合法性视角下平台网络知识资产治理
|
摘要
平台网络中"如何开展对平台伙伴知识资产治理"的问题从未在理论上给予合理解释。本文通过多案例分析,从合法性理论探讨平台网络知识资产治理机制及作用机理。研究发现:平台领导者通过构建公众集体意义、建立协调冲突矛盾和建立基于新型平台身份三种治理机制,赋予平台伙伴合法性,从而激励平台伙伴或潜在伙伴创新意愿,实现知识资产治理。本文打开了平台网络中对平台伙伴知识资产治理的"黑箱",揭示了知识资产治理机制中不同的合法化策略,明晰了在平台网络知识资产治理机制中包含的合法化策略中的执行主体,合法性判断受众、合法性获得者之间的关系。实践意义在于指导平台网络知识资产治理,为高速发展的平台网络提供可持续发展的能力。
The question of "how to governance the intellectual assets of platform partners" hasn't explained in platform-mediate network form the theory. Through the multi-case analysis, this paper discusses the intellectual assets mechanisms in platform-mediate network from the theory of legitimacy. We identify three intellectual assets governance mechanisms, including making the public collective sense, establishing coordination conflict and contradiction and building the identity based new platform governance. The platform leaders use legitimation strategies with other actors give the legitimacy to the partners, in order to encourage the partners or potential partners to innovate. In this paper, the "black box" of intellectual assets of the platform partner governance mechanisms is opened in the platform-mediated network, which reveals the different legitimation strategies and makes clear the relationship between the execution actors of legitimation strategies, the judgment actors and the winner of the legitimacy. Our study guides the platform-mediated network governance in practices and provides the ability of sustainable development for high-speed platform-mediated networks.
The question of "how to governance the intellectual assets of platform partners" hasn't explained in platform-mediate network form the theory. Through the multi-case analysis, this paper discusses the intellectual assets mechanisms in platform-mediate network from the theory of legitimacy. We identify three intellectual assets governance mechanisms, including making the public collective sense, establishing coordination conflict and contradiction and building the identity based new platform governance. The platform leaders use legitimation strategies with other actors give the legitimacy to the partners, in order to encourage the partners or potential partners to innovate. In this paper, the "black box" of intellectual assets of the platform partner governance mechanisms is opened in the platform-mediated network, which reveals the different legitimation strategies and makes clear the relationship between the execution actors of legitimation strategies, the judgment actors and the winner of the legitimacy. Our study guides the platform-mediated network governance in practices and provides the ability of sustainable development for high-speed platform-mediated networks.
引文
[1] McIntyre D P,Srinivasan A.Networks,platforms,and strategy:Emerging views and next steps[J].Strategic Management Journal,2017,38(1):141-160.
[2] Bauer J,Franke N,Tuertscher P.Ip norms in online communities:How user-organized intellectual property regulation supports innovation[J].Information Systems Research,2016,27(4):724-750.
[3] Teece D J.Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration,collaboration,licensing and public policy[J].Research Policy,2006,15(6):285-305.
[4] Suchman M C.Managing legitimacy:Strategic and institutional approaches[J].Academy of Management Review,1995,20(3):571-610.
[5] Agostini L,Nosella A,Soranzo B.The impact of formal and informal appropriability regimes on SME profitability in medium high-tech industries[J].Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2015,27(4):1-15.
[6] Freel M,Robson P J.Appropriation strategies and open innovation in SMEs[J].International Small Business Journal,2016.
[7] Brem A,Nylund P A,Hitchen E.Open innovation and intellectual property rights:How do SMEs benefit from patents,industrial designs,trademarks and copyrights?[J].Management Decision,2017,55(6):1285-1306.
[8] Suddaby R,Bitektine A,Haack P.Legitimacy[J].Academy of Management Annals,2017,11(1):1-76.
[9] Harmon D J,Green S E,Goodnight G T.A model of rhetorical legitimation:The structure of communication and cognition underlying institutional maintenance and change[J].Academy of Management Review,2015,40(1):76-95.
[10] David R J,Sine W D,Haveman H A.Seizing opportunity in emerging fields:How institutional entrepreneurs legitimated the professional form of management consulting[J].Organization Science,2013,24(2):356-377.
[11] King B G,Whetten D A.Rethinking the relationship between reputation and legitimacy:A social actor conceptualization[J].Corporate Reputation Review,2008,11(3):192-207.
[12] Pahnke E C,Katila R,Eisenhardt K M.Who takes you to the dance?How partners’ institutional logics influence innovation in young firms[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,2015,60(4):596-633.
[13] Li J,Xia J,Lin Z.Cross-border acquisitions by state-owned firms:How do legitimacy concerns affect the completion and duration of their acquisitions?[J].Strategic Management Journal,2017,38:1915-1934.
[14] Zhang W,White S.Overcoming the liability of newness:Entrepreneurial action and the emergence of China's private solar photovoltaic firms[J].Research Policy,2016,45(3):604-617.
[15] Siggelkow N.Persuasion with case studies[J].The Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(1):20-24.
[16] Navis C,Glynn M A.Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity:Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility[J].Academy of Management Review,2011,36(3):479-499.
[17] Gawer A,Phillips N.Institutional work as logics shift:The case of intel’s transformation to platform leader[J].Organization Studies,2013,34(8):1035-1071.
[18] Fortwengel J,Jackson G.Legitimizing the apprenticeship practice in a distant environment:Institutional entrepreneurship through inter-organizational networks[J].Journal of World Business,2016,51(6):895-909.
[19] Gawer A,Cusumano M A.Platform leadership[J].2002,31(1):51-58.
[20] Boudreau K J,Jeppesen L B.Unpaid crowd complementors:The platform network effect mirage[J].Social Science Electronic Publishing,2015,36(12):1761-1777.
[21] Gawer A.What Drives Shifts in Platform Boundaries:An Organizational Perspective[C].Paper to be presented at DRUID15,Rome,2015.
[22] Wareham J,Fox P B,Cano G J L.Technology ecosystem governance[J].Organization Science,2014,25(4):1195-1215.
[2] Bauer J,Franke N,Tuertscher P.Ip norms in online communities:How user-organized intellectual property regulation supports innovation[J].Information Systems Research,2016,27(4):724-750.
[3] Teece D J.Profiting from technological innovation:Implications for integration,collaboration,licensing and public policy[J].Research Policy,2006,15(6):285-305.
[4] Suchman M C.Managing legitimacy:Strategic and institutional approaches[J].Academy of Management Review,1995,20(3):571-610.
[5] Agostini L,Nosella A,Soranzo B.The impact of formal and informal appropriability regimes on SME profitability in medium high-tech industries[J].Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2015,27(4):1-15.
[6] Freel M,Robson P J.Appropriation strategies and open innovation in SMEs[J].International Small Business Journal,2016.
[7] Brem A,Nylund P A,Hitchen E.Open innovation and intellectual property rights:How do SMEs benefit from patents,industrial designs,trademarks and copyrights?[J].Management Decision,2017,55(6):1285-1306.
[8] Suddaby R,Bitektine A,Haack P.Legitimacy[J].Academy of Management Annals,2017,11(1):1-76.
[9] Harmon D J,Green S E,Goodnight G T.A model of rhetorical legitimation:The structure of communication and cognition underlying institutional maintenance and change[J].Academy of Management Review,2015,40(1):76-95.
[10] David R J,Sine W D,Haveman H A.Seizing opportunity in emerging fields:How institutional entrepreneurs legitimated the professional form of management consulting[J].Organization Science,2013,24(2):356-377.
[11] King B G,Whetten D A.Rethinking the relationship between reputation and legitimacy:A social actor conceptualization[J].Corporate Reputation Review,2008,11(3):192-207.
[12] Pahnke E C,Katila R,Eisenhardt K M.Who takes you to the dance?How partners’ institutional logics influence innovation in young firms[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,2015,60(4):596-633.
[13] Li J,Xia J,Lin Z.Cross-border acquisitions by state-owned firms:How do legitimacy concerns affect the completion and duration of their acquisitions?[J].Strategic Management Journal,2017,38:1915-1934.
[14] Zhang W,White S.Overcoming the liability of newness:Entrepreneurial action and the emergence of China's private solar photovoltaic firms[J].Research Policy,2016,45(3):604-617.
[15] Siggelkow N.Persuasion with case studies[J].The Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(1):20-24.
[16] Navis C,Glynn M A.Legitimate distinctiveness and the entrepreneurial identity:Influence on investor judgments of new venture plausibility[J].Academy of Management Review,2011,36(3):479-499.
[17] Gawer A,Phillips N.Institutional work as logics shift:The case of intel’s transformation to platform leader[J].Organization Studies,2013,34(8):1035-1071.
[18] Fortwengel J,Jackson G.Legitimizing the apprenticeship practice in a distant environment:Institutional entrepreneurship through inter-organizational networks[J].Journal of World Business,2016,51(6):895-909.
[19] Gawer A,Cusumano M A.Platform leadership[J].2002,31(1):51-58.
[20] Boudreau K J,Jeppesen L B.Unpaid crowd complementors:The platform network effect mirage[J].Social Science Electronic Publishing,2015,36(12):1761-1777.
[21] Gawer A.What Drives Shifts in Platform Boundaries:An Organizational Perspective[C].Paper to be presented at DRUID15,Rome,2015.
[22] Wareham J,Fox P B,Cano G J L.Technology ecosystem governance[J].Organization Science,2014,25(4):1195-1215.