跨界搜寻对组织双元能力影响的实证研究
|
摘要
开放式创新背景下，越来越多的企业选择从组织外部获取异质性创新资源，以此来弥补自身资源禀赋与能力结构的缺陷，而跨界搜寻也成为继内部研发和外部并购之后的第三种企业技术能力提升路径。对于中国企业而言，以产学研合作为典型的外部知识搜寻方式，并没有根本扭转中国产业、企业技术落后的被动局面，目标知识转化率低、技术供求结构失衡、主体功能错位等低技术均衡问题依然存在，这一现象也引起了学术界与企业界的共同反思。然而，现有研究仅仅勾勒了跨界搜寻的现象与发展趋势，对于跨界搜寻影响企业技术能力的内在机理缺乏理论阐述，更缺乏系统、深入的实证研究。
为促进企业有效地搜寻、整合外部创新资源，实现不同层次能力协同提升的根本目标，本文围绕“跨界搜寻是否以及如何影响组织双元能力”这一核心问题，运用文献研究与多案例研究方法重新解构了跨界搜寻的维度与内容，构建了以跨界搜寻、组织双元能力和企业绩效为核心的机理模型，并将上述核心问题进一步分解为三个子问题：（1）现实情境下，不同维度跨界搜寻行为是否、以及如何影响组织双元能力？（2）跨界搜寻如何协调双元能力的结构关系，以提升企业的创新与财务绩效？（3）外部资源作用下，企业探索与开发能力是否存在不同趋势与特征的成长模式，跨界搜寻与吸收能力又如何影响双元能力成长？为解答上述问题，本文通过以下三个子研究逐步进行论述：
子研究一针对案例研究所提命题一，运用结构方程模型探讨了跨界搜寻对组织双元能力的影响机制，并进一步分析了双元能力之间的作用关系。首先，基于创新能力结构视角，从组织与技术两个维度解构了企业跨界搜寻行为，并验证了维度划分的科学性与合理性；其次，检验了不同维度跨界搜寻对企业探索、开发能力的差异化影响；最后，分析了双元能力之间影响关系，为下文基于结构视角的研究奠定了基础。
子研究二针对案例研究所提命题二，运用分层回归分析探讨了跨界搜寻对双元能力结构、以及企业绩效的影响机理，并进一步分析了双元能力结构在二者之间的中介效应。通过文献回顾与理论推导，提出跨界搜寻协调双元能力结构关系的理论假设，并利用问卷调查数据进行验证；论证了双元能力平衡与互动关系的成因与结果，并检验了二者对企业财务、创新绩效的差异影响；进一步检验了双元能力结构关系在跨界搜寻与企业绩效之间的中介效应，识别出跨界搜寻影响绩效的关键作用路径。
子研究三针对案例研究所提命题三，通过构建潜变量混合增长模型，识别出组织双元能力成长的不同趋势与特征，并分析了不同模式下跨界搜寻与吸收能力的影响作用。一方面，构建了企业技术能力的潜变量混合增长模型，检验整体样本中是否存在亚类成长模式，并刻画不同模式的成长趋势与特征；另一方面，验证了搜寻深度与广度对双元能力成长的影响，并进一步分析了二者与吸收能力交互项的影响效果。
通过上述研究工作，本文得出了如下研究结论，同时也构成了本文的主要创新点：
（1）现实情境下，中国企业跨界搜寻行为主要包括组织与技术两种边界，基于创新能力结构视角可进一步分为科技驱动型、市场驱动型跨界搜寻和共性技术导向、产品技术导向跨界搜寻；不同维度搜寻行为对组织双元能力产生差异化影响，科技驱动型、共性技术导向跨界搜寻对探索能力存在正向影响，而市场驱动型、共性技术导向和产品技术导向跨界搜寻对开发能力呈正向促进作用；双元能力之间并非绝对排斥或不可协调，组织探索能力对开发能力具有显著的正向影响。该研究突破了March(1991)等研究对双元能力关系的理论预设，基于中国情境拓展了组织搜寻理论的研究视角与维度内涵，丰富了组织双元性领域的实证研究成果。
（2）跨界搜寻是协调组织双元结构关系的重要前因变量，不同维度搜寻行为对双元能力结构的影响存在差异，科技驱动型与产品技术导向跨界搜寻有利于促进双元能力平衡，科技驱动型与共性技术导向跨界搜寻则对双元能力互动具有显著的正向影响；双元能力平衡与互动关系对企业创新绩效具有显著的正向影响，而追求能力平衡的过程将对企业财务绩效产生负向影响；双元能力结构在跨界搜寻与企业绩效之间起到了完全或部分中介作用，但各维度搜寻行为影响双元能力结构与绩效的作用路径不同。该研究首次提出、并验证了跨界搜寻协调双元能力结构的内在机理，并揭示了组织内部存在二元张力的重要原因，拓展了双元能力结构领域的理论与实证研究。
（3）外部创新资源作用下，组织双元能力可能存在三种不同的动态成长轨迹，探索能力成长过程存在“增长模式”和“U型模式”两个潜在亚类，而开发能力存在“稳定模式”和“增长模式”两个潜在亚类，并且企业开发能力在起始水平与增长速度方面均优于探索能力；拓展搜寻广度对企业探索、开发能力均有显著的正向影响，而提升搜寻深度仅对企业开发能力存在显著的正向影响；吸收能力、及其与搜寻广度、深度的交互项分别对企业探索、开发能力具有显著的正向影响，体现了其促进技术能力成长、缓解过度搜寻行为方面的重要功能。该研究首次揭示了外部资源作用下组织双元能力成长的亚类模式，并验证了不同模式下搜寻特征与吸收能力的影响效果，从研究视角与方法方面丰富了组织双元能力的实证研究。
In the context of open innovation, more and more enterprises prefer to obtain externalheterogeneity resources in order to remedy resource endowments and capabilities structuraldefects, and boundary-spanning search (BSS) has become the third path to improve technicalcapacity after indigenous innovation and external acquisitions. The passive situation has notfundamentally reversed for Chinese enterprises and industry development, even though wepromote university-industry collaboration (UIC) since1990s, which be seen as the typicalway of external knowledge search. The Chinese enterprises still confront low-technicalequilibrium dilemma, such as low knowledge conversion, the imbalance of technical demandand supply, and function dislocation of research institutions, which arouse the commonreflection of the academia and business community. However, the current studies profile thephenomenon and trends of boundary-spanning search, there is rarely theoretical explanationsabout the relations between technical capacity and boundary-spanning search, especially therelative empirical studies are even insufficient.
In order to search and integrate external innovation resources, to achieve the fundamentalobjective of capacity enhancement in different aspects, this thesis focus on the core questionof whether or not the BSS affect the organization ambidextrous capacity (OAC), and how itinfluences. We deconstruct the dimension and content of the BSS behavior, and build themechanism model among the BSS, OAC and business performance using literature researchand multiple case study method. The following studies will further divide into threesub-problems:(1) Whether or not the different dimension of BSS has an effect on the OAC,and how it influences in the realistic context?(2) How does the BSS coordinate the structuralrelationship between exploratory and exploitative capability so as to improve the enterprise’sinnovation and financial performance?(3) Whether or not the OAC has different growthmode with special trends and characteristics under the action of external resources? And howdo the BSS and absorptive capacity affects the growth of OAC? We design the followingthree sub-studies to answer these questions progressively.
The Study1contraposes Proposition one proposed by case studies. The impact of theBSS on OAC was investigated using structural equation model, so does the relation betweenthe exploratory and exploitative capability. Firstly, we deconstruct the enterprise’ BSS in theorganization and technical dimensions based on the perspective of innovation capabilitystructure, and verify the scientificity and rationality; Secondly, the different impacts of theBSS on OAC were investigated; Finally, we analysis the mutual relation between exploratory and exploitative capability, which lay the foundation for the following part based on thestructural perspective.
The Study2contraposes Proposition two proposed by case studies. The effects of BBSand OAC on corporate performance were investigated by using hierarchical regressionanalysis, as well as the mediating effect of OAC structure for the further study. The thesispropose the hypothesis between the BSS and OAC structure through literature review andtheoretical derivation, and verify them using the survey data; The causes and results of OACstructure were demonstrated, and tested the different impact on the financial and innovationperformance; Further studies examined the mediating effect of OAC structure on BBS andenterprise performance, and identified the critical path through OAC structure.
The Study3contraposes Proposition three proposed by case studies. The thesis identifiesthe different trends and characteristics of OAC by constructing a latent growth mixture model(GMM), and analyzes the effects of BSS and absorptive capacity in the different modes. Onthe one hand, We build the latent GMM of enterprise’s technical capacity, and test thesubclass growth mode in the overall sample, and portray the growth trends and characteristicsof the different modes. On the other hand, the thesis verifies the impacts of search depth andbreadth on the OAC growth, and further analysis of the interaction effect of search feature andabsorption capacity.
Drawing on the above research, some conclusions, which also constitute the contributionsof this paper, can be presented as follows:
(1) The BSS behavior of Chinese enterprises mainly include two boundaries of theorganization and technology in the realistic context, which can be further divided into thetechnology-driven and market-driven BSS, the generic technology-oriented and producttechnology-oriented BSS. The searching behavior of the two dimensions show differentimpact on the OAC, in which the technology-driven and generic technology-oriented BSShave significant positive effect on exploratory capability, while market-driven, generictechnology-oriented and product technology-oriented BSS show significant positive effect onexploitative capability. The OAC are not absolutely exclusive or irreconcilable, whileexploratory capability has a significant positive impact on exploitative capability. Theseconclusions break through the theoretical assumption of the OAC relations in March (1991),and expand the research perspective and dimension of organization search theory in theChinese context, which enrich the empirical studies about ambidextrous organizations.
(2) The BSS is the important antecedent variables to coordinate the structure ofexploratory and exploitative capability, while the two dimensions show different effects. The technology-driven and product technology-oriented BSS are conducive to promoting the OACbalance, and technology-driven and generic technology-oriented BSS have significantpositive effect on the OAC interaction relation. There exists a significant positive impact ofthe OAC balance and interaction relation on innovative performance, while the pursuit of theOAC balance will produce negative effect on corporate financial performance. The OACstructure played a complete or partial intermediary role between the BSS and corporateperformance, but the effect pathway is the same among the different dimensions. The studyfirstly proposes and verifies the internal mechanism between the BSS and OAC structure,reveals the cause reason of the binary tension inside the organization, and expand thetheoretical and empirical research in the field of ambidextrous organizations.
(3) The OAC may have three different dynamic growth trajectories in the effort ofexternal innovation resources. The growth process of exploratory capability exist “Growthmode” and “U-shaped mode”, but the exploitative capability has “Stable mode” and “Growthmode” two potential subclasses, and the starting level and growth rate of enterpriseexploitative capability are superior than exploratory capability. The search breadth hasequally positive impact on enterprises exploratory and exploitative capability, but the searchdepth only for exploitative capability. The absorptive capacity has a significant positiveimpact on technical capabilities growth, so do its interaction terms with search breadth anddepth, which reflect its function to promote capabilities growth and ease the excessive searchbehavior. This thesis firstly reveals the subclasses mode of the OAC under the action ofexternal resources, and verifies the effect of the search feature and absorptive capacity in thethree modes, which enrich the empirical studies of the OAC growth from the researchperspective and methods.
为促进企业有效地搜寻、整合外部创新资源，实现不同层次能力协同提升的根本目标，本文围绕“跨界搜寻是否以及如何影响组织双元能力”这一核心问题，运用文献研究与多案例研究方法重新解构了跨界搜寻的维度与内容，构建了以跨界搜寻、组织双元能力和企业绩效为核心的机理模型，并将上述核心问题进一步分解为三个子问题：（1）现实情境下，不同维度跨界搜寻行为是否、以及如何影响组织双元能力？（2）跨界搜寻如何协调双元能力的结构关系，以提升企业的创新与财务绩效？（3）外部资源作用下，企业探索与开发能力是否存在不同趋势与特征的成长模式，跨界搜寻与吸收能力又如何影响双元能力成长？为解答上述问题，本文通过以下三个子研究逐步进行论述：
子研究一针对案例研究所提命题一，运用结构方程模型探讨了跨界搜寻对组织双元能力的影响机制，并进一步分析了双元能力之间的作用关系。首先，基于创新能力结构视角，从组织与技术两个维度解构了企业跨界搜寻行为，并验证了维度划分的科学性与合理性；其次，检验了不同维度跨界搜寻对企业探索、开发能力的差异化影响；最后，分析了双元能力之间影响关系，为下文基于结构视角的研究奠定了基础。
子研究二针对案例研究所提命题二，运用分层回归分析探讨了跨界搜寻对双元能力结构、以及企业绩效的影响机理，并进一步分析了双元能力结构在二者之间的中介效应。通过文献回顾与理论推导，提出跨界搜寻协调双元能力结构关系的理论假设，并利用问卷调查数据进行验证；论证了双元能力平衡与互动关系的成因与结果，并检验了二者对企业财务、创新绩效的差异影响；进一步检验了双元能力结构关系在跨界搜寻与企业绩效之间的中介效应，识别出跨界搜寻影响绩效的关键作用路径。
子研究三针对案例研究所提命题三，通过构建潜变量混合增长模型，识别出组织双元能力成长的不同趋势与特征，并分析了不同模式下跨界搜寻与吸收能力的影响作用。一方面，构建了企业技术能力的潜变量混合增长模型，检验整体样本中是否存在亚类成长模式，并刻画不同模式的成长趋势与特征；另一方面，验证了搜寻深度与广度对双元能力成长的影响，并进一步分析了二者与吸收能力交互项的影响效果。
通过上述研究工作，本文得出了如下研究结论，同时也构成了本文的主要创新点：
（1）现实情境下，中国企业跨界搜寻行为主要包括组织与技术两种边界，基于创新能力结构视角可进一步分为科技驱动型、市场驱动型跨界搜寻和共性技术导向、产品技术导向跨界搜寻；不同维度搜寻行为对组织双元能力产生差异化影响，科技驱动型、共性技术导向跨界搜寻对探索能力存在正向影响，而市场驱动型、共性技术导向和产品技术导向跨界搜寻对开发能力呈正向促进作用；双元能力之间并非绝对排斥或不可协调，组织探索能力对开发能力具有显著的正向影响。该研究突破了March(1991)等研究对双元能力关系的理论预设，基于中国情境拓展了组织搜寻理论的研究视角与维度内涵，丰富了组织双元性领域的实证研究成果。
（2）跨界搜寻是协调组织双元结构关系的重要前因变量，不同维度搜寻行为对双元能力结构的影响存在差异，科技驱动型与产品技术导向跨界搜寻有利于促进双元能力平衡，科技驱动型与共性技术导向跨界搜寻则对双元能力互动具有显著的正向影响；双元能力平衡与互动关系对企业创新绩效具有显著的正向影响，而追求能力平衡的过程将对企业财务绩效产生负向影响；双元能力结构在跨界搜寻与企业绩效之间起到了完全或部分中介作用，但各维度搜寻行为影响双元能力结构与绩效的作用路径不同。该研究首次提出、并验证了跨界搜寻协调双元能力结构的内在机理，并揭示了组织内部存在二元张力的重要原因，拓展了双元能力结构领域的理论与实证研究。
（3）外部创新资源作用下，组织双元能力可能存在三种不同的动态成长轨迹，探索能力成长过程存在“增长模式”和“U型模式”两个潜在亚类，而开发能力存在“稳定模式”和“增长模式”两个潜在亚类，并且企业开发能力在起始水平与增长速度方面均优于探索能力；拓展搜寻广度对企业探索、开发能力均有显著的正向影响，而提升搜寻深度仅对企业开发能力存在显著的正向影响；吸收能力、及其与搜寻广度、深度的交互项分别对企业探索、开发能力具有显著的正向影响，体现了其促进技术能力成长、缓解过度搜寻行为方面的重要功能。该研究首次揭示了外部资源作用下组织双元能力成长的亚类模式，并验证了不同模式下搜寻特征与吸收能力的影响效果，从研究视角与方法方面丰富了组织双元能力的实证研究。
In the context of open innovation, more and more enterprises prefer to obtain externalheterogeneity resources in order to remedy resource endowments and capabilities structuraldefects, and boundary-spanning search (BSS) has become the third path to improve technicalcapacity after indigenous innovation and external acquisitions. The passive situation has notfundamentally reversed for Chinese enterprises and industry development, even though wepromote university-industry collaboration (UIC) since1990s, which be seen as the typicalway of external knowledge search. The Chinese enterprises still confront low-technicalequilibrium dilemma, such as low knowledge conversion, the imbalance of technical demandand supply, and function dislocation of research institutions, which arouse the commonreflection of the academia and business community. However, the current studies profile thephenomenon and trends of boundary-spanning search, there is rarely theoretical explanationsabout the relations between technical capacity and boundary-spanning search, especially therelative empirical studies are even insufficient.
In order to search and integrate external innovation resources, to achieve the fundamentalobjective of capacity enhancement in different aspects, this thesis focus on the core questionof whether or not the BSS affect the organization ambidextrous capacity (OAC), and how itinfluences. We deconstruct the dimension and content of the BSS behavior, and build themechanism model among the BSS, OAC and business performance using literature researchand multiple case study method. The following studies will further divide into threesub-problems:(1) Whether or not the different dimension of BSS has an effect on the OAC,and how it influences in the realistic context?(2) How does the BSS coordinate the structuralrelationship between exploratory and exploitative capability so as to improve the enterprise’sinnovation and financial performance?(3) Whether or not the OAC has different growthmode with special trends and characteristics under the action of external resources? And howdo the BSS and absorptive capacity affects the growth of OAC? We design the followingthree sub-studies to answer these questions progressively.
The Study1contraposes Proposition one proposed by case studies. The impact of theBSS on OAC was investigated using structural equation model, so does the relation betweenthe exploratory and exploitative capability. Firstly, we deconstruct the enterprise’ BSS in theorganization and technical dimensions based on the perspective of innovation capabilitystructure, and verify the scientificity and rationality; Secondly, the different impacts of theBSS on OAC were investigated; Finally, we analysis the mutual relation between exploratory and exploitative capability, which lay the foundation for the following part based on thestructural perspective.
The Study2contraposes Proposition two proposed by case studies. The effects of BBSand OAC on corporate performance were investigated by using hierarchical regressionanalysis, as well as the mediating effect of OAC structure for the further study. The thesispropose the hypothesis between the BSS and OAC structure through literature review andtheoretical derivation, and verify them using the survey data; The causes and results of OACstructure were demonstrated, and tested the different impact on the financial and innovationperformance; Further studies examined the mediating effect of OAC structure on BBS andenterprise performance, and identified the critical path through OAC structure.
The Study3contraposes Proposition three proposed by case studies. The thesis identifiesthe different trends and characteristics of OAC by constructing a latent growth mixture model(GMM), and analyzes the effects of BSS and absorptive capacity in the different modes. Onthe one hand, We build the latent GMM of enterprise’s technical capacity, and test thesubclass growth mode in the overall sample, and portray the growth trends and characteristicsof the different modes. On the other hand, the thesis verifies the impacts of search depth andbreadth on the OAC growth, and further analysis of the interaction effect of search feature andabsorption capacity.
Drawing on the above research, some conclusions, which also constitute the contributionsof this paper, can be presented as follows:
(1) The BSS behavior of Chinese enterprises mainly include two boundaries of theorganization and technology in the realistic context, which can be further divided into thetechnology-driven and market-driven BSS, the generic technology-oriented and producttechnology-oriented BSS. The searching behavior of the two dimensions show differentimpact on the OAC, in which the technology-driven and generic technology-oriented BSShave significant positive effect on exploratory capability, while market-driven, generictechnology-oriented and product technology-oriented BSS show significant positive effect onexploitative capability. The OAC are not absolutely exclusive or irreconcilable, whileexploratory capability has a significant positive impact on exploitative capability. Theseconclusions break through the theoretical assumption of the OAC relations in March (1991),and expand the research perspective and dimension of organization search theory in theChinese context, which enrich the empirical studies about ambidextrous organizations.
(2) The BSS is the important antecedent variables to coordinate the structure ofexploratory and exploitative capability, while the two dimensions show different effects. The technology-driven and product technology-oriented BSS are conducive to promoting the OACbalance, and technology-driven and generic technology-oriented BSS have significantpositive effect on the OAC interaction relation. There exists a significant positive impact ofthe OAC balance and interaction relation on innovative performance, while the pursuit of theOAC balance will produce negative effect on corporate financial performance. The OACstructure played a complete or partial intermediary role between the BSS and corporateperformance, but the effect pathway is the same among the different dimensions. The studyfirstly proposes and verifies the internal mechanism between the BSS and OAC structure,reveals the cause reason of the binary tension inside the organization, and expand thetheoretical and empirical research in the field of ambidextrous organizations.
(3) The OAC may have three different dynamic growth trajectories in the effort ofexternal innovation resources. The growth process of exploratory capability exist “Growthmode” and “U-shaped mode”, but the exploitative capability has “Stable mode” and “Growthmode” two potential subclasses, and the starting level and growth rate of enterpriseexploitative capability are superior than exploratory capability. The search breadth hasequally positive impact on enterprises exploratory and exploitative capability, but the searchdepth only for exploitative capability. The absorptive capacity has a significant positiveimpact on technical capabilities growth, so do its interaction terms with search breadth anddepth, which reflect its function to promote capabilities growth and ease the excessive searchbehavior. This thesis firstly reveals the subclasses mode of the OAC under the action ofexternal resources, and verifies the effect of the search feature and absorptive capacity in thethree modes, which enrich the empirical studies of the OAC growth from the researchperspective and methods.
引文
[1] Ahuja G, Morris Lampert C. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of howestablished firms create breakthrough inventions [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(6-7):521-543.
[2] Alegre J, Chiva R. Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovationperformance: An empirical test [J]. Technovation,2008,28(6):315-326.
[3] Alexiev A. Exploratory Innovation: The Role of Organizational and Top Management Team SocialCapital [D]. Erasmus University,2010.
[4] Andriopoulos C, Lewis M. Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity:Managing Paradoxes of Innovation [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):696-717.
[5] Anil K G, Ken G S, Christina E S. The Interplay between Exploration and Exploitation [J]. Academyof Management Journal,2006,49(4):693.
[6] Atuahene-Gima K, Murray J Y. Exploratory and Exploitative Learning in New Product Development:A Social Capital Perspective on New Technology Ventures in China [J]. Journal of InternationalMarketing.2007,15(2):1-29.
[7] Audia P G, Locke E A, Smith K G. The Paradox of Success: An Archival and a Laboratory Study ofStrategic Persistence Following Radical Environmental Change [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(5):837-853.
[8] Baden-Fuller C., Volberda W. H., Strategic Renewal: How Large Complex Organizations Prepare forthe Future [J]. International Studies of Management&Organization,1997,27(2):95-120.
[9] Bagozzi R, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models [J]. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science,1988,16(1):74-94.
[10] Baum J A C, Rowley T J, Shipilov A V, et al. Dancing with Strangers: Aspiration Performance and theSearch for Underwriting Syndicate Partners [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly.2005,50(4):536-575.
[11] Beckman C M. The Influence of Founding Team Company Affiliations on Firm Behavior [J].Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):741-758.
[12] Benner M J, Tushman M. Process Management and Technological Innovation: A Longitudinal Studyof the Photography and Paint Industries [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,2002,47(4):676-706.
[13] Benner M J, Tushman M L. Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The ProductivityDilemma Revisited [J]. The Academy of Management Review,2003,28(2):238-256.
[14] Bierly P E, Damanpour F, Santoro M D. The Application of External Knowledge: OrganizationalConditions for Exploration and Exploitation [J]. Journal of Management Studies,2009,46(3):481-509.
[15] Brown S, Eisenhardt K. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-pacedevolution in relentlessly shifting organizations [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1):1-34.
[16] Burgelman R A. Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Coevolutionary Lock-in [J]. AdministrativeScience Quarterly.2002,47(2):325-357.
[17] Cao Q, Gedajlovic E, Zhang H. Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies,and Synergistic Effects [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):781-796.
[18] Cesaroni F, Minin A D, Piccaluga A. Exploration and Exploitation Strategies in Industrial R&D [J].Creativity and Innovation Management,2005,14(3):222-232.
[19] Chen J, Chen Y, Vanhaverbeke W. The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of externaltechnology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms [J]. Technovation,2011,31(8):362-373.
[20] Chen W, Miller K D. Situational and institutional determinants of firms' R&D search intensity [J].Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(4):369-381.
[21] Chesbrough H, Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology [M].Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press,2003.
[22] Chesbrough H, Crowther A K. Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries[J]. R&D Management,2006,36(3):229-236.
[23] Chiang Y, Hung K. Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from theperspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows [J]. R&D Management.2010,40(3):292-299.
[24] Churchill G A. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs [J]. Journal ofMarketing Research,1979,16(1):64-73.
[25] Christine M B, Pamela R H, Damon J P. Friends or Strangers? Firm-Specific Uncertainty, MarketUncertainty, and Network Partner Selection [J]. Organization Science,2004,15(3):259.
[26] Danneels E. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences [J]. Strategic ManagementJournal,2002,23(12):1095-1121.
[27] Danneels E. Organizational antecedents of second-order competences [J]. Strategic ManagementJournal,2008,29(5):519-543.
[28] Dovey L, Christoph L, Harbir S., The performance implications of timing of entry and involvement inmultipartner alliances [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(3):578-604.
[29] Dovey L, Lori R. Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Alliance Formation [J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2006,49(4):797-818.
[30] Dore R. Technological self reliance [A]. FransmanM, King K. Technological Capacity in the ThirdWorld [C]. London: Macmilan.1984.65-68.
[31] Eggers J, Suh J. Reaching and Falling Why Failure in Exploration Differs from Failure in Exploitation[J]. Working paper,2011.
[32] Eisenhardt K M. Building Theories from Case Study Research [J]. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4):532-550.
[33] Eisenhardt K M, Martin J A. Dynamic capabilities: what are they?[J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21:1105-1121.
[34] Escribano A, Fosfuri A, Tribó J A. Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role ofabsorptive capacity [J]. Research Policy,2009,38(1):96-105.
[35] Fabrizio K R. Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation [J]. Research Policy,2009,38(2):255-267.
[36] Fabrizio P, Giacomo N. Filling Empty Seats: How Status and Organizational Hierarchies AffectExploration versus Exploitation in Team Design [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):759-777.
[37] Faems D, Van Looy B, Debackere K. Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation: Toward aPortfolio Approach [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2005,22(3):238-250.
[38] Fang C, Lee J, Schilling M. Balancing Exploration and Exploitation through Structural Design: TheIsolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning [J]. Organization Science,2010,21(3):625-642.
[39] Farjoun M. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality [J]. Academy of Management Review,2010,35(2):202-225.
[40] Fleming L, Sorenson O. Science as a map in technological search [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(8-9):909-928.
[41] Gautam A, Riitta K. Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,2004,25(8/9):887-907.
[42] George G. Slack Resources and the Performance of Privately Held Firms [J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2005,48(4):661-676.
[43] Gibson C B, Birkinshaw J. The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of OrganizationalAmbidexterity [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(2):209-226.
[44] Gilsing V. Exploration, Exploitation and Co-evolution in Innovation Networks [D]. ErasmusUniversity,2003.
[45] Gobbo J A, Olsson A. The transformation between exploration and exploitation applied to inventors ofpackaging innovations [J]. Technovation,2010,30(5-6):322-331.
[46] Grimpe C, Sofka W. Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low-and high-technology sectors inEuropean countries [J]. Research Policy,2009,38(3):495-506.
[47] Groysberg B, Lee L. Hiring Stars and Their Colleagues: Exploration and Exploitation in ProfessionalService Firms [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):740-758.
[48] Gulati R, Lavie D, Singh H. The nature of partnering experience and the gains from alliances [J].Strategic Management Journal,2009,30(11):1213-1233.
[49] Gupta, A K, Smith, K G, and Shalley, C E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation [J].Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):693-706.
[50] Gustafsson R, Autio E. A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation [J]. ResearchPolicy,2011,40(6):819-831.
[51] Ha H, Frank T R. The Effect of General and Partner-Specific Alliance Experience on Joint R&DProject Performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(2):332.
[52] Hagedoorn J, Duysters G. External Sources of Innovative Capabilities: The Preferences for StrategicAlliances or Mergers and Acquisitions [J]. Journal of Management Studies,2002,39(2):167-188.
[53] He Z, Wong P. Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis [J].Organization Science,2004,15(4):481-494.
[54] Hernandez-Espallardo M, Nchez-Pepez M, Cristinasegovia-Lopez. Exploitation-and exploration-basedinnovations: The role of knowledge in inter-firm relationships with distributors [J]. Technovation.2011,31(5-6):203-215.
[55] Hoang H, Rothaermel F T. Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, andR&D project performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(7):734-758.
[56] Holmqvist M. Experiential Learning Processes of Exploitation and Exploration within and betweenOrganizations: An Empirical Study of Product Development [J]. Organization Science,2004,15(1):70-81.
[57] Huang J, Li Y. Slack resources in team learning and project performance [J]. Journal of BusinessResearch,2011,65(3):381-388.
[58] Huber G. Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures [J]. OrganizationScience,1991,2(1):88-115.
[59] Im G, Rai A. Knowledge Sharing Ambidexterity in Long-Term Interorganizational Relationships [J].Management Science,2008,54(7):1281-1296.
[60] Isobe T, Makino S, Montgomery D B. Exploitation, Exploration, and Firm Performance: The Case ofSmall Manufacturing Firms in Japan [R]. Working paper,2004.
[61] Jansen J P, Bosch F V, Volberda H W. Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, andPerformance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators [J]. ManagementScience,2006,52(11):1661-1674.
[62] Jansen J, Tempelar M, van den Bosch F, et al. Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: TheMediating Role of Integration Mechanisms [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):797-811.
[63] Jansen J P, Simsek Z, Cao Q. Ambidexterity and Performance in Multi-unit Contexts: Cross-levelModerating Effects of Structural and Resource Attributes [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2012,33(11):1286-1303.
[64] Jedidi K, Ramaswamy V, Desarbo S. A maximum likelihood method for latent class regressioninvolving a censored dependent variable [J]. Psychometrika,1993,58(3):375–394.
[65] Jensen M B, Johnson B O, Lorenz E, et al. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation [J]. ResearchPolicy,2007,36:680-693.
[66] Kane G C, Alavi M. Information Technology and Organizational Learning: An Investigation ofExploration and Exploitation Processes [J]. Organization Science,2007,18(5):796-812.
[67] Katila R. New Product Search over Time: Past Ideas in Their Prime?[J]. Academy of ManagementJournal,2002,45(5):995-1010.
[68] Katila, R, Ahuja, G. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and newproduct introduction [J].Academy of Management Journal,2002,45(6):1183-1194.
[69] Katila R, Chen E L. Effects of Search Timing on Innovation: The Value of Not Being in Sync withRivals [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,2008,53(4):593-625.
[70] Kim C, Inkpen A C. Cross-border R&D alliances, absorptive capacity and technology learning [J].Journal of International Management,2005,11:313-329.
[71] Knott, A. M. Exploration and Exploitation as Complements. In C. W. Choo, N. Bontis (Eds.), TheStrategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, New York: OxfordUniversity Press,2002:339-358.
[72] Koka B R, Prescott J E. Designing alliance networks: the influence of network position, environmentalchange, and strategy on firm performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal.2008,29(6):639-661.
[73] K hler C, Sofka W, Grimpe C. Selectivity in Search Strategies for Innovation–From Incremental toRadical, From Manufacturing to Services[R]. Working paper,2009.
[74] Koza M P, Lewin A Y. The Co-Evolution of Strategic Alliances [J]. Organization Science,1998,9(3):255-264.
[75] Laursen K, Salter A. Open for Innovation: The Role of Openness in Explaining InnovationPerformance among U.K. Manufacturing Firms [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2):131-150.
[76] Laursen K, Salter A. Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source ofinnovation [J]. Research Policy,2004,33(8):1201-1215.
[77] Lavie D. Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in theU.S. software industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(12):1187-1212.
[78] Lavie D. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view[J]. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3):638-658.
[79] Lavie D, Miller S R. Alliance portfolio internationalization and firm performance [J]. OrganizationScience,2008,19(4):623-646.
[80] Lavie D, Kang J, Rosenkopf L. Balance within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications ofExploration and Exploitation in Alliances [J]. Working paper,2010.
[81] Leiponen A, Helfat C E. Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth [J].Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(2):224-236.
[82] Leonard-Barton D. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new productdevelopment [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(S1):111-125.
[83] Levinthal D A, March J G. The myopia of learning [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(S2):95-112.
[84] Li Y, Vanhaverbeke W, Schoenmakers W. Exploration and Exploitation in Innovation: Reframing theInterpretation [J]. Creativity and Innovation Management,2008,17(2):107-126.
[85] Lin B, Wu C. How does knowledge depth moderate the performance of internal and externalknowledge sourcing strategies [J]. Technovation.2010,30(11-12):582-589.
[86] Lin Z, Yang H, Demirkan I. The Performance Consequences of Ambidexterity in Strategic AllianceFormations: Empirical Investigation and Computational Theorizing [J]. Management Science,2007,53(10):1645-1658.
[87] Lubatkin M H, Simsek Z, Ling Y, et al. Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sizedfirms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration [J]. Journal of Management,2006,32(5):646-672.
[88] March, J G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning [J].Organization Science,1991,2(2):71-87.
[89] McGrath R G. Exploratory Learning, Innovative Capacity and Managerial Oversight [J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2001,44(1):118-131.
[90] Menguc B, Auh S., The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the ambidexterity–firmperformance relationship for prospectors and defenders [J]. Industrial Marketing Management,2008,37(4):455-470.
[91] Miller K D, Zhao M, Calantone R J. Adding Interpersonal Learning and Tacit Knowledge to March'sExploration-Exploitation Model[J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):709-722.
[92] Mom T J M, Van Den Bosch F A J, Volberda H W. Investigating Managers' Exploration andExploitation Activities: The Influence of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Horizontal Knowledge Inflows[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2007,44(6):910-931.
[93] Morten T H. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge acrossorganization subunits [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44(1):82-111.
[94] Muthen B. The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences [M]. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage,2004.
[95] Nelson R, Winter T. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change [M]. Cambridge MA: HarvardUniversity Press,1982.
[96] Nerkar A. Old Is Gold? The Value of Temporal Exploration in the Creation of New Knowledge [J].Management Science,2003,49(2):211-229.
[97] Nishiguchi T, Ikeda M. Managing Product Development[M].New York:Oxford University Press,1996.
[98] Nootebooma B, Van Haverbeke W, Duysters G, et al. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptivecapacity[J]. Research Policy,2007,36(7):1016-1034.
[99] Phene A, Fladmoe-Lindquist K, Marsh L. Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnologyindustry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(4):369-388.
[100] Puranam P, Singh H, Zollo M. Organizing for Innovation: Managing the Coordination-AutonomyDilemma in Technology Acquisitions [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(2):263-280.
[101] Quintana-Garca C, Benavides-Velasco C. Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation:The influence of technological diversification [J]. Research Policy,2008,37(3):492-507.
[102] Raisch S, Birkinshaw J. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderator [J].Journal of Management,2008,34(3):375-409.
[103] Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, et al. Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitationand Exploration for Sustained Performance [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):685-695.
[104] Rothaermel F T. Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent’s advantage anempirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry [J]. Research Policy,2001,30(8):1235-1251.
[105] Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A. Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in theoptical disk industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(4):287-306.
[106] Rothaermel F. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirmcooperation [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(6-7):687-699.
[107] Rothaermel F, Alexandre M. Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role ofAbsorptive Capacity [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):759-780.
[108] Rothaermel F, Deeds D L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system ofnew product development [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(3):201-221.
[109] Rothwell R. Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the1990s [J]. R&D Management,1992,22(2):221-240.
[110] Schoenmakers W, Duysters G. The technological origins of radical inventions [J]. ResearchPolicy,2010,39(9):1051-1059.
[111] Scott W G, Marianna M. Exploration and exploitation innovation processes: The role oforganizational slack in R&D intensive firms [J]. Journal of High Technology Management Research,2006,17(1):97-108.
[112] Seigyoung A, Bulent M. Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role ofcompetitive intensity [J]. Journal of Business Research,2005,58(12):1652-1661.
[113] Sidhu J S, Commandeur H R, Volberda H W. The Multifaceted Nature of Exploration andExploitation: Value of Supply, Demand, and Spatial Search for Innovation [J]. Organization Science,2007,18(1):20-38.
[114] Sidhu J S, Volberda H W, Commandeur H R. Exploring Exploration Orientation and itsDeterminants Some Empirical Evidence [J]. Journal of Management Studies,2004,41(6):913-932.
[115] Smith W K, Tushman M L. Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model forManaging Innovation Streams [J]. Organization Science.2005,16(5):522-536.
[116] Sofka W, Grimpe C. Specialized search and innovation performance–evidence across Europe [J].R&D Management,2010,40(3):310-323.
[117] S rensen J B, Stuart T E. Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation [J]. AdministrativeScience Quarterly.2000,45(1):81-112.
[118] Tan J, Peng M W. Organizational Slack and Firm Performance during Economic Transitions: TwoStudies from an Emerging Economy [J]. Strategic Management Journal.2003,24(13):1249-1263.
[119] Tanya M, Jeffrey P. Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: Explaining the preference foroutsiders [J]. Management Science,2003,49(4):497-513.
[120] Tassey G. The functions of technology infrastructure in a competitive economy [J]. ResearchPolicy,1991,20(4):345-361.
[121] Tassey G. The Economics of R&D Policy [M]. Greenwood (Quorum Books), Westport, CT.1997.
[122] Teece D J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)enterprise performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal.2007,28(13):1319-1350.
[123] Tiwana A. Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of allianceambidexterity [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(3):251-272.
[124] Todorova G, Durisin B. Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization [J]. Academy ofManagement Review,2007,32(3):774-786.
[125] Tsai K. Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingencyperspective [J]. Research Policy,2009,38(5):765-778.
[126] Uotila J, Maula M, Keil T, et al. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis ofS&P500corporations [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2009,30(2):221-231.
[127] Utterback J. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities inthe Face of Technological Change [M]. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,1994.
[128] Vanhaverbeke W, Beerkens B, Duysters G., Explorative and exploitative learning strategies intechnology-based alliance networks [R]. Ecis(Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies), Workingpaper,2003.
[129] Vanhaverbeke W, Gilsing V, Beerkens B, et al. Exploration and Exploitation in Technology-basedAlliance Networks[R]. UNU-MERIT Working Papers.2007.
[130] Venkatraman N, Lee C, Iyer B. Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: a longitudinal test inthe software sector [J]. Working paper,2007.
[131] Victor G, Bart N. Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceuticalbiotechnology [J]. Research Policy,2006,35(1):1-23.
[132] Voss G B, Sirdeshmukh D, Voss Z G. The effects of slack resources and environmental threat onproduct exploration and exploitation [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2008,51(1):147-164.
[133] Wadhwa A, Kotha S. Knowledge Creation through External Venturing: Evidence from theTelecommunications Equipment Manufacturing Industry [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):819-835.
[134] Wagner M. To explore or to exploit? An empirical investigation of acquisitions by largeincumbents [J]. Research Policy,2011,40(9):1217-1225.
[135] Wang M, Hanges P J. Latent class procedures: Applications to organizational research [J].Organizational Research Methods,2011,14(1):24-31.
[136] Wijk V R, Jansen J P, Lyles M A. Inter-and Intra-Organizational Knowledge Transfer: AMeta-Analytic Review and Assessment of its Antecedents and Consequences [J]. Journal ofManagement Studies,2008,45(4):830-853.
[137] Wu J, Shanley M T. Knowledge stock, exploration, and innovation: Research on the United Stateselectromedical device industry [J]. Journal of Business Research,2009,62:474-483.
[138] Wu Xiaobo, Ma Rufei, Xu Guannan. Accelerating Secondary Innovation through OrganizationalLearning: A Case Study and Theoretical Analysis [J]. Industry and Innovation,2009,16(4-5):389-409.
[139] Yamakawa Y, Yang H, Lin Z. Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performanceimplications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit [J]. Research Policy,2011,40(2):287.
[140] Yang H, Lin Z, Peng W., Behind Acquisitions of Alliance Partners: Exploratory Learning andNetwork Embeddedness [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2011,54(5):1069-1080.
[141] Yli-Renko H, Autio E, Sapienza H J., Social Capital, Knowledge Acquisition, and KnowledgeExploitation in Technology-Based Young Firms [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(6-7):587-613.
[142] Zhao, X., Huo, B., Flynn, B, The impact of Power and Relationship Commitment on Integrationbetween Manufacturers and Customers in a Supply Chain, Journal of Operations Management,2008,(26)3:368-388.
[143]安同良.企业技术能力:超越技术创新研究的新范式[J].当代财经,2002,(1):62-65.
[144]陈劲,郑育艺,邱嘉铭等.企业科学能力概念的讨论与界定[J].科学学研究,2007,25(12):210-214.
[145]陈晓萍,徐淑英,樊景立.组织与管理的实证研究方法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2012.
[146]陈君达,邬爱其.国外创新搜寻研究综述[J].外国经济与管理,2011,33(2):58-65.
[147]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放度对企业技术创新绩效的影响[J].科学学研究,2008,26(2):419-426.
[148]戴勇,肖丁丁,锁颍馨.研发投入、企业家精神与产学研绩效的关系研究——以广东省部产学研合作企业为例[J].科学学与科学技术管理.2010,31(11):136-142.
[149]窦红宾,王正斌.网络结构对企业成长绩效的影响研究——利用性学习、探索性学习的中介作用[J].南开管理评论,2011,14(3):15-25.
[150]樊霞,何悦,朱桂龙.产学研合作与企业内部研发的互补性关系研究——基于广东省部产学研合作的实证[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2011,29(5):764-770.
[151]奉小斌,陈丽琼.探索与开发之间的张力及其解决机制探析[J].外国经济与管理,2010,32(12):19-26.
[152]傅晓,李忆,司有和.家长式领导对创新的影响:一个整合模型[J].南开管理评论,2012,15(2):121-127.
[153]郭国庆,吴剑峰.绩效管理企业知识库、技术探索与创新绩效关系研究:基于美国电子医疗设备行业的实证分析[J].南开管理评论,2007,10(3):87-93.
[154]郭利娜.跨界搜寻对产品创新的影响：外部环境的调节作用[D].南京:南京大学,2011.
[155]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2004.
[156]焦豪.双元型组织竞争优势的构建路径：基于动态能力理论的实证研究[J].管理世界,2011,(11):76-92.
[157]焦豪.企业动态能力绩效机制及其多层次影响要素的实证研究[D].复旦大学,2011.
[158]李纪珍.产业共性技术供给体系研究[M].北京:中国金融出版社,2004.
[159]李纪珍.产业共性技术:概念、分类与制度供给[J].中国科技论坛,2006,(3):45-48.
[160]李纪珍,邓衢文.产业共性技术供给和扩散的多重失灵[J].科学学与科学技术管理.2011,32(7):5-10.
[161]李剑力.探索性创新、开发性创新及其平衡研究前沿探析[J].外国经济与管理,2009,31(3):23-29.
[162]李忆,司有和.探索式创新、利用式创新与绩效:战略和环境的影响[J].南开管理评论,2008,11(5):4-12.
[163]凌鸿,赵付春，邓少军.双元性理论和概念的批判性回顾与未来研究展望[J].外国经济与管理,2010,32(1):25-33.
[164]刘红云.如何描述发展趋势的差异：潜变量混合增长模型[J].心理科学进展,2007,15(3):539-544.
[165]刘民义.借鉴台湾工研院技术创新的能与不能[N].科学时报，2009-06-30.
[166]柳卸林,李艳华.知识获取与后发企业技术能力提升——以汽车零部件产业为例[J].科学学与科学技术管理.2009,30(7):94-100.
[167]路风.走向自主创新[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社，2006.
[168]吕源.案例研究文献的基本风格与规范——从三篇经典文献看高质量的案例研究[J].战略管理,2010,2(2):17-30.
[169]马文聪.供应链整合对企业绩效影响的实证研究[D].广州:华南理工大学,2012.
[170]马如飞.跨界搜寻对企业绩效的影响机制研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2009.
[171]毛义华,陈劲.基于合作创新的企业技术能力培育[J].科研管理,2000,21(4):44-50.
[172]彭新敏.企业网络对技术创新绩效的作用机制研究：利用性-探索性学习的中介效应[D].杭州:浙江大学,2009.
[173]彭新敏,孙元.联盟成员组织学习平衡模式实证研究综述与展望[J].外国经济与管理,2011,33(10):26-32.
[174]邱伟年,王斌，曾楚宏.社会资本与企业绩效:探索式与利用式学习的中介作用[J].经济管理.2011,33(1):146-154.
[175]苏敬勤,洪勇.发展中国家技术能力研究综述[J].研究与发展管理,2009,21(3):91-98.
[176]隋立祖,周敏,寇宗来.“逐利”与“求名”:产学研合作中的目标差异和利润分成[J].世界经济文汇,2011,(1):38-55.
[177]熊伟,奉小斌,陈丽琼.国外跨界搜寻研究回顾与展望[J].外国经济与管理,2011,33(6):18-26.
[178]王重鸣.心理学研究方法[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1990.
[179]王继飞.开放式创新模式下我国制造业外部知识源搜索策略的研究[D].哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学,2010.
[180]王毅.中国领先企业技术创新能力成长之道[M].北京:企业管理出版社,2011.
[181]魏江,冯军政.企业知识搜寻模式及其对企业技术创新的影响研究[J].科学管理研究,2009,27(6):55-60.
[182]魏江,许庆瑞.企业技术能力与技术创新能力的协调性研究[J].科学管理研究.1996,14(4):15-21.
[183]温忠麟,侯杰泰，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.
[184]邬爱其,方仙成.国外创新搜寻模式研究述评[J].科学学与科学技术管理.2012,33(4):67-74.
[185]邬爱其,李生校.从“到哪里学习”转向“向谁学习”——专业知识搜寻战略对新创集群企业创新绩效的影响[J].科学学研究,2011,29(12):1906-1913.
[186]吴波.开放式创新范式下企业技术创新资源投入研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2011.
[187]吴贵生.技术创新管理[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2000.
[188]吴明隆.结构方程模型——AMOS的操作与应用[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.
[189]吴晓波.二次创新的进化过程[J].科研管理,1995,16(2):27-35.
[190]吴晓波,许庆瑞.二次创新竞争模型与后发优势分析[J].管理工程学报,1995,9(1):7-15.
[191]肖丁丁,朱桂龙.产学合作中的知识生产效率——基于“模式Ⅱ”的实证研究[J].科学学研究.2012,30(6):895-903.
[192]肖丁丁,朱桂龙，戴勇. R&D投入与产学研绩效关系的实证研究[J].管理学报.2011,8(5):706-712.
[193]谢伟.全球生产网络中的中国轿车工业[J].管理世界.2006(12):67-87.
[194]谢伟.中国企业技术创新的分布和竞争策略——中国激光视盘播放机产业的案例研究[J].管理世界.2006(2):50-62.
[195]杨学儒,李新春,梁强等.平衡开发式创新和探索式创新一定有利于提升企业绩效吗?[J].管理工程学报,2011,25(4):17-25.
[196]银路,李天柱,程跃等.“山寨”现象的一般规律及其政策建议[J].科学学研究.2010,28(3):321-327.
[197]余雅风,郑晓齐.合作创新中企业知识学习行为的制度化研究[J].科研管理,2002,23(5):88-92.
[198]袁健红,龚天宇.企业知识搜寻前因和结果研究现状探析与整合框架构建[J].外国经济与管理.2011,33(6):27-33.
[199]臧金娟,李垣,魏泽龙.双元模式选择对企业绩效的影响——基于跨层视角的分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2012,33(9):105-112.
[200]张群祥,熊伟,奉小斌.知识搜寻平衡研究综述[J].情报杂志,2012,31(1):111-114.
[201]张文红,赵亚普,施建军.创新中的组织搜寻:概念的重新架构[J].管理学报,2011,8(9):1387-1392.
[202]张玉利,李乾文.公司创业导向、双元能力与组织绩效[J].管理科学学报,2009,12(1):137-152.
[203]张涛,张若雪.人力资本与技术采用:对珠三角技术进步缓慢的一个解释[J].管理世界.2009(2):75-82.
[204]赵亚普.跨界搜索模式下技术和市场的权衡:组织冗余的调节作用[D].南京:南京大学,2012.
[205]周国林.论产业共性技术的供给机理与自主创新[J].湖北社会科学,2009,(10):90-92.
[206]周泯非.集群治理与集群学习间关系及共同演化研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2011.
[207]赵洁,魏泽龙，李垣.高管激励机制、组合能力对创新双元性的影响研究[J].中国科技论坛.2012(2):108-115.
[208]郑育艺.企业科学能力对企业创新绩效的影响分析[D].杭州:浙江大学,2007.
[209]朱朝晖.基于开放式创新的技术学习协同与机理研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2007.
[210]朱朝晖,陈劲.探索性学习与挖掘性学习及其平衡研究[J].外国经济与管理.2007,29(10):54-58.
[211]朱桂龙.产学研与企业自主创新能力提升[J].科学学研究.2012,30(12):1763-1764.
[212]朱桂龙,彭有福.产学研合作创新网络组织模式及其运作机制研究[J].软科学.2003,17(4):49-52.
[213]朱桂龙,肖丁丁.中国产学研合作创新的现实情景与问题分析：基于创新能力结构视角[R].工作论文,2013.
[2] Alegre J, Chiva R. Assessing the impact of organizational learning capability on product innovationperformance: An empirical test [J]. Technovation,2008,28(6):315-326.
[3] Alexiev A. Exploratory Innovation: The Role of Organizational and Top Management Team SocialCapital [D]. Erasmus University,2010.
[4] Andriopoulos C, Lewis M. Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity:Managing Paradoxes of Innovation [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):696-717.
[5] Anil K G, Ken G S, Christina E S. The Interplay between Exploration and Exploitation [J]. Academyof Management Journal,2006,49(4):693.
[6] Atuahene-Gima K, Murray J Y. Exploratory and Exploitative Learning in New Product Development:A Social Capital Perspective on New Technology Ventures in China [J]. Journal of InternationalMarketing.2007,15(2):1-29.
[7] Audia P G, Locke E A, Smith K G. The Paradox of Success: An Archival and a Laboratory Study ofStrategic Persistence Following Radical Environmental Change [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(5):837-853.
[8] Baden-Fuller C., Volberda W. H., Strategic Renewal: How Large Complex Organizations Prepare forthe Future [J]. International Studies of Management&Organization,1997,27(2):95-120.
[9] Bagozzi R, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models [J]. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science,1988,16(1):74-94.
[10] Baum J A C, Rowley T J, Shipilov A V, et al. Dancing with Strangers: Aspiration Performance and theSearch for Underwriting Syndicate Partners [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly.2005,50(4):536-575.
[11] Beckman C M. The Influence of Founding Team Company Affiliations on Firm Behavior [J].Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):741-758.
[12] Benner M J, Tushman M. Process Management and Technological Innovation: A Longitudinal Studyof the Photography and Paint Industries [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,2002,47(4):676-706.
[13] Benner M J, Tushman M L. Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The ProductivityDilemma Revisited [J]. The Academy of Management Review,2003,28(2):238-256.
[14] Bierly P E, Damanpour F, Santoro M D. The Application of External Knowledge: OrganizationalConditions for Exploration and Exploitation [J]. Journal of Management Studies,2009,46(3):481-509.
[15] Brown S, Eisenhardt K. The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-pacedevolution in relentlessly shifting organizations [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1):1-34.
[16] Burgelman R A. Strategy as Vector and the Inertia of Coevolutionary Lock-in [J]. AdministrativeScience Quarterly.2002,47(2):325-357.
[17] Cao Q, Gedajlovic E, Zhang H. Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies,and Synergistic Effects [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):781-796.
[18] Cesaroni F, Minin A D, Piccaluga A. Exploration and Exploitation Strategies in Industrial R&D [J].Creativity and Innovation Management,2005,14(3):222-232.
[19] Chen J, Chen Y, Vanhaverbeke W. The influence of scope, depth, and orientation of externaltechnology sources on the innovative performance of Chinese firms [J]. Technovation,2011,31(8):362-373.
[20] Chen W, Miller K D. Situational and institutional determinants of firms' R&D search intensity [J].Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(4):369-381.
[21] Chesbrough H, Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology [M].Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press,2003.
[22] Chesbrough H, Crowther A K. Beyond high tech: early adopters of open innovation in other industries[J]. R&D Management,2006,36(3):229-236.
[23] Chiang Y, Hung K. Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from theperspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows [J]. R&D Management.2010,40(3):292-299.
[24] Churchill G A. A Paradigm for Developing Better Measures of Marketing Constructs [J]. Journal ofMarketing Research,1979,16(1):64-73.
[25] Christine M B, Pamela R H, Damon J P. Friends or Strangers? Firm-Specific Uncertainty, MarketUncertainty, and Network Partner Selection [J]. Organization Science,2004,15(3):259.
[26] Danneels E. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences [J]. Strategic ManagementJournal,2002,23(12):1095-1121.
[27] Danneels E. Organizational antecedents of second-order competences [J]. Strategic ManagementJournal,2008,29(5):519-543.
[28] Dovey L, Christoph L, Harbir S., The performance implications of timing of entry and involvement inmultipartner alliances [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(3):578-604.
[29] Dovey L, Lori R. Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Alliance Formation [J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2006,49(4):797-818.
[30] Dore R. Technological self reliance [A]. FransmanM, King K. Technological Capacity in the ThirdWorld [C]. London: Macmilan.1984.65-68.
[31] Eggers J, Suh J. Reaching and Falling Why Failure in Exploration Differs from Failure in Exploitation[J]. Working paper,2011.
[32] Eisenhardt K M. Building Theories from Case Study Research [J]. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4):532-550.
[33] Eisenhardt K M, Martin J A. Dynamic capabilities: what are they?[J]. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21:1105-1121.
[34] Escribano A, Fosfuri A, Tribó J A. Managing external knowledge flows: The moderating role ofabsorptive capacity [J]. Research Policy,2009,38(1):96-105.
[35] Fabrizio K R. Absorptive capacity and the search for innovation [J]. Research Policy,2009,38(2):255-267.
[36] Fabrizio P, Giacomo N. Filling Empty Seats: How Status and Organizational Hierarchies AffectExploration versus Exploitation in Team Design [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):759-777.
[37] Faems D, Van Looy B, Debackere K. Interorganizational Collaboration and Innovation: Toward aPortfolio Approach [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2005,22(3):238-250.
[38] Fang C, Lee J, Schilling M. Balancing Exploration and Exploitation through Structural Design: TheIsolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning [J]. Organization Science,2010,21(3):625-642.
[39] Farjoun M. Beyond dualism: Stability and change as a duality [J]. Academy of Management Review,2010,35(2):202-225.
[40] Fleming L, Sorenson O. Science as a map in technological search [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(8-9):909-928.
[41] Gautam A, Riitta K. Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,2004,25(8/9):887-907.
[42] George G. Slack Resources and the Performance of Privately Held Firms [J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2005,48(4):661-676.
[43] Gibson C B, Birkinshaw J. The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of OrganizationalAmbidexterity [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(2):209-226.
[44] Gilsing V. Exploration, Exploitation and Co-evolution in Innovation Networks [D]. ErasmusUniversity,2003.
[45] Gobbo J A, Olsson A. The transformation between exploration and exploitation applied to inventors ofpackaging innovations [J]. Technovation,2010,30(5-6):322-331.
[46] Grimpe C, Sofka W. Search patterns and absorptive capacity: Low-and high-technology sectors inEuropean countries [J]. Research Policy,2009,38(3):495-506.
[47] Groysberg B, Lee L. Hiring Stars and Their Colleagues: Exploration and Exploitation in ProfessionalService Firms [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):740-758.
[48] Gulati R, Lavie D, Singh H. The nature of partnering experience and the gains from alliances [J].Strategic Management Journal,2009,30(11):1213-1233.
[49] Gupta, A K, Smith, K G, and Shalley, C E. The interplay between exploration and exploitation [J].Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):693-706.
[50] Gustafsson R, Autio E. A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation [J]. ResearchPolicy,2011,40(6):819-831.
[51] Ha H, Frank T R. The Effect of General and Partner-Specific Alliance Experience on Joint R&DProject Performance [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(2):332.
[52] Hagedoorn J, Duysters G. External Sources of Innovative Capabilities: The Preferences for StrategicAlliances or Mergers and Acquisitions [J]. Journal of Management Studies,2002,39(2):167-188.
[53] He Z, Wong P. Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis [J].Organization Science,2004,15(4):481-494.
[54] Hernandez-Espallardo M, Nchez-Pepez M, Cristinasegovia-Lopez. Exploitation-and exploration-basedinnovations: The role of knowledge in inter-firm relationships with distributors [J]. Technovation.2011,31(5-6):203-215.
[55] Hoang H, Rothaermel F T. Leveraging internal and external experience: exploration, exploitation, andR&D project performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(7):734-758.
[56] Holmqvist M. Experiential Learning Processes of Exploitation and Exploration within and betweenOrganizations: An Empirical Study of Product Development [J]. Organization Science,2004,15(1):70-81.
[57] Huang J, Li Y. Slack resources in team learning and project performance [J]. Journal of BusinessResearch,2011,65(3):381-388.
[58] Huber G. Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures [J]. OrganizationScience,1991,2(1):88-115.
[59] Im G, Rai A. Knowledge Sharing Ambidexterity in Long-Term Interorganizational Relationships [J].Management Science,2008,54(7):1281-1296.
[60] Isobe T, Makino S, Montgomery D B. Exploitation, Exploration, and Firm Performance: The Case ofSmall Manufacturing Firms in Japan [R]. Working paper,2004.
[61] Jansen J P, Bosch F V, Volberda H W. Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, andPerformance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators [J]. ManagementScience,2006,52(11):1661-1674.
[62] Jansen J, Tempelar M, van den Bosch F, et al. Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: TheMediating Role of Integration Mechanisms [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):797-811.
[63] Jansen J P, Simsek Z, Cao Q. Ambidexterity and Performance in Multi-unit Contexts: Cross-levelModerating Effects of Structural and Resource Attributes [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2012,33(11):1286-1303.
[64] Jedidi K, Ramaswamy V, Desarbo S. A maximum likelihood method for latent class regressioninvolving a censored dependent variable [J]. Psychometrika,1993,58(3):375–394.
[65] Jensen M B, Johnson B O, Lorenz E, et al. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation [J]. ResearchPolicy,2007,36:680-693.
[66] Kane G C, Alavi M. Information Technology and Organizational Learning: An Investigation ofExploration and Exploitation Processes [J]. Organization Science,2007,18(5):796-812.
[67] Katila R. New Product Search over Time: Past Ideas in Their Prime?[J]. Academy of ManagementJournal,2002,45(5):995-1010.
[68] Katila, R, Ahuja, G. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and newproduct introduction [J].Academy of Management Journal,2002,45(6):1183-1194.
[69] Katila R, Chen E L. Effects of Search Timing on Innovation: The Value of Not Being in Sync withRivals [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,2008,53(4):593-625.
[70] Kim C, Inkpen A C. Cross-border R&D alliances, absorptive capacity and technology learning [J].Journal of International Management,2005,11:313-329.
[71] Knott, A. M. Exploration and Exploitation as Complements. In C. W. Choo, N. Bontis (Eds.), TheStrategic Management of Intellectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge, New York: OxfordUniversity Press,2002:339-358.
[72] Koka B R, Prescott J E. Designing alliance networks: the influence of network position, environmentalchange, and strategy on firm performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal.2008,29(6):639-661.
[73] K hler C, Sofka W, Grimpe C. Selectivity in Search Strategies for Innovation–From Incremental toRadical, From Manufacturing to Services[R]. Working paper,2009.
[74] Koza M P, Lewin A Y. The Co-Evolution of Strategic Alliances [J]. Organization Science,1998,9(3):255-264.
[75] Laursen K, Salter A. Open for Innovation: The Role of Openness in Explaining InnovationPerformance among U.K. Manufacturing Firms [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2):131-150.
[76] Laursen K, Salter A. Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source ofinnovation [J]. Research Policy,2004,33(8):1201-1215.
[77] Lavie D. Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in theU.S. software industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2007,28(12):1187-1212.
[78] Lavie D. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view[J]. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3):638-658.
[79] Lavie D, Miller S R. Alliance portfolio internationalization and firm performance [J]. OrganizationScience,2008,19(4):623-646.
[80] Lavie D, Kang J, Rosenkopf L. Balance within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications ofExploration and Exploitation in Alliances [J]. Working paper,2010.
[81] Leiponen A, Helfat C E. Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth [J].Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(2):224-236.
[82] Leonard-Barton D. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new productdevelopment [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(S1):111-125.
[83] Levinthal D A, March J G. The myopia of learning [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1993,14(S2):95-112.
[84] Li Y, Vanhaverbeke W, Schoenmakers W. Exploration and Exploitation in Innovation: Reframing theInterpretation [J]. Creativity and Innovation Management,2008,17(2):107-126.
[85] Lin B, Wu C. How does knowledge depth moderate the performance of internal and externalknowledge sourcing strategies [J]. Technovation.2010,30(11-12):582-589.
[86] Lin Z, Yang H, Demirkan I. The Performance Consequences of Ambidexterity in Strategic AllianceFormations: Empirical Investigation and Computational Theorizing [J]. Management Science,2007,53(10):1645-1658.
[87] Lubatkin M H, Simsek Z, Ling Y, et al. Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sizedfirms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration [J]. Journal of Management,2006,32(5):646-672.
[88] March, J G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning [J].Organization Science,1991,2(2):71-87.
[89] McGrath R G. Exploratory Learning, Innovative Capacity and Managerial Oversight [J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2001,44(1):118-131.
[90] Menguc B, Auh S., The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the ambidexterity–firmperformance relationship for prospectors and defenders [J]. Industrial Marketing Management,2008,37(4):455-470.
[91] Miller K D, Zhao M, Calantone R J. Adding Interpersonal Learning and Tacit Knowledge to March'sExploration-Exploitation Model[J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):709-722.
[92] Mom T J M, Van Den Bosch F A J, Volberda H W. Investigating Managers' Exploration andExploitation Activities: The Influence of Top-Down, Bottom-Up, and Horizontal Knowledge Inflows[J]. Journal of Management Studies,2007,44(6):910-931.
[93] Morten T H. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge acrossorganization subunits [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44(1):82-111.
[94] Muthen B. The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences [M]. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage,2004.
[95] Nelson R, Winter T. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change [M]. Cambridge MA: HarvardUniversity Press,1982.
[96] Nerkar A. Old Is Gold? The Value of Temporal Exploration in the Creation of New Knowledge [J].Management Science,2003,49(2):211-229.
[97] Nishiguchi T, Ikeda M. Managing Product Development[M].New York:Oxford University Press,1996.
[98] Nootebooma B, Van Haverbeke W, Duysters G, et al. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptivecapacity[J]. Research Policy,2007,36(7):1016-1034.
[99] Phene A, Fladmoe-Lindquist K, Marsh L. Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnologyindustry: the effects of technological space and geographic origin [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(4):369-388.
[100] Puranam P, Singh H, Zollo M. Organizing for Innovation: Managing the Coordination-AutonomyDilemma in Technology Acquisitions [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(2):263-280.
[101] Quintana-Garca C, Benavides-Velasco C. Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation:The influence of technological diversification [J]. Research Policy,2008,37(3):492-507.
[102] Raisch S, Birkinshaw J. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderator [J].Journal of Management,2008,34(3):375-409.
[103] Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, et al. Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitationand Exploration for Sustained Performance [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):685-695.
[104] Rothaermel F T. Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent’s advantage anempirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry [J]. Research Policy,2001,30(8):1235-1251.
[105] Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A. Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in theoptical disk industry [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(4):287-306.
[106] Rothaermel F. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirmcooperation [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(6-7):687-699.
[107] Rothaermel F, Alexandre M. Ambidexterity in Technology Sourcing: The Moderating Role ofAbsorptive Capacity [J]. Organization Science,2009,20(4):759-780.
[108] Rothaermel F, Deeds D L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system ofnew product development [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(3):201-221.
[109] Rothwell R. Successful industrial innovation: critical factors for the1990s [J]. R&D Management,1992,22(2):221-240.
[110] Schoenmakers W, Duysters G. The technological origins of radical inventions [J]. ResearchPolicy,2010,39(9):1051-1059.
[111] Scott W G, Marianna M. Exploration and exploitation innovation processes: The role oforganizational slack in R&D intensive firms [J]. Journal of High Technology Management Research,2006,17(1):97-108.
[112] Seigyoung A, Bulent M. Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role ofcompetitive intensity [J]. Journal of Business Research,2005,58(12):1652-1661.
[113] Sidhu J S, Commandeur H R, Volberda H W. The Multifaceted Nature of Exploration andExploitation: Value of Supply, Demand, and Spatial Search for Innovation [J]. Organization Science,2007,18(1):20-38.
[114] Sidhu J S, Volberda H W, Commandeur H R. Exploring Exploration Orientation and itsDeterminants Some Empirical Evidence [J]. Journal of Management Studies,2004,41(6):913-932.
[115] Smith W K, Tushman M L. Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model forManaging Innovation Streams [J]. Organization Science.2005,16(5):522-536.
[116] Sofka W, Grimpe C. Specialized search and innovation performance–evidence across Europe [J].R&D Management,2010,40(3):310-323.
[117] S rensen J B, Stuart T E. Aging, Obsolescence, and Organizational Innovation [J]. AdministrativeScience Quarterly.2000,45(1):81-112.
[118] Tan J, Peng M W. Organizational Slack and Firm Performance during Economic Transitions: TwoStudies from an Emerging Economy [J]. Strategic Management Journal.2003,24(13):1249-1263.
[119] Tanya M, Jeffrey P. Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: Explaining the preference foroutsiders [J]. Management Science,2003,49(4):497-513.
[120] Tassey G. The functions of technology infrastructure in a competitive economy [J]. ResearchPolicy,1991,20(4):345-361.
[121] Tassey G. The Economics of R&D Policy [M]. Greenwood (Quorum Books), Westport, CT.1997.
[122] Teece D J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)enterprise performance [J]. Strategic Management Journal.2007,28(13):1319-1350.
[123] Tiwana A. Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of allianceambidexterity [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(3):251-272.
[124] Todorova G, Durisin B. Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization [J]. Academy ofManagement Review,2007,32(3):774-786.
[125] Tsai K. Collaborative networks and product innovation performance: Toward a contingencyperspective [J]. Research Policy,2009,38(5):765-778.
[126] Uotila J, Maula M, Keil T, et al. Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: analysis ofS&P500corporations [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2009,30(2):221-231.
[127] Utterback J. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities inthe Face of Technological Change [M]. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,1994.
[128] Vanhaverbeke W, Beerkens B, Duysters G., Explorative and exploitative learning strategies intechnology-based alliance networks [R]. Ecis(Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies), Workingpaper,2003.
[129] Vanhaverbeke W, Gilsing V, Beerkens B, et al. Exploration and Exploitation in Technology-basedAlliance Networks[R]. UNU-MERIT Working Papers.2007.
[130] Venkatraman N, Lee C, Iyer B. Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: a longitudinal test inthe software sector [J]. Working paper,2007.
[131] Victor G, Bart N. Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceuticalbiotechnology [J]. Research Policy,2006,35(1):1-23.
[132] Voss G B, Sirdeshmukh D, Voss Z G. The effects of slack resources and environmental threat onproduct exploration and exploitation [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2008,51(1):147-164.
[133] Wadhwa A, Kotha S. Knowledge Creation through External Venturing: Evidence from theTelecommunications Equipment Manufacturing Industry [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(4):819-835.
[134] Wagner M. To explore or to exploit? An empirical investigation of acquisitions by largeincumbents [J]. Research Policy,2011,40(9):1217-1225.
[135] Wang M, Hanges P J. Latent class procedures: Applications to organizational research [J].Organizational Research Methods,2011,14(1):24-31.
[136] Wijk V R, Jansen J P, Lyles M A. Inter-and Intra-Organizational Knowledge Transfer: AMeta-Analytic Review and Assessment of its Antecedents and Consequences [J]. Journal ofManagement Studies,2008,45(4):830-853.
[137] Wu J, Shanley M T. Knowledge stock, exploration, and innovation: Research on the United Stateselectromedical device industry [J]. Journal of Business Research,2009,62:474-483.
[138] Wu Xiaobo, Ma Rufei, Xu Guannan. Accelerating Secondary Innovation through OrganizationalLearning: A Case Study and Theoretical Analysis [J]. Industry and Innovation,2009,16(4-5):389-409.
[139] Yamakawa Y, Yang H, Lin Z. Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performanceimplications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit [J]. Research Policy,2011,40(2):287.
[140] Yang H, Lin Z, Peng W., Behind Acquisitions of Alliance Partners: Exploratory Learning andNetwork Embeddedness [J]. Academy of Management Journal,2011,54(5):1069-1080.
[141] Yli-Renko H, Autio E, Sapienza H J., Social Capital, Knowledge Acquisition, and KnowledgeExploitation in Technology-Based Young Firms [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(6-7):587-613.
[142] Zhao, X., Huo, B., Flynn, B, The impact of Power and Relationship Commitment on Integrationbetween Manufacturers and Customers in a Supply Chain, Journal of Operations Management,2008,(26)3:368-388.
[143]安同良.企业技术能力:超越技术创新研究的新范式[J].当代财经,2002,(1):62-65.
[144]陈劲,郑育艺,邱嘉铭等.企业科学能力概念的讨论与界定[J].科学学研究,2007,25(12):210-214.
[145]陈晓萍,徐淑英,樊景立.组织与管理的实证研究方法[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2012.
[146]陈君达,邬爱其.国外创新搜寻研究综述[J].外国经济与管理,2011,33(2):58-65.
[147]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放度对企业技术创新绩效的影响[J].科学学研究,2008,26(2):419-426.
[148]戴勇,肖丁丁,锁颍馨.研发投入、企业家精神与产学研绩效的关系研究——以广东省部产学研合作企业为例[J].科学学与科学技术管理.2010,31(11):136-142.
[149]窦红宾,王正斌.网络结构对企业成长绩效的影响研究——利用性学习、探索性学习的中介作用[J].南开管理评论,2011,14(3):15-25.
[150]樊霞,何悦,朱桂龙.产学研合作与企业内部研发的互补性关系研究——基于广东省部产学研合作的实证[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2011,29(5):764-770.
[151]奉小斌,陈丽琼.探索与开发之间的张力及其解决机制探析[J].外国经济与管理,2010,32(12):19-26.
[152]傅晓,李忆,司有和.家长式领导对创新的影响:一个整合模型[J].南开管理评论,2012,15(2):121-127.
[153]郭国庆,吴剑峰.绩效管理企业知识库、技术探索与创新绩效关系研究:基于美国电子医疗设备行业的实证分析[J].南开管理评论,2007,10(3):87-93.
[154]郭利娜.跨界搜寻对产品创新的影响：外部环境的调节作用[D].南京:南京大学,2011.
[155]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2004.
[156]焦豪.双元型组织竞争优势的构建路径：基于动态能力理论的实证研究[J].管理世界,2011,(11):76-92.
[157]焦豪.企业动态能力绩效机制及其多层次影响要素的实证研究[D].复旦大学,2011.
[158]李纪珍.产业共性技术供给体系研究[M].北京:中国金融出版社,2004.
[159]李纪珍.产业共性技术:概念、分类与制度供给[J].中国科技论坛,2006,(3):45-48.
[160]李纪珍,邓衢文.产业共性技术供给和扩散的多重失灵[J].科学学与科学技术管理.2011,32(7):5-10.
[161]李剑力.探索性创新、开发性创新及其平衡研究前沿探析[J].外国经济与管理,2009,31(3):23-29.
[162]李忆,司有和.探索式创新、利用式创新与绩效:战略和环境的影响[J].南开管理评论,2008,11(5):4-12.
[163]凌鸿,赵付春，邓少军.双元性理论和概念的批判性回顾与未来研究展望[J].外国经济与管理,2010,32(1):25-33.
[164]刘红云.如何描述发展趋势的差异：潜变量混合增长模型[J].心理科学进展,2007,15(3):539-544.
[165]刘民义.借鉴台湾工研院技术创新的能与不能[N].科学时报，2009-06-30.
[166]柳卸林,李艳华.知识获取与后发企业技术能力提升——以汽车零部件产业为例[J].科学学与科学技术管理.2009,30(7):94-100.
[167]路风.走向自主创新[M].桂林:广西师范大学出版社，2006.
[168]吕源.案例研究文献的基本风格与规范——从三篇经典文献看高质量的案例研究[J].战略管理,2010,2(2):17-30.
[169]马文聪.供应链整合对企业绩效影响的实证研究[D].广州:华南理工大学,2012.
[170]马如飞.跨界搜寻对企业绩效的影响机制研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2009.
[171]毛义华,陈劲.基于合作创新的企业技术能力培育[J].科研管理,2000,21(4):44-50.
[172]彭新敏.企业网络对技术创新绩效的作用机制研究：利用性-探索性学习的中介效应[D].杭州:浙江大学,2009.
[173]彭新敏,孙元.联盟成员组织学习平衡模式实证研究综述与展望[J].外国经济与管理,2011,33(10):26-32.
[174]邱伟年,王斌，曾楚宏.社会资本与企业绩效:探索式与利用式学习的中介作用[J].经济管理.2011,33(1):146-154.
[175]苏敬勤,洪勇.发展中国家技术能力研究综述[J].研究与发展管理,2009,21(3):91-98.
[176]隋立祖,周敏,寇宗来.“逐利”与“求名”:产学研合作中的目标差异和利润分成[J].世界经济文汇,2011,(1):38-55.
[177]熊伟,奉小斌,陈丽琼.国外跨界搜寻研究回顾与展望[J].外国经济与管理,2011,33(6):18-26.
[178]王重鸣.心理学研究方法[M].北京:人民教育出版社,1990.
[179]王继飞.开放式创新模式下我国制造业外部知识源搜索策略的研究[D].哈尔滨:哈尔滨工业大学,2010.
[180]王毅.中国领先企业技术创新能力成长之道[M].北京:企业管理出版社,2011.
[181]魏江,冯军政.企业知识搜寻模式及其对企业技术创新的影响研究[J].科学管理研究,2009,27(6):55-60.
[182]魏江,许庆瑞.企业技术能力与技术创新能力的协调性研究[J].科学管理研究.1996,14(4):15-21.
[183]温忠麟,侯杰泰，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.
[184]邬爱其,方仙成.国外创新搜寻模式研究述评[J].科学学与科学技术管理.2012,33(4):67-74.
[185]邬爱其,李生校.从“到哪里学习”转向“向谁学习”——专业知识搜寻战略对新创集群企业创新绩效的影响[J].科学学研究,2011,29(12):1906-1913.
[186]吴波.开放式创新范式下企业技术创新资源投入研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2011.
[187]吴贵生.技术创新管理[M].北京:清华大学出版社,2000.
[188]吴明隆.结构方程模型——AMOS的操作与应用[M].重庆：重庆大学出版社,2010.
[189]吴晓波.二次创新的进化过程[J].科研管理,1995,16(2):27-35.
[190]吴晓波,许庆瑞.二次创新竞争模型与后发优势分析[J].管理工程学报,1995,9(1):7-15.
[191]肖丁丁,朱桂龙.产学合作中的知识生产效率——基于“模式Ⅱ”的实证研究[J].科学学研究.2012,30(6):895-903.
[192]肖丁丁,朱桂龙，戴勇. R&D投入与产学研绩效关系的实证研究[J].管理学报.2011,8(5):706-712.
[193]谢伟.全球生产网络中的中国轿车工业[J].管理世界.2006(12):67-87.
[194]谢伟.中国企业技术创新的分布和竞争策略——中国激光视盘播放机产业的案例研究[J].管理世界.2006(2):50-62.
[195]杨学儒,李新春,梁强等.平衡开发式创新和探索式创新一定有利于提升企业绩效吗?[J].管理工程学报,2011,25(4):17-25.
[196]银路,李天柱,程跃等.“山寨”现象的一般规律及其政策建议[J].科学学研究.2010,28(3):321-327.
[197]余雅风,郑晓齐.合作创新中企业知识学习行为的制度化研究[J].科研管理,2002,23(5):88-92.
[198]袁健红,龚天宇.企业知识搜寻前因和结果研究现状探析与整合框架构建[J].外国经济与管理.2011,33(6):27-33.
[199]臧金娟,李垣,魏泽龙.双元模式选择对企业绩效的影响——基于跨层视角的分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2012,33(9):105-112.
[200]张群祥,熊伟,奉小斌.知识搜寻平衡研究综述[J].情报杂志,2012,31(1):111-114.
[201]张文红,赵亚普,施建军.创新中的组织搜寻:概念的重新架构[J].管理学报,2011,8(9):1387-1392.
[202]张玉利,李乾文.公司创业导向、双元能力与组织绩效[J].管理科学学报,2009,12(1):137-152.
[203]张涛,张若雪.人力资本与技术采用:对珠三角技术进步缓慢的一个解释[J].管理世界.2009(2):75-82.
[204]赵亚普.跨界搜索模式下技术和市场的权衡:组织冗余的调节作用[D].南京:南京大学,2012.
[205]周国林.论产业共性技术的供给机理与自主创新[J].湖北社会科学,2009,(10):90-92.
[206]周泯非.集群治理与集群学习间关系及共同演化研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2011.
[207]赵洁,魏泽龙，李垣.高管激励机制、组合能力对创新双元性的影响研究[J].中国科技论坛.2012(2):108-115.
[208]郑育艺.企业科学能力对企业创新绩效的影响分析[D].杭州:浙江大学,2007.
[209]朱朝晖.基于开放式创新的技术学习协同与机理研究[D].杭州:浙江大学,2007.
[210]朱朝晖,陈劲.探索性学习与挖掘性学习及其平衡研究[J].外国经济与管理.2007,29(10):54-58.
[211]朱桂龙.产学研与企业自主创新能力提升[J].科学学研究.2012,30(12):1763-1764.
[212]朱桂龙,彭有福.产学研合作创新网络组织模式及其运作机制研究[J].软科学.2003,17(4):49-52.
[213]朱桂龙,肖丁丁.中国产学研合作创新的现实情景与问题分析：基于创新能力结构视角[R].工作论文,2013.