识分享中的信任问题实证研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[244]徐金发,许强和顾惊雷.企业知识转移的情境分析模型[J].科研管理,2003(3),54-60.
[245]许小虎,项保华.社会网络中的企业知识吸收能力分析[J].经济问题探索,2005(10),18-22.
[246]薛求知,关涛.跨国公司知识转移:知识特性与转移工具研究[J].管理科学学报,2006,9(6),64-72.
[247]杨海珍.技术创新过程中的网络研究[J].西北大学学报(自然科学版),1999(10),11-36.
[248]杨玉兵,胡汉辉.网络结构与知识转移[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008(2),123-127.
[249]姚小涛,席酉民.社会网络理论及其在企业研究中的应用[J].西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2003,23(3),22-27.
[250]姚小涛,席酉民.管理研究与社会网络分析[J].现代管理科学,2008(6),19-21.
[251]叶许红.信息系统创新实施中的管理者影响研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[252]袁方.社会研究方法教程.北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[253]查金祥.B2C电子商务顾客价值与顾客忠诚度的关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[254]张志勇,刘益.基于网络视角的企业间知识转移研究[J].情报杂志,2007a(11),70-72.
[255]张志勇,刘益.企业间知识转移的双网络模型[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007b(9),94-97.
[256]张其仔.新经济社会学.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2001.
[257]张毅.企业网络与组织间学习过程研究.博士学位论文,华中科技大学,2003.
[258]曾萍,蓝海林.企业研发团队知识分享的影响因素及对策[J].科技管理研究,2005(12),209-211.
[259]周和荣,张鹏程和张金隆.组织内非正式隐性知识转移机理研究[J].科研管理,2008,29(50),70-77.
[260]周晓东,项保华.企业知识内部转移:模式、影响因素与机制分析[J].南开管理评论,2003,6(5),7-10.
[261]周红云.社会资本布迪厄、科尔曼和帕特南的比较[J].经济社会体制比较,2003(4),46-53.
[262]周密,赵文红和姚小涛.社会关系视角下的知识转移理论研究评述及展望[J].科研管理,2007,28(3),78-85.
[263]朱亚丽.网络中心性对企业间知识转移影响的实证研究[J].技术经济,2008,27(12),1-6.
[264]左美云.国内外企业知识管理研究综述[J].科学决策,2000(3),31-37.
[2] Alavi, M. & Leidner, D. Review: knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2001,25(1), 107-136.
[3] Albino, V., Garavelli, A. C. & Schiuma, G. Knowledge transfer and inter - firm relationships in industrial districts: the role of the leader firm[J]. Technovation, 1999,19(1), 53-63.
[4] Aldrich, H., & Zimmer, C. Entrepreneurship through social networks. In D. Sexton & R. Smiler(eds.), The Art and Science of Entrepreneurship. New York: Ballinger, 1986, 3-23.
[5] Allen, Managing the flow of technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1977. [6] Allen R. Collective invention[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1983,4(1), 1-24.
[7] Appleyard, M. M. How does knowledge flow? Inter-firm patterns in the semi conductor industry[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(winter special issue), 137-154.
[8] Argote, L. & Ingram, P. Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage of firms[J]. Organizaitonal Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000, 82(1), 150-169.
[9] Argote, L., Ingram, P. & Levine, J. M., et al. Knowledge transfer in organiza ions: learning from the experience of others[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000, 82(1), 1 -8.
[10] Argote, L. Input uncertainty and organizational coordination in hospital emergency service units[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1982, 27(3), 420-434.
[11] Argote, L. Organizational learning: creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1999.
[12] Argote, L., McEvily, B & Reagans, R. Introduction to the special issue on managing from the experience of others[J]. Management Science, 2003a, 49(4), v -viii.
[13] Argote, L., McEvily, B & Reagans, R. Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative framework and review of emerging themes[J]. Management Science, 2003b, 49(4), 571-582.
[14] Barbara Weber, ChristianaWeber. Corporate venture capaital as a means of radical innovation: relational fit, social capital, and knowledge transfer[J]. Engineering Technology Management, 2007, 24, 11 - 35.
[15] Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations[J]. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1986, 51(6), 1173-1182.
[16] Batjargal. Effects of social capital on entrepreneurial performance in Russia. in P. Reynolds, at el (Eds.), Fronitiers of Entrepreneurship Research. Babson: Babson College Mass, 2001.
[17] Berta, W. & Baker, R. Factors that impact the transfer and retention of best practices for reducing error in hosptials[J]. Health Care Management Review, 2004, 29(2), 90-97.
[18] Bian, Y. J. Bringing strong ties back in: indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China[J]. American Sociological Review, 1997,62, 366-385.
[19] Bock, G. W. & Kim, Y. G. Breaking the myths of rewards: an exploratory study of altitudes about knowledge sharing[J]. Information Resources Management Journal, 2002,15(2), 14-21.
[20] Bock, G. W., Zmud, R. W. & Kim, Y. G., et al. Behavioral intention formation in knowledge sharing: examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social- psychological forces, and organizational climate[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2005, 29(1), 87-111.
[21] Booty, I. Inter - personal and inter - action influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D and researcher across organizational boundaries [J]. Academy of Management Journal. 2000,43 (1), 50 - 60.
[22] Breaman, H., Birkiushaw, J. & Nobel, R. Knowledge transfer in international accountings[J]. Journal of Internation Business Studies, 1999, 30(3), 439-463.
[23] Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. Organizational learning and communities of practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation[J]. Organization Science, 1991,2(1), 40-57.
[24] Burt, R. S. The contingent value of social capital[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1997,42(2), 339-365.
[25] Burt, R. S. Social contagion and innovation: cohesion versus structural equivalence[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1987, 92(6), 1287 -1335.
[26] Burt, R. S. Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
[27] Burt, R. S. A note on social capital and network content[J]. Social Networks, 1997, 19(4), 355-373.
[28] Burt, R. S. The network structure of social capital[J]. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 2000, 22, 345-423.
[29] Claus, R. Imperfection, transfer failure, and the replication of knowledge: an interview with Gabriel Szulanski[J]. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2004,13(2), 141-150.
[30] Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(1), 128-152.
[31] Coleman, J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1988, 94(Supplement), 95-120.
[32] Coleman, J. S. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990.
[33] Collins, H. Structure of knowleage[J]. Social Research, 1993, 60(1), 95-116.
[34] Cummings, J. L. & Teng B. S. Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affecting knowledge transfer success[J]. Journal of Engineering Technology Management, 2003, 20, 39-68.
[35] Cummings, J. L. Knowledge transfer across R&D units: an empirical investigation of the factors affecting successful knowledge transfer across intra-and inter-organizational units. Ph.D., The George Washington University, 2002.
[36] Daghfous, A. Absorptive capacity and the implementation of knowledge- intensive best practices[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2004(Spring), 21-27.
[37] Darr, E. D. & Kurtzberg T. R. An investigation of partner similarity dimensions on knowledge transfer[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000, 82 (1), 28-44.
[38] Darvenport, T. H. & Prusak, L. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1998, 17-18.
[39] Davenport, T. H. Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system[J]. Harvard Busness Review, 1998, 76(4), 121-131.
[40] Diaz, N., Diaz, I. & Perez, P. Technological knowledge assets in industrial firms[J]. R&D Management, 2006,36(2), 189-203.
[41] Dodgson, M. Organizational learning: a review of some literatuers[J]. Organization studies, 1993,14(3), 375-394.
[42] Dong, L. Management influence on information systems(IS) implementation effectiveness. Ph.D., The University of Western Ontario, Canada, 2003.
[43] Dyer, J. H. & Nobeoka, K. Creating and managing a high-sharing network: the Toyota case[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(3), 345-367.
[44] Elfring, T. & Willem, H. Networks in entrepreneurship: the case of high- technology firms[J]. Small Business Economics, 2003,21(4), 409-422
[45] Freeman, L. C. Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification[J]. Social networks, 1979, 1,215-239.
[46] Galbraith, C. S. Transferring core manufacturing technologies in high tchnology firms[J]. California Management Review, 1990, 32(4), 56-70.
[47] Gammelgaard, J., Husted, K. & Michailova, S. Knowledge sharing behavior and post—acquisition integration failure. CKG WP, workingpaper, 2004.
[48] Garavelli, A. C., Gorgoglione, M. & Scozzi, B. Managing knowledge transfer by knowledge technologies[J]. Technovation Journal, 2000,22,269- 279.
[49] Geoffrey, B. G. Clusters, Networks, and firm innovativeness[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2005, 26(4), 287- 295.
[50] Gilbert, M. & Hayes, C. Understanding the process of knowledge transfer to achieve successful technological innovation[J]. Technovation, 1996, 16(6), 301- 312.
[51] Giuliani, E., Bell, M. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(1), 47-68.
[52] Gopalakrishnan, S. & Santoro, M. D. Distinguishing between knowledge transfer and technology transfer activities: the role of key organizational factors[J]. Engineer Management, IEEE Transactions on, 2004, 51(1), 57-69.
[53] Granovetter, M. S. The strength of weak ties[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1973,78(6), 1360-1380.
[54] Granovetter, M. S. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness[J]. The American Journal of Sociology. 1985, 91(3), 481-510.
[55] Granovetter, M. S. The social construction of economic institutions, asp Association Paper, 1990.
[56] Granovetter, M. S. Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In N. Nohria and R. G. Eccles(eds.), Networks and Organizations:25-56. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1992.
[57] Griffith, T. L., Sawyer J. E. & Neale M. A. Virtualness and knowledge in teams: managing the love triangle of organizations, individuals, and information technology[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2003,27(2), 265-287.
[58] Gulati, R. Social structure and alliance formation patterns: a longitudinal analysis[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995,40(4), 619-652.
[59] Gulati, R. Alliances and networks[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 19(4), 293-317.
[60] Gulati, R. Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1999, 20(5), 397-420.
[61] Gulati, R., Nohria, N. & Zaheer, A. Strategic network[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000c, 21(3), 203-215.
[62] Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational crporations[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1991, 16(4), 768-792.
[63] Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations[J]. Strategic Management Jounral, 2000a, 21(4), 473-496.
[64] Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. Knowledge management's social dimension: lessons from Nucor steel [J]. Sloan Management Review, 2000b, 42(1), 71 -80.
[65] Gupta, A. & Misra, L. The value of experiential learning by organizations: evidence from intenrational joint venture[J]. Journal of Financial Research, 2000c, 23(1), 77-102.
[66] Hansen, M. T. The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1999,44(1), 82-111.
[67] Hansen, M. T. Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies[J]. Organization Science, 2002, 13(3), 232-248.
[68] Hamel, G. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1991, 12 (Summer Special Issue), 83-104.
[69] Hedlund, G. A model of knowledge management and the N-form corporation[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1994,15(Summer), 73-90.
[70] Hendriks, P. Why share knowledge? the influence of ICT on the motivation for knowledge sharing[J]. Knowledge Process Management, 1999,6(2), 91-100.
[71] Hidding, G. J. & Catterall, S. M. Anatomy of a learning organization: turning knowledge into capital at Anderson[J]. Knowledge and Process Management, 1998, 5(1), 3-13.
[72] Hippel, V. Cooperation between rivals: informal know-how trading[J]. Research Policy, 1987,16(6), 291-302.
[73] Holtham, C. & Courtney, N. Developing managerial learning styles in the context of the strategic application if information and communications technologies[J]. International Journal of Training and Developing, 2001, 5(1), 23-33.
[74] Iansiti, M. & Clark, K. B. Integration and dynamic capability: evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe camputers[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 1994, 3(3), 557-605.
[75] Ingram, P. & Roberts, P. W. Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 2000, 10(6), 387-423.
[76] Inkpen, A. Learning and knowledge acquisiiton th rough international strategic alliances[J]. Academy of Management Executive, 1998, 12(4), 69-80.
[77] Inkpen, A. Creating knowledge through collaboraiton[J]. California Management Review, 1996,39(1), 123-140.
[78] Inkpen, A. C. Learning through joint venture: a framework of knowledge acquisition[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2000, 37(7), 1019-1043.
[79] Inkpen, A. C. & Tsang, E. W. K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2005, 30(1), 146-165.
[80] Inkpen, A. C. A note on the dynamics of learning alliances: competition, cooperation, and relative scope[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2006, 21(8), 775 -779.
[81] Jensen, M. C, & Meckling, W. H. Specific and general knowledge, and organizational structure. In Paul S. Myers (Ed.) , Knowledge management and organizational design. Newton, MA: Butterworth- Heinemann, 1996,17-37.
[82] Joan, E., Van, A., & Mathieu P. Managing learning in informal inovation networks: overcoming the Daphne-dilemma[J]. R & D Management, 2000, 30(2), 139-149.
[83] Johannission, B. & Ramirez-Pasillas, M. Topography model of human, social entrepreneurship research conference, networking for entrepreneurship: building a cultural capital. Presented on Babson College Jonkoping Sweden, 2001.
[84] Joshi, K. D., Sarker, S. & Sarker, S. Knowledge transfer among face-to-face information systems development team members. Hawaii: Proceeding of the 37~(th) Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences-2004: I - II.
[85] Kane, A. A., Argote, L. & Levine, J. M. Knowledge transfer between groups via personnel rotation: effect of social identity and knowledge quality[J]. Organizational Behavior and Humman Decision Process, 2005, 96(1), 56-71.
[86] Karlsen, J. T. & Gottschalk, P. An empirical evaluation of knowledge transfer mechanisms for IT projects[J]. Journal of Computer Information System, 2003a, 44(1), 112-119.
[87] Karlsen, J. T., Silseth, P., et ah Knowledge, internationalization of the firm, and inward-outword connections[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2003b, 32(5), 385-396.
[88] Karlsen, J. T. & Gottschalk, P. Factors affecting knowledge transfer in IT projects[J]. Engineering Managemenr Journal, 2004,16(1), 3-10.
[89] Kilduff, M. & Krackhardt, D. Bringing the individual back in: a structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations [J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37(1), 87-108.
[90] Kim, L. Crisis construction and organizational learning: capability building in catching-up at Hyundai Motor[J]. Organization Science, 1998, 9(4), 506-521.
[91] King, A. & Zeithaml, C. Measuring organizational knowledge: a conceptual and methodological framework[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2003, 24(7), 763-772.
[92] Kogut, B. Joint ventures: theoretical and empirical perspectives[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1988,9(4), 319-332.
[93] Kogut, B. & Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm and the evoluitonary theory of the multinaitonal corporaiton[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1993, 24(4), 625-645.
[94] Kogut, B. & Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm, combination capability, and the repilcation of technology [J]. Organization Science, 1992, 3(3), 383-394.
[95] Kostova, T. Transnational transfer of strategic organizational practices: a contextual perspective[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1999, 24(2), 308- 324.
[96] Kraatz, M. S. Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1998, 41(6), 612-643.
[97] Krackhardt, D. Assessing the political landscape: structure, cognition, and power in organizations[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(2), 342-369.
[98] Lam, A. Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and social institutions: an in tegrated framework[J]. Organizaiton Studies, 2000, 21(3), 487-513.
[99] Lane, P. J. & Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive ability and interorganizational learning[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 19(5), 461-477.
[100] Lane, P. J., Salk, J. E. & Lyles, M. A. Absorptive capacity, learning, and performance in international joint ventures[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2001,22(12), 1139-1161.
[101] Lane, P. J., Koka, B. & Pathaks, S. A thematic analysis and critical assessment of absorptive capacity research[J]. Academy of Management Proceeding, 2002 BPS,M1-M6.
[102] Leonard, B. D. & Sensiper S. The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation [J]. California Management Review, 1998,40(3), 112-132.
[103] Leornard-Barton, D. Wellsprings of knowledge: building and sustaining the source of innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1995, 21-23.
[104] Levin, D. & Cross, R. The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer[J]. Management Science, 2003, 50(11), 1477-1490.
[105] Levitt, B. & March, J. G. Organizational learning[J]. Anual Review of Sociology, 1988,14, 319-340.
[106] Lin, L .H ., Geng, X. J. & Whinston, A. B. A sender-receiver frame work for knowledge transfer[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2005, 29(2), 197-219.
[107] Lundvall, B. A. Why study national systems and national styles of innovation [J]. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 1998, 10(1), 407-421.
[108] Marsden, P. V. & Campbell, K. E. Measuring tie strength[J]. Social Forces, 1984,63(2), 482-501.
[109] Marsden, P. V. Network data and measurement[J]. Annual Review of Sociology, 1990, 16(1), 435-463.
[110] McEvily, B. & Zaheer, A. Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capability [J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1999, 31(4), 35-55.
[111] McEvily, B., Perrone, V. & Zaheer, A. Trust as an organizing principle[J]. Organization Science, 2003, 14(1), 91-103.
[112] Mitchell, J. C. The concept and use of social networks. Mitchell, (des.), Social Network in Urban Situations. Manchester, Eng: Machester University Press, 1969.
[113] Mowery, D. E. & Oxley, J. E. Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(Winter), 77-91.
[114] Mowery, D. C. & Oxley, J. E. Inward technology transfer and competitiveness: the role of national innovation systems[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1995, 19(1), 67-93.
[115] Nadler, J., Thompson, L. and Van Boven, L. Learning negotiation skills: four models of knowledge creation and transfer[J]. Management Science, 2003,49(4), 529-540.
[116] Nahapiet, J. & Ghoshal S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1998 , 23(2), 242 -266.
[117] Nelson, R. R. & Winter S. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Harvard university Press, 1982, 87-92.
[118] Nielsen, B. B. The role of knowledge embeddedness in the creation of synergies in the strategies alliances[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2005, 58(9), 1194-1204.
[119] Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation[J]. Organization Science, 1994, 5(1), 14-37.
[120] Nonaka, I. The knowledge-creating company[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1991,6,96-105.
[121] Nonaka, I., Byosiere, P. & Borucki, C. Organizational knowledge creation theory: a first comprehensive test[J]. International Business Review, 1994, 3(4), 337-351.
[122] Nonaka, I. & Konno, N. The concept of 'Ba': building a foundation for knowledge creation [J]. California Management Review, 1998,40(3), 40-54.
[123] Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. The knowledge creating company[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995, 58.
[124] Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. The knowledge-creating theory revisited knowledge creation as a synthesizing process[J]. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 2003, 1(1), 2-10.
[125] Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Konno, N. SECI, Ba and leadingship: a unified model of dynamic knowledge creation[J]. Long Range Planning, 2000, 33(1), 5-34.
[126] Nonaka, I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation[J]. Organization Science, 1994, 5(1), 14-37.
[127] Nooteboom., V. & Gilsing, A. Density and strength of ties in innovation networks: a competence and governance view[J]. Ecis, 2004(1), 1- 44.
[128] OECD. The knowledge based economy. Paris: OECD, 1996: 12.
[129] Polanyi, M. The tacit dimension. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966,4.
[130] Powell, W. W. Learning form colaboraiton: knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry[J]. Califonria Management Review, 1998,40(3), 228-240.
[131] Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W. & Smith, D. L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovaiton: networks of learning in biotechnology [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1996,41(1), 116-145.
[132] Putnam R.D. Bowling alone: American's declining social captial[J]. Journal of Democracy, 2000,6,65-78.
[133] Putnam R., Bowling Together, The American Prospect, 11th February 2002.
[134] Reagans, R. & Zuckerman, E. W. Networks, diversity, and productivity: the social capital of corporate R&D teams[J]. Organization Science, 2001, 12(4), 502-517.
[135] Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E. W. & McEvily, B. How to make the team? Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective projects. Working paper, Columbia University Graduate School of Business, 2003.
[136] Reagans, R. & McEvily, B. Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2003, 48(2), 240-267.
[137] Reed, R. & DeFillippi, R. J. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1990, 15(1), 88-102.
[138] Ring, P. S. & Van De Ven, A. H. Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, 13(7), 483-498.
[139] Rowley, T., Behrens, D. & Krackhardt, D. Redundant governance structures: an analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21(3), 369-386.
[140] Ryan K. L. & Michael M. B. Knowledge transfer and management consulting: a look at the firm[J]. Business Horizons, 2000(1-2), 65-74.
[141 ] Scott, J. Social network analysis: a handbook. London: SAGE, 2000, 83-85.
[142] Simon, H. A . Bounded rationality and organizational learning[J]. Organization Science, 1991,2(1), 125-134.
[143] Simonin, B. L. The importance of developing collaborative know-how: an empirical test of the learning organization[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1997,40(5), 1150-1174.
[144] Simonin, B. L. Transfer of marketing know-how in international strategic alliances: an empirical investigation of the role and antecedents of knowledge ambiguity[J]. Journal of International Business Studies, 1999a, 30(3), 463-490.
[145] Simonin, B. L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances[J]. Strategic Management Jounral, 1999b, 20(7), 595-623.
[146] Singley, M. K. & Anderson, J. R. The transfer of cognitive skill. New York: Harvard University Press, 1989, 112-115.
[147] Skvoretz, J., Fararo, T. J. & Agneessents, F. Advanced in biased net theory: definitions, derivations, and estimations[J]. Social Network, 2004, 26(2), 113-139.
[148] Szulanski, G. Intra-firm transfer of best practice, appropriative capabilities, and organizational barriers to appropriations. Academy of Management Based Papers Proceeding, 1993,47-51.
[149] Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1996, 17(Summer special issue), 27-43.
[150] Szulanski, G. The process of knowledge transfer: a diachronic analysis of stickiness[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2000, 82(1), 9-27.
[151] Szulanski, G., Cappetta, R. & Jensen, R. J. When and how trustworthiness matters: knowledge transfer and the moderating effect of causal ambiguity[J]. Organization Science, 2004, 15(5), 600-613.
[152] Teece, D. J. Technology transfer by multinational firms: the resource cost of transferring technological know-how[J]. The Economic Journal, 1977, 87(June), 242-261.
[153] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management[J]. Stratgaic Management Journal, 1997, 18(7), 509-533.
[154] Tiwana, A. & Ramesh, B. A design knowledge management system to support collaborative information product evolution[J]. Decision Support Systems, 2001, 31(2), 241-262.
[155] Toby E. Stuart Network positions and propensities to collaborate: an investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1998,43(3), 668-698.
[156] Tsai,W .& Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation: the role of intra-firm networks[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1998,41(4), 464-476.
[157] Tsai W. Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks: effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance [J]. Academy o f Management Journal, 2001,44(5), 996-1004.
[158] Tsang, E .W. K. Managing learning inforeign-invested enterprises of China[J]. Management Intenrational Review, 2001,41(1), 29-51.
[159] Tsang, E. W. K. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint venture in a transition economy: leanring-by-doing and leanring myopia[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2002a, 23(9), 835-854.
[160] Tsang, E .W K.Sharing intenraitonal joint venture experience: a study of some key determinants[J]. Management Intenrational Review, 2002b, 42(2), 183-205.
[161] Turban, E. Expert systems and applied artificial intelligence. New York : Macmillan,1992,32.
[162]Tyler,B.B.The complementarity of cooperative and technological competencies:a resource-based perspective[J].Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2001,18,1-27.
[163]Uzzi,B.The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations:the network effect[J].American Sociology Review,1996,61(4),674-698.
[164]Uzzi,B.Social Structure and Competition in Interfirm Networks:the paradox of embeddedness[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),35-67.
[165]Uzzi,B.Social relations and networks in the making of financial capital[J].American Sociology Review,1999,64,481-505.
[166]Uzzi,B.& Lancaster,R.Relational embeddedness and learning:the case of bank loan managers and their clients[J].Management Science,2003,49(4)383-399.
[167]Wasserman,S.& Faust,K.Social network analysis:methods and applications.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
[168]Wellman B.& Berkowitz,S.D.Social structures:a network approach.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1988.
[169]Winter,S.Knowledge and competence as strategic assets.Cambridge:Ballinger Publishing,1987.
[170]Yong Suhk,P.& Young-ryeol,P.A framework of knowledge transfer in cross-border joint ventures:an empirical test of the Korean context[J].Management International Review,2004,44(4),417-434.
[171]Young,S.& Lan,P.Technology transfer to China through foreign direct investment[J].Regional Studies,1997,31(7),669-679.
[172]Zander,U.& Kogut,B.Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities:an empirical test[J].Organization Science,1995,6(1),76-92.
[173]Zahra,S.A.& George,G.Absorptive capacity:a review reconceptualization,and extension[J].Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2),185-203.
[174]Zhao,L.& Aram,J.D.Contextual influence on the corporate entrepreneurship performance relationship[J].Journal of Business Venturing,1995,10,43-58.
[175]Coleman,J.S.社会理论的基础.北京:社会科学文献出版社,1999.
[176]Dixon,N.共有知识:企业知识共享的方法与案例.北京:人民邮电出版社,2002,31-33.
[177]Drucker,P.新现实——走向21世纪.北京:中国经济出版社,1993,203.
[178]Drucker,P.知识管理.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2000,11-13.
[179]Kilduff,M.& Tsai,W.B.社会网络与组织.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[180]Polyani,M.个人知识——迈向后批判哲学.贵州:贵州人民出版社,2000.
[181]Putnam,R.D.使民主运转起来.南昌:江西人民出版社,2001.
[182]Scott,J.社会网络分析法.重庆:重庆大学出版社,2007.
[183]边燕杰.找回强关系[J].国外社会学,1998(2).
[184]常荔,邹珊刚.知识管理与企业核心竞争力的形成[J].科研管理,2000,21(2),13-19.
[185]甘路明,潘惠和刘景江等.企业技术知识管理研究[J].科学学研究,2003(2),201-204.
[186]耿宪良.组织内部知识市场、知识交易成本和知识分享[J].经济管理,2004(24),27-32.
[187]关涛.跨国公司内部知识转移过程和影响因素的实证研究[D].博士学位论文,复旦大学,2005.
[188]郭京京,尹秋霞.企业间缄默知识传递效果的影响因素研究[J].技术经济,2008,27(7),7-17.
[189]黄海云,陈莉平.嵌入社会网络的企业集群结构及其优势[J].现代管理科学,2005(5),70-71.
[190]黄洁.企业集群成长中的网络演化:机制与路径研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[191]黄芳铭.结构方程模式:理论与应用.北京:中国税务出版社,2005.
[192]侯吉刚,刘益和李西垚.基于企业网络结构属性的知识管理研究[J].科学管理研究,2008,26(1),74-77.
[193]江新,郑兰琴和黄荣怀.关于隐性知识的分类[J].开放教育研究,2005,11(1),28-31.
[194]姜进章.知识重建论:一种超越时代的管理哲学与方法论[M].北京:科学出版社,2004.
[195]柯江林,石金涛.驱动员工知识转移的组织社会资本功能探讨[J].科技管理研究,2006(2),144-149.
[196]柯江林,孙健敏和石金涛等.企业R&D团队之社会资本与团队效能关系的实证研究——以知识分享与知识整合为中介变量[J].管理世界,2007(3),89-101.
[197]邝宁华,胡奇英和杜荣.强联系与跨部门复杂知识转移困难的克服[J].研究与发展管理,2004,16(2),20-25.
[198]李纲,刘益.国内外企业知识转移的研究现状分析[J].情报杂志,2007,9,10-13.
[199]李怀祖.管理研究方法论.西安:西安交通大学出版社,2004.
[200]李树茁,韦艳和任义科.基于整体网络视角的农民工行为影响因素分析[J]. 人口与经济,2007(1),10-18.
[201]林南.构建社会资本的网络理论[J].国外社会学,2002(6),18-37.
[202]刘星,尹向东和赵泉午等.钢铁企业横向并购中知识转移影响因素的路径分析[J].科研管理,2006,27(4),61-70.
[203]刘军.社会网络分析导轮.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2004.
[204]刘军.法村社会支持网络——一个整体研究的视角.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[205]卢兵,岳亮和廖貅武.联盟中知识转移效果的研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2006(8),84-88.
[206]罗家德.社会网络分析讲义.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2005.
[207]罗家德.NQ风暴——关系管理的智慧.北京:社会科学文献出版社,2002.
[208]骆品亮,周勇.虚拟研发组织中知识转移的道德风险模型分析[J].研究与发展管理,2005,17(3),64-89.
[209]马费成,王晓光.知识转移的社会网络模型研究[J].江西社会科学,2006,24(11),38-44.
[210]马庆国.管理统计:数据获取、统计原理与SPSS工具与应用研究.北京:科学出版社,2002.
[211]马刚.基于战略网络视角的产业区企业竞争优势实证研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2005.
[212]彭澎.基于社会网络视角的高技术企业集群式成长机制研究.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2007.
[213]卜长莉.当代社会发展中的社会资本问题.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2003.
[214]浦根祥.科学知识本性的哲学与社会学解释之争述评[J].自然辩证法研究,1996(10),1-6.
[215]沈瑶.非正式网络中隐性知识传递效果的影响机制研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[216]斯蒂芬·P·罗宾斯.管理学.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2003,5.
[217]疏礼兵.技术创新视角下企业研发团队内部知识转移影响因素的实证分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008,7,108-114.
[218]疏礼兵.团队内部知识转移的过程机制与影响因素研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[219]谭大鹏,霍国庆.知识转移一般过程研究[J].当代经济管理,2006,28(3),11-14.
[220]汤建影,黄瑞华.合作研发企业间知识共享的微观机制[J].科学管理研究,2004(12),71-75.
[221]托马斯·布朗.社会资本理论综述[J].马克思主义与现实,2000(2),41-46.
[222]田慧敏,李南和邓丹.弱连接在促进隐藏隐性知识转移中的作用[J].科技进步与对策,2005(6),18-20.
[223]王得禄.知识管理:竞争力之源.南京:江苏人民出版社,1999,41.
[224]王开明,万君康.论知识的转移与扩散[J].外国经济与管理,2000(10),2-7.
[225]王清晓,杨忠.跨国公司内部网络结点之间知识转移的影响因素分析——一个概念模型[J].科研管理,2006(3),102-107.
[226]王三义,刘新梅和万威武.社会资本关系维度对知识转移的影响路径研究[J].科技进步与对策,2007a,24(9),84-87.
[227]王三义,刘新梅和万威武.社会资本结构维度对企业间知识转移影响的实证研究[J].科技进步与对策,2007b,24(4),105-107.
[228]王三义,何风林.社会资本的认知维度对知识转移的影响路径研究[J].财经论坛,2007c(3),122-123.
[229]王铜安.个体、群体、组织间知识转移影响因素的实证研究.硕士学位论文,西北工业大学,2005.
[230]王夏洁,刘红丽.基于社会网络理论的知识链分析[J].情报杂志,2007(2):18-21.
[231]王晓娟.知识网络与集群企业竞争优势研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[232]王毅,吴贵生.产学研合作中粘滞知识的成因与转移机制研究[J].科研管理,2001(6),114-121.
[233]魏江,王铜安.个体、群组、组织间知识转移影响因素的实证研究[J].科学学研究,2006(2),91-97.
[234]温忠麟,张雷和侯杰泰.中介效应检验程序及其应用[J].心理学报,2004,36(5),614-620.
[235]温忠麟,侯杰泰和张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用[J].心理学报,2005,37(2),268-274.
[236]吴承惠.组织内个体层面知识转移的影响因素研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[237]吴结兵.基于企业网络结构与动态能力的产业集群竞争优势研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[238]吴绍波,顾新.知识链组织之间合作的关系强度研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008(2),113-118.
[239]邬爱其.集群企业网络化成长机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[240]肖广岭.隐性知识、隐性认知和科学研究[J].自然辨证法研究,1999(8),18-21.
[241]肖鸿.试析当代社会网研究的若干进展[J].社会学研究,1999(3),1-11.
[242]谢荷锋,水常青.个体间非正式知识转移研究述评[J].研究与发展管理,2006,18(4),54-62.
[243]谢荷锋.企业员工知识分享中的信任问题实证研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[244]徐金发,许强和顾惊雷.企业知识转移的情境分析模型[J].科研管理,2003(3),54-60.
[245]许小虎,项保华.社会网络中的企业知识吸收能力分析[J].经济问题探索,2005(10),18-22.
[246]薛求知,关涛.跨国公司知识转移:知识特性与转移工具研究[J].管理科学学报,2006,9(6),64-72.
[247]杨海珍.技术创新过程中的网络研究[J].西北大学学报(自然科学版),1999(10),11-36.
[248]杨玉兵,胡汉辉.网络结构与知识转移[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2008(2),123-127.
[249]姚小涛,席酉民.社会网络理论及其在企业研究中的应用[J].西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2003,23(3),22-27.
[250]姚小涛,席酉民.管理研究与社会网络分析[J].现代管理科学,2008(6),19-21.
[251]叶许红.信息系统创新实施中的管理者影响研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[252]袁方.社会研究方法教程.北京:北京大学出版社,1997.
[253]查金祥.B2C电子商务顾客价值与顾客忠诚度的关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[254]张志勇,刘益.基于网络视角的企业间知识转移研究[J].情报杂志,2007a(11),70-72.
[255]张志勇,刘益.企业间知识转移的双网络模型[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007b(9),94-97.
[256]张其仔.新经济社会学.北京:中国社会科学出版社,2001.
[257]张毅.企业网络与组织间学习过程研究.博士学位论文,华中科技大学,2003.
[258]曾萍,蓝海林.企业研发团队知识分享的影响因素及对策[J].科技管理研究,2005(12),209-211.
[259]周和荣,张鹏程和张金隆.组织内非正式隐性知识转移机理研究[J].科研管理,2008,29(50),70-77.
[260]周晓东,项保华.企业知识内部转移:模式、影响因素与机制分析[J].南开管理评论,2003,6(5),7-10.
[261]周红云.社会资本布迪厄、科尔曼和帕特南的比较[J].经济社会体制比较,2003(4),46-53.
[262]周密,赵文红和姚小涛.社会关系视角下的知识转移理论研究评述及展望[J].科研管理,2007,28(3),78-85.
[263]朱亚丽.网络中心性对企业间知识转移影响的实证研究[J].技术经济,2008,27(12),1-6.
[264]左美云.国内外企业知识管理研究综述[J].科学决策,2000(3),31-37.