知识网络双重嵌入对集群企业创新能力提升的机理研究
|
摘要
产业集群转型升级与区域经济的可持续发展密切相关。目前,我国产业集群存在“两低(低价格、低附加值)一中(中端制造业)”的“低端锁定”现象,部分产业集群在转型升级过程中甚至出现“产业高端流出、低端流入”的反常现象。
产业集群转型升级一直以来都是集群研究的热点问题,但已有研究很少以集群企业作为研究个体,探讨集群转型升级的途径与形式。本研究认为产业集群转型升级的关键行动者是集群企业,根本落脚点是企业能力的转型升级,只有当集群企业走出原有发展路径,实现能力跃迁,才能实现整个集群的转型升级。为此,本研究以产业集群内企业为研究对象,从网络嵌入的视角出发,探讨知识网络双重嵌入作用于集群企业创新能力提升的内在机理,通过大样本实证研究探讨全球化背景下本地、超本地知识网络对于集群企业能力提升的影响。为揭示内在作用机理,本研究从互补型(Complementary)知识整合和辅助型(Supplementary)知识整合提出和检验知识整合对于知识网络嵌入与集群企业能力提升之间关系的中介作用。最后,将集群企业作为突破集群困境、实现集群升级的关键行动者,构建起“知识网络双重嵌入(本地网络嵌入和超本地网络嵌入)——知识整合(互补型知识整合和辅助型知识整合)——创新能力提升”的理论逻辑。通过上述分析,本研究拟为集群企业能力提升提供战略思路,进而为产业集群转型升级提供新的模式。具体来说,本研究依据特定的理论视角,通过三个子研究层层深入
子研究一：探讨集群企业知识整合的内涵界定与测量方法。首先,本文在系统梳理与深入分析现有关于知识整合、知识重构等文献的基础上,明确提出了集群背景下企业知识整合的内涵、特征,并将其界定为一个知识获取、知识解构、知识融合与知识重构的动态循环过程。其次,本文采用严格的量表开发程序,设计出包含四个维度14个题项的集群企业知识整合量表,并利用306份问卷对其进行探索性因子分析、验证性因子分析,以及信度分析,从而检验了量表的有效性和可靠性。
子研究二：从动态视角考察知识网络双重嵌入与创新能力提升的演化机制与作用机理。本地和超本地知识网络均为集群企业成长提供不同的资源和能力,处于不同发展阶段的集群企业在知识网络嵌入方式、创新能力特征,以及创新能力提升机理等方面均有所不同。因此,本文选取浙江省两个制造型产业集群内的龙头企业,对其展开跨度20余年的纵向探索性案例研究,并提出初始命题和模型。
子研究三：综合上述两个子研究,基于组织能力、网络嵌入性、知识基础观等理论,构建起“知识网络双重嵌入(本地网络和超本地网络)——知识整合(互补型知识和辅助型知识)——创新能力提升”的理论逻辑,并对其进行大样本实证检验,研究发现：(1)知识网络双重嵌入对企业创新能力提升具有积极的影响。其中,对突破式创新能力发挥作用的主要是双重嵌入中的超本地嵌入(本地嵌入对突破式创新能力不显著)；本地与超本地知识网络嵌入均对渐进式创新能力具有显著的正向影响。(2)知识网络双重嵌入对企业知识整合具有积极的正向作用。并且通过比较多元回归系数可知,对集群企业辅助型知识整合发挥作用更大的是双重嵌入中的本地嵌入；对互补型知识整合发挥作用更大的是超本地嵌入。(3)双重嵌入通过影响知识整合进而作用于创新能力。其中,辅助型知识整合对“知识网络双重嵌入——渐进式创新能力”具有中介作用,互补型知识整合在“知识网络双重嵌入——突破式创新能力”起到中介效应。
与产业集群升级、网络嵌入性、创新能力提升等领域已有的研究成果相比,本研究的创新和发展主要体现在以下几个方面：
(1)研究逻辑创新。构建起了“知识网络双重嵌入——知识整合——创新能力提升”的理论逻辑,提出：①产业集群转型升级的前提在于集群企业的能力提升；②集群企业能力提升需要建立在互补型知识整合和辅助型知识整合基础上；③知识整合需要突破集群企业的网络空间与网络结构,实现本地知识网络和超本地知识网络的双重嵌入。
(2)关键构念创新。在上述逻辑主线中存在三个关键构念：①集群企业知识网络双重嵌入作用于创新能力提升的构念；②集群企业知识网络双重嵌入作用于互补型和辅助型知识整合的构念；③以知识整合为中介变量作用于知识网络双重嵌入与能力提升之间关系的构念。这三个构念完成了研究逻辑主线的可实现性。
(3)研究切入点创新。上述三个关键构念的实现是建立在以下三个切入点基础上的：①从集群企业创新能力提升作为切入点,探寻产业集群转型升级的突破点；②从集群企业与本地、超本地两类知识主体(价值链上主体企业、知识型服务企业)合作互动作为切入点,分析知识网络双重嵌入的内在过程机理；③从互补型和辅助型两类知识整合模式作为切入点,分析知识网络双重嵌入的功能。
(4)研究情境创新。从产业集群情境研究集群内个体企业知识网络嵌入集群企业创新能力提升等问题具有重要理论价值。因为产业集群内企业能力提升既受集群集体学习、知识溢出所带来的集体路径依赖的显著影响,也受到单个企业为突破集体路径刚性所产生的异质性动态能力的显著影响,解释这种特殊情境下的网络关系、能力提升具有显著理论意义。
The transformation and upgrading of industrial clusters is closely related to the regional economy's development. Recently, the common situation such as "low-end lockin" of China's industrial clusters still remains unchanged, and the eccentric phenomena of "high-end in but low-end out" occur in some industrial clusters during the processes of transformation and upgrading.
Most previous literatures discussing the paths and forms of industrial clusters" transformation and upgrading are based on the cluster level, attempting to give countermeasures and suggestions for the development of clusters:but few studies put forward based on the clustered firm level. This paper maintains that concerning industrial clusters'transformation and upgrading, the main actors are clustered firms and the foothold is these firms'capabilities. Only when clustered firms get rid of conventional developing paths and realize competence transition, can they lead and guide the evolution of the whole industrial clusters. Therefore, based on network embeddedness theory, this paper focuses on the clustered firm level to study the inner mechanisms of dual embeddedness---local knowledge network and ultra-local knowledge network, affects clustered firms' capability by large sample experiment. In order to understand the inner mechanism, the studies start from complementary knowledge integration and supplementary knowledge integration to put out and test the mediating function of knowledge integration to the relationships between "dual embeddedness and firms'innovation capability upgrading". Lastly, by recognizing clustered firms as main actors, we build a theoretical logic of "Dual Embeddedness (local knowledge network and ultra-local knowledge network)---knowledge Integration (complementary knowledge integration and supplementary knowledge integration)---innovation capability upgrading". Through the above analysis, this study intends to provide strategic thinking to enhance clustered firms' innovation capability, so that a new pattern of industrial clusters'transformation is provided. This study is progressively deepened by next three sub-studies.
Sub-study1:The content definition and measurement method of knowledge integration for clustered firm is investigated. Firstly, after systematically analyzing existing literatures on knowledge integration and knowledge reconstruction, we point out the connotation and characteristics of knowledge integration in the cluster background. It is defined as a dynamic cycle of knowledge acquisition knowledge deconstruction, knowledge fusion and knowledge reconstruction. Secondly, a rigorous scale development process is taken to design a knowledge integration scale, which contains14items.306questionnaires were distributed to get the result of exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis, which support the validity and reliability of the scale.
Sub-study2:The evolution mechanism of the knowledge network dual embeddedness and innovative capabilities'upgrading is investigated from a dynamic perspective. Both of local and ultra-local knowledge networks provide different resources and capabilities for the growth of clustered firms. In different stages of development, clustered firms have difference in patterns of embeddedness, innovation capability characteristics and innovation capacity upgrading. Therefore, we selected two leading enterprises in two manufacturing industrial clusters in Zhejiang Province, and with more than two decades'case study, we propose an initial proposition and model.
Sub-study3:Combined with the first two sub-studies, based on network embeddedness theory, knowledge-based theory and capacity theory, a theoretical logic:"knowledge network dual embeddedness (local network and ultra-local network)---knowledge integration (complementary knowledge integration and supplementary knowledge integration)---innovation capability upgrading" is build up. Large sample experiment shows:
(1) Dual embeddedness positively affects firms'innovation capability upgrading. Greater effects on enterprises'radical innovation capability come from ultra-local embeddedness (local embeddedness doesn't have significantly positive effect on radical innovation capability). Both local and ultra-local knowledge network embeddedness have significantly positive effect on incremental innovation capability.
(2) Dual embeddedness plays a significantly positive role in knowledge integration. Comparing the multiple regression coefficients, we find:local embeddedness has more effect on clustered firm supplementary knowledge integration while ultra-local embeddedness has more effect on complementary knowledge integration.
(3) Knowledge integration plays a mediating effect in the relation of "Dual embeddedness-innovation capability". Supplementary knowledge integration acts as a mediator between dual embeddness and incremental innovation capability; and complementary knowledge integration acts as a mediator between dual embeddedness and radical innovation.
Compared with the existing achievement on areas such as cluster upgrading. network embeddedness. innovation capability, this research contributes to innovation and development mainly in the following areas:
(1) Innovation in research logic. A new research logic, i.e.," Dual embeddedness---Knowledge Integration---Innovation capability upgrading" is established in this paper. In detail, we propose:①Innovation capability upgrading of clustered firms is the precondition of industrial clusters'transformation and upgrading;②Industrial cluster capability upgrading should based on the integration of complementary knowledge and supplementary knowledge;③Knowledge integration need to break through the current network space and structure so as to realize dual embeddedness of both local knowledge network and ultra-local knowledge network. This logic thread is innovative.
(2) Innovation in key constructs. Three key constructs are comprised:①The effect of cluster firms'knowledge network dual embeddedness on innovation capability upgrading;②The effect of clustered firms'knowledge network dual embeddedness on integration of complementary knowledge and supplementary knowledge;③the mediating effect of knowledge integration to the relation between dual embeddedness and innovation capability upgrading. These key constructs help to make the logic thread achievable.
(3) Innovation in access points. The key constructs listed above are built on the following access points:clustered firms' innovation capability upgrading---when explore the breaking point in industrial clusters'transformation and upgrading;②cooperation between clustered firms and two different knowledge agent, i.e., local firms and ultra-local firms (dominant firms in value chains and KIBS respectively)---when analyze inner process mechanism of knowledge networks'dual embeddedness;③integration of complementary knowledge and supplementary knowledge---when analyze functions of knowledge networks'dual embeddedness.
(4) Innovation in research context---industrial clusters context. There is no denying that clusters firms'innovation capability upgrading not only remarkably get affected by collective path-dependence because of collective learning and knowledge spills within a cluster, but also get affected by firms'individual learning actions which helps to break original paths and lead to heterogeneous dynamic capability. Given this, trying to explain network links and innovation capability upgrading in such a particular context is of great significance.
产业集群转型升级一直以来都是集群研究的热点问题,但已有研究很少以集群企业作为研究个体,探讨集群转型升级的途径与形式。本研究认为产业集群转型升级的关键行动者是集群企业,根本落脚点是企业能力的转型升级,只有当集群企业走出原有发展路径,实现能力跃迁,才能实现整个集群的转型升级。为此,本研究以产业集群内企业为研究对象,从网络嵌入的视角出发,探讨知识网络双重嵌入作用于集群企业创新能力提升的内在机理,通过大样本实证研究探讨全球化背景下本地、超本地知识网络对于集群企业能力提升的影响。为揭示内在作用机理,本研究从互补型(Complementary)知识整合和辅助型(Supplementary)知识整合提出和检验知识整合对于知识网络嵌入与集群企业能力提升之间关系的中介作用。最后,将集群企业作为突破集群困境、实现集群升级的关键行动者,构建起“知识网络双重嵌入(本地网络嵌入和超本地网络嵌入)——知识整合(互补型知识整合和辅助型知识整合)——创新能力提升”的理论逻辑。通过上述分析,本研究拟为集群企业能力提升提供战略思路,进而为产业集群转型升级提供新的模式。具体来说,本研究依据特定的理论视角,通过三个子研究层层深入
子研究一：探讨集群企业知识整合的内涵界定与测量方法。首先,本文在系统梳理与深入分析现有关于知识整合、知识重构等文献的基础上,明确提出了集群背景下企业知识整合的内涵、特征,并将其界定为一个知识获取、知识解构、知识融合与知识重构的动态循环过程。其次,本文采用严格的量表开发程序,设计出包含四个维度14个题项的集群企业知识整合量表,并利用306份问卷对其进行探索性因子分析、验证性因子分析,以及信度分析,从而检验了量表的有效性和可靠性。
子研究二：从动态视角考察知识网络双重嵌入与创新能力提升的演化机制与作用机理。本地和超本地知识网络均为集群企业成长提供不同的资源和能力,处于不同发展阶段的集群企业在知识网络嵌入方式、创新能力特征,以及创新能力提升机理等方面均有所不同。因此,本文选取浙江省两个制造型产业集群内的龙头企业,对其展开跨度20余年的纵向探索性案例研究,并提出初始命题和模型。
子研究三：综合上述两个子研究,基于组织能力、网络嵌入性、知识基础观等理论,构建起“知识网络双重嵌入(本地网络和超本地网络)——知识整合(互补型知识和辅助型知识)——创新能力提升”的理论逻辑,并对其进行大样本实证检验,研究发现：(1)知识网络双重嵌入对企业创新能力提升具有积极的影响。其中,对突破式创新能力发挥作用的主要是双重嵌入中的超本地嵌入(本地嵌入对突破式创新能力不显著)；本地与超本地知识网络嵌入均对渐进式创新能力具有显著的正向影响。(2)知识网络双重嵌入对企业知识整合具有积极的正向作用。并且通过比较多元回归系数可知,对集群企业辅助型知识整合发挥作用更大的是双重嵌入中的本地嵌入；对互补型知识整合发挥作用更大的是超本地嵌入。(3)双重嵌入通过影响知识整合进而作用于创新能力。其中,辅助型知识整合对“知识网络双重嵌入——渐进式创新能力”具有中介作用,互补型知识整合在“知识网络双重嵌入——突破式创新能力”起到中介效应。
与产业集群升级、网络嵌入性、创新能力提升等领域已有的研究成果相比,本研究的创新和发展主要体现在以下几个方面：
(1)研究逻辑创新。构建起了“知识网络双重嵌入——知识整合——创新能力提升”的理论逻辑,提出：①产业集群转型升级的前提在于集群企业的能力提升；②集群企业能力提升需要建立在互补型知识整合和辅助型知识整合基础上；③知识整合需要突破集群企业的网络空间与网络结构,实现本地知识网络和超本地知识网络的双重嵌入。
(2)关键构念创新。在上述逻辑主线中存在三个关键构念：①集群企业知识网络双重嵌入作用于创新能力提升的构念；②集群企业知识网络双重嵌入作用于互补型和辅助型知识整合的构念；③以知识整合为中介变量作用于知识网络双重嵌入与能力提升之间关系的构念。这三个构念完成了研究逻辑主线的可实现性。
(3)研究切入点创新。上述三个关键构念的实现是建立在以下三个切入点基础上的：①从集群企业创新能力提升作为切入点,探寻产业集群转型升级的突破点；②从集群企业与本地、超本地两类知识主体(价值链上主体企业、知识型服务企业)合作互动作为切入点,分析知识网络双重嵌入的内在过程机理；③从互补型和辅助型两类知识整合模式作为切入点,分析知识网络双重嵌入的功能。
(4)研究情境创新。从产业集群情境研究集群内个体企业知识网络嵌入集群企业创新能力提升等问题具有重要理论价值。因为产业集群内企业能力提升既受集群集体学习、知识溢出所带来的集体路径依赖的显著影响,也受到单个企业为突破集体路径刚性所产生的异质性动态能力的显著影响,解释这种特殊情境下的网络关系、能力提升具有显著理论意义。
The transformation and upgrading of industrial clusters is closely related to the regional economy's development. Recently, the common situation such as "low-end lockin" of China's industrial clusters still remains unchanged, and the eccentric phenomena of "high-end in but low-end out" occur in some industrial clusters during the processes of transformation and upgrading.
Most previous literatures discussing the paths and forms of industrial clusters" transformation and upgrading are based on the cluster level, attempting to give countermeasures and suggestions for the development of clusters:but few studies put forward based on the clustered firm level. This paper maintains that concerning industrial clusters'transformation and upgrading, the main actors are clustered firms and the foothold is these firms'capabilities. Only when clustered firms get rid of conventional developing paths and realize competence transition, can they lead and guide the evolution of the whole industrial clusters. Therefore, based on network embeddedness theory, this paper focuses on the clustered firm level to study the inner mechanisms of dual embeddedness---local knowledge network and ultra-local knowledge network, affects clustered firms' capability by large sample experiment. In order to understand the inner mechanism, the studies start from complementary knowledge integration and supplementary knowledge integration to put out and test the mediating function of knowledge integration to the relationships between "dual embeddedness and firms'innovation capability upgrading". Lastly, by recognizing clustered firms as main actors, we build a theoretical logic of "Dual Embeddedness (local knowledge network and ultra-local knowledge network)---knowledge Integration (complementary knowledge integration and supplementary knowledge integration)---innovation capability upgrading". Through the above analysis, this study intends to provide strategic thinking to enhance clustered firms' innovation capability, so that a new pattern of industrial clusters'transformation is provided. This study is progressively deepened by next three sub-studies.
Sub-study1:The content definition and measurement method of knowledge integration for clustered firm is investigated. Firstly, after systematically analyzing existing literatures on knowledge integration and knowledge reconstruction, we point out the connotation and characteristics of knowledge integration in the cluster background. It is defined as a dynamic cycle of knowledge acquisition knowledge deconstruction, knowledge fusion and knowledge reconstruction. Secondly, a rigorous scale development process is taken to design a knowledge integration scale, which contains14items.306questionnaires were distributed to get the result of exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analysis, which support the validity and reliability of the scale.
Sub-study2:The evolution mechanism of the knowledge network dual embeddedness and innovative capabilities'upgrading is investigated from a dynamic perspective. Both of local and ultra-local knowledge networks provide different resources and capabilities for the growth of clustered firms. In different stages of development, clustered firms have difference in patterns of embeddedness, innovation capability characteristics and innovation capacity upgrading. Therefore, we selected two leading enterprises in two manufacturing industrial clusters in Zhejiang Province, and with more than two decades'case study, we propose an initial proposition and model.
Sub-study3:Combined with the first two sub-studies, based on network embeddedness theory, knowledge-based theory and capacity theory, a theoretical logic:"knowledge network dual embeddedness (local network and ultra-local network)---knowledge integration (complementary knowledge integration and supplementary knowledge integration)---innovation capability upgrading" is build up. Large sample experiment shows:
(1) Dual embeddedness positively affects firms'innovation capability upgrading. Greater effects on enterprises'radical innovation capability come from ultra-local embeddedness (local embeddedness doesn't have significantly positive effect on radical innovation capability). Both local and ultra-local knowledge network embeddedness have significantly positive effect on incremental innovation capability.
(2) Dual embeddedness plays a significantly positive role in knowledge integration. Comparing the multiple regression coefficients, we find:local embeddedness has more effect on clustered firm supplementary knowledge integration while ultra-local embeddedness has more effect on complementary knowledge integration.
(3) Knowledge integration plays a mediating effect in the relation of "Dual embeddedness-innovation capability". Supplementary knowledge integration acts as a mediator between dual embeddness and incremental innovation capability; and complementary knowledge integration acts as a mediator between dual embeddedness and radical innovation.
Compared with the existing achievement on areas such as cluster upgrading. network embeddedness. innovation capability, this research contributes to innovation and development mainly in the following areas:
(1) Innovation in research logic. A new research logic, i.e.," Dual embeddedness---Knowledge Integration---Innovation capability upgrading" is established in this paper. In detail, we propose:①Innovation capability upgrading of clustered firms is the precondition of industrial clusters'transformation and upgrading;②Industrial cluster capability upgrading should based on the integration of complementary knowledge and supplementary knowledge;③Knowledge integration need to break through the current network space and structure so as to realize dual embeddedness of both local knowledge network and ultra-local knowledge network. This logic thread is innovative.
(2) Innovation in key constructs. Three key constructs are comprised:①The effect of cluster firms'knowledge network dual embeddedness on innovation capability upgrading;②The effect of clustered firms'knowledge network dual embeddedness on integration of complementary knowledge and supplementary knowledge;③the mediating effect of knowledge integration to the relation between dual embeddedness and innovation capability upgrading. These key constructs help to make the logic thread achievable.
(3) Innovation in access points. The key constructs listed above are built on the following access points:clustered firms' innovation capability upgrading---when explore the breaking point in industrial clusters'transformation and upgrading;②cooperation between clustered firms and two different knowledge agent, i.e., local firms and ultra-local firms (dominant firms in value chains and KIBS respectively)---when analyze inner process mechanism of knowledge networks'dual embeddedness;③integration of complementary knowledge and supplementary knowledge---when analyze functions of knowledge networks'dual embeddedness.
(4) Innovation in research context---industrial clusters context. There is no denying that clusters firms'innovation capability upgrading not only remarkably get affected by collective path-dependence because of collective learning and knowledge spills within a cluster, but also get affected by firms'individual learning actions which helps to break original paths and lead to heterogeneous dynamic capability. Given this, trying to explain network links and innovation capability upgrading in such a particular context is of great significance.
引文
[1]Abrahamson E & Fombrun C J. Macrocultures:Determinants and consequences. Academy of Management Review,1994,19(4),728-755.
[2]Adler P S & Kwon S-W. Social capital:Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(1),17-40.
[3]Ahuja G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation:A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly,2000,45(3),425-455.
[4]ALLEE. The knowledge evolution. Boston:Butterworth-Heinemann,1997,
[5]Amiti M. New trade theories and industrial location in the eu:A survey of evidence. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,1998,14(2),45.
[6]Andersson U, Forsgren M, Holm U. The strategic impact of external networks: Subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(11),979.
[7]Andreas Seufert G v K, Andrea Bach. Towards knowledge networking. Journal of Knowledge Management,1999,3,180-190.
[8]Asheim B.T. I A. Regional innovation systems:The integration of local'sticky' and global'ubiquitous'knowledge". Journal of technology transfer,2002,27, 77-86.
[9]Baptista R & Swann P. Do firms in clusters innovate more?. Research Policy, 1998,27(5),525.
[10]Barber B. All economies are "embedded":The career of a concept, and beyond. Social Research,1995,62(2),387-413.
[11]Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,1991,17(1),99.
[12]Baron R, Kenny, D.. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology,1986,51(6), 1173-1182.
[13]Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P. Clusters and knowledge:Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 2004,28(1),31-56.
[14]Baum J A C, Calabrese T, Silverman B S. Don't go it alone:Alliance network composition and startups' performance in canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3),267.
[15]Bechmann. Economic models of knowledge networks, networks in action. New York:Tokyo,1995.
[16]Beckmann. Economic models of knowledge networks:Networks in actions. New York:Tokyo:Springer-Verlag,1995.
[17]Belussi F & Arcangeli F. A typology of networks:Flexible and evolutionary firms. Research Policy,1998,27(4),415.
[18]Belussi F, Sammarra A, Sedita S R. Learning at the boundaries in an "open regional innovation system":A focus on firms'innovation strategies in the emilia romagna life science industry. Research Policy,2010,39(6),710-721.
[19]Benner M J & Tushman M L. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review,2003, 28(2),238-256.
[20]Bonner J M, Kim D, Cavusgil S T. Self-perceived strategic network identity and its effects on market performance in alliance relationships. Journal of Business Research,2005,58(10),1371-1380.
[21]Boschma R. Proximity and innovation:A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 2005,39(1),61-74.
[22]Bouty I. Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between r&d researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(1),50-65.
[23]Brenner T a G, S.. The dependence of innovativeness on the local firm population—an empirical study of german patents. Industry and Innovation,2006, 13(1),21-39.
[24]Breschi S & Lissoni F. Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems:A critical survey. Industrial & Corporate Change,2001,10(4),975-1005.
[25]Bresnahan T, Gambardella A, Saxenian A.'Old economy' inputs for 'new economy' outcomes:Cluster formation in the new silicon valleys. Industrial & Corporate Change,2001,10(4),835-860.
[26]Buckley P J, Glaister K W, Klijn E, et al.. Knowledge accession and knowledge acquisition in strategic alliances:The impact of supplementary and complementary dimensions. British Journal of Management,2009,20(4), 598-609.
[27]Burt R S. Models of network structure. Annual Review ofSociology,1980,6, 79-141.
[28]Burt R S. Structural holes:The social structure of competition. Cambridge. MA. Harvard University press,1992,
[29]Camagni. Loeal 'milieu', uncertainty and innovation networks:Towards a new dynamic theory of economic space,. Belhaven,1991,121-143..
[30]Capello R. Spatial transfer of knowledge in high technology milieux:Learning versus collective learning. Regional Studies,1999,33(4),353.
[31]Capello R & Faggian A. Collective learning and relational capital in local innovation processes. Regional Studies,2005,39(1),75-87.
[32]Carrincazeaux C, Lung Y, Rallet A. Proximity and localisation of corporate r&d activities. Research Policy,2001,30(5),777.
[33]Chandy R K & Tellis G J. The incumbent's curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing,2000,64(3),1-17.
[34]Chi-Sum W. Law K S. Guo-hua H. On the importance of conducting construct-level analysis for multidimensional constructs in theory development and testing. Journal of Management,2008,34(4),744-764.
[35]Cho H-D & Lee J-K. The developmental path of networking capability of catch-up players in korea's semiconductor industry. R&D Management,2003, 33(4),411-423.
[36]Churchill Jr G A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR),1979,16(1),64-73.
[37]Cloodt M, Hagedoorn J, Van Kranenburg H. Mergers and acquisitions:Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries. Research Policy,2006,35(5),642-654.
[38]Cobuild C English dictionary. London:HarperCollins Publishers,1997,
[39]Cohen J, Cohen, P., West, S. G.& Aiken, L. S.. Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences(third ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2003.
[40]Cohen W M & Levinthal D A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1),128-152.
[41]Collins C J & Smith K G. Knowledge exchange and combination:The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(3),544-560.
[42]Collins J D & Hitt M A. Leveraging tacit knowledge in alliances:The importance of using relational capabilities to build and leverage relational capital. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management,2006,23(3),147-167.
[43]Cooke P. Regional innovation systems:General finding and some new evidence from biotechnology cluster. Journal of technology transfer,2002,27,133-145.
[44]Corso M, Martini A, Pellegrini L, et al.. Technological and organizational tools for knowledge management:In search of configurations. Small Business Economics,2003,21(4),397-408.
[45]Czarnitzki D & Spielkamp A. Business services in germany:Bridges for innovation. Service Industries Journal,2003,23(2),1-30.
[46]D(?)ving E & Gooderham P N. Dynamic capabilities as antecedents of the scope of related diversification:The case of small firm accountancy practices. Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(8),841-857.
[47]Dacin M T, Ventresca M J, Beal B D. The embeddedness of organizations: Dialogue & directions. Journal of Management,1999,25(3),317-356.
[48]Dantas E & Bell M. The co-evolution of firm-centered knowledge networks and capabilities in late industrializing countries:The case of petrobras in the offshore oil innovation system in brazil. World Development,2011,39(9),1570-1591.
[49]Davis P S, Robinson Jr R B, Pearce Ii J A, et al.. Business unit relatedness and performance:A look at the pulp and paper industry. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(5),349-361.
[50]De Boer M, Van Den Bosch F A J, Volberda H W. Managing organizational knowledge integration in the emerging multimedia complex. Journal of Management Studies,1999,36(3),379-398.
[51]de Burca S, Brannick T, Fynes B, et al.. Intimate relations--fact or fiction:An analysis of business to business relationships in irish companies. Irish Journal of Management,2001,22(1),55.
[52]Dewar R D & Dutton J E. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science,1986,32(11),1422-1433.
[53]Diez. The importance of public research institutes in innovative networks-empirical results from the metropolitan innovation systems barcelona, stockholm and vienna. European Planning Studies,2000,8(4),451-463
[54]Dosi G, Nelson. R.R.,Winter, S.G.. The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[55]Dougherty D & Heller T. The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in established firms. Organization Science,1994,5(2),200-218.
[56]Dussauge P, Garrette B, Mitchell W. Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in europe. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(2),99.
[57]Dutton J E, Dukerich J M, Harquail C V. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly,1994,39(2),239-263.
[58]Dyer J H & Nobeoka K. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network:The toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(3),345.
[59]Dyer J H & Singh H. The relational view:Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 1998,23(4),660-679.
[60]Easterby-Smith M & Prieto I M. Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management:An integrative role for learning?. British Journal of Management, 2008,19(3),235-249.
[61]Eisenhardt K M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4),532-550.
[62]Eisenhardt K M & Martin J A. Dynamic capabilities:What are they?. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(10/11),1105.
[63]Eriksson R, Lindgren U, Malmberg G. Agglomeration mobility:Effects of localisation, urbanisation, and scale on job changes. Environment & Planning A, 2008,40(10),2419-2434.
[64]Ettlie J E. Organizational policy and innovation among suppliers to the food processing sector. Academy of Management Journal,1983,26(1),27-44.
[65]Farjoun M. The independent and joint effects of the skill and physical bases of relatedness in diversification. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(7),611.
[66]Faulconbridge J R. Stretching tacit knowledge beyond a local fix? Global spaces of learning in advertising professional service firms. Journal of Economic Geography,2006,6(4),517-540.
[67]Fleming L, Mingo S, Chen D. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly,2007,52(3),443-475.
[68]Freeman C Networks of innovators:A synthesis of research issues. Research Policy,1991,20(5),499-514.
[69]Gatignon H, Tushman M L, Smith W, et al.. A structural approach to assessing innovation:Construct development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. Management Science,2002,48(9),1103-1122.
[70]Georgolios G M D A K K P. Inter-organizational networks for knowledge sharing and trading. Information Technol Manage,2006, (7),259-276.
[71]Gertler M S. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography,2003, 3(1),75.
[72]Gertler M S & Levitte Y M. Local nodes in global networks:The geography of knowledge flows in biotechnology innovation. Industry & Innovation,2005, 12(4),487-507.
[73]Gilsing V A & Duysters G M. Understanding novelty creation in exploration networks—structural and relational embeddedness jointly considered. Technovation,2008,28(10),693-708.
[74]Gnyawali D R & Madhavan R. Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review,2001, 26(3),431-445.
[75]Govindarajan V & Kopalle P K. Disruptiveness of innovations:Measurement and an assessment of reliability and validity. Strategic Management Journal,2006, 27(2),189-199.
[76]Grabher G & Ibert O. Bad company? The ambiguity of personal knowledge networks. Journal of Economic Geography,2006,6(3),251-271.
[77]Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,1973, 78(6),1360-1380..
[78]Granovetter M. Getting a job:A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge,Mass: Harvard University Press.,1974.
[79]Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties:A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory,1983,,201.
[80]Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure:The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,1985,91,481-510.
[81]Granovetter M. Economic institutions as social constructions:A framework for analysis. Acta Sociologica (Taylor & Francis Ltd),1992,35(1),3-11.
[82]Grant R M. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments:Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science,1996,7(4),375-387.
[83]Griffith D A & Myers M B. The performance implications of strategic fit of relational norm governance strategies in global supply chain relationships. Journal of International Business Studies,2005,36(3),254-269.
[84]Grossman G M & Helpman E. Integration versus outsourcing in industry' equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics,2002,117(1),85-120.
[85]Gual M A & Norgaard R B. Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A review and proposal. Ecological Economics,2010,69(4),707-717.
[86]Gulati R. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(4), 293-317.
[87]Gulati R. Network location and learning:The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(5),397.
[88]Gulati R & Gargiulo M. Where do interorganizational networks come from?. American Journal of Sociology,1999,104(5),1439-1493.
[89]Gulati R, Nohria N, Zaheer A. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(3),203.
[90]Gulati R & Sytch M. Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships:Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer's performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2007,52(1),32-69.
[91]Gulyani S. Effects of poor transportation on lean production and industrial clustering:Evidence from the indian auto industry. World Development,2001, 29(7),1157.
[92]Hagedoorn J. Understanding the cross-level embeddedness of interfirm partnership formation. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3),670-680.
[93]Hagedoorn J, Roijakkers N, Van Kranenburg H. Inter-firm r&d networks:The importance of strategic network capabilities for high-tech partnership formation. British Journal of Management,2006,17(1),39-53.
[94]Hanlinen A, Tornroos, J.. The role of embeddedness in the evolution of business networks. Scandinavian Journal Management,1998,14(3),187-205.
[95]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.
[96]Hansen M T. Knowledge networks:Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science,2002,13(3),232-248.
[97]Hansena J E B G S. Network evolution, entrepreneurial success, and regional development. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,1991,3(1),1-16.
[98]Harison B. Industrial district:Old wine in new bottles?. Research Policy,1992, 26(4),469-483.
[99]Hauknes J & Knell M. Embodied knowledge and sectoral linkages:An input-output approach to the interaction of high- and low-tech industries. Research Policy,2009,38(3),459-469.
[100]Helfat C E & Peteraf M A. The dynamic resource-based view:Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(10),997-1010.
[101]Henderson R M & Clark K B. Architectural innovation:The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1),9-30.
[102]Hendry C & Brown J. Dynamics of clustering and performance in the uk opto-electronics industry. Regional Studies,2006,40(7),707-725.
[103]Hendry C, Brown J, Defillippi R. Regional clustering of high technology-based firms:Opto-electronics in three countries. Regional Studies,2000,34(2),129-144.
[104]Hess M.'Spatial'relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of embeddedness. Progress in Human Geography,2004,28(2),165-186.
[105]Hinkin T R. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management,1995,21(5),967-988.
[106]Hite J M. Patterns of multidimensionality among embedded network ties:A typology of relational embeddedness in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Strategic Organization,2003,1(1),9-49.
[107]Hitt M A, Hoskisson R E, Johnson R A, et al.. The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Academy of Management Journal,1996,39(5),1084-1119.
[108]Hodgson G M. Darwinian coevolution of organizations and the environment. Ecological Economics,2010,69(4),700-706.
[109]Hoopes D G & Madsen T L. A capability-based view of competitive heterogeneity. Industrial & Corporate Change,2008,17(3),393-426.
[110]Iansiti M & Clark K B. Integration and dynamic capability:Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Industrial & Corporate Change,1994,3(3),557-605.
[111]Ichijo K, Nonaka I, Von Krogh G. Develop knowledge activists!. European Management Journal,1997,15(5),475.
[112]Iglesias V. Preconceptions about service:How much do they influence quality evaluations?. Journal of Service Research,2004,7(1),90-103.
[113]Inkpen A C & Tsang E W K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review,2005,30(1),146-165.
[114]Jaffe A B & Trajtenberg M. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1993,108(3), 577.
[115]Jarvenpaa S L & Tanriverdi H. Leading virtual knowledge networks. Organizational Dynamics,2003,31(4),403-412.
[116]Jessop B. Regulationist and autopoieticist reflections on polanyi's account of market economies and the market society. New Political Economy,2001,6(2), 213-232.
[117]Kale D & Little S. From imitation to innovation:The evolution of r&d capabilities and learning processes in the indian pharmaceutical industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2007,19(5),589-609.
[118]Keeble D, Lawson C, Moore B, et al.. Collective learning processes, networking and'institutional thickness'in the cambridge region. Regional Studies,1999, 33(4),319-332.
[119]Keeble D & Wilkinson F. Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional clusters of high. Regional Studies,1999,33(4),295.
[120]Khanna T. The scope of alliances. Organization Science,1998,9(3),340-355.
[121]Knudsen M P. The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge transfer for new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2007,24(2),117-138.
[122]Kobayashi. Knowledge network and market structure:An analytical perspective. New York:Springer-verlag,1995.
[123]Kogut B & Zander U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science,1992,3(3),383-397.
[124]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.
[125]Kratke S. Regional knowledge networks:A network analysis approach to the interlinking of knowledge resources. European Urban & Regional Studies,2010, 17(1),83-97.
[126]Krackhardt, D.1992. The strength of strong ties:the importance of philos in organizations[J]. In N. E. R. Nohria (Ed.), Networks and organizations:structure. form and action 216-239. Boston, Ma:Havard university press.
[127]Lane P J & Lubatkin M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5),461.
[128]Lazerson M H & Lorenzoni G. The firms that feed industrial districts:A return to the italian source. Industrial & Corporate Change,1999,8(2),235.
[129]Leonard-Barton D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13,111-125.
[130]Levin D Z & Cross R. The strength of weak ties you can trust:The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science,2004,50(11), 1477-1490.
[131]Lin W B. Factors affecting the correlation between interactive mechanism of strategic alliance and technological knowledge transfer performance. Journal of High Technology Management Research,2007,17(2),139-155.
[132]Lissoni F. Knowledge codification and the geography of innovation:The case of brescia mechanical cluster. Research Policy,2001,30(9),1479.
[133]Lorenzoni G & Lipparini A. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability:A. Strategic Management Journal,1999, 20(4),317.
[134]Moller K K & Halinen A. Business relationships and networks:Managerial challenge of network era. Industrial Marketing Management,1999,28(5), 413-427.
[135]Mahmood I P, Zhu H, Zajac E J. Where can capabilities come from? Network ties and capability acquisition in business groups. Strategic Management Journal, 2011,32(8),820-848.
[136]Makri M, Hitt M A, Lane P J. Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(6),602-628.
[137]Malik K. Aiding the technology manager:A conceptual model for intra-firm technology transfer. Technovation,2002,22(7),427.
[138]March J G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1),71-87.
[139]Markusen A. Sticky places in slippery space:A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography,1996,72(3),293.
[140]Maskell P, Bathelt H, Malmberg A. Building global knowledge pipelines:The role of temporary clusters. European Planning Studies,2006,14(8),997-1013.
[141]Maskell P & Malmberg A. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1999,23(2),167.
[142]Maskell P & Malmberg A. Myopia, knowledge development and cluster evolution. Journal of Economic Geography,2007,7(5),603-618.
[143]McEvily B & Marcus A. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(11),1033-1055.
[144]McEvily B & Zaheer A. Bridging ties:A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(12),1133-1156.
[145]Mentzas G,& Apostolou, D.,& Young, R.,& Abecher, A.. Knowledge networking:Aholistic solution for leveraging corporate knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management,2001,5(1),94-107.
[146]Miles I. Services innovation:Coming of age in the knowledge-based economy. International Journal of Innovation Management,2000,4(4),371.
[147]Milgrom P & Roberts J. The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology. American Economic Review,1990,80(3),511.
[148]Mitchell W. Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents'entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly,1989,34(2), 208-230
[149]Moran P. Structural vs. Relational embeddedness:Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(12),1129-1151.
[150]Morgan K. The exaggerated death of geography:Learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems. Journal of Economic Geography,2004,4(1), 3-21.
[151]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.
[152]Muller E & Zenker A. Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: The role of kibs in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 2001,30(9),1501.
[153]Muller Z. Business services as actors of knowledge transformation:The role of kibs in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy,2001,30(9), 1501-1516.
[154]Murmann J. Knowledge and competitive advantage:The coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions. Cambridge University Press,2003,
[155]Nadvi K & Halder G. Local clusters in global value chains:Exploring dynamic linkages between germany and pakistan. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,2005,17(5),339-363.
[156]Nelson R E. The strength of strong ties:Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,1989,32(2),377-401.
[157]Nelson R R& Winter S G-The schumpeterian tradeoff revisited-American Economic Review,1982,72(1),114.
[158]Nonaka. The knowledge creation company. Harvard Business Review,1991, (6),96-104.
[159]Nonaka I & Konno N. The concept of "ba":Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review,1998,40(3),40-54.
[160]Nooteboom B, Berger H, Noorderhaven N G. Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Academy of Management Journal,1997,40(2),308-338.
[161]Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. New York:McGrew-Hill,,1978.
[162]OECD. Knowledge-based economy. Economy Dairly Press,1998.
[163]Owen-Smith J & Powell W W. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the boston biotechnology community. Organization Science,2004,15(1),5-21.
[164]Park S H & Ungson G R. The effect of national culture, organizational complementarity, and economic motivation on joint venture dissolution. Academy of Management Journal,1997,40(2),279-307.
[165]Parmigiani A & Mitchell W. Complementarity, capabilities, and the boundaries of the firm:The impact of within-firm and interfirm expertise on concurrent sourcing of complementary components. Strategic Management Journal,2009, 30(10),1065-1091.
[166]Patton M Q. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications,1987,144.
[167]Penner-Hahn J & Shaver J M. Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(2),121-140.
[168]Porter M E. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review,1998,76(6),77-90.
[169]Powell W W, Koput K W, Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(1),116-145.
[170]Prahalad C K & Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,1990,68(3),79-91.
[171]Rindfleisch A & Moorman C. The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances:A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing,2001, 65(2),1-18.
[172]Ritter T & Gemunden H G. Network competence:Its impact on innovation success and its antecedents. Journal of Business Research,2003,56(9),745.
[173]Rosenkopf L & Almeida P. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science,2003,49(6),751-766.
[174]Rosenkopf L & Nerkar A. Beyond local search:Boundary-spanning. exploration, and impact in the optical disc industry. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(4),287.
[175]Rothaermel F T. Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent's advantage:An empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy,2001a,30(8),1235.
[176]Rothaermel F T. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal,2001b,22(6/7), 687.
[177]Rothaermel F T & Hess A M. Building dynamic capabilities:Innovation driven by individual-, firm-, and network-level effects. Organization Science,2007, 18(6),898-921.
[178]Rowley T, Behrens D, Krackhardt D. Redundant governance structures:An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3),369.
[179]Sarkar M B, Echambadi R, Cavusgil S T, et al.. The influence of complementarity, compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,2001,29(4), 358-373.
[180]Saxenian A. Lessons from silicon valley. Technology Review (00401692),1994, 97(5),42.
[181]Seufert A v K G, Bach A. Towards knowledge networking. Journal of Knowledge Management,1999,3(3),180-190..
[182]Seungwha C, Singh H, Kyungmook L. Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(1),1.
[183]Shan W & Walker G. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(5),387-394.
[184]Sharda R F G L, Turetken O. Group knowledge networks:A framework and an implementation. Information Systems Frontiers,1999, (3),221-239.
[185]Simonin B L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(7),595-623.
[186]Singh J. Distributed r&d, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output. Research Policy,2008,37(1),77-96.
[187]Strambach S. Innovation processes and the role of knowledge2intensive business services. Heidelberg:Physica,2001,
[188]Subramaniam M & Youndt M A. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(3), 450-463.
[189]Svetina A C, Jaklic, M.. Collective learning channels in clusters, economic and business review,2008,10(4),289-306.
[190]Todtling F & Trippl M. One size fits all?:Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy,2005,34(8),1203-1219.
[191]Teece D J, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7),509-533.
[192]Teece. D J. Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration. collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy,1986, (15),285-305.
[193]Ter Wal A L J & Boschma R. Co-evolution of firms, industries and networks in space. Regional Studies,2011,45(7),919-933.
[194]Tripsas M. Unraveling the process of creative destruction:Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18,119-142.
[195]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(5),996-1004.
[196]Tsui A S, Nifadkar S S, Ou A Y. Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research:Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management,2007,33(3),426-478.
[197]Uzzi B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations:The network effect. American Sociological Review,1996,61(4),674-698.
[198]Uzzi B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),35-67.
[199]Uzzi B. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital:How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 1999,64(4),481-505.
[200]Uzzi B & Lancaster R. Relational embeddedness and learning:The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science,2003,49(4),383-399.
[201]Venkatraman N, Loh L, Koh J. The adoption of corporate governance mechanisms:A test of competing diffusion models. Management Science,1994, 40(4),496-507.
[202]Veugelers R & Cassiman B. R&d cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2005,23(5/6),355-379.
[203]Victor Gilsing B N. Density and strength of ties in innovation networks:An analysis of muitimedia and biotechnology. European Management Review,2005, 2,179-197.
[204]Walter A, Muller T A, Helfert G, et al.. Functions of industrial supplier relationships and their impact on relationship quality. Industrial Marketing Management,2003,32(2),159-169.
[205]Wei J, Malik, K., Shou, Y. Y.. A pattern of enhancing innovative knowledge capabilities:Case study of a chinese telecom manufacturer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2005,17(3),355-365.
[206]Weick K E. The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(1),14-19.
[207]Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 1984,5(2),171-180.
[208]Wolfe D A. Introduction:Embedded clusters in the global economy. European Planning Studies,2009,17(2),179-187.
[209]Wong V, Shaw V, Sher P J. Intra-firm learning in technology transfer:A study of taiwanese information technology firms. International Journal of Innovation Management,1999,3(4),427.
[210]YAN A G. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in united states-china joint ventures:A comparative case study. Academy of Management Executive,1994,37(6),1478-1517.
[211]Yin R K. Case study research:Design and method(3rd ed.). London:Sage, 1994
[212]Yin R K. Case study research:Design and method(3rd ed.). Thousand oak:Sage Publieations,2003
[213]Zaheer A & Bell G G. Benefiting from network position:Firm capabilities. structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(9), 809-825.
[214]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. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(5),925-950.
[215]Zhang Y & Li H. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: The role of ties with service intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal,2010, 31(1),88-109.
[216]Zollo M & Winter S G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science,2002,13(3),339-351.
[217]Zukin S, DiMaggio, P..Structures of capital:The social organization of the economy. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[218]陈晓萍,徐淑英,樊景立.组织与管理研究的实证方法.北京：北京大学出版社,2008,
[219]陈学光.网络能力、创新网络及创新绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[220]戴维奇.网络嵌入、公司创业与绩效.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2011.
[221]杜静.基于知识整合的企业技术能力提升机理和模式研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2003.
[222]黄洁.集群企业成长中的网络演化.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[223]黄佑明.乐清低压电器产业集群演进影响因素研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[224]黄中伟,王宇露.关于经济行为的社会嵌入理论研究述评.外国经济与管理,2007,(12),1-8.
[225]贾生华,田家欣,李生校.全球网络、本地网络对集群企业技术能力的影响.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008,(02)
[226]姜照华,隆连堂,张米尔.产业集群条件下知识供应链与知识网络的动力学模型探讨.科学学与科学技术管理,2004,(07),55-60.
[227]蒋春燕.技术资产与配置能力的绩效影响研究：基于中国新兴企业的实证分析.南开管理评论,2008,59(02),92-100.
[228]李怀祖.管理研究方法论.西安：西安交通大学出版社,2004,
[229]李久鑫,郑绍濂.管理的社会网络嵌入性视角.外国经济与管理,2002,(06),2-6.
[230]刘育新.嵌入性与产业集群发展.科学学与科学技术管理,2004,(10),104-107.
[231]马庆国.管理统计：数据获取、统计原理与spss工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2002,
[232]彭新敏.企业网络对技术创新绩效的作用机制研究：利用性—探索性学习的中介效应.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[233]任皓,邓三鸿.知识管理的重要步骤——知识整合.情报科学,2002,(06), 650-653.
[234]王铜安.重大技术装备制造型企业技术整合的架构与机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[235]魏江.基于知识观的企业技术能力研究.自然辩证法研究,1998,(11)
[236]魏江.产业集群——创新系统与技术学习.北京：科学出版社,2003,
[237]魏江.创新系统演进和集群创新系统构建.自然辩证法通讯,2004,(01),48-54+111.
[238]魏江.多层次开放式区域创新体系建构研究.管理工程学报,2010,(S1),31-37.
[239]魏江,刘锦,杜静.自主性技术创新的知识整合过程机理研究.科研管理,2005,(04),15-21.
[240]魏江,王铜安.技术整合的概念演进与实现过程研究.科学学研究,2007,(S2)
[241]魏江,王铜安,喻子达.知识整合的实现途径研究——以海尔为例.科研管理,2008,(03),22-27+42.
[242]魏江,徐蕾.集群企业知识网络双重嵌入演进路径研究——以正泰集团为例.经济地理,2011,(02),247-253.
[243]魏江,叶波.企业集群的创新集成：集群学习与挤压效应.中国软科学,2002,(12)
[244]魏江,郑小勇.关系嵌入强度对企业技术创新绩效的影响机制研究——基于组织学习能力的中介性调节效应分析.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2010, (06),168-180.
[245]魏江,朱海燕.知识密集型服务业功能论：集群创新过程视角.科学学研究,2006,(03),455-459.
[246]魏江刘杜.自主性技术创新的知识整合过程机理研究.科研管理,2005,(04)
[247]魏江,徐蕾,石俊娜.双重社会资本、组织学习与突破式创新关系研究.科研管理,2012,录用
[248]邬爱其.超集群学习与集群企业转型成长——基于浙江卡森的案例研究.管理世界,2009,(08)
[249]吴波.基于匹配视角的集群企业网络化成长机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[250]吴结兵,郭斌.企业适应性行为、网络化与产业集群的共同演化——绍兴县纺织业集群发展的纵向案例研究.管理世界,2010,(02),141-155+188.
[251]吴明隆.Spss统计应用实务.北京：科学出版社,2003,
[252]项保华,张建东.案例研究方法和战略管理研究.自然辩证法通讯,2005,(05),62-66+111.
[253]徐蕾.基于gap模型的服务质量功能展开.硕士学位论文,浙江工商大学,2008.
[254]徐蕾.集群创新网络内涵、运行机制与研究展望.情报杂志,2012,录用待发
[255]许冠南.关系嵌入性对技术创新绩效的影响研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[256]薛红志,张玉利.互补性资产与既有企业突破性创新关系的研究.科学学研究,2007,(01),178-183.
[257]应洪斌.产业集群中关系嵌入性对企业创新绩效的影响机制研究.博士,浙江大学学位论文,2011.
[258]詹勇飞,和金生.基于知识整合的知识网络研究.研究与发展管理,2009,(03)
[259]张帆.基于知识网络的产业集群技术能力增长研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[260]张其仔.新经济社会学.北京：中国社会科学出版社,2001.
[261]张庆普,单伟.企业知识转化过程中的知识整合.经济理论与经济管理,2004,(06),47-51.
[262]张维迎.互补性知识是企业核心竞争力.2002,015.
[263]章威.基于知识的企业动态能力研究：嵌入性前因及创新绩效结果.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[264]周泯非,魏江.产业集群创新能力的概念、要素与构建研究.外国经济与管理,2009,(09),9-17.
[265]朱海燕.基于知识型服务机构嵌入视角的产业集群升级机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[266]朱海燕,魏江,周泯非.知识密集型服务业与制造业交互创新机理研究.西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(02),1-7.
[267]朱平芳.现代计量经济学.上海：上海财经大学出版社,2004.
[2]Adler P S & Kwon S-W. Social capital:Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(1),17-40.
[3]Ahuja G. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation:A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly,2000,45(3),425-455.
[4]ALLEE. The knowledge evolution. Boston:Butterworth-Heinemann,1997,
[5]Amiti M. New trade theories and industrial location in the eu:A survey of evidence. Oxford Review of Economic Policy,1998,14(2),45.
[6]Andersson U, Forsgren M, Holm U. The strategic impact of external networks: Subsidiary performance and competence development in the multinational corporation. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(11),979.
[7]Andreas Seufert G v K, Andrea Bach. Towards knowledge networking. Journal of Knowledge Management,1999,3,180-190.
[8]Asheim B.T. I A. Regional innovation systems:The integration of local'sticky' and global'ubiquitous'knowledge". Journal of technology transfer,2002,27, 77-86.
[9]Baptista R & Swann P. Do firms in clusters innovate more?. Research Policy, 1998,27(5),525.
[10]Barber B. All economies are "embedded":The career of a concept, and beyond. Social Research,1995,62(2),387-413.
[11]Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,1991,17(1),99.
[12]Baron R, Kenny, D.. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology,1986,51(6), 1173-1182.
[13]Bathelt H, Malmberg A, Maskell P. Clusters and knowledge:Local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation. Progress in Human Geography, 2004,28(1),31-56.
[14]Baum J A C, Calabrese T, Silverman B S. Don't go it alone:Alliance network composition and startups' performance in canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3),267.
[15]Bechmann. Economic models of knowledge networks, networks in action. New York:Tokyo,1995.
[16]Beckmann. Economic models of knowledge networks:Networks in actions. New York:Tokyo:Springer-Verlag,1995.
[17]Belussi F & Arcangeli F. A typology of networks:Flexible and evolutionary firms. Research Policy,1998,27(4),415.
[18]Belussi F, Sammarra A, Sedita S R. Learning at the boundaries in an "open regional innovation system":A focus on firms'innovation strategies in the emilia romagna life science industry. Research Policy,2010,39(6),710-721.
[19]Benner M J & Tushman M L. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review,2003, 28(2),238-256.
[20]Bonner J M, Kim D, Cavusgil S T. Self-perceived strategic network identity and its effects on market performance in alliance relationships. Journal of Business Research,2005,58(10),1371-1380.
[21]Boschma R. Proximity and innovation:A critical assessment. Regional Studies, 2005,39(1),61-74.
[22]Bouty I. Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between r&d researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(1),50-65.
[23]Brenner T a G, S.. The dependence of innovativeness on the local firm population—an empirical study of german patents. Industry and Innovation,2006, 13(1),21-39.
[24]Breschi S & Lissoni F. Knowledge spillovers and local innovation systems:A critical survey. Industrial & Corporate Change,2001,10(4),975-1005.
[25]Bresnahan T, Gambardella A, Saxenian A.'Old economy' inputs for 'new economy' outcomes:Cluster formation in the new silicon valleys. Industrial & Corporate Change,2001,10(4),835-860.
[26]Buckley P J, Glaister K W, Klijn E, et al.. Knowledge accession and knowledge acquisition in strategic alliances:The impact of supplementary and complementary dimensions. British Journal of Management,2009,20(4), 598-609.
[27]Burt R S. Models of network structure. Annual Review ofSociology,1980,6, 79-141.
[28]Burt R S. Structural holes:The social structure of competition. Cambridge. MA. Harvard University press,1992,
[29]Camagni. Loeal 'milieu', uncertainty and innovation networks:Towards a new dynamic theory of economic space,. Belhaven,1991,121-143..
[30]Capello R. Spatial transfer of knowledge in high technology milieux:Learning versus collective learning. Regional Studies,1999,33(4),353.
[31]Capello R & Faggian A. Collective learning and relational capital in local innovation processes. Regional Studies,2005,39(1),75-87.
[32]Carrincazeaux C, Lung Y, Rallet A. Proximity and localisation of corporate r&d activities. Research Policy,2001,30(5),777.
[33]Chandy R K & Tellis G J. The incumbent's curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation. Journal of Marketing,2000,64(3),1-17.
[34]Chi-Sum W. Law K S. Guo-hua H. On the importance of conducting construct-level analysis for multidimensional constructs in theory development and testing. Journal of Management,2008,34(4),744-764.
[35]Cho H-D & Lee J-K. The developmental path of networking capability of catch-up players in korea's semiconductor industry. R&D Management,2003, 33(4),411-423.
[36]Churchill Jr G A. A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR),1979,16(1),64-73.
[37]Cloodt M, Hagedoorn J, Van Kranenburg H. Mergers and acquisitions:Their effect on the innovative performance of companies in high-tech industries. Research Policy,2006,35(5),642-654.
[38]Cobuild C English dictionary. London:HarperCollins Publishers,1997,
[39]Cohen J, Cohen, P., West, S. G.& Aiken, L. S.. Applied multiple regression/ correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences(third ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,2003.
[40]Cohen W M & Levinthal D A. Absorptive capacity:A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1),128-152.
[41]Collins C J & Smith K G. Knowledge exchange and combination:The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal,2006,49(3),544-560.
[42]Collins J D & Hitt M A. Leveraging tacit knowledge in alliances:The importance of using relational capabilities to build and leverage relational capital. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management,2006,23(3),147-167.
[43]Cooke P. Regional innovation systems:General finding and some new evidence from biotechnology cluster. Journal of technology transfer,2002,27,133-145.
[44]Corso M, Martini A, Pellegrini L, et al.. Technological and organizational tools for knowledge management:In search of configurations. Small Business Economics,2003,21(4),397-408.
[45]Czarnitzki D & Spielkamp A. Business services in germany:Bridges for innovation. Service Industries Journal,2003,23(2),1-30.
[46]D(?)ving E & Gooderham P N. Dynamic capabilities as antecedents of the scope of related diversification:The case of small firm accountancy practices. Strategic Management Journal,2008,29(8),841-857.
[47]Dacin M T, Ventresca M J, Beal B D. The embeddedness of organizations: Dialogue & directions. Journal of Management,1999,25(3),317-356.
[48]Dantas E & Bell M. The co-evolution of firm-centered knowledge networks and capabilities in late industrializing countries:The case of petrobras in the offshore oil innovation system in brazil. World Development,2011,39(9),1570-1591.
[49]Davis P S, Robinson Jr R B, Pearce Ii J A, et al.. Business unit relatedness and performance:A look at the pulp and paper industry. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13(5),349-361.
[50]De Boer M, Van Den Bosch F A J, Volberda H W. Managing organizational knowledge integration in the emerging multimedia complex. Journal of Management Studies,1999,36(3),379-398.
[51]de Burca S, Brannick T, Fynes B, et al.. Intimate relations--fact or fiction:An analysis of business to business relationships in irish companies. Irish Journal of Management,2001,22(1),55.
[52]Dewar R D & Dutton J E. The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science,1986,32(11),1422-1433.
[53]Diez. The importance of public research institutes in innovative networks-empirical results from the metropolitan innovation systems barcelona, stockholm and vienna. European Planning Studies,2000,8(4),451-463
[54]Dosi G, Nelson. R.R.,Winter, S.G.. The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities. Oxford:Oxford University Press,2000.
[55]Dougherty D & Heller T. The illegitimacy of successful product innovation in established firms. Organization Science,1994,5(2),200-218.
[56]Dussauge P, Garrette B, Mitchell W. Learning from competing partners: Outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in europe. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(2),99.
[57]Dutton J E, Dukerich J M, Harquail C V. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly,1994,39(2),239-263.
[58]Dyer J H & Nobeoka K. Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network:The toyota case. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(3),345.
[59]Dyer J H & Singh H. The relational view:Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 1998,23(4),660-679.
[60]Easterby-Smith M & Prieto I M. Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management:An integrative role for learning?. British Journal of Management, 2008,19(3),235-249.
[61]Eisenhardt K M. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4),532-550.
[62]Eisenhardt K M & Martin J A. Dynamic capabilities:What are they?. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(10/11),1105.
[63]Eriksson R, Lindgren U, Malmberg G. Agglomeration mobility:Effects of localisation, urbanisation, and scale on job changes. Environment & Planning A, 2008,40(10),2419-2434.
[64]Ettlie J E. Organizational policy and innovation among suppliers to the food processing sector. Academy of Management Journal,1983,26(1),27-44.
[65]Farjoun M. The independent and joint effects of the skill and physical bases of relatedness in diversification. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(7),611.
[66]Faulconbridge J R. Stretching tacit knowledge beyond a local fix? Global spaces of learning in advertising professional service firms. Journal of Economic Geography,2006,6(4),517-540.
[67]Fleming L, Mingo S, Chen D. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly,2007,52(3),443-475.
[68]Freeman C Networks of innovators:A synthesis of research issues. Research Policy,1991,20(5),499-514.
[69]Gatignon H, Tushman M L, Smith W, et al.. A structural approach to assessing innovation:Construct development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics. Management Science,2002,48(9),1103-1122.
[70]Georgolios G M D A K K P. Inter-organizational networks for knowledge sharing and trading. Information Technol Manage,2006, (7),259-276.
[71]Gertler M S. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there). Journal of Economic Geography,2003, 3(1),75.
[72]Gertler M S & Levitte Y M. Local nodes in global networks:The geography of knowledge flows in biotechnology innovation. Industry & Innovation,2005, 12(4),487-507.
[73]Gilsing V A & Duysters G M. Understanding novelty creation in exploration networks—structural and relational embeddedness jointly considered. Technovation,2008,28(10),693-708.
[74]Gnyawali D R & Madhavan R. Cooperative networks and competitive dynamics: A structural embeddedness perspective. Academy of Management Review,2001, 26(3),431-445.
[75]Govindarajan V & Kopalle P K. Disruptiveness of innovations:Measurement and an assessment of reliability and validity. Strategic Management Journal,2006, 27(2),189-199.
[76]Grabher G & Ibert O. Bad company? The ambiguity of personal knowledge networks. Journal of Economic Geography,2006,6(3),251-271.
[77]Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology,1973, 78(6),1360-1380..
[78]Granovetter M. Getting a job:A study of contacts and careers. Cambridge,Mass: Harvard University Press.,1974.
[79]Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties:A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory,1983,,201.
[80]Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure:The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology,1985,91,481-510.
[81]Granovetter M. Economic institutions as social constructions:A framework for analysis. Acta Sociologica (Taylor & Francis Ltd),1992,35(1),3-11.
[82]Grant R M. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments:Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science,1996,7(4),375-387.
[83]Griffith D A & Myers M B. The performance implications of strategic fit of relational norm governance strategies in global supply chain relationships. Journal of International Business Studies,2005,36(3),254-269.
[84]Grossman G M & Helpman E. Integration versus outsourcing in industry' equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics,2002,117(1),85-120.
[85]Gual M A & Norgaard R B. Bridging ecological and social systems coevolution: A review and proposal. Ecological Economics,2010,69(4),707-717.
[86]Gulati R. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(4), 293-317.
[87]Gulati R. Network location and learning:The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(5),397.
[88]Gulati R & Gargiulo M. Where do interorganizational networks come from?. American Journal of Sociology,1999,104(5),1439-1493.
[89]Gulati R, Nohria N, Zaheer A. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(3),203.
[90]Gulati R & Sytch M. Dependence asymmetry and joint dependence in interorganizational relationships:Effects of embeddedness on a manufacturer's performance in procurement relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2007,52(1),32-69.
[91]Gulyani S. Effects of poor transportation on lean production and industrial clustering:Evidence from the indian auto industry. World Development,2001, 29(7),1157.
[92]Hagedoorn J. Understanding the cross-level embeddedness of interfirm partnership formation. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3),670-680.
[93]Hagedoorn J, Roijakkers N, Van Kranenburg H. Inter-firm r&d networks:The importance of strategic network capabilities for high-tech partnership formation. British Journal of Management,2006,17(1),39-53.
[94]Hanlinen A, Tornroos, J.. The role of embeddedness in the evolution of business networks. Scandinavian Journal Management,1998,14(3),187-205.
[95]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.
[96]Hansen M T. Knowledge networks:Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science,2002,13(3),232-248.
[97]Hansena J E B G S. Network evolution, entrepreneurial success, and regional development. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,1991,3(1),1-16.
[98]Harison B. Industrial district:Old wine in new bottles?. Research Policy,1992, 26(4),469-483.
[99]Hauknes J & Knell M. Embodied knowledge and sectoral linkages:An input-output approach to the interaction of high- and low-tech industries. Research Policy,2009,38(3),459-469.
[100]Helfat C E & Peteraf M A. The dynamic resource-based view:Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(10),997-1010.
[101]Henderson R M & Clark K B. Architectural innovation:The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1),9-30.
[102]Hendry C & Brown J. Dynamics of clustering and performance in the uk opto-electronics industry. Regional Studies,2006,40(7),707-725.
[103]Hendry C, Brown J, Defillippi R. Regional clustering of high technology-based firms:Opto-electronics in three countries. Regional Studies,2000,34(2),129-144.
[104]Hess M.'Spatial'relationships? Towards a reconceptualization of embeddedness. Progress in Human Geography,2004,28(2),165-186.
[105]Hinkin T R. A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management,1995,21(5),967-988.
[106]Hite J M. Patterns of multidimensionality among embedded network ties:A typology of relational embeddedness in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Strategic Organization,2003,1(1),9-49.
[107]Hitt M A, Hoskisson R E, Johnson R A, et al.. The market for corporate control and firm innovation. Academy of Management Journal,1996,39(5),1084-1119.
[108]Hodgson G M. Darwinian coevolution of organizations and the environment. Ecological Economics,2010,69(4),700-706.
[109]Hoopes D G & Madsen T L. A capability-based view of competitive heterogeneity. Industrial & Corporate Change,2008,17(3),393-426.
[110]Iansiti M & Clark K B. Integration and dynamic capability:Evidence from product development in automobiles and mainframe computers. Industrial & Corporate Change,1994,3(3),557-605.
[111]Ichijo K, Nonaka I, Von Krogh G. Develop knowledge activists!. European Management Journal,1997,15(5),475.
[112]Iglesias V. Preconceptions about service:How much do they influence quality evaluations?. Journal of Service Research,2004,7(1),90-103.
[113]Inkpen A C & Tsang E W K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review,2005,30(1),146-165.
[114]Jaffe A B & Trajtenberg M. Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Quarterly Journal of Economics,1993,108(3), 577.
[115]Jarvenpaa S L & Tanriverdi H. Leading virtual knowledge networks. Organizational Dynamics,2003,31(4),403-412.
[116]Jessop B. Regulationist and autopoieticist reflections on polanyi's account of market economies and the market society. New Political Economy,2001,6(2), 213-232.
[117]Kale D & Little S. From imitation to innovation:The evolution of r&d capabilities and learning processes in the indian pharmaceutical industry. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2007,19(5),589-609.
[118]Keeble D, Lawson C, Moore B, et al.. Collective learning processes, networking and'institutional thickness'in the cambridge region. Regional Studies,1999, 33(4),319-332.
[119]Keeble D & Wilkinson F. Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional clusters of high. Regional Studies,1999,33(4),295.
[120]Khanna T. The scope of alliances. Organization Science,1998,9(3),340-355.
[121]Knudsen M P. The relative importance of interfirm relationships and knowledge transfer for new product development success. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2007,24(2),117-138.
[122]Kobayashi. Knowledge network and market structure:An analytical perspective. New York:Springer-verlag,1995.
[123]Kogut B & Zander U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science,1992,3(3),383-397.
[124]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.
[125]Kratke S. Regional knowledge networks:A network analysis approach to the interlinking of knowledge resources. European Urban & Regional Studies,2010, 17(1),83-97.
[126]Krackhardt, D.1992. The strength of strong ties:the importance of philos in organizations[J]. In N. E. R. Nohria (Ed.), Networks and organizations:structure. form and action 216-239. Boston, Ma:Havard university press.
[127]Lane P J & Lubatkin M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5),461.
[128]Lazerson M H & Lorenzoni G. The firms that feed industrial districts:A return to the italian source. Industrial & Corporate Change,1999,8(2),235.
[129]Leonard-Barton D. Core capabilities and core rigidities:A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal,1992,13,111-125.
[130]Levin D Z & Cross R. The strength of weak ties you can trust:The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science,2004,50(11), 1477-1490.
[131]Lin W B. Factors affecting the correlation between interactive mechanism of strategic alliance and technological knowledge transfer performance. Journal of High Technology Management Research,2007,17(2),139-155.
[132]Lissoni F. Knowledge codification and the geography of innovation:The case of brescia mechanical cluster. Research Policy,2001,30(9),1479.
[133]Lorenzoni G & Lipparini A. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability:A. Strategic Management Journal,1999, 20(4),317.
[134]Moller K K & Halinen A. Business relationships and networks:Managerial challenge of network era. Industrial Marketing Management,1999,28(5), 413-427.
[135]Mahmood I P, Zhu H, Zajac E J. Where can capabilities come from? Network ties and capability acquisition in business groups. Strategic Management Journal, 2011,32(8),820-848.
[136]Makri M, Hitt M A, Lane P J. Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention outcomes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(6),602-628.
[137]Malik K. Aiding the technology manager:A conceptual model for intra-firm technology transfer. Technovation,2002,22(7),427.
[138]March J G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science,1991,2(1),71-87.
[139]Markusen A. Sticky places in slippery space:A typology of industrial districts. Economic Geography,1996,72(3),293.
[140]Maskell P, Bathelt H, Malmberg A. Building global knowledge pipelines:The role of temporary clusters. European Planning Studies,2006,14(8),997-1013.
[141]Maskell P & Malmberg A. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1999,23(2),167.
[142]Maskell P & Malmberg A. Myopia, knowledge development and cluster evolution. Journal of Economic Geography,2007,7(5),603-618.
[143]McEvily B & Marcus A. Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(11),1033-1055.
[144]McEvily B & Zaheer A. Bridging ties:A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(12),1133-1156.
[145]Mentzas G,& Apostolou, D.,& Young, R.,& Abecher, A.. Knowledge networking:Aholistic solution for leveraging corporate knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management,2001,5(1),94-107.
[146]Miles I. Services innovation:Coming of age in the knowledge-based economy. International Journal of Innovation Management,2000,4(4),371.
[147]Milgrom P & Roberts J. The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology. American Economic Review,1990,80(3),511.
[148]Mitchell W. Whether and when? Probability and timing of incumbents'entry into emerging industrial subfields. Administrative Science Quarterly,1989,34(2), 208-230
[149]Moran P. Structural vs. Relational embeddedness:Social capital and managerial performance. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(12),1129-1151.
[150]Morgan K. The exaggerated death of geography:Learning, proximity and territorial innovation systems. Journal of Economic Geography,2004,4(1), 3-21.
[151]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.
[152]Muller E & Zenker A. Business services as actors of knowledge transformation: The role of kibs in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy, 2001,30(9),1501.
[153]Muller Z. Business services as actors of knowledge transformation:The role of kibs in regional and national innovation systems. Research Policy,2001,30(9), 1501-1516.
[154]Murmann J. Knowledge and competitive advantage:The coevolution of firms, technology, and national institutions. Cambridge University Press,2003,
[155]Nadvi K & Halder G. Local clusters in global value chains:Exploring dynamic linkages between germany and pakistan. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development,2005,17(5),339-363.
[156]Nelson R E. The strength of strong ties:Social networks and intergroup conflict in organizations. Academy of Management Journal,1989,32(2),377-401.
[157]Nelson R R& Winter S G-The schumpeterian tradeoff revisited-American Economic Review,1982,72(1),114.
[158]Nonaka. The knowledge creation company. Harvard Business Review,1991, (6),96-104.
[159]Nonaka I & Konno N. The concept of "ba":Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review,1998,40(3),40-54.
[160]Nooteboom B, Berger H, Noorderhaven N G. Effects of trust and governance on relational risk. Academy of Management Journal,1997,40(2),308-338.
[161]Nunnally J. Psychometric theory. New York:McGrew-Hill,,1978.
[162]OECD. Knowledge-based economy. Economy Dairly Press,1998.
[163]Owen-Smith J & Powell W W. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the boston biotechnology community. Organization Science,2004,15(1),5-21.
[164]Park S H & Ungson G R. The effect of national culture, organizational complementarity, and economic motivation on joint venture dissolution. Academy of Management Journal,1997,40(2),279-307.
[165]Parmigiani A & Mitchell W. Complementarity, capabilities, and the boundaries of the firm:The impact of within-firm and interfirm expertise on concurrent sourcing of complementary components. Strategic Management Journal,2009, 30(10),1065-1091.
[166]Patton M Q. How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Newbury Park: SAGE Publications,1987,144.
[167]Penner-Hahn J & Shaver J M. Does international research and development increase patent output? An analysis of japanese pharmaceutical firms. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(2),121-140.
[168]Porter M E. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review,1998,76(6),77-90.
[169]Powell W W, Koput K W, Smith-Doerr L. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(1),116-145.
[170]Prahalad C K & Hamel G. The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review,1990,68(3),79-91.
[171]Rindfleisch A & Moorman C. The acquisition and utilization of information in new product alliances:A strength-of-ties perspective. Journal of Marketing,2001, 65(2),1-18.
[172]Ritter T & Gemunden H G. Network competence:Its impact on innovation success and its antecedents. Journal of Business Research,2003,56(9),745.
[173]Rosenkopf L & Almeida P. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science,2003,49(6),751-766.
[174]Rosenkopf L & Nerkar A. Beyond local search:Boundary-spanning. exploration, and impact in the optical disc industry. Strategic Management Journal,2001,22(4),287.
[175]Rothaermel F T. Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent's advantage:An empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical industry. Research Policy,2001a,30(8),1235.
[176]Rothaermel F T. Incumbent's advantage through exploiting complementary assets via interfirm cooperation. Strategic Management Journal,2001b,22(6/7), 687.
[177]Rothaermel F T & Hess A M. Building dynamic capabilities:Innovation driven by individual-, firm-, and network-level effects. Organization Science,2007, 18(6),898-921.
[178]Rowley T, Behrens D, Krackhardt D. Redundant governance structures:An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the. Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3),369.
[179]Sarkar M B, Echambadi R, Cavusgil S T, et al.. The influence of complementarity, compatibility, and relationship capital on alliance performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,2001,29(4), 358-373.
[180]Saxenian A. Lessons from silicon valley. Technology Review (00401692),1994, 97(5),42.
[181]Seufert A v K G, Bach A. Towards knowledge networking. Journal of Knowledge Management,1999,3(3),180-190..
[182]Seungwha C, Singh H, Kyungmook L. Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 2000,21(1),1.
[183]Shan W & Walker G. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(5),387-394.
[184]Sharda R F G L, Turetken O. Group knowledge networks:A framework and an implementation. Information Systems Frontiers,1999, (3),221-239.
[185]Simonin B L. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal,1999,20(7),595-623.
[186]Singh J. Distributed r&d, cross-regional knowledge integration and quality of innovative output. Research Policy,2008,37(1),77-96.
[187]Strambach S. Innovation processes and the role of knowledge2intensive business services. Heidelberg:Physica,2001,
[188]Subramaniam M & Youndt M A. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(3), 450-463.
[189]Svetina A C, Jaklic, M.. Collective learning channels in clusters, economic and business review,2008,10(4),289-306.
[190]Todtling F & Trippl M. One size fits all?:Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach. Research Policy,2005,34(8),1203-1219.
[191]Teece D J, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18(7),509-533.
[192]Teece. D J. Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration. collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy,1986, (15),285-305.
[193]Ter Wal A L J & Boschma R. Co-evolution of firms, industries and networks in space. Regional Studies,2011,45(7),919-933.
[194]Tripsas M. Unraveling the process of creative destruction:Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal,1997,18,119-142.
[195]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(5),996-1004.
[196]Tsui A S, Nifadkar S S, Ou A Y. Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research:Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management,2007,33(3),426-478.
[197]Uzzi B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations:The network effect. American Sociological Review,1996,61(4),674-698.
[198]Uzzi B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks:The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997,42(1),35-67.
[199]Uzzi B. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital:How social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. American Sociological Review, 1999,64(4),481-505.
[200]Uzzi B & Lancaster R. Relational embeddedness and learning:The case of bank loan managers and their clients. Management Science,2003,49(4),383-399.
[201]Venkatraman N, Loh L, Koh J. The adoption of corporate governance mechanisms:A test of competing diffusion models. Management Science,1994, 40(4),496-507.
[202]Veugelers R & Cassiman B. R&d cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2005,23(5/6),355-379.
[203]Victor Gilsing B N. Density and strength of ties in innovation networks:An analysis of muitimedia and biotechnology. European Management Review,2005, 2,179-197.
[204]Walter A, Muller T A, Helfert G, et al.. Functions of industrial supplier relationships and their impact on relationship quality. Industrial Marketing Management,2003,32(2),159-169.
[205]Wei J, Malik, K., Shou, Y. Y.. A pattern of enhancing innovative knowledge capabilities:Case study of a chinese telecom manufacturer. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2005,17(3),355-365.
[206]Weick K E. The generative properties of richness. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(1),14-19.
[207]Wernerfelt B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 1984,5(2),171-180.
[208]Wolfe D A. Introduction:Embedded clusters in the global economy. European Planning Studies,2009,17(2),179-187.
[209]Wong V, Shaw V, Sher P J. Intra-firm learning in technology transfer:A study of taiwanese information technology firms. International Journal of Innovation Management,1999,3(4),427.
[210]YAN A G. Bargaining power, management control, and performance in united states-china joint ventures:A comparative case study. Academy of Management Executive,1994,37(6),1478-1517.
[211]Yin R K. Case study research:Design and method(3rd ed.). London:Sage, 1994
[212]Yin R K. Case study research:Design and method(3rd ed.). Thousand oak:Sage Publieations,2003
[213]Zaheer A & Bell G G. Benefiting from network position:Firm capabilities. structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal,2005,26(9), 809-825.
[214]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. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(5),925-950.
[215]Zhang Y & Li H. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: The role of ties with service intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal,2010, 31(1),88-109.
[216]Zollo M & Winter S G. Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science,2002,13(3),339-351.
[217]Zukin S, DiMaggio, P..Structures of capital:The social organization of the economy. Cambridge, MA:Cambridge University Press,1990.
[218]陈晓萍,徐淑英,樊景立.组织与管理研究的实证方法.北京：北京大学出版社,2008,
[219]陈学光.网络能力、创新网络及创新绩效关系研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[220]戴维奇.网络嵌入、公司创业与绩效.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2011.
[221]杜静.基于知识整合的企业技术能力提升机理和模式研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2003.
[222]黄洁.集群企业成长中的网络演化.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[223]黄佑明.乐清低压电器产业集群演进影响因素研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[224]黄中伟,王宇露.关于经济行为的社会嵌入理论研究述评.外国经济与管理,2007,(12),1-8.
[225]贾生华,田家欣,李生校.全球网络、本地网络对集群企业技术能力的影响.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2008,(02)
[226]姜照华,隆连堂,张米尔.产业集群条件下知识供应链与知识网络的动力学模型探讨.科学学与科学技术管理,2004,(07),55-60.
[227]蒋春燕.技术资产与配置能力的绩效影响研究：基于中国新兴企业的实证分析.南开管理评论,2008,59(02),92-100.
[228]李怀祖.管理研究方法论.西安：西安交通大学出版社,2004,
[229]李久鑫,郑绍濂.管理的社会网络嵌入性视角.外国经济与管理,2002,(06),2-6.
[230]刘育新.嵌入性与产业集群发展.科学学与科学技术管理,2004,(10),104-107.
[231]马庆国.管理统计：数据获取、统计原理与spss工具与应用研究.北京：科学出版社,2002,
[232]彭新敏.企业网络对技术创新绩效的作用机制研究：利用性—探索性学习的中介效应.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[233]任皓,邓三鸿.知识管理的重要步骤——知识整合.情报科学,2002,(06), 650-653.
[234]王铜安.重大技术装备制造型企业技术整合的架构与机理研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[235]魏江.基于知识观的企业技术能力研究.自然辩证法研究,1998,(11)
[236]魏江.产业集群——创新系统与技术学习.北京：科学出版社,2003,
[237]魏江.创新系统演进和集群创新系统构建.自然辩证法通讯,2004,(01),48-54+111.
[238]魏江.多层次开放式区域创新体系建构研究.管理工程学报,2010,(S1),31-37.
[239]魏江,刘锦,杜静.自主性技术创新的知识整合过程机理研究.科研管理,2005,(04),15-21.
[240]魏江,王铜安.技术整合的概念演进与实现过程研究.科学学研究,2007,(S2)
[241]魏江,王铜安,喻子达.知识整合的实现途径研究——以海尔为例.科研管理,2008,(03),22-27+42.
[242]魏江,徐蕾.集群企业知识网络双重嵌入演进路径研究——以正泰集团为例.经济地理,2011,(02),247-253.
[243]魏江,叶波.企业集群的创新集成：集群学习与挤压效应.中国软科学,2002,(12)
[244]魏江,郑小勇.关系嵌入强度对企业技术创新绩效的影响机制研究——基于组织学习能力的中介性调节效应分析.浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2010, (06),168-180.
[245]魏江,朱海燕.知识密集型服务业功能论：集群创新过程视角.科学学研究,2006,(03),455-459.
[246]魏江刘杜.自主性技术创新的知识整合过程机理研究.科研管理,2005,(04)
[247]魏江,徐蕾,石俊娜.双重社会资本、组织学习与突破式创新关系研究.科研管理,2012,录用
[248]邬爱其.超集群学习与集群企业转型成长——基于浙江卡森的案例研究.管理世界,2009,(08)
[249]吴波.基于匹配视角的集群企业网络化成长机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2007.
[250]吴结兵,郭斌.企业适应性行为、网络化与产业集群的共同演化——绍兴县纺织业集群发展的纵向案例研究.管理世界,2010,(02),141-155+188.
[251]吴明隆.Spss统计应用实务.北京：科学出版社,2003,
[252]项保华,张建东.案例研究方法和战略管理研究.自然辩证法通讯,2005,(05),62-66+111.
[253]徐蕾.基于gap模型的服务质量功能展开.硕士学位论文,浙江工商大学,2008.
[254]徐蕾.集群创新网络内涵、运行机制与研究展望.情报杂志,2012,录用待发
[255]许冠南.关系嵌入性对技术创新绩效的影响研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[256]薛红志,张玉利.互补性资产与既有企业突破性创新关系的研究.科学学研究,2007,(01),178-183.
[257]应洪斌.产业集群中关系嵌入性对企业创新绩效的影响机制研究.博士,浙江大学学位论文,2011.
[258]詹勇飞,和金生.基于知识整合的知识网络研究.研究与发展管理,2009,(03)
[259]张帆.基于知识网络的产业集群技术能力增长研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2006.
[260]张其仔.新经济社会学.北京：中国社会科学出版社,2001.
[261]张庆普,单伟.企业知识转化过程中的知识整合.经济理论与经济管理,2004,(06),47-51.
[262]张维迎.互补性知识是企业核心竞争力.2002,015.
[263]章威.基于知识的企业动态能力研究：嵌入性前因及创新绩效结果.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2009.
[264]周泯非,魏江.产业集群创新能力的概念、要素与构建研究.外国经济与管理,2009,(09),9-17.
[265]朱海燕.基于知识型服务机构嵌入视角的产业集群升级机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[266]朱海燕,魏江,周泯非.知识密集型服务业与制造业交互创新机理研究.西安电子科技大学学报(社会科学版),2008,(02),1-7.
[267]朱平芳.现代计量经济学.上海：上海财经大学出版社,2004.