企业网络与知识管理及新产品开发绩效关系研究
|
摘要
随着世界经济一体化进程的深入,网络化模式的产品开发、生产制造、物流运输、销售服务的趋势愈来愈强。然而大部分的中国企业在全球化的分工体系中长期处于低价值的制造环节,在新产品开发的关键环节上处于相对劣势。如何利用企业所处网络中的资源有效地开展新产品开发工作从而跃迁到价值链的高端,实现由中国制造到中国创造的转变,是我国企业所面对的一个重大而现实的课题。在激烈的市场竞争和动态变化的经营环境下,学者们认同企业所嵌入的网络对其创新与产品开发具有重要的影响,网络已经逐渐成为当前企业营造核心竞争力和提高经营绩效的重要手段。为快速响应研发制造全球化与组织网络化的发展,企业需要积极从内部转到全方位利用各种知识网络(知识源)来进行新想法、新技术与新知识的获取,并通过消化吸收进入企业内部,同时加以融合运用,促进企业新产品开发与企业现有与新问题解决,进而推进其持续发展。这也使得在知识经济时代全球化发展与我国本土企业转型升级背景下,对“企业应选择什么样的网络联结模式与结构,以最大限度地改善其知识管理效果,进而提升其新产品开发绩效?”问题的研究就显得尤其重要。
本文首先在前人研究的基础上对这一基本问题进行了解构,将该问题分解成为三个子问题来研究：即在知识管理与新产品开发过程中,(1)企业网络将如何影响企业的新产品开发绩效?(2)企业如何在不同情境下构建有效的网络模式以提升其新产品开发绩效?(3)企业该如何动态配置网络以持续地提升其新产品开发绩效?接着笔者对与本文研究问题相关的企业网络、知识管理、环境动态性、新产品开发绩效等理论研究文献进行了综述。基于此,笔者构建了本文的整体理论研究框架以及预设假设基础上的两个研究模型。随后分别进行了企业网络、知识管理及新产品开发绩效之间关系的结构方程建模分析,以及在权变视角下通过环境动态性调节企业网络与知识管理之间的多元线性回归分析,回答了本文所提出的前两个子问题。继而笔者开展了企业网络与知识管理及新产品开发绩效动态演化的典型性案例研究,即采取规范的案例研究方法,选取了宁波裕人针织机械有限公司作为典型个案,验证性地分析该公司如何根据不同的环境变化,将企业网络与知识管理有效地动态匹配起来,更好地提升其新产品开发绩效,从而也回答了本文所提出的第三个子问题。在三个子问题回答后,本文提出的基本研究问题也得以解答。通过全文的分析论证,验明并形成了以下主要研究结论：
(1)知识管理对提升新产品开发绩效产生了积极的促进作用,知识获取、知识吸收、知识重用均对新产品开发绩效具有积极的促进作用。企业需要加强知识的获取、吸收和重用,注重培养与强化,对提升新产品开发绩效发挥更大的促进作用。
(2)企业网络对知识管理产生直接的正向影响作用,说明企业网络特性越好,越有利于增进知识管理效果。联结强度分别对知识获取、吸收、重用产生直接正向影响作用,表明提高企业网络成员间的交流合作频率将有助于增进其知识获取、吸收、重用效果。联结集中度分别对知识获取、吸收产生直接正向影响作用,表明网络内越是拥有高集聚式联结关系的企业间的交流合作越有助于增进其知识获取、吸收效果。联结久度对知识获取、吸收、重用产生直接正向影响作用,表明提高企业网络成员间交流合作频率将有助于增进其知识获取、吸收、重用效果。网络规模对知识获取和重用产生直接正向影响作用,表明越是拥有多成员的企业网络,成员间的交流合作越有助于增进其知识获取和重用效果。网络异质性分别对知识获取、重用产生直接正向影响作用,说明合作伙伴及其资源类型差异性越高,网络内企业的交流合作越有助于增进其知识获取和重用效果。
(3)企业网络对新产品开发绩效产生了间接的促进作用,这种作用是通过知识管理的传递而产生,知识管理成为了企业网络促进新产品开发绩效的中介因素。即企业网络特性中的联结强度、联结集中度、联结久度、网络规模、网络异质性正向影响新产品开发绩效均是经由知识管理(获取、吸收和重用中的二项或全部)的传递而间接发生作用的。因此,应大力强化企业网络特性,努力建构具有网络联结强度高、联结集中度高、联结久度高、规模大、异质性高的企业网络,并应尽可能地提高知识获取、吸收和重用能力以增进知识管理效果,通过这两方面的联动与动态协同从而有效地提升新产品开发绩效。
(4)环境动态性在企业网络影响知识管理的机制中发挥了调节作用,即环境动态性在企业网络特性中的联结强度、联结集中度、联结久度、网络规模、网络异质性分别对知识管理的影响关系中起了调制作用。环境动态性在联结强度、联结集中度、联结久度、网络规模与知识管理之间影响关系中均起了负向的调节作用。环境动态性越高,越易削弱其对知识管理的正向影响作用,这需尽可能地消除环境快速变化及其不确定性因素给合作交流带来的不利影响,使得联结强度、联结集中度、联结久度越高以及网络规模越大的网络能更有助于增进网络内成员企业合作交流时的知识管理效果进而提升新产品开发绩效。环境动态性在网络异质性与知识管理之间影响关系中则起了正向的调节作用,即环境动态性越高,越易强化其对知识管理的正向影响作用,这需更好地把握动态环境快速变化中新出现的产品开发与创新机会,增进动态环境快速变化中新技术与新知识的传播与扩散,使得异质性越高的网络能更有助于增进网络内成员企业合作交流时的知识管理效果进而提升新产品开发绩效。
在知识经济时代全球化发展以及我国本土企业转型升级背景下,本文研究所得出的这些重要结论,对于融入网络中进行交流合作的我国企业的知识管理与新产品开发实践提供了重要的现实指导意义,同时也对企业网络、知识管理与组织学习及新产品开发的相关理论研究进行了重要的补充与完善。
With the in-depth development of the global economy integration, the trend prevails of product development, manufacturing, logistics and sales service in network. However, most of the Chinese enterprises are in a manufacturing position which is the lower value end in the global labor division system and show weakness on the key point of new product development. It is important for Chinese enterprises to develop new products effectively with the interfim network embedded so as to ascend to the high end of the value chain and transform from that with products"Made in China" to "Innovated in China". In a intensively competitive and dynamic environment, scholars acknowledge that the interfirm network embedded within enterprises plays an important role in its innovation and new product development and as a matter of fact, interfirm network has become an increasingly important means to build its core competence and improve tis operating performance. To feedback rapidly on the R&D and manufacturing global development and organization network development, enterprises need to transform from taking the advantage of internal network to comprehensive network to acquire new conception, new technology and new knowledge, absorb them inside the enterprise and share, deploy and develop them so as to speed up the new product development and existing and new problem resolution and facilitate its sustainable development. This has led to the particular necessity and importance of the study that "What kind of network tie model and structure an enterprise should choose to maximize its improvement of knowledge management so as to upgrade its new product development performance" in an era of knowledge economy with the economic globalization and local Chinese enterprise transformation and upgrade.
This dissertation is conducted on this question. It first subdivides the basic question into three sub-questions, that is, in the process of knowledge innovation and new product development, (1) How interfirm network influences new product development performance? (2) How enterprises build effective network to upgrade its new product development performance under different situation? (3) How enterprises dynamically deploy its network to continuously upgrade its new product development performance? It is followed by the theory summaries of interfirm network, knowledge management, environmental dynamism and new product development performance related to this topic based on which the entire theoretic framework and two models on the hypothesis is set up. Then the structural equation modeling analysis of the relationship of interfirm network, knowledge management and new product development performance and multiple linear regression analysis of the relationship between the interfirm network and knowledge management mediated by the environmental dynamism from the contingency perspective has been conducted by the author, which eventually has answered the first two questions. Then, a typical case study is conducted on the dynamic resolution of interfirm network, knowledge management and new product development performance. That is, with a regular case study method, the case of Ningbo Yuren Knitting Mechanical Co. Ltd. is selected to study empirically how the company dynamically matches its network with knowledge management effectively so as to improve its new product development performance according to the environment changes, which has accordingly answered the third question. With all these three sub-questions answered, the basic question raised at the beginning of this thesis has been resolved as well and the major conclusions of the study through the analysis conducted in the dissertation is summarized as follows,
Knowledge management facilitates the improvement of new product development performance. Furthermore, knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse as of knowledge management all plays proactive role in the enhancement of new product development performance. The capabilities above within the enterprise should be addressed by the enterprise, attentively fostered and enhanced so as to be able to play more important role in the improvement of new product development performance.
The features of interfirm network have direct positive effect on knowledge management, which indicates the better the features, the better the effect of knowledge management is enhanced. To be specific, the network tie strength has direct positive effect on knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse which indicates to improve the frequency of communication and cooperation between members in the network will enhance their knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse. Network tie centrality plays direct positive role in knowledge acquisition and absorption. This can be interpreted as the higher network tie centrality member enterprises have the better the effect of knowledge acquisition and absorption by enterprises through communication and cooperation. The network tie duration has direct positive effect on knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse. That is, to stretch the time for the communication and cooperation between members of the network will enhance the effect of their knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse. The network size has direct positive effect on knowledge acquisition and resue which means to have communication and cooperation between more enterprise members of the network will enhance their knowledge acquisition and resue. The network heterogeneity has direct positive effect on knowledge acquisition and reuse which means the higher diferences among the members'resources in their communication and cooperation, the better the effect of their knowledge acquisition and reuse.
The features of interfirm network indirectly facilitate new product development performance. This facilitation is realized through the transferring of knowledge management. Therefore, knowledge management has become the intermediary factor of the interfirm network features facilitating new product development performance. That is to mean it is through the transfer of (two or three of the knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse) knowledge management that the features of interfirm network including network tie strength, network tie centrality, network tie duration, network size and network heterogeneity positively correlating to new product development performance play its indirect facilitating role. Therefore, it is encouraged to put great efforts to enlarge the features of interfirm network, build the network with intensive tie strength, high centrality, long sustention, large size and more heterogeneity, and try best to improve the capacity of knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse so as to enhance the effect of knowledge management. With the interaction and dynamic synergy between these two aspects, the new product development performance should be improved effectively.
The environmental dynamism plays a mediating role in the mechanism that the features of interfirm network affects knowledge management. That is, while he network tie strength, network tie centrality, network tie sustention, network size and network heterogeneity have respective effect on knowledge management, environmental dynamism plays mediating role in the turnout. To be specific, the environmental dynamism has negative effect on the influence of knowledge management exerted by network tie strength, network centrality, network tie sustention and network size which means the more dynamic the environment, the more negative impact on knowledge management. This calls for the dismiss as far as possible the adverse influence on the cooperation and communication caused by the fast environment changes and uncertain factors attached, so as to facility knowledge management in cooperation and communication between interfirm network members with more intensive interfirm network tie strength, higher network tie centrality and longer network tie sustention and larger network size and furthermore improve the new product development performance. Environmental dynamism plays positive mediating role in the relationship between the network heterogeneity and knowledge management, which means the more dynamic the environment, the more enhancement on the positive influence on knowledge management by network heterogeneity. This calls for the better grasp of the opportunities of product development and innovation and reinforcement of the transmission and dissemination of new technology and new knowledge emerging in the fast changing dynamic environment so as to facilitate knowledge management in the cooperation and communication between network members with more heterogeneity of the environment and furthermore to improve the new product development performance.
In an era of knowledge economy with the global development and local Chinese enterprise transformation and upgrade, these important conclusions drawn from the studies above show significant and realistic instruction on the practice of knowledge management and new product development for Chinese enterprises communicating and cooperating in network. Meanwhile, it is also not difficult to find that this dissertation also provides important supplementation and completion on the related theories of interfirm network, knowledge management and organizational learning as well as new product development.
本文首先在前人研究的基础上对这一基本问题进行了解构,将该问题分解成为三个子问题来研究：即在知识管理与新产品开发过程中,(1)企业网络将如何影响企业的新产品开发绩效?(2)企业如何在不同情境下构建有效的网络模式以提升其新产品开发绩效?(3)企业该如何动态配置网络以持续地提升其新产品开发绩效?接着笔者对与本文研究问题相关的企业网络、知识管理、环境动态性、新产品开发绩效等理论研究文献进行了综述。基于此,笔者构建了本文的整体理论研究框架以及预设假设基础上的两个研究模型。随后分别进行了企业网络、知识管理及新产品开发绩效之间关系的结构方程建模分析,以及在权变视角下通过环境动态性调节企业网络与知识管理之间的多元线性回归分析,回答了本文所提出的前两个子问题。继而笔者开展了企业网络与知识管理及新产品开发绩效动态演化的典型性案例研究,即采取规范的案例研究方法,选取了宁波裕人针织机械有限公司作为典型个案,验证性地分析该公司如何根据不同的环境变化,将企业网络与知识管理有效地动态匹配起来,更好地提升其新产品开发绩效,从而也回答了本文所提出的第三个子问题。在三个子问题回答后,本文提出的基本研究问题也得以解答。通过全文的分析论证,验明并形成了以下主要研究结论：
(1)知识管理对提升新产品开发绩效产生了积极的促进作用,知识获取、知识吸收、知识重用均对新产品开发绩效具有积极的促进作用。企业需要加强知识的获取、吸收和重用,注重培养与强化,对提升新产品开发绩效发挥更大的促进作用。
(2)企业网络对知识管理产生直接的正向影响作用,说明企业网络特性越好,越有利于增进知识管理效果。联结强度分别对知识获取、吸收、重用产生直接正向影响作用,表明提高企业网络成员间的交流合作频率将有助于增进其知识获取、吸收、重用效果。联结集中度分别对知识获取、吸收产生直接正向影响作用,表明网络内越是拥有高集聚式联结关系的企业间的交流合作越有助于增进其知识获取、吸收效果。联结久度对知识获取、吸收、重用产生直接正向影响作用,表明提高企业网络成员间交流合作频率将有助于增进其知识获取、吸收、重用效果。网络规模对知识获取和重用产生直接正向影响作用,表明越是拥有多成员的企业网络,成员间的交流合作越有助于增进其知识获取和重用效果。网络异质性分别对知识获取、重用产生直接正向影响作用,说明合作伙伴及其资源类型差异性越高,网络内企业的交流合作越有助于增进其知识获取和重用效果。
(3)企业网络对新产品开发绩效产生了间接的促进作用,这种作用是通过知识管理的传递而产生,知识管理成为了企业网络促进新产品开发绩效的中介因素。即企业网络特性中的联结强度、联结集中度、联结久度、网络规模、网络异质性正向影响新产品开发绩效均是经由知识管理(获取、吸收和重用中的二项或全部)的传递而间接发生作用的。因此,应大力强化企业网络特性,努力建构具有网络联结强度高、联结集中度高、联结久度高、规模大、异质性高的企业网络,并应尽可能地提高知识获取、吸收和重用能力以增进知识管理效果,通过这两方面的联动与动态协同从而有效地提升新产品开发绩效。
(4)环境动态性在企业网络影响知识管理的机制中发挥了调节作用,即环境动态性在企业网络特性中的联结强度、联结集中度、联结久度、网络规模、网络异质性分别对知识管理的影响关系中起了调制作用。环境动态性在联结强度、联结集中度、联结久度、网络规模与知识管理之间影响关系中均起了负向的调节作用。环境动态性越高,越易削弱其对知识管理的正向影响作用,这需尽可能地消除环境快速变化及其不确定性因素给合作交流带来的不利影响,使得联结强度、联结集中度、联结久度越高以及网络规模越大的网络能更有助于增进网络内成员企业合作交流时的知识管理效果进而提升新产品开发绩效。环境动态性在网络异质性与知识管理之间影响关系中则起了正向的调节作用,即环境动态性越高,越易强化其对知识管理的正向影响作用,这需更好地把握动态环境快速变化中新出现的产品开发与创新机会,增进动态环境快速变化中新技术与新知识的传播与扩散,使得异质性越高的网络能更有助于增进网络内成员企业合作交流时的知识管理效果进而提升新产品开发绩效。
在知识经济时代全球化发展以及我国本土企业转型升级背景下,本文研究所得出的这些重要结论,对于融入网络中进行交流合作的我国企业的知识管理与新产品开发实践提供了重要的现实指导意义,同时也对企业网络、知识管理与组织学习及新产品开发的相关理论研究进行了重要的补充与完善。
With the in-depth development of the global economy integration, the trend prevails of product development, manufacturing, logistics and sales service in network. However, most of the Chinese enterprises are in a manufacturing position which is the lower value end in the global labor division system and show weakness on the key point of new product development. It is important for Chinese enterprises to develop new products effectively with the interfim network embedded so as to ascend to the high end of the value chain and transform from that with products"Made in China" to "Innovated in China". In a intensively competitive and dynamic environment, scholars acknowledge that the interfirm network embedded within enterprises plays an important role in its innovation and new product development and as a matter of fact, interfirm network has become an increasingly important means to build its core competence and improve tis operating performance. To feedback rapidly on the R&D and manufacturing global development and organization network development, enterprises need to transform from taking the advantage of internal network to comprehensive network to acquire new conception, new technology and new knowledge, absorb them inside the enterprise and share, deploy and develop them so as to speed up the new product development and existing and new problem resolution and facilitate its sustainable development. This has led to the particular necessity and importance of the study that "What kind of network tie model and structure an enterprise should choose to maximize its improvement of knowledge management so as to upgrade its new product development performance" in an era of knowledge economy with the economic globalization and local Chinese enterprise transformation and upgrade.
This dissertation is conducted on this question. It first subdivides the basic question into three sub-questions, that is, in the process of knowledge innovation and new product development, (1) How interfirm network influences new product development performance? (2) How enterprises build effective network to upgrade its new product development performance under different situation? (3) How enterprises dynamically deploy its network to continuously upgrade its new product development performance? It is followed by the theory summaries of interfirm network, knowledge management, environmental dynamism and new product development performance related to this topic based on which the entire theoretic framework and two models on the hypothesis is set up. Then the structural equation modeling analysis of the relationship of interfirm network, knowledge management and new product development performance and multiple linear regression analysis of the relationship between the interfirm network and knowledge management mediated by the environmental dynamism from the contingency perspective has been conducted by the author, which eventually has answered the first two questions. Then, a typical case study is conducted on the dynamic resolution of interfirm network, knowledge management and new product development performance. That is, with a regular case study method, the case of Ningbo Yuren Knitting Mechanical Co. Ltd. is selected to study empirically how the company dynamically matches its network with knowledge management effectively so as to improve its new product development performance according to the environment changes, which has accordingly answered the third question. With all these three sub-questions answered, the basic question raised at the beginning of this thesis has been resolved as well and the major conclusions of the study through the analysis conducted in the dissertation is summarized as follows,
Knowledge management facilitates the improvement of new product development performance. Furthermore, knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse as of knowledge management all plays proactive role in the enhancement of new product development performance. The capabilities above within the enterprise should be addressed by the enterprise, attentively fostered and enhanced so as to be able to play more important role in the improvement of new product development performance.
The features of interfirm network have direct positive effect on knowledge management, which indicates the better the features, the better the effect of knowledge management is enhanced. To be specific, the network tie strength has direct positive effect on knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse which indicates to improve the frequency of communication and cooperation between members in the network will enhance their knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse. Network tie centrality plays direct positive role in knowledge acquisition and absorption. This can be interpreted as the higher network tie centrality member enterprises have the better the effect of knowledge acquisition and absorption by enterprises through communication and cooperation. The network tie duration has direct positive effect on knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse. That is, to stretch the time for the communication and cooperation between members of the network will enhance the effect of their knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse. The network size has direct positive effect on knowledge acquisition and resue which means to have communication and cooperation between more enterprise members of the network will enhance their knowledge acquisition and resue. The network heterogeneity has direct positive effect on knowledge acquisition and reuse which means the higher diferences among the members'resources in their communication and cooperation, the better the effect of their knowledge acquisition and reuse.
The features of interfirm network indirectly facilitate new product development performance. This facilitation is realized through the transferring of knowledge management. Therefore, knowledge management has become the intermediary factor of the interfirm network features facilitating new product development performance. That is to mean it is through the transfer of (two or three of the knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse) knowledge management that the features of interfirm network including network tie strength, network tie centrality, network tie duration, network size and network heterogeneity positively correlating to new product development performance play its indirect facilitating role. Therefore, it is encouraged to put great efforts to enlarge the features of interfirm network, build the network with intensive tie strength, high centrality, long sustention, large size and more heterogeneity, and try best to improve the capacity of knowledge acquisition, absorption and reuse so as to enhance the effect of knowledge management. With the interaction and dynamic synergy between these two aspects, the new product development performance should be improved effectively.
The environmental dynamism plays a mediating role in the mechanism that the features of interfirm network affects knowledge management. That is, while he network tie strength, network tie centrality, network tie sustention, network size and network heterogeneity have respective effect on knowledge management, environmental dynamism plays mediating role in the turnout. To be specific, the environmental dynamism has negative effect on the influence of knowledge management exerted by network tie strength, network centrality, network tie sustention and network size which means the more dynamic the environment, the more negative impact on knowledge management. This calls for the dismiss as far as possible the adverse influence on the cooperation and communication caused by the fast environment changes and uncertain factors attached, so as to facility knowledge management in cooperation and communication between interfirm network members with more intensive interfirm network tie strength, higher network tie centrality and longer network tie sustention and larger network size and furthermore improve the new product development performance. Environmental dynamism plays positive mediating role in the relationship between the network heterogeneity and knowledge management, which means the more dynamic the environment, the more enhancement on the positive influence on knowledge management by network heterogeneity. This calls for the better grasp of the opportunities of product development and innovation and reinforcement of the transmission and dissemination of new technology and new knowledge emerging in the fast changing dynamic environment so as to facilitate knowledge management in the cooperation and communication between network members with more heterogeneity of the environment and furthermore to improve the new product development performance.
In an era of knowledge economy with the global development and local Chinese enterprise transformation and upgrade, these important conclusions drawn from the studies above show significant and realistic instruction on the practice of knowledge management and new product development for Chinese enterprises communicating and cooperating in network. Meanwhile, it is also not difficult to find that this dissertation also provides important supplementation and completion on the related theories of interfirm network, knowledge management and organizational learning as well as new product development.
引文
[1]Achrol, R. S. & Stern, L. W. Environmental determinants of decision-making uncertainty in marketing channels. Journal of Marketing Research,1988,25(1), 36-50.
[2]Adler, P. & Kwon, S. W. Social capital:prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(1),17-40.
[3]Agresti, A. & Agresti, B. F. Statistical Analysis of Qualitative Variation [A].In:Schuessler,K.F. (Ed.) Sociological Methodology.San Francisco:Jossey Bass,1978,204-237.
[4]Ahuja, G. & Katila, R. Here do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(8/9),887-907.
[5]Aldrich, H. E. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,1979.
[6]Allen, B. & Hamilton, F. Management of new products. Chicago:Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc,1968.
[7]Allen, B. & Hamilton, F. New Products Management for the 1980s. Chicago: Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc,1982.
[8]Allen, W. D. Social Networks and Self-employment. Journal of social-economics,2000,29,487-501.
[9]Anand, B. N. & Khanna, T. Do Firms Learn to Create Value? The Case of Alliances. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3).295-315.
[10]Anand, V., Clark, M. A. & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. Team knowledge structures: Matching task to information environment. Journal of Managerial Issues,2003, 15(1),15-31.
[11]Ancona, D. G. & Chong, C. L. Entrainment:pace, cycle, and phythm in organizational behavior. In research in organizational behavior. Eds. B. Staw and L. L. Ummings. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press,1996.
[12]Anderson, J. C. & Narus, J. A. A model of distributor firm and manufacturing firm working relationships. Journal of Marketing,1990,54(1),42-58.
[13]Andersson, U., Forsgren, M. & Holm, U. The strategic impact of external networks:Susidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(11). 979-996.
[14]Ang, S. H. Competitive intensity and collaboration:impact on firm growth across technological environments. Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(10), 1057-1075.
[15]Ann, M, Lynne. P. & Olivia, E. Knowledge Reuse for Innovation. Management science.2004(2),174-188.
[16]Argote, L. & Ingram, P. Knowledge transfer:a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000, 82(1),150-169.
[17]Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. Organizational learning Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1978.
[18]Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J. & Almeida, J. G. Effects of Age at Entry, Knowledge Intensity, and Imitability on International Growth. The Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(5),909-924.
[19]Barney, J. B. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management,1991,17(1),99-120.
[20]Barney, J. B. How do a firm's capabilities affect boundary decisions? Sloan Management Review,1999,40(3),137-145.
[21]Barney, J. B. Strategic factor markets:expectations, luck and business strategy Management Science,1986,32(10),1231-1241.
[22]Batjargal, B. & Liu, M. Entrepreneurs' access to private equity in China:The role of social capital. Organization Science,2004,15(2):159-172.
[23]Batjargal, B. Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Performance in Russia:A Longitudinal Study. Organization Studies,2003,24(4),535-556.
[24]Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T. & Silverman. Don't go it alone:Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal 2000,21(3),267-294.
[25]Baum, J. R. & Wally, S. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(11),1107-1129.
[26]Beckman, C. M. & Haunschild, P. R. Network Learning:The Effects of Partners' Heterogeneity of Experience on Corporate Acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly,2002,47(1),92-124.
[27]Beckman, T. A. Methodology for Knowledge Management. Banff, Canada: International Association for Scirnce and Technology for Development (LASTED) AI and Soft Computing Conference,1997.
[28]Bengtsson, M. & Solvell, O. Climate of competition, clusters and innovative performance. Scandinavian Journal of Management,2004,20 (3),225-244.
[29]Bierly, P. & Chakrabarti, A. Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17,123-135.
[30]Bossidy, L. & Charan, R. Exeeution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. NewYork:Crown,2002.
[31]Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Grenve, H. R. & Tsai, W. Taking stock of networks and organizations:A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(6),796-817.
[32]Bresnahan, T., Gambardella, A. & Saxenian A:'Old economy',inputs for'new economy'outcomes:cluster formation in the new Silieon Valleys. Industrial and Corporate Chang,2001,10,835-860.
[33]Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. Organizational learning and community-of-Practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. En:Cross, R. Israelit, S. Strategic learning in a knowledge economy. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann,2000.
[34]Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. Alternative Ways of Assessing. Model FitSociological Methods Research,1992,21(2),230-258.
[35]Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A. & Pavitt, K. Knowledge, specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm:Why do firms know more than they make?. Administrative Science Quarterly,2001,46(4),597-621.
[36]Burgelman, R. A. Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly,2002,47(2),325-357.
[37]Burt, R. S. Toward a structural theory of action [M]. Academic Press,1982
[38]Burt, R. S. Corporate profits and cooptation. New York:Academic Press,1983
[39]Burt, R. S. Structural Holes:The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1992.
[40]Burt, R. S. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(2),339-365.
[41]Buttle, F. ISO 9000:marketing motivations and benefits. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,1997,14(9),936-947.
[42]Carayannis, E. Fostering Synergies between Information Technology and Managerial and Organizational Cognition:The Role of Knowledge Management. Technovation,1999,19(4),219-231.
[43]Carpenter, M. A. & Fredrickson, J. W. Top management teams, global strategic posture and the moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(3),533-545.
[44]Chesbrough, H. W. Open innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press,2003.
[45]Churchill Jr., G. A., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W. & Walker Jr., O. C. The Determinants of Salesperson Performance:A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research.1985,22(2).103-118.
[46]Clark, K. B. & Fujimoto, T. Product development performance:Strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1991.
[47]Coase, R. H. The Nature of the Firm. Economics,1937,9,386-405.
[48]Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1), 128-152
[49]Coleman, J. S. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1990
[50]Coleman, J. S. Individual interests and collective action:Selected essays. New York:Cambridge University Press,1986.
[51]Coleman. J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,1988,94(Supplement), S95-S120.
[52]Contractor, N. S., Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. Testing multitheoretical, multilevel hypotheses about organizational networks:An analytic framework and empirical example. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3), 681-703.
[53]Cooper, R. G. & Kleinschrnidt, E. J. Resource Allocation in the New product process. Industrial Marketing Management,1988,17(3),249-262.
[54]Cooper, R. G. & Kleinschrnidt, E. J. Success factors in product innovation. Industrial Marketing Management,1987,16(3),215-223.
[55]Cooper, R. G. How New Product Strategy Impact on Performance. Journal of P roduct Innovation Management,1984,1 (1),5-18.
[56]Cooper, R. G. Perspective third-generation new product processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1994,11(1),3-14.
[57]Cooper, R. G. The impact of new product strategies. Industrial Marketing Management,1983,12(4),243-256.
[58]Coulson-Thomas. C. J. "The Future of the Organization:Selected Knowledge Management Issues". Journal of Knowledge Management,1997,1(1),15-26.
[59]Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,1951,16(3),297-334.
[60]Cuieford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill,1965.
[61]Cummings, J. N. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science,2004,50(3).352-364.
[62]Cyert, R. M. & March, J. G. A behavioral theory of the firm. New York: Prentice Hall,1963.
[63]Daniel, E. O, How Knowledge Reuse Informs Effective System Design and Implementation.2001 IEEE Intelligent Systems,16(1),44-49.
[64]Danneels, E. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23,1095-1121.
[65]Dess, G. G. & Beard, D. W. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1984,29(1),52-73.
[66]DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. The Iron Cage Revisited:Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review,1983,48 (4),147-60.
[67]Doty, D. H. & Glick, W. H. Common methods bias:Does common methods variance really bias results? Oragnizational Research Methods,1998,2, 374-406.
[68]Doz, Y. & Santos, J. F. P. On the management of knowledge:From the transparency of collocation and co-setting to the quandary of dispersion and differentiation. Fontainebleau:INSEAD working paper,1997.
[69]Doz, Y. Technology parnerships between larger and smaller firms:some critical issues. Contractor, F. & Lorange, P. Cooperative strategies in international business. Lexington:Lexington Books,1988.
[70]Drucker, P. F. The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Business Review,1998, 76(6),149-155.
[71]Duquette, D. J. & Stowe, A. M. A Performance Measurement Model for the Office of Inspector General. Government Accountants,1993,42(2),27-50.
[72]Dussauge, P., Garrete, B. & Mitchell, W. Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliance in European, North America and Asia. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(1),99-126.
[73]Dyer, J. H. & Nobeoka, K. Creating and Managing A High Performance Knowledge-Sharing Network:The Toyota Case. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21,345-367.
[74]Dyer, J. H. & Singh, H. The relational view:Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 1998,10,138-157.
[75]Eisenhardt. K. M. & Tabrizi, B. N. Accelerating Adaptive Processes:Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995,40(1),84-110.
[76]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building Theories From Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4),532-550.
[77]Foss, N. J. Knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm: Some critical comments. Organization Science,1996,7(5),470-476.
[78]Freeman, L. C. & Barley, S. R. The Strategic Analysis of Inter-organizational Relations in Biotechnology. The Strategic Management of Technological Innovation,1990,7,127-155.
[79]Freeman, L. C. Networks of innovators:A synthesis of research issues. Research Policy,1991,20,499-514.
[80]Freeman, L. C. Venture capital as an economy of time. In:Leenders, R., Gabbay, S. M. (Eds.), Corporate social Capital and Liabiilty. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Boston,1999,460-482.
[81]Freeman, L. C. Centrality in social networks:Conceptual clarification. Social Networks,1979,1(3),215-239.
[82]Fulk, J., Flanagin, A. J., Kalman, M. E., Monge, P. R. & Ryan, T. Connective and communal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication Theory,1996,6(1),60-87.
[83]Galibraith. J. R. Designing complex organizations. New Jersey: Addison-Wesley, Reading,1973.
[84]Gnyawali, D. R. & Madhavan, R. Cooperative networks and:competitive dynamics:a structural embededness perspective. Academy of Management Review,2001,26(3),431-445.
[85]Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A. & Segars, A. H. Knowledge Management:An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems,2001.18(1),185-214.
[86]Gomes-Casseres, B. Group versus group:How alliance networks compete. Harvard Business Review,1994,72(4),62-74
[87]Grabher, G. The Embedded Firm:The Sociceconomnics of Industrial Networks. London:Routledge,1993.
[88]Granovetter, M. Economic Action and Social Structure:The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,1985,91(3),481-510.
[89]Granovetter, M. Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology. In:Nohria, N. & Eccles, R. G. (Eds.), Networks and Organizations:Structure, Form and Action. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1992.
[90]Granovetter. M. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 1973,78(6),1360-1380.
[91]Grant, R. M. Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: Organizational capabilities as knowledge integration. Organizational Science, 1996,7(4) 375-387.
[92]Greve, A. Social Networks and Entrepreneurship-an Analysis of Social Relations, Occupational Background, and Use of Contacts During the Establishment Process. Scand J. Mgmt,1995,11(1),1-24.
[93]Griffin, A. & Page, A. L. An interim report on measuring product development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1993,10(4), 291-308.
[94]Gulati, R. & Gargiulo, M. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology,1999,104(5),1439-1493.
[95]Gulati, R. & Higgins, M. C. Which ties matter when? the contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on IPO success. Strategic Management Journal, 2003,24(2),127-144.
[96]Gulati, R. & Westphal, J. D. Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44(3),473-506.
[97]Gulati, R. Alliances and Networks. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(4), 293-317.
[98]Gulati, R. Network Location and Learning:The Influence of Network Resources and Firm Capabilities on Alliance Formation. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(5),397-420.
[99]Gulati, R., Nohria, N. & Zaheer. A. Strategic Networks. Strategic Management Journal,2000,2(3),203-221.
[100]Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(4),473-496.
[101]Hagedoorn, J. & Schakenraad, J. The effect of strategic technology alliance on company performance. Strategic Management Journal,1994,16,214-250.
[102]Hair, H. F., Erson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. Multivariate Data Analysis. London:Prentice-Hall,1998.
[103]Hakansson, H. & Snehota, I. No business is an island:The network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management,1989,5,187-200.
[104]Hansen, M. T. Knowledge Networks:Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies. Organization Science,2002,13(3),232-248.
[105]Hansen, M. T. The Search-transfer Problem:The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge Across Organization Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999,44(1),82-111.
[106]Hauptman, O. The Different Roles of Communication in Software Development and Hardware R&D:Phenomenologic Paradox or Atheoretical Empiricism. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management,1990,7(1),49-71.
[107]Hedlund, G. A Model of Knowledge Management and the N-Forrm Corporation. Strategy Management Journal,1994,15(Issue Supplement S2), 73-90.
[108]Hertenstein, J. & Platt, M. Performance measures and management control in new product development. Accounting Horizons,2000,14(3),303-323.
[109]Holsapple, C. W. & Joshi K. D. Knowledge Management:A Threefold Framework The Information Society,2002,18,47-64.
[110]Hsu, J. Y. A Late-industrial District? Learning Network in the Hsinchu Industrial Park. Taiwa. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, university Berkeley, science-based of California.1997
[111]Human, S. E. & Provan, K. G. Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-Firm multilateral networks:A comparative study of success and demise. Administrative Science Quarterly,2000,45(2),327-365.
[112]Iansiti, M. & Clark, K. B. Integration and Dynamic Capability:Evidence from Product Development in Automobiles and Mainframe Computers. Industrial and Corporate Change,1994,3(3),557-605.
[113]Iglesias, V. Perceptions about service:How much do they influence quality evaluations?. Journal of Service Research,2004,7(1),90-103
[114]Ingram, P. & Roberts, P. W. Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry. American Journal of Sociology,2000,106,387-423.
[115]Inkpen, A. C. & Dinur, A. Knowledge Management Processes and International Joint Ventures. Organization Science,1998,9(4),454-468.
[116]Inkpen, A. C. & Tsang, E. Networks, social capital, and learning. Academy of Management Review,2005,30(1),146-165.
[117]Inkpen, A. C. Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic alliances. Academy of Management Executive,1998,12(4),69-80
[118]Islam,M.Z., Doshi, J.A., Mahtab,H. & Ahmad,Z,A. Team learning, top management support and new product development success.International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,2009,2(2),238-260.
[119]Jarillo, J. C. On Strategic Networks. Strategic Management Journal.1988,9, 31-41.
[120]Jaworski, B. J. & Kohli, A. K. Market orientation:Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing,1993,57(3),53-71.
[121]Johannessen, J. A., Olaisenb, J. & Olsenc B. Mismanagement of tacit knowledge:the importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it. International Journal of Information Management,2001,21(1),3-20.
[122]Johannisson, B. & Ramirez-Pasillas, M. Networking for entrepreneurship: Building a topography model of human, social and cultural capital. Presented on Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Jonkoping, Sweden, June,2001
[123]Johanson, J. & Mattson, L. G. Interorganizational Relations in Industrial Systems:a Network Approach Compared with the Transaction Cost Approach. International Journal of Management and Organization,1987,1,34-48.
[124]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.
[125]Katila, R. & Mang, P. Y. Interorganizational development activities:The likelihood and timing of contracts. Academy of Management Proceedings.1999, B1-B6.
[126]Kaufman, A., Wood, C. H. & Theyel, G. Collaboration and technology linkages: A strategic supplier typology. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(6), 649-663.
[127]Kessler, E. H. & Bierly, P. E. Is faster really better? An empirical test of the implications of innovation speed. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,2002,49(1),2-12
[128]Kogut, B. & Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies,1993, 24(4),625-645.
[129]Koh, A. Organizational learning in successful East Asian firms:principles, practices, and prospects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,1998, 58,285-295.
[130]Koka, B. R. & Prescott, J. E.'Designing alliance networks:The influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(6),639-661.
[131]Koka, B. R., Madhavan, R. & Prescott, J. E. The evolution of interfirm networks:environmental effects on patterns of network change. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3),721-737.
[132]Kotler, P. Marketing management:analysis, planning, implementation, and control(9th edition). New York:Prentice Hall,1996
[133]Kraatz, M. S. Learning by Association? Interorganizational Networks and Adaptation to Environmental Change. Academy of Management Journal,1998, 41(6),621-643.
[134]Krackhardt, D. The Strength of Strong Ties:the Importance of Philos in Organizations. Nohria, N. & Eccles R. Networks and Organizations:Structure, Form and Action. Boston, MA:Harvard University Press,1992
[135]Kusunoki, K., Nonaka, I. & Nagata, A.. Organizational Capabilities in Product Development of Japanese Firms:A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Findings. Organization Science,1998,9(6),699-718.
[136]Lane, P. J. & Lubatkin, M. Relative Absorptive Capacity and Interorganizational Learning. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5),461-477.
[137]Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R. & Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity:a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4),833-863.
[138]Larson, A. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings:A study of the governance of exchange Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly,1992, 37,76-104.
[139]Laursen, K. & Salter, A. Open for innovation:the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U. K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2).131-150.
[140]Leana, C. R. & van Buren Ⅲ, H. J. Organizational Social Capital and Employment Practices Organizational Social Capital and Employment Practices. The Academy of Management Review,1999,24(3),538-555.
[141]Lee, C., Lee, K. & Pennings, J. M. Internal Capabilities, External Networks, and Performance:A Study on Technology-based Ventures. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22,615-640.
[142]Lee, L.T.S. The effects of team reflexivity and innovativeness on new product development performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems,2008, 108(4),548-569.
[143]Leenders, M. A. A. M. & Wierenga, B. The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating marketing and R & D. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2002,19(4).305-317.
[144]Leonard-Barton, D. & Deschamps, I. Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Management Science,1988,34(10), 1252-1265.
[145]Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal,1992. Summer Special Issue 13,111-125.
[146]Levitt, T. Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review,1965,43, 81-94.
[147]Lewis, K. Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams:A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science,2004, 50(11),1519-1533.
[148]Li, J. J., Kevin, L. P. & Zhou, Z. Do Managerial Ties in China Always Produce Value? Competition, Uncertainty, and Domestic vs. Foreign Firms. Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(4),383-400.
[149]Li, J., Peng, X. M., Zhou, Y. B., Sun, Y. & Ding, S. Q. Factors in Innovative Search Strategy for External Knowledge Sources. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE IEEM,2007,1995-1999.
[150]Li, H. y., Bingham, J.B. & Umphress, E.E. Fairness from the Top:Perceived Procedural Justice and Collaborative Problem Solving in New Product Development. Organization Science,2007,18(2),200-218.
[151]Lin, N. Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 1999,25,467-487.
[152]Lyles, M. A. & Salk, J. E. Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international joint ventures:An empirical examination in the Hungarian context. Journal of International Business Studies,1996,27(5),877-903.
[153]March. J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1),71-87.
[154]Marquardt, M. J. Five elements of learning. Executive Excellence,2002,9, 15-16.
[155]Marsden, P. V. Network Data and Measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 1990,16,435-463.
[156]Martin, X. & Mitchell, W. The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market. Research Policy, 1998,26(7/8),753-771.
[157]Marwell, G. & Oliver, P. The critical mass in collective action:A micro-social theory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993.
[158]McDonough III, E. F., Kahn, K. B. & Barezak, G. An Investigation of the Use of Global, Virtual, and Collocated New Product Development Teams. The Journal of Product Innovation Management,2001,18(2),110-120.
[159]McEvily, B. & Marcus, A. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(11),1033-1055.
[160]McEvily, B. & Zaheer, A. Bridging ties:A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(12), 1133-1156.
[161]McGill, M. E., J. W. Slocum, & D. Lei. Management Practices in Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics,1992,21,5-17.
[162]Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. Institutionalized Organizations:Formal structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology,1977,83(2),340-363.
[163]Miles, R. E. & Snow, C. C. Organizations:New Concepts for New Forms. California Management Review,1986,28(3),62-73.
[164]Miller, D. & Friesen, P. H. Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science,1978,24(9),921-933
[165]Milliken, F. J. Perceiving and interpreting environmental change:An examination of college administrators interpretation of changing demographics. Academy of Management Journal,1990,33(1):42-63.
[166]Minbaeva, D. B. Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Corporations. Management International Review,2007,47(4),567-593.
[167]Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P. & Moorman, C. Organizational improvisation and learning:A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly,2001,46(2),304-337.
[168]Monge, P. R., Fulk, J., Kalman. M. E., Flanagin, A. J., Parnassa, C. & Rumsey, S. Production of Collective Action in Alliance-Based Interorganizational Communication and Information Systems. Organization Science,1998,9(3), 411-433.
[169]Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. The Journal of Marketing,1994,58(3),20-38.
[170]Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. Relationships-Based Competitive Advantage:The Role of Relationship Marketing in Marketing Strategy. Journal of Business Research,1999,46(3),281-290.
[171]Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E. & Silverman, B. S. Strategic Alliances and Interfirm Knowledge Transfer. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Special Issue),77-91.
[172]Nadler, D. & Tushman, M. Strategic organizational design. New York: HarperCollins,1988.
[173]Nahapiet. J. & Ghoshal, S. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. The Academy of Management Review,1998,23(2), 242-266.
[174]Nelson, R. R. & Winter, S. G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1982.
[175]Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J. & Gould, J. M. Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review,1995.36(2).73-85.
[176]Nohria, N. & Ghoshal, S. The Differentiated Network:Organizing Multinational Corporations for Value Creation. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1997.
[177]Nonaka, I. & Reinmoeller, P. The 'ART' of Knowledge:Systems to Capitalize on Market Knowledge. European Management Journal,1998,16(6),672-683.
[178]Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. The knowledge creating company:How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York:Oxford University Press,1995.
[179]Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Konno, N. SECI, Ba and Leadership:a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning,2000,33(1), 5-34.
[180]Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory. New York:McGraw-Hill,1978
[181]Oinas, P. Aetivity- sPeeifieity in organizationa learning:imPlieation for analysin the role of Proximity. Geo Journal,1999,(49),363-372.
[182]Olson, E. M., Walker, O. C. & Ruekert, R. W. Organizing for Effective New Product Development:The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness. Journal of Marketing,1995,59(1),48-62.
[183]Ostgaard, A. & Birley, S. New Venture Growth and Personal Networks. Journal of Business Research,1996,36,37-50.
[184]Penrose, E.T., The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press, Oxford,1959.
[185]Peteraf, M. The cornerstones of competitive advantage:a resource-based view Strategic Management Journal,1993,14,179-191.
[186]Pien, W., Tong, T. W. & Koh, C. P. An integrated model of knowledge transfer from MNC parent to China subsidiary. Journal of World Business,2004,39(2), 168-182.
[187]Podolny, J. M. & Page, K. K. Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology,1998,24,57-76.
[188]Portes, A. & Sensenbrenner, J. Embeddedness and immigration:notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology,1993, 98,1320-1350.
[189]Powell, W. W, Koput, K. & Smith-Doerr, L. Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41,116-145.
[190]Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,1990, May-June,79-91.
[191]Prajogo, D. I. & McDermott, C. M. The relationship between total quality management practices and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2005,25(11),1101-1122.
[192]Priem, R. L., Raheed, A. M. A. & Kotulic, A. G. Rationality in strategic decision processes, environmental dynamism and firm performance. Journal of Management,1995,21(5),913-929.
[193]Robbins, S. P. & Coulter, M. Management 7th edition. New York:Prentice Hall, 2002.
[194]Roberts, E. B. & Hauptman, O. The Process of Technology Transfer to the New Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Firm. Research Policy,1986,15(3),107-119.
[195]Rowe, P. A. & Christie, M. J. Civic entrepreneurship in Australia:Opening the"black box"of tacit knowledge in local government top management teams. The International Journal of Public Sector Management,2008,21(5),509-524.
[196]Rowley, T., Behrens. D. & Krackhardt, D. Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3),369-386.
[197]Saren, M. A. A Classification and Review of Models of the lntra-Firm Innovation Process. R&D Management,1984,14(1),11-24.
[198]Schutjens,V. & Stam, E. The evolution and nature of young firm networks:a longitudinal perspective. Small Business Economics,2003,21(2),115-134.
[199]Scott, A. J. New Industrial Space:Flexible Produetion Organization and Regional Development in NorthAmerica and WestEurope. London:Pion,1988.
[200]Shan, W., Walker, G. & Kogut, B. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(5), 387-394.
[201]Sherman, J. D., Berkowitz, D. & Souder, W. E. New Product Development Performance and the Interaction of Cross-Functional Integration and Knowledge Management. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2005,22(5), 399-411.
[202]Snowden, D. Creating a Sudtainable Knowledge Programme. Proceedings from Optimizing Knowledge Management Conference. London:U R L td,1999.
[203]Sobrero, M & Roberts, E.B. The Trade-off between efficiency and learning in interorganizational relationships for product development. Management Science, 2001,(47),493-511.
[204]Song, X. M. & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. The effects of perceived technological uncertainty on Japanese new product development. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(1),61-80.
[205]Song, X. M. & Parry, M. E. The determinants of Japanese new product successes. Journal of Marketing Research,1997a,34(1),64-76.
[206]Song, X. M. & Parry, M. E. What Separates Japanese New Product Winners from Losers. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1997b,13(5), 422-439.
[207]Song, X. M. & Weiss, M. M. M. Critical development activities for really new versus incremental products. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1998, 15(2),124-135.
[208]Song, X. M. & Weiss, M. M. M. The effects of perceived technological uncertainty on Japanese new product development. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(1).61-80.
[209]Song, X. M., Thieme, R. J. & Xie, J. The Impact of Cross-Functional Joint Involvement Across Product Development Stages:An Exploratory Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1998,15(4),289-303.
[210]Souder, W. E., Shennan, J. D. & Cooper, R. D. Environmental uncertainty, organizational integration, and new product development effectiveness:A test ofcontingency theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1998,15(6), 520-533.
[211]Spender, J.C & Grant, R.M. Knowledge and the firm:Overview. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17,5-9.
[212]Steinle, C. & Schiel, H. When do industries clusters? A proposal on how to assess an industry's propensity to concentration at a single region or nation. Research policy,2002,31,849-858.
[213]Steiger, J. H. Structure estimation model evaluation and modification:An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research,1990,25: 173-180.
[214]Stuart, T. & Podolny, J. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(7),21-38.
[215]Szulanski, G. Unpacking stickiness:an empirical investigation of the barriers to transfer best practice inside the firm. Academy of Management Journal,1995, (Special Volume),437-441.
[216]Szulanski, G. The process of knowledge transfer:A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes,2000,82(1),9-27.
[217]Teece, D. & Pisano, G. The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms:an Introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change,1994,3(3),537-556.
[218]Thompson, J. D. Organization in action. New York:McGraw-Hill,1967.
[219]Thorelli, H. B. Networks:Between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal,1986,7(1),37-51.
[220]Trott, P. Innovation Management and New preduct Development. New York: Prentice Hall,1998.
[221]Tsai, W. & Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation:The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal,1998.41(2),464-476.
[222]Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44,996-1004.
[223]Tsang, E. W. K. A preliminary typology of learning in international strategic alliances. Journal of World Business,1999,34,211-229.
[224]Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),35-67.
[225]Uzzi, B. The source and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations:The network effect. American Sociological Review,1996,61(4),674-698.
[226]Van de Ven, A. H. & Ferry, D. L. Measuring and assessing organizations. New York:Wiley,1980.
[227]Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P. & Lyles, M. A. Inter- and Intra-Organizational Knowledge Transfer:A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of its Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Management Studies,2008,45(4), 830-853.
[228]Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. Social network analysis:Methods and applications. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
[229]Weiss, A. M. & Heide, J. B. The Nature of Organizational Search in High Technology Markets. Journal of Marketing Research,1993,30(2),220-233.
[230]Wernerfelt, B. & Montgomery, C. A. Tobin's q and the Importance of Focus in Firm Performance. The American Economic Review,1988,78(1),246-250.
[231]Wernerfelt, B. A Resource-based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal,1984,5(2),171-180.
[232]Wiig, K. Knowledge Management Foundations (Vol.1). Texas:Schema Press, 1993.
[233]Williamson, O. E. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York:Free Press,1985.
[234]Williamson. O. E. The Economics of Organization:The Transaction Cost Approach. The American Journal of Sociology,1981,87(3).548-577.
[235]Williamson, O.E. Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly.1991,36, 269-296.
[236]Wu, L. J., Huang, H. T., Li, J., Peng, X. M. & Huang, R. Q. Niche Strategy, Interfirm Network and Technological Innovation of Latecomer Firms:A Case from China. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM,2010,1820-1824.
[237]Yan, A. & Gray, B. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-China joina ventures:Acomparative case study. Academy of Management Journal,1994,37(6),1478-1517.
[238]Yang, J. & Yu, L. Electronic new product development—a conceptual framework. Industrial Management & Data Systems,2002,102(4),218-225
[239]Yashino, M. Y. & Rangan, U. S. Strategic Alliances:An Entrepreneurial Approach to Globalization. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1995.
[240]Yin, R. K. Case study research:Design and methods(3nd ed.).Thousands Oaks, CA:Sage Publications,2003.
[241]Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. & Sapienza, H. J. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22,587-613.
[242]Yoshino, M. Y. & Rangan, U. S. Strategic Alliances:An Entrepreneurial Approach to Globalization. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1995.
[243]Zaheer, A. & Bell, G. G. Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(9), 809-825.
[244]Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. & Perrone, V. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science,1998,9(2),141-159.
[245]Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D. & Hitt, M. A. International Expansion by New Venture Firms:International Diversity, Mode of Market Entry, Technological Learning, and Performance. The Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(5), 925-950.
[246]Zenger, T. R. & Hesterly, W. S. The disaggregation of corporations:Selective intervention, high-powered incentives, and molecular units. Organization Science,1997,8(3),209-222.
[247]Zhao, L. & Aram, J. D. Networking and growth of young technology-intensive ventures in China. Journal of Business Venturing,1995,10(5),349-370.
[248]Zollo, M. & Winter, S.G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science,2002,13,339-351.
[249]边燕杰,丘海雄.企业的社会资本及其功效.中国社会科学,2000(2),87-99.
[250]边燕杰.城市居民社会资本的来源及作用：网络观点与调查发现.中国社会科学,2004(3),136-146.
[251]蔡宁,潘松挺网络关系强度与企业技术创新模式的耦合性及其协同演化—以海正药业技术创新网络为例.中国工业经济,2008(4),137-144.
[252]陈柳钦.社会资本及其主要理论研究观点综述.东方论坛：青岛大学学报,2007(3),84-91,121.
[253]陈守明.现代企业网络.上海：上海人民出版,2002.
[254]陈学光.网络能力、创新网络及创新绩效关系研究：以浙江高新技术企业为例.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[255]陈瑶雅.新产品开发中的跨职能团队绩效影响因素研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2004
[256]丁树全.制造企业外部知识源搜索策略影响因素研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[257]付尧,刘红丽.社会网络结构与互动对知识转移的影响.商业现代化,2009(1),394-395.
[258]甘路明,潘惠,刘景江,陈劲.企业技术知识管理研究.科学学研究,2003, 21(2),201-204.
[259]高展军,李垣.战略网络结构对企业技术创新的影响研究.科学学研究,2006,24(3),474-479.
[260]高忠仕.知识转移、知识搜索及组织学习绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[261]郭斌,刘鹏,汤佐群.新产品开发过程中的知识管理.研究与发展管理,2004,16(5),58-64.
[262]郭斌.企业异质性、技术因素与竞争优势：对企业竞争优势理论的一个评述.自然辩证法通讯,2002,24,55-61.
[263]郭劲光,高静美.网络／资源与竞争优势：一个企业社会学视角下的观点.中国工业经济,2003(3),79-86.
[264]何晓群,刘文卿.应用回归分析.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[265]贺小刚.企业持续竞争优势的资源观阐释.南开管理评论,2002(4),32-37.
[266]洪德芳.高科技产业技术策略与行销策略配合对新产品发展绩效关系影响之研究.硕士学位论文,中原大学企业管理研究所,1993.
[267]侯吉刚,刘益,李西垚.基于企业网络结构属性的知识管理研究.科学管理研究,2008,26(1),74-77.
[268]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟,张雷.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004.
[269]胡树华.国内外产品创新管理研究综述.中国管理科学.1999,7(1),65-76.
[270]胡伊苹.全球制造网络中基于治理模式的组织学习影响机制研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[271]嵇登科.企业网络对企业技术创新绩效的影响研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[272]贾良定,陈永霞,宋继文,李超平,张君君.变革型领导、员工的组织信任与组织承诺.东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,8(6),59-67.
[273]贾新明,刘亮.结构方程模型与联立方程模型的比较.数理统计与管理,2008,27(3),439-446.
[274]姜源林.网络位置、环境特征和创新战略导向的匹配研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[275]李长贵.绩效管理与绩效评估.台北：华泰文化事业公司,1997
[276]李俊,赵立龙.吸收能力理论研究述评.西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2010,20(3),1-7.
[277]李培林,梁栋.网络化:企业组织变化的趋势——北京中关村200家高新技术企业的调查.社会学研究,2003(2),43-53.
[278]李平.企业网络组织理论研究述评.2007(2),19-21.
[279]李余延.从隐性知识到显性知识的转化——外化模式在企业中的实现.西南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2003,1(2),89-93.
[280]李煜.文化资本、文化多样性与社会网络资本.社会学研究,2001(4),52-63.
[281]李元旭,王宇露.东道国网络结构、位置嵌入与海外子公司网络学习—基于123家跨国公司在华子公司的实证.世界经济研究2010(1),63-67,75.
[282]李正卫.动态环境条件下的组织学习与企业绩效.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2003.
[283]李志刚,汤书昆,梁晓艳,赵林捷.产业集群网络结构与企业创新绩效关系研究.科学学研究,2007,25(4),777-782.
[284]林健,李焕荣.基于核心能力的企业战略网络—网络经济时代的企业战略管理模式.中国软科学,2003(12),68-72.
[285]林南.社会资本——关于社会结构与行动的理论.上海：上海人民出版社,2005.
[286]刘冰,陶海青.知识流动研究范式的一个扩展—从企业网络到企业家网络.科学学与科学技术管理,2006,2,61-66.
[287]刘常勇,傅清富,李书政.知识管理能力对新产品开发绩效之影响.中山大学学报(社会科学版),2002,42(5),119-127.
[288]刘衡,李垣,李西垚,肖婷.关系资本、组织间沟通和创新绩效的关系研究.科学学研究,2010,28(12),1912-1919.
[289]刘景江,陈璐.创业导向、学习模式与新产品开发绩效关系研究.北京：第五届(2010)中国管理学年会—创业与中小企业管理分场论文集,2010.
[290]刘鹏.知识密集型产业新产品开发过程中缄默知识流转有效性研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[291]刘仁军.关系契约与企业网络转型.中国工业经济,2006(6),91-98.
[292]刘世定.经济学和社会学：来自关系史的思考.高雄：二十一世纪的中国社会学人类学,丽文文化事业股份有限公司,2001.
[293]刘雪锋.网络嵌入性与差异化战略及企业绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[294]卢青伟.团队特征、知识管理对新产品开发绩效的影响研究.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2010.
[295]陆德梅,朱国宏.新经济社会学的兴起和发展探微.国外社会科学,2003(3),22-28.
[296]罗珉,刘永俊.企业动态能力的理论架构与构成要素.中国工业经济,2009(1),75-86.
[297]马庆国.管理统计——数据获取、统计原理、SPSS工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2002.
[298]莫燕.企业创新网络、吸收能力与技术创新绩效的关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[299]欧阳建国.基于组织信任的创新网络与新产品开发绩效实证研究.硕士学位论文,太原科技大学,2009.
[300]彭新敏.企业网络对技术创新绩效的作用机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009
[301]彭正银.网络治理理论探析,中国软科学.2002(3),50-54.
[302]钱锡红,徐万里,杨永福.企业网络位置、间接联系与创新绩效.中国工业经济,2010,2(263),78-88.
[303]钱锡红,杨永福,徐万里.企业网络位置、吸收能力与创新绩效—一个交互效应模型.管理世界,2010(5),118-129.
[304]邱泽奇.在工厂化和网络化的背后—组织理论的发展与困境.社会学研究,1999(4),1-25.
[305]裘丽萍.IT企业新产品开发中R&D-营销界面集成度研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[306]任胜钢.企业网络能力结构的测评及其对企业创新绩效的影响机制研究.南开管理评论,2010,13(1),69-80.
[307]芮鸿程.联盟型网络组织的动因与运作规则探析.财经科学,2002(2),54-58.
[308]史隽.软件企业职能整合、开发过程熟练度与新产品绩效关系研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[309]寿涌毅,汪洁.企业网络中知识转移的影响因素与案例研究.西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2009,19(3),52-58.
[310]唐玲莉.知识文化、市场信息处理与新产品开发绩效的影响机制.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[311]王莉,杨蕙馨.动态环境下的企业网络与组织学习关系模型构建.山东社会科学,2008(11),151-154.
[312]王三义,刘新梅,万威武.社会资本结构维度对企业间知识转移影响的实证研究.科技进步与对策,2007,24(4),105-107.
[313]王姗姗.供应商参与新产品开发对新产品开发绩效的影响：组织学习能力的中介作用.硕士学位论文,西安理工大学.2010.
[314]王盛节.企业创新战略与领导型态对新产品开发绩的影响证研究.博士学位论文,暨南大学,2009.
[315]王世良.生产运作管理.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2002.
[316]王晓娟.知识网络与集群企业竞争优势研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[317]王宇露,李元旭.海外子公司东道国网络结构与网络学习效果—网络学习 方式是调节变量吗.南开管理评论,2009,12(3),142-151.
[318]韦晓霞,王宁.企业契约关系及其治理研究.集团经济研究,2005(12),73-74.
[319]韦影.企业社会资本对技术创新绩效的影响研究——基于吸收能力的视角.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[320]魏江.小企业集群创新网络的知识溢出效应分析.科研管理,2003,24(4),54-60.
[321]魏仕杰.基于隐性知识显性化的知识管理策略影响因素研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006
[322]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰,刘红云.中介效应检验程序及其应用.心理学报,2004,36(5)：614-620.
[323]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2)：268-274.
[324]邬爱其.集群企业网络化成长研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[325]吴汉贤,邝国良.企业网络结构对产业集群竞争力的影响分析—基于网络密度.科技管理研究,2010(14),154-157.
[326]吴剑峰,吕振艳.资源依赖、网络中心度与多方联盟构建—基于产业电子商务平台的实证研究.管理学报,2007,4(4),509-513.
[327]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与集体学习的中介作用—2004年浙江纺织业集群的实证分析.管理世界,2008(8),69-76.
[328]吴隆增,简兆权.组织学习、知识创造与新产品开发绩效的关系研究.科技进步与对策,2008,25(1),110-113.
[329]吴伟伟,邓强,于渤.技术能力对新产品开发绩效的影响：以技术管理为调节变量.科学性研究,2010,28(3),429-435
[330]吴先华,郭际,胡汉辉.复杂性理论和网络分析方法在产业集群创新能力问题中的应用—基于江苏省三个产业集群的实证研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2008(7),75-80.
[331]吴晓波,高忠仕,魏仕杰.隐性知识显性化与技术创新绩效实证研究.科学学研究,2007,25(6),1233-1238.
[332]吴晓波,郭雯,刘清华.知识管理模型研究述评.研究与发展管理,2002,14(6),52-58,88.
[333]吴晓波,郭雯,苗文斌.技术系统演化中的忘却学习研究.科学学研究,2004,22(3)：308-311.
[334]吴晓波,彭新敏,丁树全.我国企业外部知识源搜索策略的影响因素.科学学研究,2008,26(2),364-372,408.
[335]吴晓波,韦影.制药企业技术创新战略网络中的关系性嵌入.科学学研究, 2005,23(4),561-565.
[336]吴晓波,许冠南,刘慧.全球化下的二次创新战略——以海尔电冰箱技术演进为例.研究与发展管理,2003,15(6),7-11.
[337]吴晓波,章威,裘丽萍.新产品开发中R&D——营销界面集成度的实证研究.科学学研究,2008,38(4)：154-162.
[338]吴勇志.企业网络理论的四大流派综述.技术经济与管理研究,2010(2),106-108.
[339]谢洪明.战略网络结构对企业动态竞争行为的影响研究.科研管理,2005,26(2),104-112.
[340]许冠南.关系嵌入性对技术创新绩效的影响研究——基于探索性学习的中介机制.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[341]许小虎.企业网络的多重效应分析.研究与发展管理,2005,17(4),61-66.
[342]许小虎.企业网络的结构解析和纵向的嵌入式演进.技术经济,2005,10(214),51-54.
[343]许允琪.IT企业新产品开发项目中R&D-营销界面整合机制使用研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[344]杨桂菊.基于社会资本理论的网络组织演化机制新阐释.软科学,2007,21(4),5-8.
[345]杨蕙馨,文娜.中间性组织的组织形态及其相互关系研究.财经问题研究,2005(9),55-61.
[346]杨雪冬.社会资本—对一种新解释范式的探索.马克思主义与现实,1999(3),52-60.
[347]余志.市场导向、组织学习与新产品开发绩效的影响关系研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[348]曾璨,陈宏军.社会资本理论研究综述.铜陵学院学报,2007,6(4),25-30.
[349]湛正群,李非.组织制度理论研究的问题：观点与进展.现代管理科学,2006(4),14-16,57.
[350]张春法,韩耀.网络经济下企业组织的非一体化趋势与超契约治理.世界经济与政治论坛,2005(2),112-116.
[351]张存刚,李明,陆德梅.社会网络分析—一种重要的社会学研究方法.甘肃社会科学,2004(2),109-111.
[352]张方华.社会资本理论研究综述.江苏科技大学学报(社会科学版).2005,5(4),7-11.
[353]张方华.知识型企业的社会资本与技术创新绩效研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[354]张钢,罗军.组织网络化研究评述.科学管理研究.2003,21(1),60-64.
[355]张钢.企业组织创新过程中的学习机制及知识管理.科研管理,1999,20(3), 40-45.
[356]张钢.企业组织网络化发展.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2005.
[357]张杰,刘东.企业网络的社会逻辑基础.科学学与科学技术管理,2006(1),132-135.
[358]张龙.知识网络结构及其对知识管理的启示.研究与发展管理,2007,19(2),86-91,99
[359]张婧,段艳玲.我国制造型企业市场导向和创新导对新产品绩效影响的实证研究.南开商业评论,2010,13(1),81-89.
[360]张文宏,阮丹青.城乡居民的社会支持网.社会学研究,1999(3),12-24.
[361]张文宏.城市居民社会网络资本的阶层差异.社会学研究,2005(4),64-81.
[362]张文宏.社会资本：理论争辩与经验研究.社会学研究,2003(4),25-37.
[363]张文松,郭广珍.企业网络与企业边界理论.中国工业经济,2005(12),78-84.
[364]张旭昆.制度的定义与分类.浙江社会科学,2002(6),3-9.
[365]张伊威.新产品开发中知识管理与绩效关系的研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[366]张毅,张子刚.企业网络与组织间学习的关系链模型.科研管理,2005,26(2),136-141,103.
[367]张志勇,刘益,陶蕾,企业网络与知识转移—跨国公司与产业集聚群的比较研究.科学管理研究,2007,25(4),64-67.
[368]赵孟营.组织合法性—在组织理性与事实的社会组织之间.2005(2),119-125.
[369]周小虎.企业家社会资本及其对企业绩效的作用.安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002,30(1),1-6.
[370]周小虎,陈传明.企业社会资本与持续竞争优势.中国工业济经2004(5),90-97
[371]周雪光.西方社会学关于中国组织与制度变迁研究状况述评.社会学研究,1999(4),26-43.
[372]周雪光.组织社会学十讲.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[373]朱伟民,万迪昉.基于组织学习的企业知识管理.西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2001,21(4),18-20,96.
[374]祝明伟.R&D/营销界面管理及其对新产品开发绩效的影响研究.硕士学位论文,西安理工大学,2007.
[2]Adler, P. & Kwon, S. W. Social capital:prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(1),17-40.
[3]Agresti, A. & Agresti, B. F. Statistical Analysis of Qualitative Variation [A].In:Schuessler,K.F. (Ed.) Sociological Methodology.San Francisco:Jossey Bass,1978,204-237.
[4]Ahuja, G. & Katila, R. Here do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(8/9),887-907.
[5]Aldrich, H. E. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,1979.
[6]Allen, B. & Hamilton, F. Management of new products. Chicago:Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc,1968.
[7]Allen, B. & Hamilton, F. New Products Management for the 1980s. Chicago: Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc,1982.
[8]Allen, W. D. Social Networks and Self-employment. Journal of social-economics,2000,29,487-501.
[9]Anand, B. N. & Khanna, T. Do Firms Learn to Create Value? The Case of Alliances. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3).295-315.
[10]Anand, V., Clark, M. A. & Zellmer-Bruhn, M. Team knowledge structures: Matching task to information environment. Journal of Managerial Issues,2003, 15(1),15-31.
[11]Ancona, D. G. & Chong, C. L. Entrainment:pace, cycle, and phythm in organizational behavior. In research in organizational behavior. Eds. B. Staw and L. L. Ummings. Greenwich, CT:JAI Press,1996.
[12]Anderson, J. C. & Narus, J. A. A model of distributor firm and manufacturing firm working relationships. Journal of Marketing,1990,54(1),42-58.
[13]Andersson, U., Forsgren, M. & Holm, U. The strategic impact of external networks:Susidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(11). 979-996.
[14]Ang, S. H. Competitive intensity and collaboration:impact on firm growth across technological environments. Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(10), 1057-1075.
[15]Ann, M, Lynne. P. & Olivia, E. Knowledge Reuse for Innovation. Management science.2004(2),174-188.
[16]Argote, L. & Ingram, P. Knowledge transfer:a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000, 82(1),150-169.
[17]Argyris, C. & Schon, D. A. Organizational learning Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley,1978.
[18]Autio, E., Sapienza, H. J. & Almeida, J. G. Effects of Age at Entry, Knowledge Intensity, and Imitability on International Growth. The Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(5),909-924.
[19]Barney, J. B. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management,1991,17(1),99-120.
[20]Barney, J. B. How do a firm's capabilities affect boundary decisions? Sloan Management Review,1999,40(3),137-145.
[21]Barney, J. B. Strategic factor markets:expectations, luck and business strategy Management Science,1986,32(10),1231-1241.
[22]Batjargal, B. & Liu, M. Entrepreneurs' access to private equity in China:The role of social capital. Organization Science,2004,15(2):159-172.
[23]Batjargal, B. Social Capital and Entrepreneurial Performance in Russia:A Longitudinal Study. Organization Studies,2003,24(4),535-556.
[24]Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T. & Silverman. Don't go it alone:Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal 2000,21(3),267-294.
[25]Baum, J. R. & Wally, S. Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(11),1107-1129.
[26]Beckman, C. M. & Haunschild, P. R. Network Learning:The Effects of Partners' Heterogeneity of Experience on Corporate Acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly,2002,47(1),92-124.
[27]Beckman, T. A. Methodology for Knowledge Management. Banff, Canada: International Association for Scirnce and Technology for Development (LASTED) AI and Soft Computing Conference,1997.
[28]Bengtsson, M. & Solvell, O. Climate of competition, clusters and innovative performance. Scandinavian Journal of Management,2004,20 (3),225-244.
[29]Bierly, P. & Chakrabarti, A. Generic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17,123-135.
[30]Bossidy, L. & Charan, R. Exeeution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done. NewYork:Crown,2002.
[31]Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Grenve, H. R. & Tsai, W. Taking stock of networks and organizations:A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(6),796-817.
[32]Bresnahan, T., Gambardella, A. & Saxenian A:'Old economy',inputs for'new economy'outcomes:cluster formation in the new Silieon Valleys. Industrial and Corporate Chang,2001,10,835-860.
[33]Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. Organizational learning and community-of-Practice: toward a unified view of working, learning and innovation. En:Cross, R. Israelit, S. Strategic learning in a knowledge economy. Woburn: Butterworth-Heinemann,2000.
[34]Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. Alternative Ways of Assessing. Model FitSociological Methods Research,1992,21(2),230-258.
[35]Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A. & Pavitt, K. Knowledge, specialization, organizational coupling, and the boundaries of the firm:Why do firms know more than they make?. Administrative Science Quarterly,2001,46(4),597-621.
[36]Burgelman, R. A. Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly,2002,47(2),325-357.
[37]Burt, R. S. Toward a structural theory of action [M]. Academic Press,1982
[38]Burt, R. S. Corporate profits and cooptation. New York:Academic Press,1983
[39]Burt, R. S. Structural Holes:The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1992.
[40]Burt, R. S. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(2),339-365.
[41]Buttle, F. ISO 9000:marketing motivations and benefits. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,1997,14(9),936-947.
[42]Carayannis, E. Fostering Synergies between Information Technology and Managerial and Organizational Cognition:The Role of Knowledge Management. Technovation,1999,19(4),219-231.
[43]Carpenter, M. A. & Fredrickson, J. W. Top management teams, global strategic posture and the moderating role of uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(3),533-545.
[44]Chesbrough, H. W. Open innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business School Press,2003.
[45]Churchill Jr., G. A., Ford, N. M., Hartley, S. W. & Walker Jr., O. C. The Determinants of Salesperson Performance:A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Marketing Research.1985,22(2).103-118.
[46]Clark, K. B. & Fujimoto, T. Product development performance:Strategy, organization, and management in the world auto industry. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1991.
[47]Coase, R. H. The Nature of the Firm. Economics,1937,9,386-405.
[48]Cohen, W. M. & Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1), 128-152
[49]Coleman, J. S. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1990
[50]Coleman, J. S. Individual interests and collective action:Selected essays. New York:Cambridge University Press,1986.
[51]Coleman. J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,1988,94(Supplement), S95-S120.
[52]Contractor, N. S., Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. Testing multitheoretical, multilevel hypotheses about organizational networks:An analytic framework and empirical example. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3), 681-703.
[53]Cooper, R. G. & Kleinschrnidt, E. J. Resource Allocation in the New product process. Industrial Marketing Management,1988,17(3),249-262.
[54]Cooper, R. G. & Kleinschrnidt, E. J. Success factors in product innovation. Industrial Marketing Management,1987,16(3),215-223.
[55]Cooper, R. G. How New Product Strategy Impact on Performance. Journal of P roduct Innovation Management,1984,1 (1),5-18.
[56]Cooper, R. G. Perspective third-generation new product processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1994,11(1),3-14.
[57]Cooper, R. G. The impact of new product strategies. Industrial Marketing Management,1983,12(4),243-256.
[58]Coulson-Thomas. C. J. "The Future of the Organization:Selected Knowledge Management Issues". Journal of Knowledge Management,1997,1(1),15-26.
[59]Cronbach, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika,1951,16(3),297-334.
[60]Cuieford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill,1965.
[61]Cummings, J. N. Work groups, structural diversity, and knowledge sharing in a global organization. Management Science,2004,50(3).352-364.
[62]Cyert, R. M. & March, J. G. A behavioral theory of the firm. New York: Prentice Hall,1963.
[63]Daniel, E. O, How Knowledge Reuse Informs Effective System Design and Implementation.2001 IEEE Intelligent Systems,16(1),44-49.
[64]Danneels, E. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23,1095-1121.
[65]Dess, G. G. & Beard, D. W. Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1984,29(1),52-73.
[66]DiMaggio, P. J. & Powell, W. W. The Iron Cage Revisited:Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review,1983,48 (4),147-60.
[67]Doty, D. H. & Glick, W. H. Common methods bias:Does common methods variance really bias results? Oragnizational Research Methods,1998,2, 374-406.
[68]Doz, Y. & Santos, J. F. P. On the management of knowledge:From the transparency of collocation and co-setting to the quandary of dispersion and differentiation. Fontainebleau:INSEAD working paper,1997.
[69]Doz, Y. Technology parnerships between larger and smaller firms:some critical issues. Contractor, F. & Lorange, P. Cooperative strategies in international business. Lexington:Lexington Books,1988.
[70]Drucker, P. F. The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Business Review,1998, 76(6),149-155.
[71]Duquette, D. J. & Stowe, A. M. A Performance Measurement Model for the Office of Inspector General. Government Accountants,1993,42(2),27-50.
[72]Dussauge, P., Garrete, B. & Mitchell, W. Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliance in European, North America and Asia. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(1),99-126.
[73]Dyer, J. H. & Nobeoka, K. Creating and Managing A High Performance Knowledge-Sharing Network:The Toyota Case. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21,345-367.
[74]Dyer, J. H. & Singh, H. The relational view:Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 1998,10,138-157.
[75]Eisenhardt. K. M. & Tabrizi, B. N. Accelerating Adaptive Processes:Product Innovation in the Global Computer Industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1995,40(1),84-110.
[76]Eisenhardt, K. M. Building Theories From Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4),532-550.
[77]Foss, N. J. Knowledge-based approaches to the theory of the firm: Some critical comments. Organization Science,1996,7(5),470-476.
[78]Freeman, L. C. & Barley, S. R. The Strategic Analysis of Inter-organizational Relations in Biotechnology. The Strategic Management of Technological Innovation,1990,7,127-155.
[79]Freeman, L. C. Networks of innovators:A synthesis of research issues. Research Policy,1991,20,499-514.
[80]Freeman, L. C. Venture capital as an economy of time. In:Leenders, R., Gabbay, S. M. (Eds.), Corporate social Capital and Liabiilty. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Boston,1999,460-482.
[81]Freeman, L. C. Centrality in social networks:Conceptual clarification. Social Networks,1979,1(3),215-239.
[82]Fulk, J., Flanagin, A. J., Kalman, M. E., Monge, P. R. & Ryan, T. Connective and communal public goods in interactive communication systems. Communication Theory,1996,6(1),60-87.
[83]Galibraith. J. R. Designing complex organizations. New Jersey: Addison-Wesley, Reading,1973.
[84]Gnyawali, D. R. & Madhavan, R. Cooperative networks and:competitive dynamics:a structural embededness perspective. Academy of Management Review,2001,26(3),431-445.
[85]Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A. & Segars, A. H. Knowledge Management:An Organizational Capabilities Perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems,2001.18(1),185-214.
[86]Gomes-Casseres, B. Group versus group:How alliance networks compete. Harvard Business Review,1994,72(4),62-74
[87]Grabher, G. The Embedded Firm:The Sociceconomnics of Industrial Networks. London:Routledge,1993.
[88]Granovetter, M. Economic Action and Social Structure:The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,1985,91(3),481-510.
[89]Granovetter, M. Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology. In:Nohria, N. & Eccles, R. G. (Eds.), Networks and Organizations:Structure, Form and Action. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1992.
[90]Granovetter. M. The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology, 1973,78(6),1360-1380.
[91]Grant, R. M. Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: Organizational capabilities as knowledge integration. Organizational Science, 1996,7(4) 375-387.
[92]Greve, A. Social Networks and Entrepreneurship-an Analysis of Social Relations, Occupational Background, and Use of Contacts During the Establishment Process. Scand J. Mgmt,1995,11(1),1-24.
[93]Griffin, A. & Page, A. L. An interim report on measuring product development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1993,10(4), 291-308.
[94]Gulati, R. & Gargiulo, M. Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology,1999,104(5),1439-1493.
[95]Gulati, R. & Higgins, M. C. Which ties matter when? the contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on IPO success. Strategic Management Journal, 2003,24(2),127-144.
[96]Gulati, R. & Westphal, J. D. Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly,1999,44(3),473-506.
[97]Gulati, R. Alliances and Networks. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(4), 293-317.
[98]Gulati, R. Network Location and Learning:The Influence of Network Resources and Firm Capabilities on Alliance Formation. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(5),397-420.
[99]Gulati, R., Nohria, N. & Zaheer. A. Strategic Networks. Strategic Management Journal,2000,2(3),203-221.
[100]Gupta, A. K. & Govindarajan, V. Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(4),473-496.
[101]Hagedoorn, J. & Schakenraad, J. The effect of strategic technology alliance on company performance. Strategic Management Journal,1994,16,214-250.
[102]Hair, H. F., Erson, R. E., Tatham, R. L. & Black, W. C. Multivariate Data Analysis. London:Prentice-Hall,1998.
[103]Hakansson, H. & Snehota, I. No business is an island:The network concept of business strategy. Scandinavian Journal of Management,1989,5,187-200.
[104]Hansen, M. T. Knowledge Networks:Explaining Effective Knowledge Sharing in Multiunit Companies. Organization Science,2002,13(3),232-248.
[105]Hansen, M. T. The Search-transfer Problem:The Role of Weak Ties in Sharing Knowledge Across Organization Subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999,44(1),82-111.
[106]Hauptman, O. The Different Roles of Communication in Software Development and Hardware R&D:Phenomenologic Paradox or Atheoretical Empiricism. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management,1990,7(1),49-71.
[107]Hedlund, G. A Model of Knowledge Management and the N-Forrm Corporation. Strategy Management Journal,1994,15(Issue Supplement S2), 73-90.
[108]Hertenstein, J. & Platt, M. Performance measures and management control in new product development. Accounting Horizons,2000,14(3),303-323.
[109]Holsapple, C. W. & Joshi K. D. Knowledge Management:A Threefold Framework The Information Society,2002,18,47-64.
[110]Hsu, J. Y. A Late-industrial District? Learning Network in the Hsinchu Industrial Park. Taiwa. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, university Berkeley, science-based of California.1997
[111]Human, S. E. & Provan, K. G. Legitimacy building in the evolution of small-Firm multilateral networks:A comparative study of success and demise. Administrative Science Quarterly,2000,45(2),327-365.
[112]Iansiti, M. & Clark, K. B. Integration and Dynamic Capability:Evidence from Product Development in Automobiles and Mainframe Computers. Industrial and Corporate Change,1994,3(3),557-605.
[113]Iglesias, V. Perceptions about service:How much do they influence quality evaluations?. Journal of Service Research,2004,7(1),90-103
[114]Ingram, P. & Roberts, P. W. Friendships among competitors in the Sydney hotel industry. American Journal of Sociology,2000,106,387-423.
[115]Inkpen, A. C. & Dinur, A. Knowledge Management Processes and International Joint Ventures. Organization Science,1998,9(4),454-468.
[116]Inkpen, A. C. & Tsang, E. Networks, social capital, and learning. Academy of Management Review,2005,30(1),146-165.
[117]Inkpen, A. C. Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic alliances. Academy of Management Executive,1998,12(4),69-80
[118]Islam,M.Z., Doshi, J.A., Mahtab,H. & Ahmad,Z,A. Team learning, top management support and new product development success.International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,2009,2(2),238-260.
[119]Jarillo, J. C. On Strategic Networks. Strategic Management Journal.1988,9, 31-41.
[120]Jaworski, B. J. & Kohli, A. K. Market orientation:Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing,1993,57(3),53-71.
[121]Johannessen, J. A., Olaisenb, J. & Olsenc B. Mismanagement of tacit knowledge:the importance of tacit knowledge, the danger of information technology, and what to do about it. International Journal of Information Management,2001,21(1),3-20.
[122]Johannisson, B. & Ramirez-Pasillas, M. Networking for entrepreneurship: Building a topography model of human, social and cultural capital. Presented on Babson College Entrepreneurship Research Conference, Jonkoping, Sweden, June,2001
[123]Johanson, J. & Mattson, L. G. Interorganizational Relations in Industrial Systems:a Network Approach Compared with the Transaction Cost Approach. International Journal of Management and Organization,1987,1,34-48.
[124]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.
[125]Katila, R. & Mang, P. Y. Interorganizational development activities:The likelihood and timing of contracts. Academy of Management Proceedings.1999, B1-B6.
[126]Kaufman, A., Wood, C. H. & Theyel, G. Collaboration and technology linkages: A strategic supplier typology. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(6), 649-663.
[127]Kessler, E. H. & Bierly, P. E. Is faster really better? An empirical test of the implications of innovation speed. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,2002,49(1),2-12
[128]Kogut, B. & Zander, U. Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. Journal of International Business Studies,1993, 24(4),625-645.
[129]Koh, A. Organizational learning in successful East Asian firms:principles, practices, and prospects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,1998, 58,285-295.
[130]Koka, B. R. & Prescott, J. E.'Designing alliance networks:The influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(6),639-661.
[131]Koka, B. R., Madhavan, R. & Prescott, J. E. The evolution of interfirm networks:environmental effects on patterns of network change. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3),721-737.
[132]Kotler, P. Marketing management:analysis, planning, implementation, and control(9th edition). New York:Prentice Hall,1996
[133]Kraatz, M. S. Learning by Association? Interorganizational Networks and Adaptation to Environmental Change. Academy of Management Journal,1998, 41(6),621-643.
[134]Krackhardt, D. The Strength of Strong Ties:the Importance of Philos in Organizations. Nohria, N. & Eccles R. Networks and Organizations:Structure, Form and Action. Boston, MA:Harvard University Press,1992
[135]Kusunoki, K., Nonaka, I. & Nagata, A.. Organizational Capabilities in Product Development of Japanese Firms:A Conceptual Framework and Empirical Findings. Organization Science,1998,9(6),699-718.
[136]Lane, P. J. & Lubatkin, M. Relative Absorptive Capacity and Interorganizational Learning. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5),461-477.
[137]Lane, P. J., Koka, B. R. & Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity:a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4),833-863.
[138]Larson, A. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings:A study of the governance of exchange Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly,1992, 37,76-104.
[139]Laursen, K. & Salter, A. Open for innovation:the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U. K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2).131-150.
[140]Leana, C. R. & van Buren Ⅲ, H. J. Organizational Social Capital and Employment Practices Organizational Social Capital and Employment Practices. The Academy of Management Review,1999,24(3),538-555.
[141]Lee, C., Lee, K. & Pennings, J. M. Internal Capabilities, External Networks, and Performance:A Study on Technology-based Ventures. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22,615-640.
[142]Lee, L.T.S. The effects of team reflexivity and innovativeness on new product development performance. Industrial Management & Data Systems,2008, 108(4),548-569.
[143]Leenders, M. A. A. M. & Wierenga, B. The effectiveness of different mechanisms for integrating marketing and R & D. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2002,19(4).305-317.
[144]Leonard-Barton, D. & Deschamps, I. Managerial influence in the implementation of new technology. Management Science,1988,34(10), 1252-1265.
[145]Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:a paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal,1992. Summer Special Issue 13,111-125.
[146]Levitt, T. Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review,1965,43, 81-94.
[147]Lewis, K. Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams:A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science,2004, 50(11),1519-1533.
[148]Li, J. J., Kevin, L. P. & Zhou, Z. Do Managerial Ties in China Always Produce Value? Competition, Uncertainty, and Domestic vs. Foreign Firms. Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(4),383-400.
[149]Li, J., Peng, X. M., Zhou, Y. B., Sun, Y. & Ding, S. Q. Factors in Innovative Search Strategy for External Knowledge Sources. Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE IEEM,2007,1995-1999.
[150]Li, H. y., Bingham, J.B. & Umphress, E.E. Fairness from the Top:Perceived Procedural Justice and Collaborative Problem Solving in New Product Development. Organization Science,2007,18(2),200-218.
[151]Lin, N. Social networks and status attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 1999,25,467-487.
[152]Lyles, M. A. & Salk, J. E. Knowledge acquisition from foreign parents in international joint ventures:An empirical examination in the Hungarian context. Journal of International Business Studies,1996,27(5),877-903.
[153]March. J. G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1),71-87.
[154]Marquardt, M. J. Five elements of learning. Executive Excellence,2002,9, 15-16.
[155]Marsden, P. V. Network Data and Measurement. Annual Review of Sociology, 1990,16,435-463.
[156]Martin, X. & Mitchell, W. The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market. Research Policy, 1998,26(7/8),753-771.
[157]Marwell, G. & Oliver, P. The critical mass in collective action:A micro-social theory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1993.
[158]McDonough III, E. F., Kahn, K. B. & Barezak, G. An Investigation of the Use of Global, Virtual, and Collocated New Product Development Teams. The Journal of Product Innovation Management,2001,18(2),110-120.
[159]McEvily, B. & Marcus, A. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(11),1033-1055.
[160]McEvily, B. & Zaheer, A. Bridging ties:A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(12), 1133-1156.
[161]McGill, M. E., J. W. Slocum, & D. Lei. Management Practices in Learning Organizations. Organizational Dynamics,1992,21,5-17.
[162]Meyer, J. & Rowan, B. Institutionalized Organizations:Formal structure as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology,1977,83(2),340-363.
[163]Miles, R. E. & Snow, C. C. Organizations:New Concepts for New Forms. California Management Review,1986,28(3),62-73.
[164]Miller, D. & Friesen, P. H. Archetypes of strategy formulation. Management Science,1978,24(9),921-933
[165]Milliken, F. J. Perceiving and interpreting environmental change:An examination of college administrators interpretation of changing demographics. Academy of Management Journal,1990,33(1):42-63.
[166]Minbaeva, D. B. Knowledge Transfer in Multinational Corporations. Management International Review,2007,47(4),567-593.
[167]Miner, A. S., Bassoff, P. & Moorman, C. Organizational improvisation and learning:A field study. Administrative Science Quarterly,2001,46(2),304-337.
[168]Monge, P. R., Fulk, J., Kalman. M. E., Flanagin, A. J., Parnassa, C. & Rumsey, S. Production of Collective Action in Alliance-Based Interorganizational Communication and Information Systems. Organization Science,1998,9(3), 411-433.
[169]Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. The Commitment-Trust Theory of Relationship Marketing. The Journal of Marketing,1994,58(3),20-38.
[170]Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. Relationships-Based Competitive Advantage:The Role of Relationship Marketing in Marketing Strategy. Journal of Business Research,1999,46(3),281-290.
[171]Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E. & Silverman, B. S. Strategic Alliances and Interfirm Knowledge Transfer. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Special Issue),77-91.
[172]Nadler, D. & Tushman, M. Strategic organizational design. New York: HarperCollins,1988.
[173]Nahapiet. J. & Ghoshal, S. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the Organizational Advantage. The Academy of Management Review,1998,23(2), 242-266.
[174]Nelson, R. R. & Winter, S. G. An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change. Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1982.
[175]Nevis, E. C., DiBella, A. J. & Gould, J. M. Understanding organizations as learning systems. Sloan Management Review,1995.36(2).73-85.
[176]Nohria, N. & Ghoshal, S. The Differentiated Network:Organizing Multinational Corporations for Value Creation. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers,1997.
[177]Nonaka, I. & Reinmoeller, P. The 'ART' of Knowledge:Systems to Capitalize on Market Knowledge. European Management Journal,1998,16(6),672-683.
[178]Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. The knowledge creating company:How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York:Oxford University Press,1995.
[179]Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Konno, N. SECI, Ba and Leadership:a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning,2000,33(1), 5-34.
[180]Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory. New York:McGraw-Hill,1978
[181]Oinas, P. Aetivity- sPeeifieity in organizationa learning:imPlieation for analysin the role of Proximity. Geo Journal,1999,(49),363-372.
[182]Olson, E. M., Walker, O. C. & Ruekert, R. W. Organizing for Effective New Product Development:The Moderating Role of Product Innovativeness. Journal of Marketing,1995,59(1),48-62.
[183]Ostgaard, A. & Birley, S. New Venture Growth and Personal Networks. Journal of Business Research,1996,36,37-50.
[184]Penrose, E.T., The theory of the growth of the firm. Oxford University Press, Oxford,1959.
[185]Peteraf, M. The cornerstones of competitive advantage:a resource-based view Strategic Management Journal,1993,14,179-191.
[186]Pien, W., Tong, T. W. & Koh, C. P. An integrated model of knowledge transfer from MNC parent to China subsidiary. Journal of World Business,2004,39(2), 168-182.
[187]Podolny, J. M. & Page, K. K. Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology,1998,24,57-76.
[188]Portes, A. & Sensenbrenner, J. Embeddedness and immigration:notes on the social determinants of economic action. American Journal of Sociology,1993, 98,1320-1350.
[189]Powell, W. W, Koput, K. & Smith-Doerr, L. Inter-organizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41,116-145.
[190]Prahalad, C.K. & Hamel, G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,1990, May-June,79-91.
[191]Prajogo, D. I. & McDermott, C. M. The relationship between total quality management practices and organizational culture. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2005,25(11),1101-1122.
[192]Priem, R. L., Raheed, A. M. A. & Kotulic, A. G. Rationality in strategic decision processes, environmental dynamism and firm performance. Journal of Management,1995,21(5),913-929.
[193]Robbins, S. P. & Coulter, M. Management 7th edition. New York:Prentice Hall, 2002.
[194]Roberts, E. B. & Hauptman, O. The Process of Technology Transfer to the New Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Firm. Research Policy,1986,15(3),107-119.
[195]Rowe, P. A. & Christie, M. J. Civic entrepreneurship in Australia:Opening the"black box"of tacit knowledge in local government top management teams. The International Journal of Public Sector Management,2008,21(5),509-524.
[196]Rowley, T., Behrens. D. & Krackhardt, D. Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3),369-386.
[197]Saren, M. A. A Classification and Review of Models of the lntra-Firm Innovation Process. R&D Management,1984,14(1),11-24.
[198]Schutjens,V. & Stam, E. The evolution and nature of young firm networks:a longitudinal perspective. Small Business Economics,2003,21(2),115-134.
[199]Scott, A. J. New Industrial Space:Flexible Produetion Organization and Regional Development in NorthAmerica and WestEurope. London:Pion,1988.
[200]Shan, W., Walker, G. & Kogut, B. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(5), 387-394.
[201]Sherman, J. D., Berkowitz, D. & Souder, W. E. New Product Development Performance and the Interaction of Cross-Functional Integration and Knowledge Management. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2005,22(5), 399-411.
[202]Snowden, D. Creating a Sudtainable Knowledge Programme. Proceedings from Optimizing Knowledge Management Conference. London:U R L td,1999.
[203]Sobrero, M & Roberts, E.B. The Trade-off between efficiency and learning in interorganizational relationships for product development. Management Science, 2001,(47),493-511.
[204]Song, X. M. & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. The effects of perceived technological uncertainty on Japanese new product development. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(1),61-80.
[205]Song, X. M. & Parry, M. E. The determinants of Japanese new product successes. Journal of Marketing Research,1997a,34(1),64-76.
[206]Song, X. M. & Parry, M. E. What Separates Japanese New Product Winners from Losers. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1997b,13(5), 422-439.
[207]Song, X. M. & Weiss, M. M. M. Critical development activities for really new versus incremental products. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1998, 15(2),124-135.
[208]Song, X. M. & Weiss, M. M. M. The effects of perceived technological uncertainty on Japanese new product development. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(1).61-80.
[209]Song, X. M., Thieme, R. J. & Xie, J. The Impact of Cross-Functional Joint Involvement Across Product Development Stages:An Exploratory Study. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1998,15(4),289-303.
[210]Souder, W. E., Shennan, J. D. & Cooper, R. D. Environmental uncertainty, organizational integration, and new product development effectiveness:A test ofcontingency theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management,1998,15(6), 520-533.
[211]Spender, J.C & Grant, R.M. Knowledge and the firm:Overview. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17,5-9.
[212]Steinle, C. & Schiel, H. When do industries clusters? A proposal on how to assess an industry's propensity to concentration at a single region or nation. Research policy,2002,31,849-858.
[213]Steiger, J. H. Structure estimation model evaluation and modification:An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research,1990,25: 173-180.
[214]Stuart, T. & Podolny, J. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(7),21-38.
[215]Szulanski, G. Unpacking stickiness:an empirical investigation of the barriers to transfer best practice inside the firm. Academy of Management Journal,1995, (Special Volume),437-441.
[216]Szulanski, G. The process of knowledge transfer:A diachronic analysis of stickiness. Organ. Behavior Human Decision Processes,2000,82(1),9-27.
[217]Teece, D. & Pisano, G. The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms:an Introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change,1994,3(3),537-556.
[218]Thompson, J. D. Organization in action. New York:McGraw-Hill,1967.
[219]Thorelli, H. B. Networks:Between markets and hierarchies. Strategic Management Journal,1986,7(1),37-51.
[220]Trott, P. Innovation Management and New preduct Development. New York: Prentice Hall,1998.
[221]Tsai, W. & Ghoshal, S. Social capital and value creation:The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal,1998.41(2),464-476.
[222]Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks:effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44,996-1004.
[223]Tsang, E. W. K. A preliminary typology of learning in international strategic alliances. Journal of World Business,1999,34,211-229.
[224]Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:the paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),35-67.
[225]Uzzi, B. The source and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations:The network effect. American Sociological Review,1996,61(4),674-698.
[226]Van de Ven, A. H. & Ferry, D. L. Measuring and assessing organizations. New York:Wiley,1980.
[227]Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P. & Lyles, M. A. Inter- and Intra-Organizational Knowledge Transfer:A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of its Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Management Studies,2008,45(4), 830-853.
[228]Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. Social network analysis:Methods and applications. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1994.
[229]Weiss, A. M. & Heide, J. B. The Nature of Organizational Search in High Technology Markets. Journal of Marketing Research,1993,30(2),220-233.
[230]Wernerfelt, B. & Montgomery, C. A. Tobin's q and the Importance of Focus in Firm Performance. The American Economic Review,1988,78(1),246-250.
[231]Wernerfelt, B. A Resource-based View of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal,1984,5(2),171-180.
[232]Wiig, K. Knowledge Management Foundations (Vol.1). Texas:Schema Press, 1993.
[233]Williamson, O. E. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York:Free Press,1985.
[234]Williamson. O. E. The Economics of Organization:The Transaction Cost Approach. The American Journal of Sociology,1981,87(3).548-577.
[235]Williamson, O.E. Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly.1991,36, 269-296.
[236]Wu, L. J., Huang, H. T., Li, J., Peng, X. M. & Huang, R. Q. Niche Strategy, Interfirm Network and Technological Innovation of Latecomer Firms:A Case from China. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE IEEM,2010,1820-1824.
[237]Yan, A. & Gray, B. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in United States-China joina ventures:Acomparative case study. Academy of Management Journal,1994,37(6),1478-1517.
[238]Yang, J. & Yu, L. Electronic new product development—a conceptual framework. Industrial Management & Data Systems,2002,102(4),218-225
[239]Yashino, M. Y. & Rangan, U. S. Strategic Alliances:An Entrepreneurial Approach to Globalization. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1995.
[240]Yin, R. K. Case study research:Design and methods(3nd ed.).Thousands Oaks, CA:Sage Publications,2003.
[241]Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E. & Sapienza, H. J. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22,587-613.
[242]Yoshino, M. Y. & Rangan, U. S. Strategic Alliances:An Entrepreneurial Approach to Globalization. Boston:Harvard Business School Press,1995.
[243]Zaheer, A. & Bell, G. G. Benefiting from network position: firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(9), 809-825.
[244]Zaheer, A., McEvily, B. & Perrone, V. Does trust matter? Exploring the effects of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization Science,1998,9(2),141-159.
[245]Zahra, S. A., Ireland, R. D. & Hitt, M. A. International Expansion by New Venture Firms:International Diversity, Mode of Market Entry, Technological Learning, and Performance. The Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(5), 925-950.
[246]Zenger, T. R. & Hesterly, W. S. The disaggregation of corporations:Selective intervention, high-powered incentives, and molecular units. Organization Science,1997,8(3),209-222.
[247]Zhao, L. & Aram, J. D. Networking and growth of young technology-intensive ventures in China. Journal of Business Venturing,1995,10(5),349-370.
[248]Zollo, M. & Winter, S.G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science,2002,13,339-351.
[249]边燕杰,丘海雄.企业的社会资本及其功效.中国社会科学,2000(2),87-99.
[250]边燕杰.城市居民社会资本的来源及作用：网络观点与调查发现.中国社会科学,2004(3),136-146.
[251]蔡宁,潘松挺网络关系强度与企业技术创新模式的耦合性及其协同演化—以海正药业技术创新网络为例.中国工业经济,2008(4),137-144.
[252]陈柳钦.社会资本及其主要理论研究观点综述.东方论坛：青岛大学学报,2007(3),84-91,121.
[253]陈守明.现代企业网络.上海：上海人民出版,2002.
[254]陈学光.网络能力、创新网络及创新绩效关系研究：以浙江高新技术企业为例.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[255]陈瑶雅.新产品开发中的跨职能团队绩效影响因素研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2004
[256]丁树全.制造企业外部知识源搜索策略影响因素研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[257]付尧,刘红丽.社会网络结构与互动对知识转移的影响.商业现代化,2009(1),394-395.
[258]甘路明,潘惠,刘景江,陈劲.企业技术知识管理研究.科学学研究,2003, 21(2),201-204.
[259]高展军,李垣.战略网络结构对企业技术创新的影响研究.科学学研究,2006,24(3),474-479.
[260]高忠仕.知识转移、知识搜索及组织学习绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[261]郭斌,刘鹏,汤佐群.新产品开发过程中的知识管理.研究与发展管理,2004,16(5),58-64.
[262]郭斌.企业异质性、技术因素与竞争优势：对企业竞争优势理论的一个评述.自然辩证法通讯,2002,24,55-61.
[263]郭劲光,高静美.网络／资源与竞争优势：一个企业社会学视角下的观点.中国工业经济,2003(3),79-86.
[264]何晓群,刘文卿.应用回归分析.北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001.
[265]贺小刚.企业持续竞争优势的资源观阐释.南开管理评论,2002(4),32-37.
[266]洪德芳.高科技产业技术策略与行销策略配合对新产品发展绩效关系影响之研究.硕士学位论文,中原大学企业管理研究所,1993.
[267]侯吉刚,刘益,李西垚.基于企业网络结构属性的知识管理研究.科学管理研究,2008,26(1),74-77.
[268]侯杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟,张雷.结构方程模型及其应用.北京：教育科学出版社,2004.
[269]胡树华.国内外产品创新管理研究综述.中国管理科学.1999,7(1),65-76.
[270]胡伊苹.全球制造网络中基于治理模式的组织学习影响机制研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[271]嵇登科.企业网络对企业技术创新绩效的影响研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[272]贾良定,陈永霞,宋继文,李超平,张君君.变革型领导、员工的组织信任与组织承诺.东南大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2006,8(6),59-67.
[273]贾新明,刘亮.结构方程模型与联立方程模型的比较.数理统计与管理,2008,27(3),439-446.
[274]姜源林.网络位置、环境特征和创新战略导向的匹配研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[275]李长贵.绩效管理与绩效评估.台北：华泰文化事业公司,1997
[276]李俊,赵立龙.吸收能力理论研究述评.西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2010,20(3),1-7.
[277]李培林,梁栋.网络化:企业组织变化的趋势——北京中关村200家高新技术企业的调查.社会学研究,2003(2),43-53.
[278]李平.企业网络组织理论研究述评.2007(2),19-21.
[279]李余延.从隐性知识到显性知识的转化——外化模式在企业中的实现.西南农业大学学报(社会科学版),2003,1(2),89-93.
[280]李煜.文化资本、文化多样性与社会网络资本.社会学研究,2001(4),52-63.
[281]李元旭,王宇露.东道国网络结构、位置嵌入与海外子公司网络学习—基于123家跨国公司在华子公司的实证.世界经济研究2010(1),63-67,75.
[282]李正卫.动态环境条件下的组织学习与企业绩效.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2003.
[283]李志刚,汤书昆,梁晓艳,赵林捷.产业集群网络结构与企业创新绩效关系研究.科学学研究,2007,25(4),777-782.
[284]林健,李焕荣.基于核心能力的企业战略网络—网络经济时代的企业战略管理模式.中国软科学,2003(12),68-72.
[285]林南.社会资本——关于社会结构与行动的理论.上海：上海人民出版社,2005.
[286]刘冰,陶海青.知识流动研究范式的一个扩展—从企业网络到企业家网络.科学学与科学技术管理,2006,2,61-66.
[287]刘常勇,傅清富,李书政.知识管理能力对新产品开发绩效之影响.中山大学学报(社会科学版),2002,42(5),119-127.
[288]刘衡,李垣,李西垚,肖婷.关系资本、组织间沟通和创新绩效的关系研究.科学学研究,2010,28(12),1912-1919.
[289]刘景江,陈璐.创业导向、学习模式与新产品开发绩效关系研究.北京：第五届(2010)中国管理学年会—创业与中小企业管理分场论文集,2010.
[290]刘鹏.知识密集型产业新产品开发过程中缄默知识流转有效性研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[291]刘仁军.关系契约与企业网络转型.中国工业经济,2006(6),91-98.
[292]刘世定.经济学和社会学：来自关系史的思考.高雄：二十一世纪的中国社会学人类学,丽文文化事业股份有限公司,2001.
[293]刘雪锋.网络嵌入性与差异化战略及企业绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[294]卢青伟.团队特征、知识管理对新产品开发绩效的影响研究.博士学位论文,吉林大学,2010.
[295]陆德梅,朱国宏.新经济社会学的兴起和发展探微.国外社会科学,2003(3),22-28.
[296]罗珉,刘永俊.企业动态能力的理论架构与构成要素.中国工业经济,2009(1),75-86.
[297]马庆国.管理统计——数据获取、统计原理、SPSS工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2002.
[298]莫燕.企业创新网络、吸收能力与技术创新绩效的关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[299]欧阳建国.基于组织信任的创新网络与新产品开发绩效实证研究.硕士学位论文,太原科技大学,2009.
[300]彭新敏.企业网络对技术创新绩效的作用机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009
[301]彭正银.网络治理理论探析,中国软科学.2002(3),50-54.
[302]钱锡红,徐万里,杨永福.企业网络位置、间接联系与创新绩效.中国工业经济,2010,2(263),78-88.
[303]钱锡红,杨永福,徐万里.企业网络位置、吸收能力与创新绩效—一个交互效应模型.管理世界,2010(5),118-129.
[304]邱泽奇.在工厂化和网络化的背后—组织理论的发展与困境.社会学研究,1999(4),1-25.
[305]裘丽萍.IT企业新产品开发中R&D-营销界面集成度研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[306]任胜钢.企业网络能力结构的测评及其对企业创新绩效的影响机制研究.南开管理评论,2010,13(1),69-80.
[307]芮鸿程.联盟型网络组织的动因与运作规则探析.财经科学,2002(2),54-58.
[308]史隽.软件企业职能整合、开发过程熟练度与新产品绩效关系研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[309]寿涌毅,汪洁.企业网络中知识转移的影响因素与案例研究.西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2009,19(3),52-58.
[310]唐玲莉.知识文化、市场信息处理与新产品开发绩效的影响机制.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[311]王莉,杨蕙馨.动态环境下的企业网络与组织学习关系模型构建.山东社会科学,2008(11),151-154.
[312]王三义,刘新梅,万威武.社会资本结构维度对企业间知识转移影响的实证研究.科技进步与对策,2007,24(4),105-107.
[313]王姗姗.供应商参与新产品开发对新产品开发绩效的影响：组织学习能力的中介作用.硕士学位论文,西安理工大学.2010.
[314]王盛节.企业创新战略与领导型态对新产品开发绩的影响证研究.博士学位论文,暨南大学,2009.
[315]王世良.生产运作管理.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2002.
[316]王晓娟.知识网络与集群企业竞争优势研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[317]王宇露,李元旭.海外子公司东道国网络结构与网络学习效果—网络学习 方式是调节变量吗.南开管理评论,2009,12(3),142-151.
[318]韦晓霞,王宁.企业契约关系及其治理研究.集团经济研究,2005(12),73-74.
[319]韦影.企业社会资本对技术创新绩效的影响研究——基于吸收能力的视角.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[320]魏江.小企业集群创新网络的知识溢出效应分析.科研管理,2003,24(4),54-60.
[321]魏仕杰.基于隐性知识显性化的知识管理策略影响因素研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006
[322]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰,刘红云.中介效应检验程序及其应用.心理学报,2004,36(5)：614-620.
[323]温忠麟,侯杰泰,张雷.调节效应与中介效应的比较和应用.心理学报,2005,37(2)：268-274.
[324]邬爱其.集群企业网络化成长研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[325]吴汉贤,邝国良.企业网络结构对产业集群竞争力的影响分析—基于网络密度.科技管理研究,2010(14),154-157.
[326]吴剑峰,吕振艳.资源依赖、网络中心度与多方联盟构建—基于产业电子商务平台的实证研究.管理学报,2007,4(4),509-513.
[327]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与集体学习的中介作用—2004年浙江纺织业集群的实证分析.管理世界,2008(8),69-76.
[328]吴隆增,简兆权.组织学习、知识创造与新产品开发绩效的关系研究.科技进步与对策,2008,25(1),110-113.
[329]吴伟伟,邓强,于渤.技术能力对新产品开发绩效的影响：以技术管理为调节变量.科学性研究,2010,28(3),429-435
[330]吴先华,郭际,胡汉辉.复杂性理论和网络分析方法在产业集群创新能力问题中的应用—基于江苏省三个产业集群的实证研究.科学学与科学技术管理,2008(7),75-80.
[331]吴晓波,高忠仕,魏仕杰.隐性知识显性化与技术创新绩效实证研究.科学学研究,2007,25(6),1233-1238.
[332]吴晓波,郭雯,刘清华.知识管理模型研究述评.研究与发展管理,2002,14(6),52-58,88.
[333]吴晓波,郭雯,苗文斌.技术系统演化中的忘却学习研究.科学学研究,2004,22(3)：308-311.
[334]吴晓波,彭新敏,丁树全.我国企业外部知识源搜索策略的影响因素.科学学研究,2008,26(2),364-372,408.
[335]吴晓波,韦影.制药企业技术创新战略网络中的关系性嵌入.科学学研究, 2005,23(4),561-565.
[336]吴晓波,许冠南,刘慧.全球化下的二次创新战略——以海尔电冰箱技术演进为例.研究与发展管理,2003,15(6),7-11.
[337]吴晓波,章威,裘丽萍.新产品开发中R&D——营销界面集成度的实证研究.科学学研究,2008,38(4)：154-162.
[338]吴勇志.企业网络理论的四大流派综述.技术经济与管理研究,2010(2),106-108.
[339]谢洪明.战略网络结构对企业动态竞争行为的影响研究.科研管理,2005,26(2),104-112.
[340]许冠南.关系嵌入性对技术创新绩效的影响研究——基于探索性学习的中介机制.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[341]许小虎.企业网络的多重效应分析.研究与发展管理,2005,17(4),61-66.
[342]许小虎.企业网络的结构解析和纵向的嵌入式演进.技术经济,2005,10(214),51-54.
[343]许允琪.IT企业新产品开发项目中R&D-营销界面整合机制使用研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[344]杨桂菊.基于社会资本理论的网络组织演化机制新阐释.软科学,2007,21(4),5-8.
[345]杨蕙馨,文娜.中间性组织的组织形态及其相互关系研究.财经问题研究,2005(9),55-61.
[346]杨雪冬.社会资本—对一种新解释范式的探索.马克思主义与现实,1999(3),52-60.
[347]余志.市场导向、组织学习与新产品开发绩效的影响关系研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[348]曾璨,陈宏军.社会资本理论研究综述.铜陵学院学报,2007,6(4),25-30.
[349]湛正群,李非.组织制度理论研究的问题：观点与进展.现代管理科学,2006(4),14-16,57.
[350]张春法,韩耀.网络经济下企业组织的非一体化趋势与超契约治理.世界经济与政治论坛,2005(2),112-116.
[351]张存刚,李明,陆德梅.社会网络分析—一种重要的社会学研究方法.甘肃社会科学,2004(2),109-111.
[352]张方华.社会资本理论研究综述.江苏科技大学学报(社会科学版).2005,5(4),7-11.
[353]张方华.知识型企业的社会资本与技术创新绩效研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[354]张钢,罗军.组织网络化研究评述.科学管理研究.2003,21(1),60-64.
[355]张钢.企业组织创新过程中的学习机制及知识管理.科研管理,1999,20(3), 40-45.
[356]张钢.企业组织网络化发展.杭州：浙江大学出版社,2005.
[357]张杰,刘东.企业网络的社会逻辑基础.科学学与科学技术管理,2006(1),132-135.
[358]张龙.知识网络结构及其对知识管理的启示.研究与发展管理,2007,19(2),86-91,99
[359]张婧,段艳玲.我国制造型企业市场导向和创新导对新产品绩效影响的实证研究.南开商业评论,2010,13(1),81-89.
[360]张文宏,阮丹青.城乡居民的社会支持网.社会学研究,1999(3),12-24.
[361]张文宏.城市居民社会网络资本的阶层差异.社会学研究,2005(4),64-81.
[362]张文宏.社会资本：理论争辩与经验研究.社会学研究,2003(4),25-37.
[363]张文松,郭广珍.企业网络与企业边界理论.中国工业经济,2005(12),78-84.
[364]张旭昆.制度的定义与分类.浙江社会科学,2002(6),3-9.
[365]张伊威.新产品开发中知识管理与绩效关系的研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2004.
[366]张毅,张子刚.企业网络与组织间学习的关系链模型.科研管理,2005,26(2),136-141,103.
[367]张志勇,刘益,陶蕾,企业网络与知识转移—跨国公司与产业集聚群的比较研究.科学管理研究,2007,25(4),64-67.
[368]赵孟营.组织合法性—在组织理性与事实的社会组织之间.2005(2),119-125.
[369]周小虎.企业家社会资本及其对企业绩效的作用.安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2002,30(1),1-6.
[370]周小虎,陈传明.企业社会资本与持续竞争优势.中国工业济经2004(5),90-97
[371]周雪光.西方社会学关于中国组织与制度变迁研究状况述评.社会学研究,1999(4),26-43.
[372]周雪光.组织社会学十讲.北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003.
[373]朱伟民,万迪昉.基于组织学习的企业知识管理.西安交通大学学报(社会科学版),2001,21(4),18-20,96.
[374]祝明伟.R&D/营销界面管理及其对新产品开发绩效的影响研究.硕士学位论文,西安理工大学,2007.