| 1,939 | 61 | 191 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
基于新兴技术创新的生态特征,整合知识资源基础与知识网络结构两个知识生态系统的理论维度,探索新兴技术创新来自企业组织内部的知识动力机制:知识多样性与知识网络结构,影响新兴技术创新绩效的独立效应与交互效应。基于负二项分布回归模型、采用221家中国企业的新兴技术发明专利数据实证研究表明:知识丰富性与新兴技术创新绩效正相关,而知识异质性与知识动态性和新兴技术创新绩效呈倒U型关系;知识网络结构洞与新兴技术创新绩效负相关,知识网络中心势与新兴技术绩效呈倒U型关系;知识网络结构洞与知识丰富性,在新兴技术创新中具有负向交互效应,而知识网络中心势与知识丰富性和动态性存在正向交互效应。创新组织需要通过跨界知识探索,构建丰富、异质、动态的组织内部知识生态,同时采取低结构洞、适度中心势的知识网络结构策略,来促进新兴技术创新。
Abstract：From the perspective of the combination of knowledge resource-based and knowledge network-imbedded views,this research explores into the organizational driving mechanism of the emerging technology innovation. The empirical study based onthe sample of 221 Chinese emerging technology firms shows: the performance of the emerging technology innovation is positively related with the richness of knowledge,accompanied with an inverted U shape relation to both the heterogeneity and dynamics. Knowledge network structural hole is negatively related with the emerging technology innovation performance,accompanied with an inverted U shape relation to centrality of knowledge network. The structural hole of knowledge network interacts negatively,while the centrality of knowledge network shows positive relation with knowledge ecological characteristics. To promote the emerging technology innovation,fewer structural holes and high centrality of knowledge network should be adopted to promote knowledge innovation.
[1]ROGERSE M.Diffusion of innovations[M].New York:Free Press,2003:58-64.
[2]CHESBROUGH H W.Open business models:how to thrive in the new innovation landscape[M].Boston:Harvard Business Review Press,2006:118-119.
[3]BALACHANDRA R,GOLDSCHMITT M,FRIAR J H.The evolution of techno logy generations and associated markets:a double helix model[J].IEEE Transaction on Engineering Management,2004,51(1):3-12.
[4]CLARYSSE B,WRIGHT M,BRUNEEL J,et al.Creating value in ecosystems:crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems[J].Research Policy,2014,43(7):1164-1176.
[5]DYER J H,NOBEOKAL K.Creating and managing a high performance knowledge-sharing network:the Toyota case[J].Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3):345-367.
[6]VASUDEVA G,ANAND J.Unpacking absorptive capacity:a study of knowledge utilization from alliance portfolios[J].Academy of Management Journal,2011,54(3):611-623.
[7]PHELPS C,HEIDL R,WADHWA A.Knowledge,networks and knowledge networks:a review and research agenda[J].Journal of Management,2012,116(3):239-257.
[8]REINHOLT M,FOSS N J,PEDERSEN T.Why a central network position isn’t enough:the role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks[J].Academy of Management Journal,2011,54(6):1277-1297.
[9]PHELPS C C,PARIS H.A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation[J].Academy of Management Journal,2010,53(4):890-913.
[10]GILSING V,NOOTEBOOM B,VANBAVERBEKE W,et al.Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies:Technological distance,betweenness centrality and density[J].Research Policy,2008,37(10):1717-1731.
[11]CARNABUCI G,BRUGGEMAN J.Knowledge specialization,knowledge brokerage and the uneven growth of technology domains[J].Social Forces,2009,88(2):607-642.
[12]YAYAVARAM S,AHUJA G.Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,2008,53(2):333-362.
[13]RODAN S,GALUNIC C.More than network structure:how knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness[J].Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(6):541-562.
[14]SYTCH M,TATARYNOWICZ A.Exploring the locus of invention:the dynamics of network communities and firms’invention productivity[J].Academy of Management Journal,2014,57(8):249-279.
[15]AHUJA G.Collaboration networks,structural holes,and innovation:a longitudinal study[J].Administrative Science Quarterly,2000,45(3):425-455.
[16]KOGUT B.The network as knowledge:generative rules and the emergence of structure[J].Strategic Management Journal,2000,21(3):405-425.
[17]RUSSELL J.Making the most of where you are:geography,networks,and innovation in organizations[J].Academy of Management Journal,2014,57(1):193-222.
[18]MIA R,TORBEN P,NICOLAI J F,et al.Why a central network position isn’t enough:the role of motivation and ability for knowledge sharing in employee networks[J].Academy of Management Journal,2011,54(6):1277-1297.
[19]WANG C,RODAN S,FRUIN M,et al.Knowledge networks,collaboration networks,and exploratory innovation[J].Academy of Management Journal,2014,57(2):484-514.
(1)本文所使用的“新兴技术”,是本土现实语境下的概念,主要采用官方科技政策文件对新兴技术的界定,主要参照浙江省2011年制定的《战略性新兴产业重大共性技术发展导向目录》中对新兴技术的划分。未对技术是否“新兴”建立科学计量标准与数据检验。
(2)考虑销售收入等数据的可获得性,因此在初选的企业中挑选上市公司作为研究样本。
(3)本文没有考虑企业重复性申报专利的情况,但这并不影响对新兴技术发明绩效的衡量,因为围绕某个专利重复申报的次数越多,更说明该专利具有充分的研究价值,从侧面也反映其创新绩效。
(4)如专利分类号“C07D491/056”存在“C,07,D,491,056”等五段编码,由左至右逐级细化。专利所属分类号的差异,正是这个五段编码的差异。
(1)理论上,企业在所有的发明专利中,对每个知识元素都只利用了一次,则企业对知识元素利用的总频次达到最小,等于企业的发明专利数量,此时企业的知识动态性达到最大值;反之,企业在所有的发明专利中,都利用了所有的知识元素,则企业对知识元素利用的总频次达到最大,等于企业所有发明专利数量与知识元素数量的乘积。
基本信息:
DOI：10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1336/f.2018.10.004
中图分类号:F273.1;F279.2
引用信息:
[1]俞荣建,胡峰,陈力田,等.知识多样性、知识网络结构与新兴技术创新绩效——基于发明专利数据的NBD模型检验[J].商业经济与管理,2018,No.324(10):38-46.DOI:10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1336/f.2018.10.004.
基金信息:
浙江省哲学社会科学规划项目“基于‘三矩’结构范式的浙江本土代工企业升级能力构建“(14NDJC138YB);国家自然科学基金面上项目“根植网络治理、升级能力建构与租金攫取绩效:本土代工企业升级机理研究”(71273238);国家自然科学基金面上项目“中国高端装备制造业价值链跃迁路径研究——多重嵌入的视角”(71773115);浙江省自然科学基金重点项目“知识/研究者多样性、双模网络结构与战略性新兴技术突破:中美生物制药产业实证比较研究”.(LZ15G030001);浙江省软科学研究计划重点项目“众创空间创业生态系统:理论探索、实证研究与浙江战略”(2016C25013);浙江省软科学研究计划项目“全球价值链视角下浙江省先进制造产业集聚升级研究”(2016C35G2140136);中国博士后科学基金面上项目“基于异质性全球创新链治理的本土制造企业创新机理研究”(2017M621897)
2018-10-15
2018-10-15