高技术企业跨边界学习研究
|
摘要
在知识经济时代,知识密集型的高技术企业作为知识创新的主体引领着技术进步的潮流,为社会创造着巨大的财富。随着全球经济的一体化,越来越多的高技术企业跨越组织边界和地理边界,对现有的能力和知识进行利用,并对新的知识和能力进行探索培育。企业的边界日益模糊,信息、资源、创意和活力只有迅速而轻易地穿透组织的隔膜,才能使得作为一个整体的组织有效地运作。
本论文主要从战略角度考察高技术企业跨边界的学习活动,将跨边界学习划分为两个层面:跨组织边界学习和跨知识边界学习。跨组织边界学习是指企业作为一个经济实体与环境中的各种外部组织之间发生的联系中,如何学习从而实现知识的获取、共享和创造的过程。跨知识边界学习则指企业的技术知识和市场知识的积累过程中,企业是如何学习来实现知识边界的动态演进,是倾向于利用式学习实现渐进的演进还是倾向探索式学习实现激进的演进。基于资源基础理论、知识基础理论、组织学习理论等诸多理论,本文针对企业跨边界学习的机理进行探讨,并运用实证研究和案例研究进一步深入检验影响高技术企业跨边界学习的种种因素。
本文首先阐述了企业跨边界学习的自发倾向:路径依赖性和边界搜索特性使得企业往往自发地倾向采用利用式学习,且实际组织绩效与预期绩效之间的差距对于企业跨知识边界学习方式的采用具有激发作用。而企业由于内部能力限制或获取外部知识存在障碍,在跨组织边界学习时可能出现注重内部学习而忽视外部学习的倾向或出现过于强调外部知识而忽视内部学习的偏差。
本文通过实证研究进一步揭示了组织内部的众多战略资产特性对高技术企业跨边界学习的影响:考察技术资产特性(默会性和系统嵌套性),关系资产特性(声誉、客户关系效应和技术合作经验),结构资产特性(组织融合和自由自主)对企业跨知识边界学习即利用式学习和探索式学习的影响,对企业外部学习战略重要性认知的影响,并考察战略资产特性,跨知识边界学习方式以及组织绩效之间的关系。基于117家高技术企业的样本,发现利用式学习受默会性、客户关系效应和组织融合的显著影响,而探索式学习受声誉、组织融合以及自由自主的显著影响。战略资产中的声誉显著影响组织绩效,利用式学习与组织整体绩效和新产品绩效显著正相关,而探索式学习与组织整体绩效显著正相关。而在战略资产特性与跨组织边界学习的关系方面,只有关系资产特性显著影响管理者对外部学习重要性的认知。
利用式学习和探索式学习作为企业跨知识边界学习的两种方式在思维逻辑、资源分配、以及组织结构上等方面存在种种差异,高技术企业需要解决两者之间的悖论关系。本文提出了三种实现探索和利用平衡的机制:在思维模式上接受悖论逻辑,综合运用正式培训、知识库、知识市场、聊天室和实践社区这些学习手段:在组织构架上,企业可以采用双面灵巧组织和超文本组织实现利用式和探索式学习的平衡;可以基于外部环境进行动态选择,环境发生变化后采用不同的学习模式,或根据不同项目外部环境和赢利情况决定多个项目在利用式或探索式学习方面的不同倾向,以达到动态的灵活平衡。
针对跨组织边界学习,本文探讨了企业跨组织边界的知识共享和知识创造:通过博弈分析,指出只有在合作对方均采用共享策略时,并且通过共享所创造的知识被吸收所带来的价值大于共享所造成的损失的情况下,企业会采用共享策略:分析合作企业战略资产的差异与知识共享的可能性,指出合作伙伴之间技术资产的相似性,关系资产的确定性,以及结构资产的契合性会增进组织间知识共享;并且分析多种治理结构在知识共享方面的特点。对企业跨组织边界知识创造的分析着重组织内外学习以及知识探索利用之间的交互关系,并比较了利用型联盟和探索型联盟之间的差异。
本文以1995年-2007年电子通讯行业跨国公司在我国的研发活动为样本检验在开放经济背景下高技术企业跨组织边界学习的影响因素。该实证研究发现母国与东道国文化距离越大的跨国公司倾向采用内部化研发,在北京和上海以外的开发城市倾向采用内部化研发,相对于开发导向而言,研究导向的研发活动倾向内部化。该研究还发现,该行业内研发投资频繁的20家跨国公司在我国多数采用灵活的跨边界学习战略进行研发活动,即组织内部研发、研发联盟、基础应用研究活动以及开发活动均有涉及。
最后,本文对两家高技术企业跨边界学习进行对比研究。案例对比研究发现大企业可以不断发展新技术,通过探索和利用之间的平衡实现长久的生存;小型企业通过利用专一的技术和市场业务的逐步演进实现较快的成长。以创新为导向的企业注重跨知识边界的学习,以客户导向的企业注重跨组织边界的学习,跨知识边界和跨组织边界的学习存在交织互补的关系。
In the era of knowledge economy, high-tech firms with the nature of knowledge-intensity play an active role in knowledge creation, technological development and fortune creation. With the development of globalization, more and more high-tech firms go beyond organizational and geographical boundaries to take advantage of existing capabilities and explore new knowledge. The boundaries of a firm have become blurred, since the organization can only operate effectively by allowing information, resources, creativity to pensentrate the organizational membrance quickly and easily.
This dissertation examines high-tech firm's learning beyond the boundary from a strategic perspective. Learning activitis beyond the boundary examined in the paper lies in two aspects: learning across organizational boundary and across knowledge boundary. The former refers to the process that a firm acquires, shares and creates knowledge through the linkages with various outside organizations. The latter emphasizes how a firm achieves dynamic evolution of knowledge boundary in the learning process of accumulating technological and market knowledge. In other words, does a firm achieve incremental evolution through exploitation or fulfil radical evolution through exploration? On the foundation of a variety of theories such as resource-based view, knowledge-based view, and organizational learning theory, the dissertation analyzes the logic underlying a firm's learning beyond boundaries and conducts empirical studies and case study to further explore and examine multiple factors which might affect a high-tech firm's learning beyond boundaries.
Firstly, the dissertation maintains that there is a spontaneous tendency for a firm to take a learning mode across boundaries. In the one hand, path dependence and local search make a firm prefer exploitation to exploration, and the gap between actual organizational performance and expected performance also acts as a factor stimulating a firm to choose a learning mode. On the other hand, some firms might emphasize internal learning ignoring outside learning, or vise verse, because of the limits of internal capabilities or the barriers of acquiring external knowledge.
The dissertation further conducts empirical study to confirm the impacts of a firm's multiple internal factors on its learning beyond boundaries. It examine the attributes of technological asset (tacitness and systematic embeddedness), the attributes of relational asset (reputation, effects of customer relation, and experience of technological cooperation), and the attributes of structural asset(harmony and automony). With a sample of 117 high-tech firms, it finds that exploitation is significantly related to tacitness, effects of customer relation and harmony while exploration is significantly related to reputation, harmony and autonomy. It also finds that reputation significantly affects organizational performance, that exploitation is significantly related to organizational overall performance and new product performance and that exploration is significantly related to organizational overall performance. As for the attributes of strategic assets and learning beyond organizational boundary, it finds that the features of relational asset influence managers' perception of strategic importance of external learning.
Exploitation and exploration as two modes of learning beyond knowledge boundary have a paradoxical relationship with so many differences in logics, resource allocation, organizational structure, and so on. The paper suggests high-tech firms to form three mechanisms to balance exploition and exploration: The first mechanism is to accept a paradoxical logic by all the employees and to adopt multiple learning ways comprehensively so as to help employees to balance exploitation and exploration. The second mechanism is to form ambidextrous organization or hypertext organization. The third mechanism is to select learning mode dynamicly based on external environment. Under different external environments, a firm can take either exploitation or exploration with priority. If a firm has multple projects, it should decide which projects conduct more exploration and which projects carry out more exploitation based on a project's external environment and profitability.
As for the learning beyond the organizational boundary, the paper does some theoretical arguments in knowledge sharing and knowledge creation. Using game theory, it argues that a firm will take a strategy of sharing knowledge with the expectation that the potential partner will share knowledge and that the value of absorbing new knowledge created by partners is greater than the loss of sharing knowledge. Linking the differences between strategic assets of partners with the possibility of knowledge sharing, the paper maintains that more similiarity between partners' technological assets, less uncertainty between partners' relational assets, and more harmony between partners' structural assets usually will lead to higher possibility of knowledge sharing. In addition, the paper shows the characteristics of several governance structures in knowledge sharing. In terms of knowledge creation beyond organizational boundary, it emphasizes how an organization can learn across both organizational and knowledge boundary and compares the differences between exploitational alliance and explorationary alliance.
Based on a sample of multinational corporations' R&D activities conducted in China in electronic and telecommunication industries during the period from 1995 to 2007, the dissertation examines the factors influencing high-tech firms' learning beyond the organizational boundary under the background of open economy. The empirical study finds that internal R&D is significantly related to cultural distance, location, and research orientation. In addition, among 20 leading multinational corporations in the two industries, a majority of them has taken a flexible learning strategy which involves both internal R&D and R&D alliance and conducts both basic and application research activities and development activities.
The final part of the dissertation is a case study on two high-tech firms' learning beyond boundaries. It finds that the large corporation achieves long-term survival by continuously developing technology and balancing exploration and exploitation while the small enterprise quickly grows by exploiting specialized technology and evolving businesses gradually. The innovation-orientated company focuses more on learning beyond knowledge boundary, while the custom-oriented company emphasizes more on learning beyond organizational boundary. There exists complementary relationship between learning activities beyond knowledge and organizational boundaries.
本论文主要从战略角度考察高技术企业跨边界的学习活动,将跨边界学习划分为两个层面:跨组织边界学习和跨知识边界学习。跨组织边界学习是指企业作为一个经济实体与环境中的各种外部组织之间发生的联系中,如何学习从而实现知识的获取、共享和创造的过程。跨知识边界学习则指企业的技术知识和市场知识的积累过程中,企业是如何学习来实现知识边界的动态演进,是倾向于利用式学习实现渐进的演进还是倾向探索式学习实现激进的演进。基于资源基础理论、知识基础理论、组织学习理论等诸多理论,本文针对企业跨边界学习的机理进行探讨,并运用实证研究和案例研究进一步深入检验影响高技术企业跨边界学习的种种因素。
本文首先阐述了企业跨边界学习的自发倾向:路径依赖性和边界搜索特性使得企业往往自发地倾向采用利用式学习,且实际组织绩效与预期绩效之间的差距对于企业跨知识边界学习方式的采用具有激发作用。而企业由于内部能力限制或获取外部知识存在障碍,在跨组织边界学习时可能出现注重内部学习而忽视外部学习的倾向或出现过于强调外部知识而忽视内部学习的偏差。
本文通过实证研究进一步揭示了组织内部的众多战略资产特性对高技术企业跨边界学习的影响:考察技术资产特性(默会性和系统嵌套性),关系资产特性(声誉、客户关系效应和技术合作经验),结构资产特性(组织融合和自由自主)对企业跨知识边界学习即利用式学习和探索式学习的影响,对企业外部学习战略重要性认知的影响,并考察战略资产特性,跨知识边界学习方式以及组织绩效之间的关系。基于117家高技术企业的样本,发现利用式学习受默会性、客户关系效应和组织融合的显著影响,而探索式学习受声誉、组织融合以及自由自主的显著影响。战略资产中的声誉显著影响组织绩效,利用式学习与组织整体绩效和新产品绩效显著正相关,而探索式学习与组织整体绩效显著正相关。而在战略资产特性与跨组织边界学习的关系方面,只有关系资产特性显著影响管理者对外部学习重要性的认知。
利用式学习和探索式学习作为企业跨知识边界学习的两种方式在思维逻辑、资源分配、以及组织结构上等方面存在种种差异,高技术企业需要解决两者之间的悖论关系。本文提出了三种实现探索和利用平衡的机制:在思维模式上接受悖论逻辑,综合运用正式培训、知识库、知识市场、聊天室和实践社区这些学习手段:在组织构架上,企业可以采用双面灵巧组织和超文本组织实现利用式和探索式学习的平衡;可以基于外部环境进行动态选择,环境发生变化后采用不同的学习模式,或根据不同项目外部环境和赢利情况决定多个项目在利用式或探索式学习方面的不同倾向,以达到动态的灵活平衡。
针对跨组织边界学习,本文探讨了企业跨组织边界的知识共享和知识创造:通过博弈分析,指出只有在合作对方均采用共享策略时,并且通过共享所创造的知识被吸收所带来的价值大于共享所造成的损失的情况下,企业会采用共享策略:分析合作企业战略资产的差异与知识共享的可能性,指出合作伙伴之间技术资产的相似性,关系资产的确定性,以及结构资产的契合性会增进组织间知识共享;并且分析多种治理结构在知识共享方面的特点。对企业跨组织边界知识创造的分析着重组织内外学习以及知识探索利用之间的交互关系,并比较了利用型联盟和探索型联盟之间的差异。
本文以1995年-2007年电子通讯行业跨国公司在我国的研发活动为样本检验在开放经济背景下高技术企业跨组织边界学习的影响因素。该实证研究发现母国与东道国文化距离越大的跨国公司倾向采用内部化研发,在北京和上海以外的开发城市倾向采用内部化研发,相对于开发导向而言,研究导向的研发活动倾向内部化。该研究还发现,该行业内研发投资频繁的20家跨国公司在我国多数采用灵活的跨边界学习战略进行研发活动,即组织内部研发、研发联盟、基础应用研究活动以及开发活动均有涉及。
最后,本文对两家高技术企业跨边界学习进行对比研究。案例对比研究发现大企业可以不断发展新技术,通过探索和利用之间的平衡实现长久的生存;小型企业通过利用专一的技术和市场业务的逐步演进实现较快的成长。以创新为导向的企业注重跨知识边界的学习,以客户导向的企业注重跨组织边界的学习,跨知识边界和跨组织边界的学习存在交织互补的关系。
In the era of knowledge economy, high-tech firms with the nature of knowledge-intensity play an active role in knowledge creation, technological development and fortune creation. With the development of globalization, more and more high-tech firms go beyond organizational and geographical boundaries to take advantage of existing capabilities and explore new knowledge. The boundaries of a firm have become blurred, since the organization can only operate effectively by allowing information, resources, creativity to pensentrate the organizational membrance quickly and easily.
This dissertation examines high-tech firm's learning beyond the boundary from a strategic perspective. Learning activitis beyond the boundary examined in the paper lies in two aspects: learning across organizational boundary and across knowledge boundary. The former refers to the process that a firm acquires, shares and creates knowledge through the linkages with various outside organizations. The latter emphasizes how a firm achieves dynamic evolution of knowledge boundary in the learning process of accumulating technological and market knowledge. In other words, does a firm achieve incremental evolution through exploitation or fulfil radical evolution through exploration? On the foundation of a variety of theories such as resource-based view, knowledge-based view, and organizational learning theory, the dissertation analyzes the logic underlying a firm's learning beyond boundaries and conducts empirical studies and case study to further explore and examine multiple factors which might affect a high-tech firm's learning beyond boundaries.
Firstly, the dissertation maintains that there is a spontaneous tendency for a firm to take a learning mode across boundaries. In the one hand, path dependence and local search make a firm prefer exploitation to exploration, and the gap between actual organizational performance and expected performance also acts as a factor stimulating a firm to choose a learning mode. On the other hand, some firms might emphasize internal learning ignoring outside learning, or vise verse, because of the limits of internal capabilities or the barriers of acquiring external knowledge.
The dissertation further conducts empirical study to confirm the impacts of a firm's multiple internal factors on its learning beyond boundaries. It examine the attributes of technological asset (tacitness and systematic embeddedness), the attributes of relational asset (reputation, effects of customer relation, and experience of technological cooperation), and the attributes of structural asset(harmony and automony). With a sample of 117 high-tech firms, it finds that exploitation is significantly related to tacitness, effects of customer relation and harmony while exploration is significantly related to reputation, harmony and autonomy. It also finds that reputation significantly affects organizational performance, that exploitation is significantly related to organizational overall performance and new product performance and that exploration is significantly related to organizational overall performance. As for the attributes of strategic assets and learning beyond organizational boundary, it finds that the features of relational asset influence managers' perception of strategic importance of external learning.
Exploitation and exploration as two modes of learning beyond knowledge boundary have a paradoxical relationship with so many differences in logics, resource allocation, organizational structure, and so on. The paper suggests high-tech firms to form three mechanisms to balance exploition and exploration: The first mechanism is to accept a paradoxical logic by all the employees and to adopt multiple learning ways comprehensively so as to help employees to balance exploitation and exploration. The second mechanism is to form ambidextrous organization or hypertext organization. The third mechanism is to select learning mode dynamicly based on external environment. Under different external environments, a firm can take either exploitation or exploration with priority. If a firm has multple projects, it should decide which projects conduct more exploration and which projects carry out more exploitation based on a project's external environment and profitability.
As for the learning beyond the organizational boundary, the paper does some theoretical arguments in knowledge sharing and knowledge creation. Using game theory, it argues that a firm will take a strategy of sharing knowledge with the expectation that the potential partner will share knowledge and that the value of absorbing new knowledge created by partners is greater than the loss of sharing knowledge. Linking the differences between strategic assets of partners with the possibility of knowledge sharing, the paper maintains that more similiarity between partners' technological assets, less uncertainty between partners' relational assets, and more harmony between partners' structural assets usually will lead to higher possibility of knowledge sharing. In addition, the paper shows the characteristics of several governance structures in knowledge sharing. In terms of knowledge creation beyond organizational boundary, it emphasizes how an organization can learn across both organizational and knowledge boundary and compares the differences between exploitational alliance and explorationary alliance.
Based on a sample of multinational corporations' R&D activities conducted in China in electronic and telecommunication industries during the period from 1995 to 2007, the dissertation examines the factors influencing high-tech firms' learning beyond the organizational boundary under the background of open economy. The empirical study finds that internal R&D is significantly related to cultural distance, location, and research orientation. In addition, among 20 leading multinational corporations in the two industries, a majority of them has taken a flexible learning strategy which involves both internal R&D and R&D alliance and conducts both basic and application research activities and development activities.
The final part of the dissertation is a case study on two high-tech firms' learning beyond boundaries. It finds that the large corporation achieves long-term survival by continuously developing technology and balancing exploration and exploitation while the small enterprise quickly grows by exploiting specialized technology and evolving businesses gradually. The innovation-orientated company focuses more on learning beyond knowledge boundary, while the custom-oriented company emphasizes more on learning beyond organizational boundary. There exists complementary relationship between learning activities beyond knowledge and organizational boundaries.
引文
[1]由于被访谈公司管理者的要求,隐去公司真实名称,采用化名-KN公司;
[2]上海复旦软件系统工程有限公司在案例后续分析中均采用简称-复旦软件公司。
[1]Adler,P.S.and A.Sbenbar.1990.Adapting your technological base:The organizational challenge,Sloan Management Review,32,1.
[2]Adler,E S.,Goldoftas,B.and D.I.Levine.1999.Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system.Organization Science,10,1,43.
[3]Agarwal,S.and Ramaswami,S.N.1992.Choice of foreign market entry mode:Impact of ownership,location,and internalization factors.Journal of International Business Studies,23,1,1-27.
[4]AhuJa,G.2000.The duality of collaboration:Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfinn linkages.Strategic Management Journal,21,317-343.
[5]Alavi,M.and D.Leidner.1997.Knowledge management system:emerging views and practices from the field.
[6]Amabile,T.M.1998.How to kill creativity.Harvard Business Review,7,6,77-89.
[7]Amit,R.and P.Schoemaker.1993.Strategic assets and organizational rents.Strategic Management Journal,4,33-47.
[8]Arbuthnot,J.,Slama,M.and G.Sisler.1993.Selection criteria and information sources in purchase decisions of apparel buyers in small retailing firms.Journal of Small Business Management,31,2,12-23.
[9]Argyris,C.and Schon,D.1978.Organizational Learning.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.
[10]Auh,S.and B.Menguc.2005.Balancing exploration and exploitation:the moderating role of competitive intensity.Journal of Business Research,.58,1652-1661.
[11]Aulakh,ES.and Kotabe,M.1997.Antecedents and performance implications of channel integration in foreign markets.Journal of International Business Studies,28,1,145-175.
[12]Aurora,A.and A.Gambardella.1994.Evaluating technological information and utilizing it:Scientific knowledge,technological capability and external linkages in biotechnology.Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,91-114.
[13]Baney,J.B.1991.Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.Journal of Management,17,1,99-120.
[14]Barney,J.B.1995.Looking inside for competitive advantage,Academy of Management Executive,9,4.
[15]Bierly,P.and A.Chakrabarty.1996.Genetic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical industry,Strategic Management Journal,17,Winter,special issue,123-135.
[16]Bierly,P.and T.Hamalainen,1995.Organizational learning and strategy.Scand.J.Management,11,3,209-224.
[17]Birkinshaw,J.and C.Gibson.2004.Building ambidexterity into an organization.MIT Sloan Management Review,45,4,47-55.
[18]Birkinshaw,J.,Nobel,R.and J.Ridderstrale.2002.Knowledge as a contingency variable: do the characteristics of knowledge predict organization structure? Organization Science,13,3,274-289.
[19]Caminiti,S.1992.The payoff from a good reputation.Fortune,125,3,49-53.
[20]Capron,L.and W.Mitchell.2004.Where firms Change:internal development versus external capability sourcing in the global telecommunications industry.European Management Review,1,157-174.
[21]Carmeli,A.and A.Tishler.2004.Resources,capabilities,and performance of industrial firms:a multivariate analysis.Managerial and Decision Economics,25,299-315.
[22]Cassiman,B and R.Veugelers.2002.R&D cooperation and spillovers:Some evidence from Belgium,The American Economic Review,92,4,1169-1175.
[23]Cesaroni,F.,Minin,A.D.and A.Piccaluga,2005.Exploration and exploitation strategies in industrial R&D,Creativity and Innovation Management,14,3,222-232.
[24]Chae,B.and J.M.Bloodgood.2006.The paradoxes of knowledge management:An eastern philosophical perspective.Information and Organization,16,1-26.
[25]Chen,Chung-Jen and Bou-Wen Lin.2004.The effects of environment,knowledge attribute,organizational climate,and firm characteristics on knowledge sourcing decision,R&D Management,34,2.
[26]Chen,Wei-Ru and Kent D.Miller.2007.Situational and institutional determinants of firms R&D search intensity.Strategic Management Journal,28,369-381.
[27]Chesbrough,H.W.2003.The era of open innovation,Sloan Management Review,44,3,35-41.
[28]Chiesa,V.and R.Manzini,1998.Towards a framework for dynamic technology strategy,Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,10,1,111-129.
[29]Ciborra,C.U.and R.Andreu.2001.Sharing knowledge across boundaries.Journal of Information Technology,16,73-81.
[30]Coase,R.H.1937.The nature of the firm.Economica November,386-405.
[31]Crossan,L.W.1999.An organizational learning framework:From intuition to institution.Academy of Management Review,24,3,522-537.
[32]Cyert,R.M.and James G.March.1963.A Behavioral Theory of the Firm,Englewood Cliffs.NJ:Prentice-Hall.Inc.
[33]Daft,R.,Sormunem,J.and D.Parks.1988.Chief executive scanning,environmental characteristics and company performance:an empirical study.Strategic Management Journal,9,2,123-139.
[34]D'Aveni,R.A.1999.Strategic supremacy through disruption and dominance.Sloan Management Review,40,3,127-135.
[35]D'Aveni,R.A.1994.Hypercompetition:Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering.Free Press.New York.
[36]Dixon,N.The organizational learning cycle:How we can learn collectively.Maidenhead:McGraw-Hill,1994.
[37] Drew, S. 1999. Building knowledge management into strategy: Making sense of a new perspective. Long Range Planning, 32,1,130-136.
[38] Easterby-smith, M. Creating a learning organization, Personnel Review, 1990,19,5,24-28.
[39] Eisenhardt, K. M. and J. A. Martin, 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21,1105-1121.
[40] Faems, D., Looy, B. V. and K. Dabackere. 2005. Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 238-250.
[41] Fernandez, E., Montes, J. M.and C. J. Vazquez, 2000.Typology and strategic analysis of intangible resources A resource-based approach, Technovation, 20, 81-92.
[42] Fiol, M. C. and Lyles, M. A. 1985. Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803-813.
[43] Florida, R. 1997. The globalization of R&D: Results of a survey of foreign-affiliated R&D laboratories in the USA. Research Policy, 26, 85-103.
[44] Ford, D. 1988. Developing your technology strategy. Long Range Planning, 21, 85-95.
[45] Fors, G. and M. Zajan. 2002. Overseas R&D by multinationals in foreign centers of excellence. Working paper series in Economics and Finance. Stockholm School of Economics.
[46] Fransman, M. Technological capability in the third word (EDs. M Fransman and K. King) Technological Capability in the Third World, Macmillan, London, 1984.
[47] Fujimoto, T. 1999. The evolution of a manufacturing system at Toyota. New York: Oxford University Press.
[48] Galbreath, J. 2005. Which resources matter the most to firm success? An exploratory study of resource-based theory. Technovation, 25,979-987.
[49] Galender, J. and J. M. Fuente. 2003. Internal factors determining a firm's innovative behavior. Research Policy, 32,715-716.
[50] Garavelli, C., Gorgoglione, M. and B.Scozz. 2004. Knowledge management strategy and organization: a perspective of analysis. Knowledge and Process Management, 11,4, 273-282.
[51] Garcia., R., Calantone, R. and R. Levine. 2003. The role of knowledge resource allocation to exploration versus exploitation in technologically oriented organizations. Decision Sciences, 34,2,323-349.
[52] Gatignon, H. and Anderson, E. 1988. The Multinational Corporation's Degree of Control Over Foreign Subsidiaries: An Empirical Test of a Transaction Cost Explanation. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 4, 305-336.
[53] Gelb, C. 2000. Software research in and for China: Microsoft's basic research facility takes global R&D a step further. China Business Review, 27,4,40-43.
[54] Georg von, Ikujiro Nonaka, Manfred Aben. 2001. Making the most of your company's knowledge: a strategic framework, Long Range Planning, 34,421-439.
[55] Gibson, C. B. and J. Birkinshaw. 2004. The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47,2,209-226.
[56] Gray, P. H. 2001. A problem-solving perspective on knowledge management practices. Decision Support System. 31,87-102.
[57] Gomes-Casseres, B. 1989. The multinational corporation's degree of control over foreign subsidiaries: An empirical test of the transaction cost explanation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 4, 305-336.
[58] Gopalakrishnan, S. and P. Bierly. 2001. Analyzing innovation adoption using a knowledge-based approach. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18, 107-130.
[59] Gotsi, M. and A. M. Wilson, 2001. Corporate reputation: seeing a definition, Corporate Communication, 6,1,24-30.
[60] Gouldner, A. W. 1954. Patterns of industrial bureaucracy: A study of modern factory administration. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
[61] Griffiths, D., Boisot, M. and V. Mole. 1998. Strategies for managing knowledge assets: a tale of two companies, Technovation, 18,529-539.
[62] Gulati, R. 1999. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 397-420.
[63] Hanson, M. T., Nohria, N. and T. Tierney. 1999. What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 106-116.
[64] Hamel, G. 1991. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12,83-103.
[65] Henderson, R. M. 1993. Underinvestment and incompetence as response to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. RAND Journal of Economics, 24,2,248-270.
[66] He, Zi-Lin, and Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis, Organization Science, 15,4,481-494.
[67] Heather, I., Wilson, M. and K. Appiah-Kubi, 2002. Resource leveraging via networks by high-technology entrepreneurial firms, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13,45-62.
[68] Hedberg, B. How organizations learn and unlearn, In P.C. Nystrom and W.H. Starbuck (Eds), Handbook of organizational design, London: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
[69] Helfat, C. E. 1994. Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D. Management Science, 40,12,1720-1747.
[70] Henderson, R. M. and K. B.Clark. 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,9-30.
[71] Holmqvist, M. 2004. Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical study of product development, Organization Science, 15, 1,70-81.
[72] Holtsthouse, D. 1999. Ten knowledge domains: model of a knowledge-driven company? Knowledge and Process Management. 6,1,3-8.
[73] Honey, P. and A. Mumford, The manual of learning styles, Perter Honey, 1982.
[74] Ingram, P. and J. A. C. Baum. 1997. Opportunity and constraints: Organizations' learning from the operating and competitive experience of industries. Strategic Management Journal, 18,75-98.
[75] Jacobson, G. and J. Hillkirk. 1986. Xerox, American Samurai. Macmillan, New York.
[76] Jansen, J. J. P., Bosch, F. A J Van den and H. W. Volberda. 2005. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents, Schmalenbach Business Review, 57,4,351-363.
[77] Jaworski, B. J. and A. K.Kohli. 1993. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57,53-70.
[78] Johnston, R., Davenport, S., Dunford, R.., Gibertson, D. and V. Mabin. 1994. Technology strategy in Australian and New Zealand industry. In Kouzmin, A., Still, L. and Clarke, P. (eds) New Directions in Management. Sydney: McGraw-Hill, 464-478.
[79] Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometric, 47.
[80] Kanter, R. M. 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B.M. Straw & L.L.Cummings (Eds). Research in Organizational Behavior, 10,123-167.
[81] Katila, R. and G Ahuja. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Mangement Journal, 45, 1183-1194.
[82] Kim, D. H. 1993. The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35,1,37-50.
[83] Kim, W. C. and Hwang, P. 1992. Global strategy and multinationals' entry mode choice. Journal of International Business Studies, 23,1, 29-53.
[84] King, A. W. and C. P. Zeithaml. 2001. Competencies and firm performance: Examining the causal ambiguity paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 22,1,75.
[85] Knott, A. M. 2002. Exploration and exploitation as complements. N. Bontis, C. W. Choo, eds. The Strategic Management of Interlectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge: A Collection of Readings. Oxford University Press, New York, 339-358.
[86] Koberg, C. S., Detienne, D. R. and K. A. Heppard. 2003. An empirical test of environmental, organizational and process factors affecting incremental and radical innovation. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 21-45.
[87] Kofman, F. and Senge, P. M. 1993. Communities of commitment: the heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 2, 5-23.
[88] Kogut, B. and Singh, H. 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19,3,411-432.
[89] Kurt, A. A. 2002. Guildline for developing a k-strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2, 5,445-456.
[90] Kuemmerle, W. 1997. Building effective R&D capabilities abroad. Harvard Business Review, March-April.
[91] Kurokawa, S. 1997. Make-or-buy decisions in R&D: Small technology based firms in the United States and Japan. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44,2,124-134.
[92] Kyriakopoulos, K. and C. Moorman, 1998. Exploitative vs. explorative market learning and new product outcomes. American Marketing Association, Conference Proceedings, 9, 28-33.
[93] Kyriakopoulos, K. and C. Moorman. 2004. Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: the overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 219-240.
[94] Lang, J., Calantone, R. and D. Gudmundson. 1997. Small firm information seeking as a response to environmental threats and opportunities. Journal of Small Business Management, 35,1,11-23.
[95] Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development, Strategic Management Journal, 13,111-125.
[96] Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of knowledge. Harvard Business School Press. Boston. MA.
[97] Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14.
[98] Levitt, B. and J. G March. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340.
[99] Linnarsson, H. and A. Werr. 2004. Overcoming innovation-alliance paradox: a case study of an explorative alliance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7,1,45-55.
[100] Liu, W. P. 2006. Knowledge exploitation, knowledge exploration, and competency trap, Knowledge and Process Management, 13, 3,144-161.
[101] Lopez, V. A. 2003. Intangible resources as drivers of performance: evidence from a Spanish study of manufacturing firms. Irish Journal of Management, 24, 2,125-132.
[102] Love, J. H. and Roper, S. 2000. Internal versus external R&D: An empirical study of R&D cost. Working paper. Aston Business School Research Institute.
[103] Lunnan, R. and T. Barth. 2003. Managing the exploration vs. exploitation dilemma in transnational "bridging teams". Journal of World Business, 38,110-126.
[104] Madanmohan, T. R. 2005. Incremental technical innovations and their determinants. International Journal of Innovation Management, 9,4,481-510.
[105] Madhok, A. 1998. The nature of multinational firm boundaries: transaction costs, firm capabilities and foreign market entry mode. International Business Review, 7, 259-290.
[106] Mang, P. Y. 1998. Exploiting innovation options: an empirical analysis of R&D-intensive firms,Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,35,229-242.
[107]March,J.G.1991.Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning,Organization Science,2,71-87.
[108]McGrath,A.G.2001.Exploratory learning,innovative capacity,and managerial oversight.Academy of Management Journal,44,1,118-131.
[109]Mcmillen.G.,Hamilton D.and L.Deeds.2000.Firm management of scientific information:an empirical update[J].R&D Management,30,2.
[110]McNamara,P.and C.Baden-Fuller.1999.Lessons from the Celltech case:balancing knowledge exploration and exploitation in organizational renewal.British Journal of Management,10,291-307.
[111]McNamara,P.and C.Baden-Fuller.2007.Shareholder returns and the exploration-exploitation dilemma:R&D announcements by biotechnology firms.Research Policy,in press.
[112]Miller,D.and J.Shamsie.1996.The resource-based view of the firm in two environments:the Hollywood firm studios from 1936 to 1965.Academy of Management Journal,39,519-543.
[113]Menon,T.and J.Pfeffer.2003.Valuing internal vs.external knowledge:Explaining the preference for outsiders.Management Science,49,4,497-513.
[114]Merton,R.K.1940.Bureaucratic structure and personality.Social Forces,18,560-568.
[115]Mitsuhashi,H.2002.Uncertainty in selecting alliance partners:the three reduction mechanisms and alliance formation process.The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,10,2,109-133.
[116]Mohr,J.J.and S.Sengupta.2002.Managing the paradox of interfirm learning:the role of governance mechanism.Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,17,4,282-301.
[117]Mowery,D.C.,Oxley,J.E.and B.S.Silverman.1998.Technological overlap and interirm cooperation:implications for the resource-based view of the firm.Research Policy,27,507-523.
[118]Narula,R.2001.Choosing between internal and non-internal R&D activities:Some technological and economic factors.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,13,3,365-387.
[119]Nelson,R.R.and S.G.Winter.1982.An evolutionary theory of economic change.Cambridge,MA:Belknap Press.
[120]Nishiguchi.Knowledge Emergence:Social,Technical,and Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation.Oxford University Press,2001,128-131.
[121]Nonaka,1994.A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.Organization Science,5,1,14-37.
[122]Nonaka,I.and H.Takeuchi.The knowledge-creating company:How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation.New York:Oxford University Press.1995.
[123]Nooteboom,B.2000.Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies.Oxford University Press.
[124] Norman, P. M., Palich, L. E., L. P. Livingstone, and G R. Carini. 2004. The role of paradoxical logic in innovation: The case of Intel. The Journal of High Technology Management Research. 15,51-71.
[125] O'Reilly HI, C. A., 1989, Corporate culture considerations based on an empirical study of high growth firms in silicon valley, Economia Aziendale, Vol. HI, 3.
[126] O'Reilly HI, C. A. and M. L. Tushman. 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Havard Business Review, April, 74-81.
[127] Pai, Da Chang.2005. Knowledge strategies in Taiwan's IC design firms. Journal of American Academy of Business, 7,2,73-77.
[128] Patricia Ordonez de Pablos, 2002. Knowledge management and organizational learning: typologies of knowledge strategies in the Spanish manufacturing industry from 1995 to 1999. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6,1,52-62.
[129] Penrose, E. The Theory of the Grow th of the Firm [M]. New York: Wiley, 1959.
[130] Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependency perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
[131] Pisano, G P. 1990. The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,153-176.
[132] Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 3,79-91.
[133] Regner, P. 2003. Strategy creation in the periphery: Inductive versus deductive strategy making. Journal of Management Studies, 40,1,57-82.
[134] Roberts, P. W. and G R. Dowling. 1997. The value of a firm's corporate reputation: How reputation helps attain and sustain superior profitability. Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 72-76.
[135] Ron, Ashkenas. 1999. Creating the bounaryless organization. Business Horizons. September-October, 5-10.
[136] Rosenkopf, L. and A. Nerkar, 2001. Beyond local search: boundary-spinning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 287-306.
[137] Rosenkopf, L. and P. Almeida. 2003. Overcoming local search through alliance and mobility. Management Science, 49,6, 751-766.
[138] Rothaermel, E and D. L. Deeds. 2004. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201-221.
[139] Rothwell, R. 1978. Some problems of technology transfer into industry: examples from the textile machinery sector. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-25,15-20.
[140] Rindfleisch, A. and Heide, J. B. 1997. Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61: 30-54.
[141] Samaddar, S. and Savitha S. Kadiyala. 2006. An anlysis of interorganizational resource sharing decisions in collaborative knowledge creation. European Journal of Operational Research, 170,192-210.
[142] Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J. and T. Kell. 2005. Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate ventures. Entreprenearship Theory and Practice, 7,493-515.
[143] Shenkar, O. and Von Glinow, M. A. 1994. Paradoxes of organizational theory and research: using the case of China to illustrate national contingency. Management Science, 40,56-71.
[144] Shrivastava, P. A. 1983.Typology of organizational learning systems, Journal of Management Studies, 20,1,7-28.
[145] Sidhu, J. S. Volberda, H. W. and H. R. Commandeur. 2004. Exploring exploration orientation and its determinants: some empirical evidence, Journal of Management Studies, 41,6,913-932
[146] Simon, H. A. 1973. Applying information technology to organization design. Public Adiminstration Review, 33, 268-278.
[147] Stuart, T. E. and J. M. Podolny. 1996. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 17, 21-38.
[148] Singh, H. A. 1986. Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 29,562-585.
[149] Spedale, S. 2003. Technological discontinuities: Is cooperation an option? Long Range Planning, 36, 253-268.
[150] Sveiby, K. E. 2001. A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 4, 344-358.
[151] Talbot, C. and J. Harrow. Sharing or withholding knowledge? An exploration of changing values in managerial and organizational learning. Paper for British Academy of Management Conference, Milton Keynes, September 1993.
[152] Taylor, F. W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper.
[153] Teece, D. J. 2000. Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial context. Long Range Planning, 33, 35-54.
[154] Teece, D. J. and G Pisano.1994. The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3,537-556.
[155] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G, and A. Shuen. 1997. Dynamics capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 7,509-533.
[156] Tushman, M. L. and C. A. O'Reilly. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38,4, 8-30.
[157] Tushman, M. L. and P. Anderson. 1986. Technological discountinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31,439-465.
[158] Tidd, J. and M. J. Trewhella.1997.Organizational and technological antecedents for knowledge acquisition and learning. R&D Management, 27,4, 359-375.
[159] Van de Ven, A. and M. S. Poole. 1988. Paradoxical requirements for a theory of change. In Quinn R.E. & Cameron, K.S. (Eds). Paradox and transformation: toward a theory of change in organization and management.Cambridge,MA.
[160]Veugelers,R.and B.Cassiman,1999.Make and buy in innovation strategies:evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms.Research Policy,28,63-80.
[161]Volberda,H.W.and A.Rutges.1999.FARSYS:a knowledge-based system for managing strategic change.Decision Support Systems,26,99-123.
[162]Walsh,J.P.and G.Ungson.1991.Organizational memory.Academy of Management Review,16,57-91.
[163]Weick,Karl E.1995.Sensemalking in organizations.Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage Publications.
[164]Williamson,O.E.1981.The modern corporation:Origins,evolution,attributes.Journal of Economic Literature,19,1537-1568.
[165]Winter,S.G.1987.Knowledge and competence as strategic assets.D.Teece,ed.The Competitive Challenge-Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal.Ballinger,Cambridge,MA,159-184.
[166]Zander,U.1991.Exploiting a Technological Edge:Voluntary and Involuntary Dissemination of Technology.Institute of International Business,Stockholm,Sweden.
[167]Xavier,M.and W.Mitchell.1998.The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market.Research Policy,26,7,753-771.
[168]阿什克纳斯等著,无边界组织,机械工业出版社,2005年。
[169]保尔森等编,组织边界管理:多元化观点,经济管理出版社,2004。
[170]彼得·圣吉,第五项修炼:学习型组织的艺术与实务,上海三联书店出版社,1994。
[171]陈艳莹,程瑞雯,企业合作创新研究评述,科技和产业,2005,8,1-5。
[172]邓龙安,徐玖平,技术范式演进与企业边界变动的动态变化研究,科学学与科学技术管理,2007,151-155。
[173]党兴华,李莉,技术创新中基于知识位势的知识创造模型研究,中国软科学,2005,11,143-148。
[174]杜德斌,跨国公司海外R&D的投资动机及其区位选择,科学学研究,2005,2,71一75。
[175]葛京,战略联盟中组织学习效果的影响因素及对策分析,科学学与科学技术管理,2004,3,136-140。
[176]加里·哈默等编著,战略柔性,机械工业出版社,2000。
[177]蒋春燕,中国新兴企业自主创新陷阱的突破路径,中国工业经济,2006,4,73-80。
[178]李文元,梅强,企业组织学习的知识获取途径研究,科技管理研究,2007,2,186-188。
[179]李新春,产品联盟与技术联盟-我国中外合资、合作企业的技术学习行为分析,中山大学报(社会科学版),1998,,90-96。
[180]林莉,周鹏飞,知识联盟中知识学习、冲突管理与关系资本,科学学与科学技术管理,2004,4,107。
[181]马彪,彭锐,论知识战略及其选择框架,现代管理科学,2006,4,54-57。
[182]马克斯·博尹索特,知识资产:在信息经济中赢得竞争优势,上海世纪出版集团,2005。
[183]迈诺尔大·迪尔克斯,组织学习与知识创新,上海人民出版社,2001年。
[184]乔治·戴,保罗·休梅克,沃顿论新兴技术管理,华夏出版社,2002。
[185]芮明杰,陈娟,高技术企业知识体系的构建与管理,上海财经大学出版社,2006。
[186]万君康,梅小安,企业知识资本管理及其绩效评价,机械工业出版社,2005。
[187]王方华,吕巍,企业战略管理,复旦大学出版社,2002。
[188]王冬春,汪应洛,王能民,战略联盟的知识转移模式研究,科学管理研究,2006,3,88-100。
[189]王重鸣,心理学研究方法,北京:人民教育出版社,1990.。
[190]王小光,企业研发组织与动态能力研究,北京工商大学学报(社会科学版),2005,20,1,89-92。
[191]汪忠,黄瑞华,基于知识视角的企业边界问题研究,科学管理研究,2005,23,2,61-64。
[192]吴金希,用知识赢得优势-中国企业知识管理模式与战略,知识产权出版社,2005。
[193]谢富纪,沈荣芳,建立企业技术联盟,推进企业技术进步,技术进步与对策,2002,2,99-100。
[194]许庆瑞,研究、发展与技术创新管理,高等教育出版社,北京,2000。
[195]徐忠爱,企业边界决定:演化经济学视角的分析,现代管理科学,2005,12,48-49。
[196]杨永清,现实中企业战略是怎样形成的-以联想集团为例,集团经济研究,2007,8,81-82。
[197]易法敏,核心能力导向的企业知识转移与创新研究,中国经济出版社,2006。
[198]余光胜,一种全新的企业理论-企业知识理论,外国经济与管理,2000,22,2,8-10。
[199]元利兴,宣国良,跨国公司全球R&D活动中的知识流动机制研究,科技进步与对策,2003,8,34-35。
[200]原欣伟,覃正,伊景冰,组织中学习与绩效相互作用机理研究,2006,6,136-143。
[201]约瑟大·阿罗斯·熊彼特,经济发展理论,商务出版社,1996。
[202]赵修卫,组织学习与知识整合,科研管理,2003,24,3。
[203]曾德明,张运生,陈利勇,高新技术企业内外部学习的契合机制研究,软科学,2003,17,6,93-96。
[204]张春宁,谢恩,李垣,企业间合作学习、控制方式、创新的关系研究,科学学研究,2006,24,5,791-797。
[205]张耀辉,技术创新与产业组织演变,经济管理出版社,2004。
[206]周清杰,企业“黑箱”解析--动态企业理论研究,中国财政经济出版社,2005。
[207]周小虎,企业社会资本与战略管理,人民出版社,2006。
[208]周玉泉,李垣,合作学习、组织柔性与创新方式选择的关系研究,科研管理,2006,27,2,9-14。
[209]竹内弘高,野中郁次郎,知识创造的螺旋:知识管理理论与案例研究。知识产权出版社,2006。
[2]上海复旦软件系统工程有限公司在案例后续分析中均采用简称-复旦软件公司。
[1]Adler,P.S.and A.Sbenbar.1990.Adapting your technological base:The organizational challenge,Sloan Management Review,32,1.
[2]Adler,E S.,Goldoftas,B.and D.I.Levine.1999.Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system.Organization Science,10,1,43.
[3]Agarwal,S.and Ramaswami,S.N.1992.Choice of foreign market entry mode:Impact of ownership,location,and internalization factors.Journal of International Business Studies,23,1,1-27.
[4]AhuJa,G.2000.The duality of collaboration:Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfinn linkages.Strategic Management Journal,21,317-343.
[5]Alavi,M.and D.Leidner.1997.Knowledge management system:emerging views and practices from the field.
[6]Amabile,T.M.1998.How to kill creativity.Harvard Business Review,7,6,77-89.
[7]Amit,R.and P.Schoemaker.1993.Strategic assets and organizational rents.Strategic Management Journal,4,33-47.
[8]Arbuthnot,J.,Slama,M.and G.Sisler.1993.Selection criteria and information sources in purchase decisions of apparel buyers in small retailing firms.Journal of Small Business Management,31,2,12-23.
[9]Argyris,C.and Schon,D.1978.Organizational Learning.Reading,MA:Addison-Wesley.
[10]Auh,S.and B.Menguc.2005.Balancing exploration and exploitation:the moderating role of competitive intensity.Journal of Business Research,.58,1652-1661.
[11]Aulakh,ES.and Kotabe,M.1997.Antecedents and performance implications of channel integration in foreign markets.Journal of International Business Studies,28,1,145-175.
[12]Aurora,A.and A.Gambardella.1994.Evaluating technological information and utilizing it:Scientific knowledge,technological capability and external linkages in biotechnology.Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization,91-114.
[13]Baney,J.B.1991.Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.Journal of Management,17,1,99-120.
[14]Barney,J.B.1995.Looking inside for competitive advantage,Academy of Management Executive,9,4.
[15]Bierly,P.and A.Chakrabarty.1996.Genetic knowledge strategies in the US pharmaceutical industry,Strategic Management Journal,17,Winter,special issue,123-135.
[16]Bierly,P.and T.Hamalainen,1995.Organizational learning and strategy.Scand.J.Management,11,3,209-224.
[17]Birkinshaw,J.and C.Gibson.2004.Building ambidexterity into an organization.MIT Sloan Management Review,45,4,47-55.
[18]Birkinshaw,J.,Nobel,R.and J.Ridderstrale.2002.Knowledge as a contingency variable: do the characteristics of knowledge predict organization structure? Organization Science,13,3,274-289.
[19]Caminiti,S.1992.The payoff from a good reputation.Fortune,125,3,49-53.
[20]Capron,L.and W.Mitchell.2004.Where firms Change:internal development versus external capability sourcing in the global telecommunications industry.European Management Review,1,157-174.
[21]Carmeli,A.and A.Tishler.2004.Resources,capabilities,and performance of industrial firms:a multivariate analysis.Managerial and Decision Economics,25,299-315.
[22]Cassiman,B and R.Veugelers.2002.R&D cooperation and spillovers:Some evidence from Belgium,The American Economic Review,92,4,1169-1175.
[23]Cesaroni,F.,Minin,A.D.and A.Piccaluga,2005.Exploration and exploitation strategies in industrial R&D,Creativity and Innovation Management,14,3,222-232.
[24]Chae,B.and J.M.Bloodgood.2006.The paradoxes of knowledge management:An eastern philosophical perspective.Information and Organization,16,1-26.
[25]Chen,Chung-Jen and Bou-Wen Lin.2004.The effects of environment,knowledge attribute,organizational climate,and firm characteristics on knowledge sourcing decision,R&D Management,34,2.
[26]Chen,Wei-Ru and Kent D.Miller.2007.Situational and institutional determinants of firms R&D search intensity.Strategic Management Journal,28,369-381.
[27]Chesbrough,H.W.2003.The era of open innovation,Sloan Management Review,44,3,35-41.
[28]Chiesa,V.and R.Manzini,1998.Towards a framework for dynamic technology strategy,Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,10,1,111-129.
[29]Ciborra,C.U.and R.Andreu.2001.Sharing knowledge across boundaries.Journal of Information Technology,16,73-81.
[30]Coase,R.H.1937.The nature of the firm.Economica November,386-405.
[31]Crossan,L.W.1999.An organizational learning framework:From intuition to institution.Academy of Management Review,24,3,522-537.
[32]Cyert,R.M.and James G.March.1963.A Behavioral Theory of the Firm,Englewood Cliffs.NJ:Prentice-Hall.Inc.
[33]Daft,R.,Sormunem,J.and D.Parks.1988.Chief executive scanning,environmental characteristics and company performance:an empirical study.Strategic Management Journal,9,2,123-139.
[34]D'Aveni,R.A.1999.Strategic supremacy through disruption and dominance.Sloan Management Review,40,3,127-135.
[35]D'Aveni,R.A.1994.Hypercompetition:Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering.Free Press.New York.
[36]Dixon,N.The organizational learning cycle:How we can learn collectively.Maidenhead:McGraw-Hill,1994.
[37] Drew, S. 1999. Building knowledge management into strategy: Making sense of a new perspective. Long Range Planning, 32,1,130-136.
[38] Easterby-smith, M. Creating a learning organization, Personnel Review, 1990,19,5,24-28.
[39] Eisenhardt, K. M. and J. A. Martin, 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21,1105-1121.
[40] Faems, D., Looy, B. V. and K. Dabackere. 2005. Interorganizational collaboration and innovation: Toward a portfolio approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22, 238-250.
[41] Fernandez, E., Montes, J. M.and C. J. Vazquez, 2000.Typology and strategic analysis of intangible resources A resource-based approach, Technovation, 20, 81-92.
[42] Fiol, M. C. and Lyles, M. A. 1985. Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10, 803-813.
[43] Florida, R. 1997. The globalization of R&D: Results of a survey of foreign-affiliated R&D laboratories in the USA. Research Policy, 26, 85-103.
[44] Ford, D. 1988. Developing your technology strategy. Long Range Planning, 21, 85-95.
[45] Fors, G. and M. Zajan. 2002. Overseas R&D by multinationals in foreign centers of excellence. Working paper series in Economics and Finance. Stockholm School of Economics.
[46] Fransman, M. Technological capability in the third word (EDs. M Fransman and K. King) Technological Capability in the Third World, Macmillan, London, 1984.
[47] Fujimoto, T. 1999. The evolution of a manufacturing system at Toyota. New York: Oxford University Press.
[48] Galbreath, J. 2005. Which resources matter the most to firm success? An exploratory study of resource-based theory. Technovation, 25,979-987.
[49] Galender, J. and J. M. Fuente. 2003. Internal factors determining a firm's innovative behavior. Research Policy, 32,715-716.
[50] Garavelli, C., Gorgoglione, M. and B.Scozz. 2004. Knowledge management strategy and organization: a perspective of analysis. Knowledge and Process Management, 11,4, 273-282.
[51] Garcia., R., Calantone, R. and R. Levine. 2003. The role of knowledge resource allocation to exploration versus exploitation in technologically oriented organizations. Decision Sciences, 34,2,323-349.
[52] Gatignon, H. and Anderson, E. 1988. The Multinational Corporation's Degree of Control Over Foreign Subsidiaries: An Empirical Test of a Transaction Cost Explanation. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 4, 305-336.
[53] Gelb, C. 2000. Software research in and for China: Microsoft's basic research facility takes global R&D a step further. China Business Review, 27,4,40-43.
[54] Georg von, Ikujiro Nonaka, Manfred Aben. 2001. Making the most of your company's knowledge: a strategic framework, Long Range Planning, 34,421-439.
[55] Gibson, C. B. and J. Birkinshaw. 2004. The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47,2,209-226.
[56] Gray, P. H. 2001. A problem-solving perspective on knowledge management practices. Decision Support System. 31,87-102.
[57] Gomes-Casseres, B. 1989. The multinational corporation's degree of control over foreign subsidiaries: An empirical test of the transaction cost explanation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 4, 305-336.
[58] Gopalakrishnan, S. and P. Bierly. 2001. Analyzing innovation adoption using a knowledge-based approach. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18, 107-130.
[59] Gotsi, M. and A. M. Wilson, 2001. Corporate reputation: seeing a definition, Corporate Communication, 6,1,24-30.
[60] Gouldner, A. W. 1954. Patterns of industrial bureaucracy: A study of modern factory administration. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
[61] Griffiths, D., Boisot, M. and V. Mole. 1998. Strategies for managing knowledge assets: a tale of two companies, Technovation, 18,529-539.
[62] Gulati, R. 1999. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 397-420.
[63] Hanson, M. T., Nohria, N. and T. Tierney. 1999. What's your strategy for managing knowledge? Harvard Business Review, 106-116.
[64] Hamel, G. 1991. Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12,83-103.
[65] Henderson, R. M. 1993. Underinvestment and incompetence as response to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry. RAND Journal of Economics, 24,2,248-270.
[66] He, Zi-Lin, and Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis, Organization Science, 15,4,481-494.
[67] Heather, I., Wilson, M. and K. Appiah-Kubi, 2002. Resource leveraging via networks by high-technology entrepreneurial firms, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13,45-62.
[68] Hedberg, B. How organizations learn and unlearn, In P.C. Nystrom and W.H. Starbuck (Eds), Handbook of organizational design, London: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
[69] Helfat, C. E. 1994. Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D. Management Science, 40,12,1720-1747.
[70] Henderson, R. M. and K. B.Clark. 1990. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,9-30.
[71] Holmqvist, M. 2004. Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical study of product development, Organization Science, 15, 1,70-81.
[72] Holtsthouse, D. 1999. Ten knowledge domains: model of a knowledge-driven company? Knowledge and Process Management. 6,1,3-8.
[73] Honey, P. and A. Mumford, The manual of learning styles, Perter Honey, 1982.
[74] Ingram, P. and J. A. C. Baum. 1997. Opportunity and constraints: Organizations' learning from the operating and competitive experience of industries. Strategic Management Journal, 18,75-98.
[75] Jacobson, G. and J. Hillkirk. 1986. Xerox, American Samurai. Macmillan, New York.
[76] Jansen, J. J. P., Bosch, F. A J Van den and H. W. Volberda. 2005. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents, Schmalenbach Business Review, 57,4,351-363.
[77] Jaworski, B. J. and A. K.Kohli. 1993. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57,53-70.
[78] Johnston, R., Davenport, S., Dunford, R.., Gibertson, D. and V. Mabin. 1994. Technology strategy in Australian and New Zealand industry. In Kouzmin, A., Still, L. and Clarke, P. (eds) New Directions in Management. Sydney: McGraw-Hill, 464-478.
[79] Kahneman, D. and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometric, 47.
[80] Kanter, R. M. 1988. When a thousand flowers bloom: structural, collective and social conditions for innovation in organizations. In B.M. Straw & L.L.Cummings (Eds). Research in Organizational Behavior, 10,123-167.
[81] Katila, R. and G Ahuja. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Mangement Journal, 45, 1183-1194.
[82] Kim, D. H. 1993. The link between individual and organizational learning. Sloan Management Review, 35,1,37-50.
[83] Kim, W. C. and Hwang, P. 1992. Global strategy and multinationals' entry mode choice. Journal of International Business Studies, 23,1, 29-53.
[84] King, A. W. and C. P. Zeithaml. 2001. Competencies and firm performance: Examining the causal ambiguity paradox. Strategic Management Journal, 22,1,75.
[85] Knott, A. M. 2002. Exploration and exploitation as complements. N. Bontis, C. W. Choo, eds. The Strategic Management of Interlectual Capital and Organizational Knowledge: A Collection of Readings. Oxford University Press, New York, 339-358.
[86] Koberg, C. S., Detienne, D. R. and K. A. Heppard. 2003. An empirical test of environmental, organizational and process factors affecting incremental and radical innovation. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 14, 21-45.
[87] Kofman, F. and Senge, P. M. 1993. Communities of commitment: the heart of learning organizations. Organizational Dynamics, 22, 2, 5-23.
[88] Kogut, B. and Singh, H. 1988. The effect of national culture on the choice of entry mode. Journal of International Business Studies, 19,3,411-432.
[89] Kurt, A. A. 2002. Guildline for developing a k-strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2, 5,445-456.
[90] Kuemmerle, W. 1997. Building effective R&D capabilities abroad. Harvard Business Review, March-April.
[91] Kurokawa, S. 1997. Make-or-buy decisions in R&D: Small technology based firms in the United States and Japan. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44,2,124-134.
[92] Kyriakopoulos, K. and C. Moorman, 1998. Exploitative vs. explorative market learning and new product outcomes. American Marketing Association, Conference Proceedings, 9, 28-33.
[93] Kyriakopoulos, K. and C. Moorman. 2004. Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: the overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21, 219-240.
[94] Lang, J., Calantone, R. and D. Gudmundson. 1997. Small firm information seeking as a response to environmental threats and opportunities. Journal of Small Business Management, 35,1,11-23.
[95] Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development, Strategic Management Journal, 13,111-125.
[96] Leonard-Barton, D. 1995. Wellsprings of knowledge. Harvard Business School Press. Boston. MA.
[97] Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14.
[98] Levitt, B. and J. G March. 1988. Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-340.
[99] Linnarsson, H. and A. Werr. 2004. Overcoming innovation-alliance paradox: a case study of an explorative alliance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7,1,45-55.
[100] Liu, W. P. 2006. Knowledge exploitation, knowledge exploration, and competency trap, Knowledge and Process Management, 13, 3,144-161.
[101] Lopez, V. A. 2003. Intangible resources as drivers of performance: evidence from a Spanish study of manufacturing firms. Irish Journal of Management, 24, 2,125-132.
[102] Love, J. H. and Roper, S. 2000. Internal versus external R&D: An empirical study of R&D cost. Working paper. Aston Business School Research Institute.
[103] Lunnan, R. and T. Barth. 2003. Managing the exploration vs. exploitation dilemma in transnational "bridging teams". Journal of World Business, 38,110-126.
[104] Madanmohan, T. R. 2005. Incremental technical innovations and their determinants. International Journal of Innovation Management, 9,4,481-510.
[105] Madhok, A. 1998. The nature of multinational firm boundaries: transaction costs, firm capabilities and foreign market entry mode. International Business Review, 7, 259-290.
[106] Mang, P. Y. 1998. Exploiting innovation options: an empirical analysis of R&D-intensive firms,Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,35,229-242.
[107]March,J.G.1991.Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning,Organization Science,2,71-87.
[108]McGrath,A.G.2001.Exploratory learning,innovative capacity,and managerial oversight.Academy of Management Journal,44,1,118-131.
[109]Mcmillen.G.,Hamilton D.and L.Deeds.2000.Firm management of scientific information:an empirical update[J].R&D Management,30,2.
[110]McNamara,P.and C.Baden-Fuller.1999.Lessons from the Celltech case:balancing knowledge exploration and exploitation in organizational renewal.British Journal of Management,10,291-307.
[111]McNamara,P.and C.Baden-Fuller.2007.Shareholder returns and the exploration-exploitation dilemma:R&D announcements by biotechnology firms.Research Policy,in press.
[112]Miller,D.and J.Shamsie.1996.The resource-based view of the firm in two environments:the Hollywood firm studios from 1936 to 1965.Academy of Management Journal,39,519-543.
[113]Menon,T.and J.Pfeffer.2003.Valuing internal vs.external knowledge:Explaining the preference for outsiders.Management Science,49,4,497-513.
[114]Merton,R.K.1940.Bureaucratic structure and personality.Social Forces,18,560-568.
[115]Mitsuhashi,H.2002.Uncertainty in selecting alliance partners:the three reduction mechanisms and alliance formation process.The International Journal of Organizational Analysis,10,2,109-133.
[116]Mohr,J.J.and S.Sengupta.2002.Managing the paradox of interfirm learning:the role of governance mechanism.Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing,17,4,282-301.
[117]Mowery,D.C.,Oxley,J.E.and B.S.Silverman.1998.Technological overlap and interirm cooperation:implications for the resource-based view of the firm.Research Policy,27,507-523.
[118]Narula,R.2001.Choosing between internal and non-internal R&D activities:Some technological and economic factors.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,13,3,365-387.
[119]Nelson,R.R.and S.G.Winter.1982.An evolutionary theory of economic change.Cambridge,MA:Belknap Press.
[120]Nishiguchi.Knowledge Emergence:Social,Technical,and Evolutionary Dimensions of Knowledge Creation.Oxford University Press,2001,128-131.
[121]Nonaka,1994.A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.Organization Science,5,1,14-37.
[122]Nonaka,I.and H.Takeuchi.The knowledge-creating company:How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation.New York:Oxford University Press.1995.
[123]Nooteboom,B.2000.Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies.Oxford University Press.
[124] Norman, P. M., Palich, L. E., L. P. Livingstone, and G R. Carini. 2004. The role of paradoxical logic in innovation: The case of Intel. The Journal of High Technology Management Research. 15,51-71.
[125] O'Reilly HI, C. A., 1989, Corporate culture considerations based on an empirical study of high growth firms in silicon valley, Economia Aziendale, Vol. HI, 3.
[126] O'Reilly HI, C. A. and M. L. Tushman. 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Havard Business Review, April, 74-81.
[127] Pai, Da Chang.2005. Knowledge strategies in Taiwan's IC design firms. Journal of American Academy of Business, 7,2,73-77.
[128] Patricia Ordonez de Pablos, 2002. Knowledge management and organizational learning: typologies of knowledge strategies in the Spanish manufacturing industry from 1995 to 1999. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6,1,52-62.
[129] Penrose, E. The Theory of the Grow th of the Firm [M]. New York: Wiley, 1959.
[130] Pfeffer, Jeffrey and Gerald R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of organizations: A resource dependency perspective. New York: Harper and Row.
[131] Pisano, G P. 1990. The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35,153-176.
[132] Prahalad, C. K. and G. Hamel. 1990. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68, 3,79-91.
[133] Regner, P. 2003. Strategy creation in the periphery: Inductive versus deductive strategy making. Journal of Management Studies, 40,1,57-82.
[134] Roberts, P. W. and G R. Dowling. 1997. The value of a firm's corporate reputation: How reputation helps attain and sustain superior profitability. Corporate Reputation Review, 1, 72-76.
[135] Ron, Ashkenas. 1999. Creating the bounaryless organization. Business Horizons. September-October, 5-10.
[136] Rosenkopf, L. and A. Nerkar, 2001. Beyond local search: boundary-spinning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 287-306.
[137] Rosenkopf, L. and P. Almeida. 2003. Overcoming local search through alliance and mobility. Management Science, 49,6, 751-766.
[138] Rothaermel, E and D. L. Deeds. 2004. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201-221.
[139] Rothwell, R. 1978. Some problems of technology transfer into industry: examples from the textile machinery sector. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management EM-25,15-20.
[140] Rindfleisch, A. and Heide, J. B. 1997. Transaction cost analysis: Past, present, and future applications. Journal of Marketing, 61: 30-54.
[141] Samaddar, S. and Savitha S. Kadiyala. 2006. An anlysis of interorganizational resource sharing decisions in collaborative knowledge creation. European Journal of Operational Research, 170,192-210.
[142] Schildt, H. A., Maula, M. V. J. and T. Kell. 2005. Explorative and exploitative learning from external corporate ventures. Entreprenearship Theory and Practice, 7,493-515.
[143] Shenkar, O. and Von Glinow, M. A. 1994. Paradoxes of organizational theory and research: using the case of China to illustrate national contingency. Management Science, 40,56-71.
[144] Shrivastava, P. A. 1983.Typology of organizational learning systems, Journal of Management Studies, 20,1,7-28.
[145] Sidhu, J. S. Volberda, H. W. and H. R. Commandeur. 2004. Exploring exploration orientation and its determinants: some empirical evidence, Journal of Management Studies, 41,6,913-932
[146] Simon, H. A. 1973. Applying information technology to organization design. Public Adiminstration Review, 33, 268-278.
[147] Stuart, T. E. and J. M. Podolny. 1996. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 17, 21-38.
[148] Singh, H. A. 1986. Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 29,562-585.
[149] Spedale, S. 2003. Technological discontinuities: Is cooperation an option? Long Range Planning, 36, 253-268.
[150] Sveiby, K. E. 2001. A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2, 4, 344-358.
[151] Talbot, C. and J. Harrow. Sharing or withholding knowledge? An exploration of changing values in managerial and organizational learning. Paper for British Academy of Management Conference, Milton Keynes, September 1993.
[152] Taylor, F. W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper.
[153] Teece, D. J. 2000. Strategies for managing knowledge assets: the role of firm structure and industrial context. Long Range Planning, 33, 35-54.
[154] Teece, D. J. and G Pisano.1994. The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3,537-556.
[155] Teece, D. J., Pisano, G, and A. Shuen. 1997. Dynamics capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 7,509-533.
[156] Tushman, M. L. and C. A. O'Reilly. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38,4, 8-30.
[157] Tushman, M. L. and P. Anderson. 1986. Technological discountinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31,439-465.
[158] Tidd, J. and M. J. Trewhella.1997.Organizational and technological antecedents for knowledge acquisition and learning. R&D Management, 27,4, 359-375.
[159] Van de Ven, A. and M. S. Poole. 1988. Paradoxical requirements for a theory of change. In Quinn R.E. & Cameron, K.S. (Eds). Paradox and transformation: toward a theory of change in organization and management.Cambridge,MA.
[160]Veugelers,R.and B.Cassiman,1999.Make and buy in innovation strategies:evidence from Belgian manufacturing firms.Research Policy,28,63-80.
[161]Volberda,H.W.and A.Rutges.1999.FARSYS:a knowledge-based system for managing strategic change.Decision Support Systems,26,99-123.
[162]Walsh,J.P.and G.Ungson.1991.Organizational memory.Academy of Management Review,16,57-91.
[163]Weick,Karl E.1995.Sensemalking in organizations.Thousand Oaks,CA:Sage Publications.
[164]Williamson,O.E.1981.The modern corporation:Origins,evolution,attributes.Journal of Economic Literature,19,1537-1568.
[165]Winter,S.G.1987.Knowledge and competence as strategic assets.D.Teece,ed.The Competitive Challenge-Strategies for Industrial Innovation and Renewal.Ballinger,Cambridge,MA,159-184.
[166]Zander,U.1991.Exploiting a Technological Edge:Voluntary and Involuntary Dissemination of Technology.Institute of International Business,Stockholm,Sweden.
[167]Xavier,M.and W.Mitchell.1998.The influence of local search and performance heuristics on new design introduction in a new product market.Research Policy,26,7,753-771.
[168]阿什克纳斯等著,无边界组织,机械工业出版社,2005年。
[169]保尔森等编,组织边界管理:多元化观点,经济管理出版社,2004。
[170]彼得·圣吉,第五项修炼:学习型组织的艺术与实务,上海三联书店出版社,1994。
[171]陈艳莹,程瑞雯,企业合作创新研究评述,科技和产业,2005,8,1-5。
[172]邓龙安,徐玖平,技术范式演进与企业边界变动的动态变化研究,科学学与科学技术管理,2007,151-155。
[173]党兴华,李莉,技术创新中基于知识位势的知识创造模型研究,中国软科学,2005,11,143-148。
[174]杜德斌,跨国公司海外R&D的投资动机及其区位选择,科学学研究,2005,2,71一75。
[175]葛京,战略联盟中组织学习效果的影响因素及对策分析,科学学与科学技术管理,2004,3,136-140。
[176]加里·哈默等编著,战略柔性,机械工业出版社,2000。
[177]蒋春燕,中国新兴企业自主创新陷阱的突破路径,中国工业经济,2006,4,73-80。
[178]李文元,梅强,企业组织学习的知识获取途径研究,科技管理研究,2007,2,186-188。
[179]李新春,产品联盟与技术联盟-我国中外合资、合作企业的技术学习行为分析,中山大学报(社会科学版),1998,,90-96。
[180]林莉,周鹏飞,知识联盟中知识学习、冲突管理与关系资本,科学学与科学技术管理,2004,4,107。
[181]马彪,彭锐,论知识战略及其选择框架,现代管理科学,2006,4,54-57。
[182]马克斯·博尹索特,知识资产:在信息经济中赢得竞争优势,上海世纪出版集团,2005。
[183]迈诺尔大·迪尔克斯,组织学习与知识创新,上海人民出版社,2001年。
[184]乔治·戴,保罗·休梅克,沃顿论新兴技术管理,华夏出版社,2002。
[185]芮明杰,陈娟,高技术企业知识体系的构建与管理,上海财经大学出版社,2006。
[186]万君康,梅小安,企业知识资本管理及其绩效评价,机械工业出版社,2005。
[187]王方华,吕巍,企业战略管理,复旦大学出版社,2002。
[188]王冬春,汪应洛,王能民,战略联盟的知识转移模式研究,科学管理研究,2006,3,88-100。
[189]王重鸣,心理学研究方法,北京:人民教育出版社,1990.。
[190]王小光,企业研发组织与动态能力研究,北京工商大学学报(社会科学版),2005,20,1,89-92。
[191]汪忠,黄瑞华,基于知识视角的企业边界问题研究,科学管理研究,2005,23,2,61-64。
[192]吴金希,用知识赢得优势-中国企业知识管理模式与战略,知识产权出版社,2005。
[193]谢富纪,沈荣芳,建立企业技术联盟,推进企业技术进步,技术进步与对策,2002,2,99-100。
[194]许庆瑞,研究、发展与技术创新管理,高等教育出版社,北京,2000。
[195]徐忠爱,企业边界决定:演化经济学视角的分析,现代管理科学,2005,12,48-49。
[196]杨永清,现实中企业战略是怎样形成的-以联想集团为例,集团经济研究,2007,8,81-82。
[197]易法敏,核心能力导向的企业知识转移与创新研究,中国经济出版社,2006。
[198]余光胜,一种全新的企业理论-企业知识理论,外国经济与管理,2000,22,2,8-10。
[199]元利兴,宣国良,跨国公司全球R&D活动中的知识流动机制研究,科技进步与对策,2003,8,34-35。
[200]原欣伟,覃正,伊景冰,组织中学习与绩效相互作用机理研究,2006,6,136-143。
[201]约瑟大·阿罗斯·熊彼特,经济发展理论,商务出版社,1996。
[202]赵修卫,组织学习与知识整合,科研管理,2003,24,3。
[203]曾德明,张运生,陈利勇,高新技术企业内外部学习的契合机制研究,软科学,2003,17,6,93-96。
[204]张春宁,谢恩,李垣,企业间合作学习、控制方式、创新的关系研究,科学学研究,2006,24,5,791-797。
[205]张耀辉,技术创新与产业组织演变,经济管理出版社,2004。
[206]周清杰,企业“黑箱”解析--动态企业理论研究,中国财政经济出版社,2005。
[207]周小虎,企业社会资本与战略管理,人民出版社,2006。
[208]周玉泉,李垣,合作学习、组织柔性与创新方式选择的关系研究,科研管理,2006,27,2,9-14。
[209]竹内弘高,野中郁次郎,知识创造的螺旋:知识管理理论与案例研究。知识产权出版社,2006。