地理搜寻对集群企业创新绩效的影响：吸收能力的调节作用
|
摘要
集群企业是我国区域经济发展的重要载体和形式,但创新能力普遍不高。开放式创新理论认为增加企业的知识能有效地提高企业的创新能力,而企业的创新能力不仅要受到自身知识存量的影响,还受到外部知识的影响。因此在我国集群企业内部知识相对有限的情况下,如何搜寻外部知识成为我国集群企业增强创新能力的重要途径。对集群企业来说,外部知识可以分为本地知识和外地知识。学者们对集群企业应该关注哪种知识还存在很多争论。因此,本研究借用创新搜寻理论分析这两种知识对企业创新绩效的影响。搜寻的宽度和深度代表着企业的开放性,它们对集群企业创新绩效有着不同的作用机制。因此,同时分析搜寻的宽度和深度能更好的理解创新搜寻对集群企业创新的作用。但企业仅仅搜寻到知识还不够,还需要吸收能力来将这些知识转化成创新绩效。早期关于知识和企业创新的研究经常忽略吸收能力在其中发挥的作用,因而企业吸收能力的异质性很有可能就是学者们关于集群企业应该关注本地知识还是外地知识的分歧所在。
因此,本文通过对知识基础观和集群创新理论文献的梳理,系统分析了本地知识和外地知识不同的知识属性和功能属性；创新性地将创新搜寻的地理维度和搜寻特征(宽度和深度)相结合,围绕着本地搜寻宽度、本地搜寻深度、外地搜寻宽度和外地搜寻深度同集群企业创新绩效的影响以及吸收能力对上述影响的调节作用进行分析。同时基于浙江省纺织集群和软件集群的115家企业的数据进行实证分析,研究发现本地搜寻宽度和本地搜寻深度同集群企业创新绩效呈倒U型关系,而外地搜寻宽度和外地搜寻深度同集群企业创新绩效没有关系。吸收能力对本地搜寻宽度和本地搜寻深度同集群企业创新绩效的关系不显著,而当企业吸收能力高时,外地搜寻宽度和外地搜寻深度同集群企业创新绩效呈正相关。
Cluster firms are very important forms of regional economic in China. However, most of them lack the capability of innovation. Open Innovation Theory believe that knowledge can improve the innovation capability of firm. the innovation capability of firm is influenced by both the existing knowledge in the firm and knowledge from environment. On the condition of limited knowledge in the cluster firm in China, the search for the knowledge outside the firm is an important method to improve the innovation capability of cluster firm. At the same time, the difference of innovation performance among the cluster firms raised the attention of researchers and some of them believe that the difference of search strategy is the one reason of the difference of innovation performance of cluster firm. For the cluster firm, the knowledge outside the firm can be divided into local knowledge and distant knowledge. There is a fierce debate about which knowledge cluster firm should focus. The researchers support their standpoints from different perspectives; however, they have not analyzed the influence of local knowledge and distant knowledge on innovation performance of cluster firm at the same time.
Hence, in this paper we use innovation search theory to analyze the impact of these two knowledge on the innovation performance of cluster firm. Breadth and depth of search represent the openness of firm and they have the different effect to the innovation performance of cluster firm. Hence, the influence of innovation search on innovation of cluster firm can be better understood with breadth and depth of search. However, only search the knowledge is not enough for cluster firms, they still need the absorptive capacity to transfer these knowledge to innovation performance. Little attention is paid to the role of absorptive capacity between the knowledge and innovation of firm in the early researches. But the heterogeneity of absorptive capacity of cluster firm is the reason of debate about the focus between local knowledge and distant knowledge. In this paper we try to use knowledge-based theory, cluster innovation theory and innovation search theory to explain the reason why there is difference of innovation performance among the cluster firms and analyze the influence of local knowledge and distant knowledge on innovation perfomance of cluster firm.
In this paper, we reorganize the research about knowledge based theory of firm and cluster innovation theory, systematically analyze the knowledge characteristics and functional characteristics of local knowledge and distant knowledge. We also innovatively combine the depth and breadth of search with the spatial search; analyze the influence of local search breath, local search depth, distant search breath and distant search depth on innovation performance of cluster firm and the moderating effect of absorptive capacity.
Based on the analysis of the data of115enterprises in the textile cluster and software cluster in Zhejiang province, we find local search breadth is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U-shape) related to innovative performance of cluster firm and local search depth is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U-shape) related to the innovative performance of cluster firm while distant search breadth is not significantly related to the innovative performance of cluster firm and distant search depth is not significantly related to the innovative performance of cluster firm. However, absorptive capacity doesn't have the moderating effect on the relationship between local search breadth and the innovative performance of cluster firm and the relationship between local search depth and the innovative performance of cluster firm. Under the condition of high absorptive capacity, distant search breath is positively related with the innovative performance of cluster firm and distant search depth is positively related with the innovative performance of cluster firm.
因此,本文通过对知识基础观和集群创新理论文献的梳理,系统分析了本地知识和外地知识不同的知识属性和功能属性；创新性地将创新搜寻的地理维度和搜寻特征(宽度和深度)相结合,围绕着本地搜寻宽度、本地搜寻深度、外地搜寻宽度和外地搜寻深度同集群企业创新绩效的影响以及吸收能力对上述影响的调节作用进行分析。同时基于浙江省纺织集群和软件集群的115家企业的数据进行实证分析,研究发现本地搜寻宽度和本地搜寻深度同集群企业创新绩效呈倒U型关系,而外地搜寻宽度和外地搜寻深度同集群企业创新绩效没有关系。吸收能力对本地搜寻宽度和本地搜寻深度同集群企业创新绩效的关系不显著,而当企业吸收能力高时,外地搜寻宽度和外地搜寻深度同集群企业创新绩效呈正相关。
Cluster firms are very important forms of regional economic in China. However, most of them lack the capability of innovation. Open Innovation Theory believe that knowledge can improve the innovation capability of firm. the innovation capability of firm is influenced by both the existing knowledge in the firm and knowledge from environment. On the condition of limited knowledge in the cluster firm in China, the search for the knowledge outside the firm is an important method to improve the innovation capability of cluster firm. At the same time, the difference of innovation performance among the cluster firms raised the attention of researchers and some of them believe that the difference of search strategy is the one reason of the difference of innovation performance of cluster firm. For the cluster firm, the knowledge outside the firm can be divided into local knowledge and distant knowledge. There is a fierce debate about which knowledge cluster firm should focus. The researchers support their standpoints from different perspectives; however, they have not analyzed the influence of local knowledge and distant knowledge on innovation performance of cluster firm at the same time.
Hence, in this paper we use innovation search theory to analyze the impact of these two knowledge on the innovation performance of cluster firm. Breadth and depth of search represent the openness of firm and they have the different effect to the innovation performance of cluster firm. Hence, the influence of innovation search on innovation of cluster firm can be better understood with breadth and depth of search. However, only search the knowledge is not enough for cluster firms, they still need the absorptive capacity to transfer these knowledge to innovation performance. Little attention is paid to the role of absorptive capacity between the knowledge and innovation of firm in the early researches. But the heterogeneity of absorptive capacity of cluster firm is the reason of debate about the focus between local knowledge and distant knowledge. In this paper we try to use knowledge-based theory, cluster innovation theory and innovation search theory to explain the reason why there is difference of innovation performance among the cluster firms and analyze the influence of local knowledge and distant knowledge on innovation perfomance of cluster firm.
In this paper, we reorganize the research about knowledge based theory of firm and cluster innovation theory, systematically analyze the knowledge characteristics and functional characteristics of local knowledge and distant knowledge. We also innovatively combine the depth and breadth of search with the spatial search; analyze the influence of local search breath, local search depth, distant search breath and distant search depth on innovation performance of cluster firm and the moderating effect of absorptive capacity.
Based on the analysis of the data of115enterprises in the textile cluster and software cluster in Zhejiang province, we find local search breadth is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U-shape) related to innovative performance of cluster firm and local search depth is curvilinearly (taking an inverted U-shape) related to the innovative performance of cluster firm while distant search breadth is not significantly related to the innovative performance of cluster firm and distant search depth is not significantly related to the innovative performance of cluster firm. However, absorptive capacity doesn't have the moderating effect on the relationship between local search breadth and the innovative performance of cluster firm and the relationship between local search depth and the innovative performance of cluster firm. Under the condition of high absorptive capacity, distant search breath is positively related with the innovative performance of cluster firm and distant search depth is positively related with the innovative performance of cluster firm.
引文
[1]Abernathy, W. J., & Utterback, J. M. Patterns of industrial innovation. Technology Review,1978,50,41-47.
[2]Ahuja, G. C., & Lampert, M. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation:A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22521-543.
[3]Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25,887-907.
[4]Almeida, P. Knowledge Sourcing by Foreign Multinationals:Patent Citation Analysis in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, Strategic Management Journal, 1996,17,155-165.
[5]Almeida, P. Knowledge Sourcing by Foreign Multinationals:Patent Citation Analysis in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, Strategic Management Journal, 1996,17,155-165.
[6]Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. The exploration of technological diversity and the geographic localization of innovation. Small Business Economics,1997,9, 21-31.
[7]Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. Localization of ideas and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science,1999,45,905-917.
[8]Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity:Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science,2009,20(4),696-717.
[9]Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. Managing Knowledge in Organizations:An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes. Management Science,2003,49(4),571-582.
[10]Argyris. C., & Schon, D. Organizational learning reading. MA: Addisoii-Wesley.1978.
[11]Arrow, K. J. Information and economic behavior. In Collected Papers of Kenneth, Chicago:Belknap Press,1984.
[12]Asheim, B.T., & Isaksen, A. Regional Innovation Systems:The Integration of Local'Sticky'and Global'Ubiquitous'Knowledge. Journal of Technology Transfer,2002,27,77-86.
[13]Audretsch, B. Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. The Oxford Review of Economic Policy,1998,14(2),18-29.
[14]Badaracco, J. L. Business ethics:Four spheres of executive responsibility. California Management Review,1992,64-82.
[15]Baptista, R., & Swann, P. Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy,1998,27(5),525-540.
[16]Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,1991,17(1),99-120.
[17]Bartholomew, S. National systems of biotechnology innovation:complex interdependence in the global system. Journal of International Business Studies 1997,28,241-266.
[18]Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. Clusters and knowledge:local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography,2004,28(1),31-56.
[19]Bayona, C., Garcia-Marco, T., & Huerta, E. Firms'motivations for co-operative R&D:an empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Research Policy, 2001,30(8),1289-1307.
[20]Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. Co-operative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy,2004,33(10),1477-1492.
[21]Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. Heterogeneity in R&D co-operation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2004,22(8/9),1237-1263.
[22]Bettis, R. A., & Prahala, C. K. The dominant logic:Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal,1995,16(1),5-14.
[23]Bhagat, R., Kedia, B., Harveston, P. & Triandis, H. Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge:an integrative framework. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2),204-221.
[24]Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R., & Ridderstrale, J. Knowledge as a Contingency Variable:Do the Characteristics of Knowledge Predict Organization Structure? Organization Science,2002,13(3),274-289.
[25]Bonaccorsi, A., & Lipparine, A. Strategic partnerships in new product development:an Italian case study. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1994 11(2),134-145.
[26]Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. The Social Life of Information. Harvard Business School Press:Boston, MA,2000.
[27]Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., & Tsakanikas, A. Internal capability and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation,2004,24 (1),29-39.
[28]Cantwell, J, & Mudambi, R. The location of MNE R&D activity: the role of investment incentives. Management International Review,2000,40, 127-149.
[29]Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. Spillovers and R&D cooperation:some empirical evidence. American Economic Review,2002.92(4),1169-1184.
[30]Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. Rationales for public policy intervention from a system of innovation approach:the case of VTNNOVA.2006.
[31]Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2003.
[32]Chiang, Y. H., & Hung, K. P. Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows. R&D Management,2010,40(3),292-299.
[33]Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. Innovation and learning:The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal.1989,99,569-596.
[34]Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1), 128-152.
[35]Conner, K. An historical comparison of resource-based logic and five schools of thought within industrial organization economies:Do we have a new theory of the firm here? Journal of Management,1991,17,121-154.
[36]Cvert, R., & March, J. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englcwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.1963.
[37]Dasgupta, P., & David, P. Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy,1994.23(5),487-522.
[38]De Meyer, A. Management of international R&D operations. In Technology Management and International Business:Internationalization of R&D and Technology, Granstrand O, Hakanson L, Sjolander S(eds). Wiley: New York; 1992.163-178.
[39]Dosi, C. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature,1988,26,1120-1171.
[40]Dunning, J. Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. Addison-Wesley:Reading, MA.1992.
[41]Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., & Mitchill, W. Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21,96-126.
[42]Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(10-11),1105-1121.
[43]Eisenhardt, K. M. & Tabrizi, B. N. Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995,40(1),84-110.
[44]Eriksson, R., Lindgren, U., & Malmberg, G. Agglomeration mobility: effects of localisation, urbanisation, and scale on job changes. Environment and Planning,2008.40(10),2419-2434.
[45]Escribanoa, A., Fosfurib, A., & Tribo, J. Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy,2008,38(1), 96-105.
[46]Fabrizio, K. R. Absorptive capacity and innovation:evidence from pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms. Unpublished working paper,2004.
[47]Feinberg, S., & Gupta, A. Knowledge spillovers and the assignment of R&D responsibilities to foreign subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal,2004, Special Issue 25(8-9),823-845.
[48]Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Research Policy,2001.30,1019-1039.
[49]Fosfur, A., & Tribo, J. A. Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega,2008,36(2), 173-187.
[50]Freel, M. S. Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research Policy,2003 32 (4),751-770.
[51]Freeman, C., & Soete, L. The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press:1997.
[52]Frost, T. The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries innovations. Strategic Management Journa,2001,22(2),101-123.
[53]Ganesan, S., Malter, A. J., & Rindfleisch, A. Does Distance Still Matter? Geographic Proximity and New Product Development. The Journal of Marketing.2005,69(4),44-60.
[54]Ghemawat, P. Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review,2001,79(8), 137-145.
[55]Gibert, M., Leibold, M., & Probs, G. Five styles of customer knowledge management and how smart companies use them to creat value. European Management Journal,2002,20(5)
[56]Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation:evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy,2005,34, 47-68.
[57]Grabher, G. The weakness of strong ties. The lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr area. In G. Grabher (Ed.), The embedded firm:on the socio-economics of industrial networks. London:Routledge. (1993).
[58]Grant, R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17,109-122.
[59]Gregory, N. S., Grei, N.P., & Fischer, W. A. Absorptive capacity and new product development. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,2001,12(1),77-91.
[60]Grimpe, C., Sofka, W., & Zimmermann, J. Young, open and international: The impact of search strategies on the internationalization of new ventures. 2009, working paper.
[61]Hansen, M. The search-transfer problem:The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1999.4482-111.
[62]Harrison, B. Industrial districts:old wine in new bottles? Regional Studies, 1992,26,469-83.
[63]Helper, S. Incentives for supplier participation in product development: evidence from US auto industry. In:Nishiguchi, T. (Ed.), Managing Product Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford,1996.165-189.
[64]Hemmert, M. The influence of institutional factors on the technology acquisition performance of high-tech firms:survey results from Germany and Japan. Research Policy,2004,33(6/7),1019-1040.
[65]Henderson. R., & Clark, K. B. Architectural innovation:the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990.35(1),9-30.
[66]Hendry, C., & Brown, J. Organizational networking in UK biotechnology clusters. British Journal of Management,2006,17(1),55-73.
[67]Hfiiner, R. Uncertainty, signal-detection experimonts, and modeling behavior. In R. Langlois (Ed.). Economics as a process:Gambridgo, England: Cambridge University Press.1986. Essays in the new institutional economics: 59-115.
[68]Hirsh, P. M., & Levin, D. Z.1999. Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science,10(2),199-212.
[69]Inkpen, A. C., & Pien, W. An examination of collaboration and knowledge transfer: China-Singapore Suzhou industrial park. Journal of Management Studies,200643(4),779-811.
[70]Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda. H. W. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal,2005,48,999-1015.
[71]Katil, R., & Chan, E. L. Effects of search timing on innovation:The value of not being in sync with rivals. Administrative Science Quarterly,2008,53(4), 593-625.
[72]Katila, R. New product search over time:Past ideas in their prime? Academic Management Journal,2002,45,995-1010.
[73]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.
[74]Katila, R., & Mang, P. Exploiting technological opportunities:the timing of collaborations. Research Policy,2003,32,317-332.
[75]Kedia, B. L., & Bhagat, R. S. Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations:Implications for research in international and comparative advantage. Academic Management Review,1988,13,559-571.
[76]Ketchen, D. J., Hult, T. M., & Slater, S. F. Toward greater understanding of market orientation and the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(9),961-964.
[77]Koput, K. W. A chaotic model of innovative search:some answers, many questions. Organization Science,1997,8(5),528-542.
[78]Kuemmerle, W. Foreign direct investment in industrial research in the pharmaceutical and electronics industries. Research Policy,1999,28, 179-193.
[79]Lane, P. J. & Lubatkin, M. L. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5), 461-477.
[80]Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19, 461-77.
[81]Lane, P. J., Koka, B. & Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4),833-863.
[82]Lane, P. J., Koka, B., & Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4),833-863.
[83]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
[84]Lawson, C., & Lorenz, E. Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies,1999,33,305-17.
[85]Ledwith, A., & Coughlan, P. Splendid isolation:does networking really increase new product success? Creativity and Innovation Management,2005, 14(4),366-373.
[86]Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal.1993,14,95-112.
[87]Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S. Ruigrok, W. & Numagami. T. Convergence and divergence of organizing:The moderating effect of nation state. A. M. Pettigrew, R. Whittington, L. Melin, C. Sanchez-Runde, F. Van den Bosch, W. Ruigrok, T. Numagami, eds. Innovating Forms of Organizing. Sage, London, 2003,277-300.
[88]Lewin, A. Y., & Massini, S. Microfoundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines. Organization Science,2011,22,88-98.
[89]Lichtenthaler, U. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management Journal,2009,52(4),822-846.
[90]Linn, T.A. Learning from the competition. Journal of Accountancy,1994, 177(2),43-46.
[91]Loof, H., & Heshmati, A. Knowledge capital and performance: a new firm level innovation study. International Journal of Production Economic,2002 76(1),61-85.
[92]Lukas, B. A., & Ferrell, O. C. The effect of market orientation on product innovation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,2000,28(2), 239-247.
[93]Lundvall, B. A. National Systems of Innovation:Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter: London.1992.
[94]Malmber, A., & Power, D. How do firms in clusters create knowledge? Industry & Innovation,2005,12(4),409-431.
[95]March, J. G., Sproul, L. S., & Tamuz, M. Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organization Science,1991,2(1),1-13.
[96]March, J. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2:71-87.
[97]Martin, F. The economic impact of Canadian university R&D. Research Policy,1998,27(5),677-687.
[98]Martin, X., & Mitchell, W. The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market. Research Policy,1998,26,753-771.
[99]Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. Co-operative R&D:why, and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy,2003 32 (8),1481-1499.
[100]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.
[101]Mosakowski, E., & Mckelvey, B. Strategy Making under Causal Ambiguity:Conceptual Issues and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, 1997,8(4),414-442.
[102]Nelson, R., & Winter, T. An evolutionary theory of economic Change. Cambridge M A: Harvard University Press,1982.
[103]Nicholas T. Spatial diversity in invention:evidence from the early R&D labs. Journal of Economic Geography,2009,9,1-31.
[104]Nieto, M. J. & Santamaria, L. The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation,2007,27 (3), 367-377.
[105]Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press,1995.
[106]Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change,2000.9,1-20.
[107]Ocasio, W. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1997, Summer Special Issue,18,187-206.
[108]Oerlemans, L. A. G. & Meeus, M. T. H. Do organizational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance? 2005,39(1),89-104.
[109]Oinas, P. Activity-specificity in organizational learning:implications for analysing the role of proximity. GeoJournal,1999,49,363-72.
[110]Pavitt, K. Sectoral patterns of technical change:towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy,1984.13,343-373.
[111]Phene, A., Lindquist, K. F., & Marsh, L. Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27,369-388
[112]Polanyi, M. The tacit dimension, Anchor Day, New York,1966.
[113]Porter, M. E. Clusters and competition. Locations, clusters and company strategy. The Oxford handbook of economic geography, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000.
[114]Prahala, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. The dominant logic:A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal,1986, 7(6),485-501.
[115]Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,1990,68(3),79-91.
[116]Prahalad, C. K. & Ramaswamy, V. Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review,2000,78(1),79
[117]Rallet, A., & Torre, A. Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? GeoJournal,1999,49, 373-380.
[118]Rappert, B., Webster, A., & Charles, D. Making sense of diversity and reluctance:academic-industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy,1999,28(8),873-890.
[119]Roberts, P. W. Product innovation, product-market competition and persistent profitability in the US pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20,655-670.
[120]Rosen, S. Transactions costs and internal labor markets. The Nature of the Film. New York: Oxford University Press,75-89.
[121]Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22,287-306.
[122]Rothaerme, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. Ambidexterity in technology sourcing:The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 2009,20(4),759-780.
[123]Sanchez, A. M., & Perez, M. P. Cooperation and the ability to minimize the time and cost of new product development within the Spanish automotive supplier industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2003,20 (1), 57-69.
[124]Scott, C., & Brown, J. S. Bridging epistemologies:the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science,1999,10(4),381-400.
[125]Seaton, R. A. F. & Cordey-Hayes, M. The development and application of interactive models of industrial technology transfer. Technovation,1993, 13(1),45-53.
[126]Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R, & Volberda, H. W. The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation:Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science,2007,18(1),20-38.
[127]Simon, H. A. Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making process in administrative organization. Macmillan: Chicago,1L.1947.
[128]Simonin, B. L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(7),595-623.
[129]Sofk, W., & Grimpe, C. Specialized search and innovation performance-evidence across Europe. R&D Management,2010,40(3),310-323.
[130]Spencer, J. W. Firms' knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system:empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24 (3),217-233.
[131]Spender, J. C. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17 (Special Issue) 45-62.
[132]Staber, U. Specialization in a declining industrial district. Growth and Change,1997,28,475-95.
[133]Storper, M. & Venables, A. J.2002:Buzz:the economic force of the city. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference on'Industrial Dynamics of the New and Old Economy-Who is Embracing Whom?'in Copenhagen, Elsinore,6-8 June.
[134]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practises within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17 (Special Issue) 27-44.
[135]Teece, D. Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy,1986, 15,285-305.
[136]Tether, B. Who co-operate for innovation, and why:an empirical analysis. Research Policy,2002,31 (6),947-967.
[137]Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review,2007,32(3), 774-786.
[138]Tsai, W. H. Knowledge Transfer in Intra-organizational Networks: Effects of Network Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44 (5), 996-1017.
[139]Tsai, W. H. Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective. Research Policy,2009,38(5),765-778.
[140]Tyre, M. J. Managing the introduction of new process technology: International differences in a multi-plant network. Research Policy,1991, 20(1),57-76.
[141]Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1), 35-67.
[142]Visse, E. J., & Boschma, R. Learning in districts:Novelty and lock-in in a regional context. European Planning Studies,2004,12 (6),793-808.
[143]Von Hippel, E., Thomke, S., & Sonnnack, M. Creating breakthroughs at 3M. Harvard Business Review,1999.
[144]Von Zedtwit, M & Gassmann, O. Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization:four different patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy,2002,31(4),569-588.
[145]Wegner, D. M. Transactive memory:A contemporary analysis of the group mind. B. Mullen, G. R. Goethals, eds. Theories of Group Behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York,1986,185-205.
[146]Weterings, A., & Boschma, R. Does spatial proximity to customers matter for innovative performance? Evidence from the Dutch software sector. Research Policy,2009,38,746-755.
[147]Williamson, O. E. Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(12),1087-1108.
[148]Winter, S. G. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. D. Teece, ed. The Competitive Challenge-Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA,1987,159-184.
[149]Yong, S. P., & Park, Y. R. A framework of knowledge transfer in cross-border joint ventures:An empirical test of the Korean context. Management International Review,2004,44,417-434.
[150]Zahra, S. A., & George, G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,2002, 27(2),185-203.
[151]Zahra, S. A., & Hayton, J. C. The effect of international venturing on firm performance:The moderating influence of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing,2007,23,195-220.
[152]Zander, U. Exploiting a technological edge:Voluntary and involuntary dissemination of technology. Institute of International Business:Stockholm, Sweden.1991.
[153]Zander, U., & Kogut, B. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities:An empirical test. Organization Science,1995,6 76-92.
[154]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.
[155]Zucchella, Local cluster dynamics:Trajectories of mature industrial districts between decline and multiple embeddedness. Journal of Institutional Economics,2006,2,21-44.
[156]陈劲,陈钰芬.企业技术创新绩效评价指标体系研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2006(3),86-91.
[157]邓宏图,康伟.地方政府、制度、技术外溢与企业集群的默示性知识——以转轨期天津自行车企业集群的演化为例.管理世界,2006(2).63-70.
[158]耿帅.共享性资源与集群企业竞争优势的关联性分析.管理世界,2005(11),112-119.
[159]纺织服装周刊.2010年中国纺织服装十大产业集群之绍兴.http://futures.hexun.com/2010-12-31/126522905.html.2010.12.31
[160]何铮,谭劲松.复杂理论在集群领域的研究———基于东莞PC集群的初步探讨.管理世界,2005(12),108-136.
[161]工人报.杭州国家软件产业基地坚持走“创新之路”http://guba.eastmoney.com/look,600797,6010715549.html.2010.10.25.
[162]马庆国.管理统计.北京：科学出版社,2002.
[163]阮建青,张晓波,卫龙宝.危机与制造业产业集群的质量升级———基于浙江产业集群的研究.管理世界,2010(2),69-79.
[164]投资中国.无锡尚德：身影黯然.http://news.chinaventure. com.cn/2/20111115/69384 4.shtml.2011.11.15.
[165]王力,潘一峰。杭州重点产业正在步入集群式发展.http://finance. sina.com.cn/china/dfji/20110603/13539943975.shtml.2011.06.03
[166]邬爱其.超集群学习与集群企业转型成长———基于浙江卡森的案例研究.管理世界,2009(8),141-156.
[167]吴波.FDI知识溢出与本土集群企业成长———基于嘉善木业产业集群的实证研究.管理世界,2008(10),87-95.
[168]吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2000.
[169]吴结兵,郭斌.企业适应性行为、网络化与产业集群的共同演化———绍兴县纺织业集群发展的纵向案例研究.管理世界,2010(2),141-155.
[170]吴结兵,徐梦周.网络密度与集群竞争优势：集聚经济与集体学习的 中介作用——2001～2004年浙江纺织业集群的实证分析.管理世界,2008(8),69-76.
[171]吴晓冰.集群企业创新网络特征、知识获取及创新绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[172]吴晓波,刘雪锋,胡松翠.全球制造网络中本地企业知识获取实证研究.科学学研究,2007(25),486-492.
[173]朱小斌,林庆.中小企业集群竞争优势来源的演化差异———基于浙江绍兴纺织业集群的案例研究.管理世界,2008(10),75-86.
[2]Ahuja, G. C., & Lampert, M. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation:A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22521-543.
[3]Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25,887-907.
[4]Almeida, P. Knowledge Sourcing by Foreign Multinationals:Patent Citation Analysis in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, Strategic Management Journal, 1996,17,155-165.
[5]Almeida, P. Knowledge Sourcing by Foreign Multinationals:Patent Citation Analysis in the U.S. Semiconductor Industry, Strategic Management Journal, 1996,17,155-165.
[6]Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. The exploration of technological diversity and the geographic localization of innovation. Small Business Economics,1997,9, 21-31.
[7]Almeida, P., & Kogut, B. Localization of ideas and the mobility of engineers in regional networks. Management Science,1999,45,905-917.
[8]Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity:Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science,2009,20(4),696-717.
[9]Argote, L., McEvily, B., & Reagans, R. Managing Knowledge in Organizations:An Integrative Framework and Review of Emerging Themes. Management Science,2003,49(4),571-582.
[10]Argyris. C., & Schon, D. Organizational learning reading. MA: Addisoii-Wesley.1978.
[11]Arrow, K. J. Information and economic behavior. In Collected Papers of Kenneth, Chicago:Belknap Press,1984.
[12]Asheim, B.T., & Isaksen, A. Regional Innovation Systems:The Integration of Local'Sticky'and Global'Ubiquitous'Knowledge. Journal of Technology Transfer,2002,27,77-86.
[13]Audretsch, B. Agglomeration and the location of innovative activity. The Oxford Review of Economic Policy,1998,14(2),18-29.
[14]Badaracco, J. L. Business ethics:Four spheres of executive responsibility. California Management Review,1992,64-82.
[15]Baptista, R., & Swann, P. Do firms in clusters innovate more? Research Policy,1998,27(5),525-540.
[16]Barney, J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,1991,17(1),99-120.
[17]Bartholomew, S. National systems of biotechnology innovation:complex interdependence in the global system. Journal of International Business Studies 1997,28,241-266.
[18]Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. Clusters and knowledge:local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography,2004,28(1),31-56.
[19]Bayona, C., Garcia-Marco, T., & Huerta, E. Firms'motivations for co-operative R&D:an empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Research Policy, 2001,30(8),1289-1307.
[20]Belderbos, R., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. Co-operative R&D and firm performance. Research Policy,2004,33(10),1477-1492.
[21]Belderbos, R., Carree, M., Diederen, B., Lokshin, B., & Veugelers, R. Heterogeneity in R&D co-operation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2004,22(8/9),1237-1263.
[22]Bettis, R. A., & Prahala, C. K. The dominant logic:Retrospective and extension. Strategic Management Journal,1995,16(1),5-14.
[23]Bhagat, R., Kedia, B., Harveston, P. & Triandis, H. Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge:an integrative framework. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2),204-221.
[24]Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R., & Ridderstrale, J. Knowledge as a Contingency Variable:Do the Characteristics of Knowledge Predict Organization Structure? Organization Science,2002,13(3),274-289.
[25]Bonaccorsi, A., & Lipparine, A. Strategic partnerships in new product development:an Italian case study. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1994 11(2),134-145.
[26]Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. The Social Life of Information. Harvard Business School Press:Boston, MA,2000.
[27]Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., & Tsakanikas, A. Internal capability and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation,2004,24 (1),29-39.
[28]Cantwell, J, & Mudambi, R. The location of MNE R&D activity: the role of investment incentives. Management International Review,2000,40, 127-149.
[29]Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. Spillovers and R&D cooperation:some empirical evidence. American Economic Review,2002.92(4),1169-1184.
[30]Chaminade, C., & Edquist, C. Rationales for public policy intervention from a system of innovation approach:the case of VTNNOVA.2006.
[31]Chesbrough, H. Open Innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 2003.
[32]Chiang, Y. H., & Hung, K. P. Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows. R&D Management,2010,40(3),292-299.
[33]Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. Innovation and learning:The two faces of R&D. Economic Journal.1989,99,569-596.
[34]Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1), 128-152.
[35]Conner, K. An historical comparison of resource-based logic and five schools of thought within industrial organization economies:Do we have a new theory of the firm here? Journal of Management,1991,17,121-154.
[36]Cvert, R., & March, J. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englcwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.1963.
[37]Dasgupta, P., & David, P. Towards a new economics of science. Research Policy,1994.23(5),487-522.
[38]De Meyer, A. Management of international R&D operations. In Technology Management and International Business:Internationalization of R&D and Technology, Granstrand O, Hakanson L, Sjolander S(eds). Wiley: New York; 1992.163-178.
[39]Dosi, C. Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature,1988,26,1120-1171.
[40]Dunning, J. Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy. Addison-Wesley:Reading, MA.1992.
[41]Dussauge, P., Garrette, B., & Mitchill, W. Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21,96-126.
[42]Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(10-11),1105-1121.
[43]Eisenhardt, K. M. & Tabrizi, B. N. Accelerating adaptive processes: Product innovation in the global computer industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995,40(1),84-110.
[44]Eriksson, R., Lindgren, U., & Malmberg, G. Agglomeration mobility: effects of localisation, urbanisation, and scale on job changes. Environment and Planning,2008.40(10),2419-2434.
[45]Escribanoa, A., Fosfurib, A., & Tribo, J. Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Research Policy,2008,38(1), 96-105.
[46]Fabrizio, K. R. Absorptive capacity and innovation:evidence from pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms. Unpublished working paper,2004.
[47]Feinberg, S., & Gupta, A. Knowledge spillovers and the assignment of R&D responsibilities to foreign subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal,2004, Special Issue 25(8-9),823-845.
[48]Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data. Research Policy,2001.30,1019-1039.
[49]Fosfur, A., & Tribo, J. A. Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega,2008,36(2), 173-187.
[50]Freel, M. S. Sectoral patterns of small firm innovation, networking and proximity. Research Policy,2003 32 (4),751-770.
[51]Freeman, C., & Soete, L. The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Cambridge, MA. MIT Press:1997.
[52]Frost, T. The geographic sources of foreign subsidiaries innovations. Strategic Management Journa,2001,22(2),101-123.
[53]Ganesan, S., Malter, A. J., & Rindfleisch, A. Does Distance Still Matter? Geographic Proximity and New Product Development. The Journal of Marketing.2005,69(4),44-60.
[54]Ghemawat, P. Distance still matters. Harvard Business Review,2001,79(8), 137-145.
[55]Gibert, M., Leibold, M., & Probs, G. Five styles of customer knowledge management and how smart companies use them to creat value. European Management Journal,2002,20(5)
[56]Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation:evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy,2005,34, 47-68.
[57]Grabher, G. The weakness of strong ties. The lock-in of regional development in the Ruhr area. In G. Grabher (Ed.), The embedded firm:on the socio-economics of industrial networks. London:Routledge. (1993).
[58]Grant, R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17,109-122.
[59]Gregory, N. S., Grei, N.P., & Fischer, W. A. Absorptive capacity and new product development. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,2001,12(1),77-91.
[60]Grimpe, C., Sofka, W., & Zimmermann, J. Young, open and international: The impact of search strategies on the internationalization of new ventures. 2009, working paper.
[61]Hansen, M. The search-transfer problem:The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1999.4482-111.
[62]Harrison, B. Industrial districts:old wine in new bottles? Regional Studies, 1992,26,469-83.
[63]Helper, S. Incentives for supplier participation in product development: evidence from US auto industry. In:Nishiguchi, T. (Ed.), Managing Product Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford,1996.165-189.
[64]Hemmert, M. The influence of institutional factors on the technology acquisition performance of high-tech firms:survey results from Germany and Japan. Research Policy,2004,33(6/7),1019-1040.
[65]Henderson. R., & Clark, K. B. Architectural innovation:the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990.35(1),9-30.
[66]Hendry, C., & Brown, J. Organizational networking in UK biotechnology clusters. British Journal of Management,2006,17(1),55-73.
[67]Hfiiner, R. Uncertainty, signal-detection experimonts, and modeling behavior. In R. Langlois (Ed.). Economics as a process:Gambridgo, England: Cambridge University Press.1986. Essays in the new institutional economics: 59-115.
[68]Hirsh, P. M., & Levin, D. Z.1999. Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science,10(2),199-212.
[69]Inkpen, A. C., & Pien, W. An examination of collaboration and knowledge transfer: China-Singapore Suzhou industrial park. Journal of Management Studies,200643(4),779-811.
[70]Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda. H. W. Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal,2005,48,999-1015.
[71]Katil, R., & Chan, E. L. Effects of search timing on innovation:The value of not being in sync with rivals. Administrative Science Quarterly,2008,53(4), 593-625.
[72]Katila, R. New product search over time:Past ideas in their prime? Academic Management Journal,2002,45,995-1010.
[73]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.
[74]Katila, R., & Mang, P. Exploiting technological opportunities:the timing of collaborations. Research Policy,2003,32,317-332.
[75]Kedia, B. L., & Bhagat, R. S. Cultural constraints on transfer of technology across nations:Implications for research in international and comparative advantage. Academic Management Review,1988,13,559-571.
[76]Ketchen, D. J., Hult, T. M., & Slater, S. F. Toward greater understanding of market orientation and the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(9),961-964.
[77]Koput, K. W. A chaotic model of innovative search:some answers, many questions. Organization Science,1997,8(5),528-542.
[78]Kuemmerle, W. Foreign direct investment in industrial research in the pharmaceutical and electronics industries. Research Policy,1999,28, 179-193.
[79]Lane, P. J. & Lubatkin, M. L. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5), 461-477.
[80]Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19, 461-77.
[81]Lane, P. J., Koka, B. & Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4),833-863.
[82]Lane, P. J., Koka, B., & Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4),833-863.
[83]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
[84]Lawson, C., & Lorenz, E. Collective learning, tacit knowledge and regional innovative capacity. Regional Studies,1999,33,305-17.
[85]Ledwith, A., & Coughlan, P. Splendid isolation:does networking really increase new product success? Creativity and Innovation Management,2005, 14(4),366-373.
[86]Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal.1993,14,95-112.
[87]Lewin, A. Y., Massini, S. Ruigrok, W. & Numagami. T. Convergence and divergence of organizing:The moderating effect of nation state. A. M. Pettigrew, R. Whittington, L. Melin, C. Sanchez-Runde, F. Van den Bosch, W. Ruigrok, T. Numagami, eds. Innovating Forms of Organizing. Sage, London, 2003,277-300.
[88]Lewin, A. Y., & Massini, S. Microfoundations of internal and external absorptive capacity routines. Organization Science,2011,22,88-98.
[89]Lichtenthaler, U. Absorptive capacity, environmental turbulence, and the complementarity of organizational learning processes. Academy of Management Journal,2009,52(4),822-846.
[90]Linn, T.A. Learning from the competition. Journal of Accountancy,1994, 177(2),43-46.
[91]Loof, H., & Heshmati, A. Knowledge capital and performance: a new firm level innovation study. International Journal of Production Economic,2002 76(1),61-85.
[92]Lukas, B. A., & Ferrell, O. C. The effect of market orientation on product innovation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,2000,28(2), 239-247.
[93]Lundvall, B. A. National Systems of Innovation:Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter: London.1992.
[94]Malmber, A., & Power, D. How do firms in clusters create knowledge? Industry & Innovation,2005,12(4),409-431.
[95]March, J. G., Sproul, L. S., & Tamuz, M. Learning from samples of one or fewer. Organization Science,1991,2(1),1-13.
[96]March, J. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2:71-87.
[97]Martin, F. The economic impact of Canadian university R&D. Research Policy,1998,27(5),677-687.
[98]Martin, X., & Mitchell, W. The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market. Research Policy,1998,26,753-771.
[99]Miotti, L., & Sachwald, F. Co-operative R&D:why, and with whom? An integrated framework of analysis. Research Policy,2003 32 (8),1481-1499.
[100]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.
[101]Mosakowski, E., & Mckelvey, B. Strategy Making under Causal Ambiguity:Conceptual Issues and Empirical Evidence. Organization Science, 1997,8(4),414-442.
[102]Nelson, R., & Winter, T. An evolutionary theory of economic Change. Cambridge M A: Harvard University Press,1982.
[103]Nicholas T. Spatial diversity in invention:evidence from the early R&D labs. Journal of Economic Geography,2009,9,1-31.
[104]Nieto, M. J. & Santamaria, L. The importance of diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product innovation. Technovation,2007,27 (3), 367-377.
[105]Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-Creating Company. New York: Oxford University Press,1995.
[106]Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Nagata, A. A firm as a knowledge-creating entity: a new perspective on the theory of the firm. Industrial and Corporate Change,2000.9,1-20.
[107]Ocasio, W. Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1997, Summer Special Issue,18,187-206.
[108]Oerlemans, L. A. G. & Meeus, M. T. H. Do organizational and spatial proximity impact on firm performance? 2005,39(1),89-104.
[109]Oinas, P. Activity-specificity in organizational learning:implications for analysing the role of proximity. GeoJournal,1999,49,363-72.
[110]Pavitt, K. Sectoral patterns of technical change:towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy,1984.13,343-373.
[111]Phene, A., Lindquist, K. F., & Marsh, L. Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27,369-388
[112]Polanyi, M. The tacit dimension, Anchor Day, New York,1966.
[113]Porter, M. E. Clusters and competition. Locations, clusters and company strategy. The Oxford handbook of economic geography, Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000.
[114]Prahala, C. K., & Bettis, R. A. The dominant logic:A new linkage between diversity and performance. Strategic Management Journal,1986, 7(6),485-501.
[115]Prahalad, C. K. & Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,1990,68(3),79-91.
[116]Prahalad, C. K. & Ramaswamy, V. Co-opting customer competence. Harvard Business Review,2000,78(1),79
[117]Rallet, A., & Torre, A. Is geographical proximity necessary in the innovation networks in the era of global economy? GeoJournal,1999,49, 373-380.
[118]Rappert, B., Webster, A., & Charles, D. Making sense of diversity and reluctance:academic-industrial relations and intellectual property. Research Policy,1999,28(8),873-890.
[119]Roberts, P. W. Product innovation, product-market competition and persistent profitability in the US pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20,655-670.
[120]Rosen, S. Transactions costs and internal labor markets. The Nature of the Film. New York: Oxford University Press,75-89.
[121]Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22,287-306.
[122]Rothaerme, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. Ambidexterity in technology sourcing:The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 2009,20(4),759-780.
[123]Sanchez, A. M., & Perez, M. P. Cooperation and the ability to minimize the time and cost of new product development within the Spanish automotive supplier industry. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2003,20 (1), 57-69.
[124]Scott, C., & Brown, J. S. Bridging epistemologies:the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science,1999,10(4),381-400.
[125]Seaton, R. A. F. & Cordey-Hayes, M. The development and application of interactive models of industrial technology transfer. Technovation,1993, 13(1),45-53.
[126]Sidhu, J. S., Commandeur, H. R, & Volberda, H. W. The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation:Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science,2007,18(1),20-38.
[127]Simon, H. A. Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making process in administrative organization. Macmillan: Chicago,1L.1947.
[128]Simonin, B. L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(7),595-623.
[129]Sofk, W., & Grimpe, C. Specialized search and innovation performance-evidence across Europe. R&D Management,2010,40(3),310-323.
[130]Spencer, J. W. Firms' knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system:empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24 (3),217-233.
[131]Spender, J. C. Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17 (Special Issue) 45-62.
[132]Staber, U. Specialization in a declining industrial district. Growth and Change,1997,28,475-95.
[133]Storper, M. & Venables, A. J.2002:Buzz:the economic force of the city. Paper presented at the DRUID Summer Conference on'Industrial Dynamics of the New and Old Economy-Who is Embracing Whom?'in Copenhagen, Elsinore,6-8 June.
[134]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness:Impediments to the transfer of best practises within the firm. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17 (Special Issue) 27-44.
[135]Teece, D. Profiting from technological innovation. Research Policy,1986, 15,285-305.
[136]Tether, B. Who co-operate for innovation, and why:an empirical analysis. Research Policy,2002,31 (6),947-967.
[137]Todorova, G., & Durisin, B. Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review,2007,32(3), 774-786.
[138]Tsai, W. H. Knowledge Transfer in Intra-organizational Networks: Effects of Network Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44 (5), 996-1017.
[139]Tsai, W. H. Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingency perspective. Research Policy,2009,38(5),765-778.
[140]Tyre, M. J. Managing the introduction of new process technology: International differences in a multi-plant network. Research Policy,1991, 20(1),57-76.
[141]Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1), 35-67.
[142]Visse, E. J., & Boschma, R. Learning in districts:Novelty and lock-in in a regional context. European Planning Studies,2004,12 (6),793-808.
[143]Von Hippel, E., Thomke, S., & Sonnnack, M. Creating breakthroughs at 3M. Harvard Business Review,1999.
[144]Von Zedtwit, M & Gassmann, O. Market versus technology drive in R&D internationalization:four different patterns of managing research and development. Research Policy,2002,31(4),569-588.
[145]Wegner, D. M. Transactive memory:A contemporary analysis of the group mind. B. Mullen, G. R. Goethals, eds. Theories of Group Behavior. Springer-Verlag, New York,1986,185-205.
[146]Weterings, A., & Boschma, R. Does spatial proximity to customers matter for innovative performance? Evidence from the Dutch software sector. Research Policy,2009,38,746-755.
[147]Williamson, O. E. Strategy research: Governance and competence perspectives. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(12),1087-1108.
[148]Winter, S. G. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. D. Teece, ed. The Competitive Challenge-Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA,1987,159-184.
[149]Yong, S. P., & Park, Y. R. A framework of knowledge transfer in cross-border joint ventures:An empirical test of the Korean context. Management International Review,2004,44,417-434.
[150]Zahra, S. A., & George, G. Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review,2002, 27(2),185-203.
[151]Zahra, S. A., & Hayton, J. C. The effect of international venturing on firm performance:The moderating influence of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing,2007,23,195-220.
[152]Zander, U. Exploiting a technological edge:Voluntary and involuntary dissemination of technology. Institute of International Business:Stockholm, Sweden.1991.
[153]Zander, U., & Kogut, B. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities:An empirical test. Organization Science,1995,6 76-92.
[154]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.
[155]Zucchella, Local cluster dynamics:Trajectories of mature industrial districts between decline and multiple embeddedness. Journal of Institutional Economics,2006,2,21-44.
[156]陈劲,陈钰芬.企业技术创新绩效评价指标体系研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2006(3),86-91.
[157]邓宏图,康伟.地方政府、制度、技术外溢与企业集群的默示性知识——以转轨期天津自行车企业集群的演化为例.管理世界,2006(2).63-70.
[158]耿帅.共享性资源与集群企业竞争优势的关联性分析.管理世界,2005(11),112-119.
[159]纺织服装周刊.2010年中国纺织服装十大产业集群之绍兴.http://futures.hexun.com/2010-12-31/126522905.html.2010.12.31
[160]何铮,谭劲松.复杂理论在集群领域的研究———基于东莞PC集群的初步探讨.管理世界,2005(12),108-136.
[161]工人报.杭州国家软件产业基地坚持走“创新之路”http://guba.eastmoney.com/look,600797,6010715549.html.2010.10.25.
[162]马庆国.管理统计.北京：科学出版社,2002.
[163]阮建青,张晓波,卫龙宝.危机与制造业产业集群的质量升级———基于浙江产业集群的研究.管理世界,2010(2),69-79.
[164]投资中国.无锡尚德：身影黯然.http://news.chinaventure. com.cn/2/20111115/69384 4.shtml.2011.11.15.
[165]王力,潘一峰。杭州重点产业正在步入集群式发展.http://finance. sina.com.cn/china/dfji/20110603/13539943975.shtml.2011.06.03
[166]邬爱其.超集群学习与集群企业转型成长———基于浙江卡森的案例研究.管理世界,2009(8),141-156.
[167]吴波.FDI知识溢出与本土集群企业成长———基于嘉善木业产业集群的实证研究.管理世界,2008(10),87-95.
[168]吴明隆SPSS统计应用实务.北京：中国铁道出版社,2000.
[169]吴结兵,郭斌.企业适应性行为、网络化与产业集群的共同演化———绍兴县纺织业集群发展的纵向案例研究.管理世界,2010(2),141-155.
[170]吴结兵,徐梦周.网络密度与集群竞争优势：集聚经济与集体学习的 中介作用——2001～2004年浙江纺织业集群的实证分析.管理世界,2008(8),69-76.
[171]吴晓冰.集群企业创新网络特征、知识获取及创新绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[172]吴晓波,刘雪锋,胡松翠.全球制造网络中本地企业知识获取实证研究.科学学研究,2007(25),486-492.
[173]朱小斌,林庆.中小企业集群竞争优势来源的演化差异———基于浙江绍兴纺织业集群的案例研究.管理世界,2008(10),75-86.