基于吸收能力理论，本文将企业探索性创新活动过程（知识获取、知识吸纳、知识转化和知识创造）与企业间知识关系特征相匹配，以企业合作关系对为研究对象，选取企业与合作伙伴的知识相似性、企业与合作伙伴的关系强度、企业内合作网络聚合度和网络距离以及企业探索性创新绩效，将其分别对应于创新活动过程的四个阶段，进而考察企业与合作伙伴的知识相似性对企业探索性创新绩效的直接影响，以及关系强度、网络聚合度和网络距离对上述关系的调节作用。以2005—2015年全球电动汽车技术领域的企业为研究样本，运用准极大似然泊松回归模型方法进行实证研究。研究结果表明：知识相似性与企业探索性创新绩效呈倒U型关系；随着关系强度的增加，知识相似性与探索性创新绩效之间的倒U型关系变陡峭；随着网络聚合度的增加，知识相似性与探索性创新绩效之间的倒U型关系变得平坦；随着网络距离的增加，知识相似性与探索性创新绩效之间的倒U型关系未发生显著变化。基于上述结论，提出企业通过合作伙伴异质性知识的获取以及内部合作网络结构的优化进而提升企业探索性创新能力的结论建议。
Abstract
Based on absorptive capability theory, by matching the activity process of enterprises′ exploratory innovation (knowledge acquisition, knowledge assimilation, knowledge transformation and knowledge creation) with knowledge relationship characteristics between enterprises and their collaboration partners, this paper investigates the impact of knowledge similarity between enterprises and their collaboration partners on enterprises′ exploratory innovation performance, and the moderating effect of tie strength between enterprises and their collaboration partners, intra-organizational collaboration network cohesion and network distance. And then, taking global enterprises in electric vehicle from 2005 to 2015 as research samples, the empirical test is conducted by Poisson Quasi Maximum Likelihood (PQML) regression model to test hypothesis.The results show that, knowledge similarity between enterprises and their partners has an inverted U-shaped relationship with exploratory innovation performance. As the level of knowledge similarity increases from slight to moderate, enterprises′ exploratory innovation performance increases; as the level of knowledge similarity increases from moderate to great, enterprises′ exploratory innovation performance declines. This indicates that increased knowledge similarity benefits for enterprises to get heterogeneous knowledge, which prevents enterprises′ exploratory innovation performance; when the knowledge similarity exceeds critical value, enterprises acquire few heterogeneous knowledge, and then prevent enterprises′ exploratory innovation performance. Thus, an appropriate level of knowledge similarity between enterprises and partners is most beneficial to exploratory innovation performance. Enterprises should choose enterprises that have certain similarities with their own knowledge structure but some differences as collaboration partners, so that they can acquire heterogeneous knowledge on the basis of effective communication. Furthermore, with tie strength between enterprises and their collaboration partners increasing, the inverted U-shape between knowledge similarity and exploratory innovation performance are steeper. This indicates that when knowledge similarity between enterprises and partners is at a low or moderate level, higher tie strength can ensure the effective identification of heterogeneous knowledge acquired from partners, thus promoting the positive influence between knowledge similarity and enterprises′ exploratory innovation performance. Therefore, enterprises should strengthen exchanges and trust with existing partners. Through close communication and the establishment of trusting relationship, enterprises can effectively absorb the external heterogeneity knowledge. On the other hand, when knowledge similarity is too high, high relationship strength will increase the cost of network maintenance and coordination, thus intensifying the negative impact between knowledge similarity and enterprises′ exploratory innovation performance.With network cohesion increasing, the inverted U-shape between knowledge similarity and exploratory innovation performance are flatter. This indicates that when enterprises have low network cohesion, the positive effect of knowledge similarity on enterprises′ exploratory innovation performance becomes stronger, which is more conducive for enterprises to transform heterogeneous knowledge to produce exploratory innovation performance. Therefore, when knowledge similarity between enterprises and partners is at a low or moderate level, the enterprises should reduce the close collaboration relationship among members within the organization. By building a loose intra-organizational collaboration network structure, the enterprise can promote the effective transformation of external heterogeneous knowledge. With network distance increasing, the inverted U-shaped relationship has no change. Based on the above findings, compared with intra-organizational collaboration network cohesion, intra-organizational collaboration network distance does not affect the transformation of collaboration partners′ heterogeneous knowledge.
关键词
合作关系对 /
知识相似性 /
关系强度 /
网络聚合度 /
网络距离 /
探索性创新
Key words
dyadic collaboration relationship /
knowledge similarity /
tie strength /
network cohesion /
network distance /
exploratory innovation
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1] March J G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning[J]. Organization Science, 1991, 2(1): 71-87.
[2] Benner M J, Tushman M L. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2003, 28(2): 238-256.
[3] Gilsing V, Nooteboom B, Vanhaverbeke 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.
[4] Leeders R. T. A. J, Dolfsma W. A. Social networks for innovation and new product development [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2016, 33(2): 123-131.
[5] Sampson R C. R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50(2): 364-386.
[6] Lee C Y, Wang M C, Huang Y C. The double-edged sword of technological diversity in R&D alliances: Network position and learning speed as moderators[J]. European Management Journal, 2015, 33(6): 450-461.
[7] 叶江峰, 任浩, 郝斌. 企业内外部知识异质度对创新绩效的影响：战略柔性的调节作用[J]. 科学学研究, 2015, 33(4): 574-584.
[8] 叶江峰, 任浩, 郝斌. 外部知识异质度对创新绩效曲线效应的内在机理——知识重构与吸收能力的视角[J]. 科研管理, 2016, 37(8): 8-17.
[9] Rothaermel F T, Alexandre M T. Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity[J]. Organization Science, 2009, 20(4): 759-780.
[10] Gao G Y, Xie E, Zhou K. Z.How does technological diversity in supplier network drive buyer innovation? Relational process and contingencies[J]. Journal of Operations Management, 2015, 36: 165-177
[11] Phelps C C. 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.
[12] Lane P J, Lubatkin M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 19(5): 461-477.
[13] Nooteboom B, Haverbekeb W V, Duystersc G, et al. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity[J]. Research Policy, 2007,36(7): 1016-1034.
[14] Van de Vrande V. Balancing your technology-sourcing portfolio: How sourcing mode diversity enhances innovative performance[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2013, 34(5): 610-621.
[15] 曾德明, 文金艳. 协作研发网络中心度知识距离对企业二元式创新的影响[J]. 管理学报, 2015, 12(10): 1479-1486.
[16] 吴言波, 邵云飞, 殷俊杰. 战略联盟知识异质性对焦点企业突破性创新的影响研究[J]. 管理学报, 2019, 16(4): 541-549.
[17] Moreira S, Markus A, Laursen K. Knowledge diversity and coordination: The effect of intrafirm inventor task networks on absorption speed[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2018, 39(9): 2517-2546.
[18] Grigoriou K, Rothaermel F. Organizing for knowledge generation: Internal knowledge networks and the contingent effect of external knowledge sourcing[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2017, 38(2): 395-414.
[19] 汤超颖, 刘丽, 李美智. 企业内外部知识分布与二元学习平衡：基于中国创新型企业的实证研究[J]. 管理评论, 2020, 32(6): 82-92.
[20] 林润辉, 张红娟, 范建红. 基于网络组织的协作创新研究综述[J]. 管理评论, 2013, 25(6): 31-46.
[21] Paruchuri S. Intraorganizational networks, interorganizational networks, and the impact of central inventors: a longitudinal study of pharmaceutical firms[J]. Organization Science, 2010, 21(1):63-80.
[22] 张鹏程, 彭菡. 科研合作网络特征与团队知识创造关系研究[J]. 科研管理, 2011, 32(7): 104-112.
[23] Gupta A K, Tesluk P E, Taylor M S. Innovation at and across multiple levels of analysis[J]. Organization Science, 2007, 18(6): 885-897.
[24] Kozlowski S W J, Klein K J. A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes[J]//K. J. Klein, S. W. J. Kozlowski, eds. Multi-level Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, 2000: 3-90.
[25] Cohen W M, Levinthal D A. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1990, 35(1): 128-152.
[26] Dyer, J H, Singh H. The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23: 660-679.
[27] Lane P J, Lubatkin M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1998, 19(5): 461-477.
[28] Uzzi B, Lancaster R. Relational embeddedness and learning: The case of bank loan managers and their clients[J]. Management Science, 2003, 49(4): 383-399.
[29] Bouty I. Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2000, 43(1): 50-65.
[30] Levin D Z, Cross R. The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer[J]. Management Science, 2004, 50(11): 1477-1490.
[31] Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited[J]. Sociological Theory, 1983, (1): 201-233.
[32] Funk R J. Making the most of where you are: Geography, network, and innovation in organizations[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2014, 57(1): 193-222.
[33] Rodan S, Galunic C. More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2004, 25(6): 541-556.
[34] Battke B, Schmidt T S, Stollenwerk S, et al. Internal or external spillovers: Which kind of knowledge is more likely to flow within or across technologies[J]. Research Policy, 2016, 45(1): 27-41.
[35] 陈文婕, 曾德明, 邹思明. 全球低碳汽车技术合作创新网络演化路径研究[J]. 科研管理, 2016, 37(8): 28-36.
[36] 刘凤朝, 张娜, 孙玉涛. G7国家和中国ICT技术发展轨迹研究[J]. 中国软科学, 2014, (9): 22-33.
[37] Liu F, Zhang N, Cao C. An evolutionary process of global nanotechnology collaboration: A social network system of patents at USPTO[J]. Scientometrics, 2017, 111(3): 1449-1465.
[38] Balsmeier B, Assaf M, Chesebro T, et al. Machine learning and natural language processing on the patent corpus: Data, tools, and new measures[J]. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 2018, 27(3): 535-553.
[39] Aghion P, Dechezleprêtre A, Hemous D, et al. Carbon taxes, path dependency, and directed technical change: Evidence from the auto industry[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 2016, 124(1): 1-51.
[40] Borgstedt P, Neyer B, Schewe G. Paving the road to electric vehicles: A patent analysis of the automotive supply industry[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2017, 167(11): 75-87.
[41] Haans R F J, Pieters C, He Z L. Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2016, 37(7): 1177-1195.
[42] Aiken L S, West S G. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions[M]. London: Sage, 1991.
基金
国家自然科学基金青年项目(72002021, 2021.01—2023.12)；国家自然科学基金重点项目(42030409, 2021.01—2025.12)；中国博士后科学基金面上资助项目(2021M690499, 2021.06—2023.06; 2021M703123, 2021.11—2023.11; 2019M651098, 2019.07—2021.06)；中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金资助项目(3132020225, 2020.01—2020.12)。
PDF(557 KB)
