||Beyond social networks: Constructing the knowledge networks
||Department of Business Administration
Scholars in network research have primarily emphasized the tie strength and structural characteristics of what has been called “the social network,” rather than the content and mechanism of network formation. Typically, researchers see social networks as accruing from the particular interactions organizations have for channeling and exchanging knowledge. In this research we seek to contribute to the body of work on networks by discussing the following: (1) the structural characteristics of networks and the content of inter-organizational interactions; (2) the way the three dimensions of knowledge networks facilitate organizations to accumulate and create knowledge; and (3) the ability of an organization to develop and manage the knowledge network in a competitive environment. We present a model that integrates the arguments made in this paper through a series of hypothesized relationships between different dimensions of knowledge networks and the main mechanisms for innovative outcomes.
The research for this study is based on 164 high-technology firms from Taiwan science parks, and 80 additional firms that were generated using the snowball method rounded five times. Thus, 344 firms were investigated in the knowledge network. In order to fit the real environment and ensure the validity of questionnaire items, ten top management team members from high-technology firms were asked to verify the clarity of the measurements. After collecting complete financing data and the company portfolio of participating firms, we mailed a three-wave questionnaire and followed up on the mailings with phone calls. Finally, we received 144 questionnaires back, yielding a 41.86% response rate.
The results of this research provide strong support for all hypotheses. Network structure and knowledge heterogeneity have a positive impact on knowledge cognition. Moreover, knowledge cognition has a positive influence on innovative performance. The findings indicate that knowledge cognition plays a critical role in the knowledge network by storing knowledge capacities that increase innovative outcomes. Managerial implications for inter-organizational network configuration and content, knowledge heterogeneity and quality, and strategy and decision making are also discussed.
1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1. Research Background and Motivation 1
1.2. Objectives of the Research 7
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1. Social Networks (SN) 9
2.1.1. The Social Network Defined 9
2.1.2. Research on Social Networks 11
2.2. Knowledge Networks (KN) 14
2.2.1. The Knowledge Network Defined 14
2.2.2. The Architecture of the Knowledge Network 17
2.3. The Difference between SN and KN 36
2.3.1. Perspectives of the Knowledge Network 36
2.3.2. Influences of the Knowledge Network on Performance 38
3. HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT 41
3.1. Network Structure 41
3.2. Knowledge Heterogeneity 43
3.3. Knowledge Cognition 44
4. METHODOLOGY 46
4.1. Research Sample 46
4.2. Network Definition 48
4.3. Questionnaire Design and Data Collection 49
4.4. Nonresponse Bias Effect 51
4.5. Measurements 51
4.5.1. Dependent Variables 51
4.5.2. Independent Variables 52
4.5.3. Control Variables 56
5. RESULTS 61
5.1. Descriptive Analysis 61
5.2. Measurement Validity and Reliability 63
5.3. Structural Equation Model (SEM) 65
5.4. Assessment of Model Fit and Path Significance 67
6. CONCLUSION 70
6.1. Discussion 70
6.2. Theoretical Implications 73
6.3. Managerial Implications 76
6.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 78
6.5. Conclusion 79
7. REFERENCES 81
APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE (IN ENGLISH) 94
1. Ahuja, G. 2000a. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (3): 425-455.
2. Ahuja, G. 2000b. The duality of collaboration: Inducements and opportunities in the formation of interfirm linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (3): 317-343.
3. Almeida, P. 1996. Knowledge sourcing by foreign multinationals: Patent citation analysis in the U.S. semiconductor industry. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter special issue): 155-165.
4. Amabile, T. A. 1996. Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
5. Anderson, J. C. 1987. An approach for confirmatory measurement and structural equation modeling of organizational properties. Management Science, 33 (4): 525-541.
6. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. 1988. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3): 411-423.
7. Argote, L., & Ingram, P. 2000. Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage for firms. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 82 (1): 150-169.
8. Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. 1977. Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14 (3): 396-402.
9. Association of Industries in Science Parks (AISP) 2009. Science park business directory (HSP & CTSP & STSP). Hsinchu, Taiwan: AISP.
10. Bagozzi, R. P., & Philips, L. W. 1982. Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27: 459-489.
11. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. 1988. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1): 74-94.
12. Bagozzi, R., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. 1991. Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administration Science Quarterly, 36: 421-458.
13. Baldwin, T. T., Bedell, M. D., & Johnson, J. L. 1997. The social fabric of a team-based M.B.A. program: Network effects on student satisfaction and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40 (6): 1369-1397.
14. Barney, J. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.
15. Basberg, B. L. 1987. Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16: 131-141.
16. Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. 2000. Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biothechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 267-294.
17. Beckman, C. M., & Haunschild, P. R. 2002. Network learning: The effects of partners' heterogeneity of experience on corporate acquisitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (1): 92-124.
18. Bekkers, R., Duysters, G., & Verspagen, B. 2002. Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: The case of GSM. Research Policy, 31 (7): 1141-1161.
19. Bell, G. G. 2005. Clusters, networks, and firm innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (3): 287-295.
20. Bell, G. G., & Zaheer, A. 2007. Geography, networks, and knowledge flow. Organization Science, 18 (6): 955-972.
21. Bentler, P. M. 1990. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107: 238-246.
22. Bentler, P. M., & Bonnet, D. C. 1980. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88 (3): 588-606.
23. Bonacich, P. 1987. Power and centrality: A family of measures. American Journal of Sociology, 92 (5): 1170-1182.
24. Bonner, J. M., & Waler Jr., O. C. 2004. Selecting influential business-to-business customers in new product development: Relational embeddedness and knowledge heterogeneity considerations. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21 (3): 155-169.
25. Bontis, N., Crossan, M. M., & Hulland, J. 2002. Managing an organizational learning system by aligning stocks and flows. Journal of Management Studies, 39 (4): 437-469.
26. Borgatti, S. P., & Cross, R. 2003. A relational view of information seeking and learning in social networks. Management Science, 49 (4): 432-445.
27. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. 2002. Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.
28. Boschma, R. A., & Terwal, A. L. J. 2007. Knowledge networks and innovative performance in an industrial district: The case of a footwear district in the south of Italy. Industry and Innovation, 14 (2): 177-199.
29. Burt, R. S. 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
30. Burt, R. S. 1997. The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (2): 339-365.
31. Burt, R. S. 2007. Secondhand brokerage: Evidence on the importance of local structure for managers, bankers, and analysts. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (1): 119-148.
32. Burt, R. S., Hogarth, R. M., & Michaud, C. 2000. The social capital of French and American managers. Organization Science, 11 (2): 123-147.
33. Chandler, A. 1962. Strategy and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
34. Chen, M.-H., & Wang, M.-C. 2008. Social networks and a new venture's innovative capability: The role of trust within entrepreneurial teams. R&D Management, 38 (3): 253-264.
35. Chen, S., Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Lehaney, B. 2006. Toward understanding inter-organizational knowledge transfer needs in SMEs: Insight from a UK investigation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10 (3): 6-23.
36. Christopher, M., & Gaudenzi, B. 2009. Exploiting knowledge across networks through reputation management. Industrial Marketing Management, 38 (2): 191-197.
37. Chu, W.-W. 2009. Can Taiwan’s second movers upgrade via branding? Research Policy, 38: 1054-1065.
38. Cohen, W. 1995. Empirical studies of innovative activity. In P. Stoneman (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change: 182-198. England, Oxford: Blackwell.
39. Cohen, W. M., & Levin, R. C. 1989. Empirical studies of innovation and market structure. In R. Schmalensee & R. D. Willig (eds.), Handbook of lndustrial Organization: 1059-1107. New York: North-Holland.
40. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. 1990. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35 (1): 128-152.
41. Coleman, J. S. 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95-S120.
42. Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. 2003. Strategic human resource practices, top management team social networks, and firm performance: The role of human resource practices in creating organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Journal, 46 (6): 740-751.
43. Collinson, S., & Gregson, G. 2003. Knowledge networks for new technology-based firms: An international comparison of local entrepreneurship promotion. R&D Management, 33 (2): 189-208.
44. Cowan, R., & Jonard, N. 2009. Knowledge portfolios and the organization of innovation networks. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (2): 320-342.
45. Cummings, J. L., & Teng, B.-S. 2003. Transferring R&D knowledge: The key factors affecting knowledge transfer success. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 20 (1-2): 39-68.
46. Cyert, R., & March, J. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
47. D’Adderio, L. 2003. Configuring software, reconfiguring, memories: The influence of integrated systems on the reproduction of knowledge and routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12 (2): 321-350.
48. Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. 2002. Alliance constellations: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27 (3): 445-456
49. de Carolis, D. M., Litzky, B. E., & Eddleston, K. A. 2009. Why networks enhance the progress of new venture creation: The influence of social capital and cognition. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33 (2): 527-545.
50. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
51. Dillman, D. A. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.
52. Dodgson, M. 1993. Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14 (3): 375-394.
53. Dodgson, M., Mathews, J., Kastelle, T., & Hu, M.-C. 2008. The evolving nature of Taiwan's national innovation system: The case of biotechnology innovation networks. Research Policy, 37 (3): 430-445.
54. Edelman, L. F., Brush, C. G., & Manolova, T. 2005. Co-alignment in the resource-performance relationship: Strategy as mediator. Journal of Business Venturing, 20: 359-383.
55. Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review, 14 (4): 532-550.
56. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21 (special issue): 1105-1121.
57. Feinberg, S. E., & Majumdar, S. K. 2001. Technology spillovers from foreign direct investment in the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Journal of International Business Studies, 32: 421-437.
58. Fiet, J. O. 1996. The informational basis of entrepreneurial discovery. Small Business Economics, 8: 419-430.
59. Fiet, J. O. 2008. Prescriptive entrepreneurship. Boston, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
60. Fiet, J. O., & Patel, P. C. 2008. Entrepreneurial discovery as constrained, systemic search. Small Business Economics, 30 (3): 215-229.
61. Fiet, J. O., Jr. Norton, W. I., & Clouse, V. G. H. 2007. Systematic search as a source of technical innovation: An empirical test. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24 (4): 329-346.
62. Fiol, M. C. 1995. Thought worlds colliding: The role of contradiction in corporate innovation processes. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 19: 71-91.
63. Fleming, L., King III, C., & Juda, A. I. 2007. Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science, 18 (6): 938-954.
64. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18: 39-51.
65. Freeman, L. C. 1979. Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1: 215-239.
66. Freeman, L. C. 1997. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 40 (1): 35-41.
67. Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45: 113-137.
68. Gomes-Casseres, B., Hagedoorn, J., & Jaffe, A. B. 2006. Do alliances promote knowledge flows? Journal of Financial Economics, 80: 5-33.
69. Granovetter, M. S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6): 1360-1380.
70. Granovetter, M. S. 1983. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1: 201-233.
71. Grant, R. M. 1996. Prospering in dynamically competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7 (4): 375-387.
72. Gulati, R. 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 293-317.
73. Gulati, R. 1999. Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 397-420.
74. Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. 1999. Where do inter-organizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104 (5): 1439-1493.
75. Gulati, R., & Higgins, M. C. 2003. Which ties mater when? The contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on IPO success. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 127-144.
76. Gulati, R., Dialdin, D. A., & Wang, L. 2002. Organizational networks. In J. A. C. Baum (Eds.), The blackwell companion to organizations: 281-303. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
77. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. 2006. Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
78. Hansen, M. T. 1999. The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44: 82-111.
79. Hansen, M. T. 2002. Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13 (3): 232-248.
80. Hansen, M. T., Mors, M. L., & Lovas, B. 2005. Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (5): 776-793.
81. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (4): 716-749.
82. Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. 1996. Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. Rand Journal of Economics, 27: 32-59.
83. Hite, J. M. 2005. Evolutionary processes and paths of relationally embedded network ties in emerging entrepreneurial firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29 (1): 113-144.
84. Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. 2003. Network-based research in entrepreneurship: A critical review. Journal of Business Venturing, 18 (2): 165-187.
85. Huber, G. P. 1991. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2 (1): 88-115.
86. Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. 2005. Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science, 16 (4): 359-371.
87. Jack, S. L. 2010. Approaches to studying networks: Implications and outcomes. Journal of Business Venturing, 25 (1): 120-137.
88. Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. 2008. Knowledge collaboration among professionals protecting national security: Role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledge networks. Organization Science, 19 (2): 260-276.
89. Katila, R. 2002. New product search over time: Past ideas in their prime? Academy of Management Journal, 45 (5): 995-1010.
90. Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45 (6): 1183-1194.
91. Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. 2003. Social networks and organizations. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
92. Kilduff, M., Tsai, W., & Hanke, R. 2006. A paradigm too far? A dynamic stability reconsideration of the social network research program. Academy of Management Review, 31 (4): 1031-1048.
93. Kirzner, I. M. 1997. Entrepreneurial discovery and the competitive market process: An Austrian approach. Journal of Economic Literature, 35: 60-85.
94. Klimoski, R., & Mohammed, S. 1994. Team mental model: Construct or metaphor? Journal of Management, 20 (2): 403-437.
95. Kogut, B. 2000. The network as knowledge: Generative rules and the emergence of structure. Strategic Management Journal, 21 (3): 405-425.
96. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3 (3): 383-397.
97. Koka, B. R., & Prescott, J. E. 2008. Designing alliance networks: The influence of network position, environmental change, and strategy on firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 29 (6): 639-661.
98. Koka, B. R., & Prescott, J. E. 2002. Strategic alliances as social capital: A multidimensional view. Strategic Management Journal, 23 (9): 795-816.
99. Kraatz, M. S. 1998. Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (6): 621-643.
100. Kratzer, J., Gemunden, H. G., & Lettl, C. 2008. Balancing creativity and time efficiency in multi-team R&D projects: The alignment of formal and informal networks. R&D Management, 38 (5): 538-549.
101. Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B. 1998. Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1): 55-67.
102. Larson, A. 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37: 76-104.
103. Lawson, B., Petersen, K. J., Cousins, P. D., & Handfield, R. B. 2009. Knowledge sharing in interorganizational product development teams: The effect of formal and informal socialization mechanisms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26: 156-172.
104. Lazer, D., & Friedman, A. 2007. The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 667-694.
105. Lechner, C., Frankenberger, K., & Floyd, S. W. 2010. Task contingencies in the curvilinear relationships between intergroup networks and initiative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 53 (4): 865-889.
106. Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. 2001. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (6/7): 615-640.
107. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112.
108. Lin, B.-W., Li, P.-C., & Chen, J.-S. 2006. Social capital, capabilities, and entrepreneurial strategies: A study of Taiwanese high-tech new ventures. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73 (2): 168-181.
109. Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. 1981. Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46 (4): 393-405.
110. Lorentzen, A. 2008. Knowledge networks in local and global space. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 20 (6): 533-545.
111. March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2 (1): 71-87.
112. Mathews, J. A., & Cho, D.-S. 2000. Tiger technology: The creation of as semiconductor industry in East Asia. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
113. McFadyen, M. A., & Jr. Cannella, A. A. 2004. Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (5): 735-746.
114. Mello, A. S., & Ruckes, M. E. 2006. Team composition. Journal of Business, 79 (3): 1019-1039.
115. Meyer-Dohm, P. 1992. Human resources 2020: Structures of the “learning company”. Conference Proceedings, Human Resources in Europe at the Dawn of the 21st Century. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
116. Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., & Cardinal, L. B. 2007. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diversified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50 (2): 308-326.
117. Mishra, D. P., Heide, J. B., & Cort, S. G. 1998. Information asymmetry and levels of agency relationships. Journal of Marketing Research, 35 (3): 277-295.
118. Murphy, G., Trailer, J., & Hill, R. 1996. Measuring performance in entrepreneurship research. Journal of Business Research, 36: 15-23.
119. Muthusamy, S. K., & White, M. A. 2005. Learning and knowledge transfer in strategic alliances: A social exchange view. Organization Studies, 26 (3): 415-441.
120. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23 (2): 242-266.
121. Nerkar, A., & Paruchuri, S. 2005. Evolution of R&D capabilities: The role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science, 51 (5): 771-785.
122. Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5 (1): 14-37.
123. Nooteboom, B. 2000. Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. Journal of Management and Governance, 4: 69-92.
124. Nooteboom, B. 2005. Density and strength of ties in innovation networks: An analysis of multimedia and biotechnology. European Management Review, 2: 179-197.
125. Nooteboom, B., van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & van den Oord, A. 2007. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36 (7): 1016-1034.
126. Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
127. Oh, H., Chung, M.-H., & Labianca, G. 2004. Group social capital and group effectiveness: The role of informal socializing ties. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (6): 860-875.
128. Orsenigo, L., Pammolli, F., & Riccaboni, M. 2001. Technological change and network dynamics: Lessons from the pharmaceutical industry. Research Policy, 30 (3): 485-508.
129. Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. 2004. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15 (1): 5-21.
130. Patel, P. C., & Fiet, J. O. 2009. Systematic search and its relationship to firm founding. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33 (2): 501-526.
131. Phene, A., Fladmoe-Lindquist, K., & Marsh, L. 2006. Breakthrough innovations in the U.S. biotechnology industry: The effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 369-388.
132. Poppo, L., & Zenger, T. 2002. Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements? Strategic Management Journal, 23 (8): 707-725.
133. Powell, W. W. 1990. Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12: 295-336.
134. Powell, W. W., Koput, K., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganization collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 116-145.
135. Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. 2007. Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33 (3): 479-516.
136. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. 2003. Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48 (2): 240-267.
137. Reed, R., & DeFillippi, R. J. 1990. Causal ambiguity, barriers to imitation, and sustainable competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 15: 88-102.
138. Rodan, S. 2002. Innovation and heterogeneous knowledge in managerial contact networks. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6 (2): 152-163.
139. Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. 2004. More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 541-562.
140. Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22 (4): 287-306.
141. Salman, N., & Saives, A.-L., 2005. Indirect networks: An intangible resource for biotechnology innovation. R&D Management, 35 (2): 203-215.
142. Sammarra, A., & Biggiero, L. 2008. Heterogeneity and specificity of inter-firm knowledge flows in innovation networks. Journal of Management Studies, 45 (4): 800-829.
143. Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunity. Organization Science, 11: 448-469.
144. Shipilov, A. V. 2009. Firm scope experience, historic multimarket contact with partners, centrality, and the relationship between structural holes and performance. Organization Science, 20 (1): 85-106.
145. Shipilov, A. V., & Li, S. X. 2008. Can you have your cake and eat it too? Structural holes' influence on status accumulation and market performance in collaborative networks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53 (1): 73-108.
146. Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. 2006. When exploration backfires: Unintendend consequences o fmultilevel organizational search. Academy of Management Journal, 49 (4): 779-795.
147. Simonin, B. L. 1999. Ambiguity and the process of knowledge transfer in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 20 (7): 595-623.
148. Singh, J. 2005. Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science, 51 (5): 756-770.
149. Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. 1997. A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge and behavior. Journal of Academy Marketing Science, 25: 305-318.
150. Soda, G., Usai, A., & Zaheer, A. 2004. Network memory: The influence of past and current networks on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 47 (6): 893-906.
151. Soh, P.-H. 2003. The role of networking alliances in information acquisition and its implications for new product performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 18: 727-744.
152. Sparrowe, R. T., Liden, R. C., & Kraimer, M. L. 2001. Social networks and the performance of individuals and groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (2): 316-325.
153. Spencer, J. W. 2003. Firms’ knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system: Empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24 (3): 217-233.
154. Spender, J.-C., & Grant, R. M. 1996. Knowledge and the firm: Overview. Strategic Management Journal, 17 (Winter special issue): 5-9.
155. Stam, W., & Elfring, T. 2008. Entrepreneurial orientation and new venture performance: The moderating role of intra- and extraindustry social capital. Academy of Management Journal, 51 (1): 97-111.
156. Steensma, K., & Corley, K. 2000. On the performance of technology-sourcing partnerships: The interaction between partner interdependence and technology attributes. Academy of Management Journal, 43: 1045-1067.
157. Stewart, A. M., Mullarkey, G. W., & Craig, J. L. 2003. Innovation or multiple copies of the same lottery ticket: The effect of widely shared knowledge on organizational adaptability. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 11 (3): 25-44.
158. Stuart, T. E. 1998. Network positions and propensities to collaborate: An investigation of strategic alliance formation in a high-technology industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43: 668-698.
159. Stuart, T. E. 2000. Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a hightechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21: 791-811.
160. Stuart, T. E., & Podolny, J. M. 1996. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 21-38.
161. Tiwana, A. 2008. Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic Management Journal, 29: 251-272.
162. Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (5): 996-1004.
163. Tsai, W. 2002. Social structure of "coopetition" within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intraorganization knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13 (2): 179-190.
164. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (4): 464-476.
165. Uzzi, B. 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61 (4): 674-698.
166. Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. 1997. Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8: 109-125.
167. Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. 1991. Organizational memory. Academy of Management Review, 16 (1): 57-91.
168. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
169. Watson, J. 2007. Modeling the relationship between networking and firm performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 22 (6): 852-874.
170. Wincent, J., Anokhin, S., Ortqvist, D., & Autio, E. 2010. Quality meets structure: Generalized reciprocity and firm-level advantage in strategic networks. Journal of Management Studies, 47 (4): 597-624.
171. Winter, S. G. 1987. Knowledge and competence as strategic assets. In Teece, D. (Eds.), The competitive challenge: Strategies for industrial innovation and renewal: 159-184. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
172. Witt, P. 2004. Entrepreneurs' networks and the success of start-ups. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 16 (5): 391-412.
173. Wu, F., & Cavusgil, T. 2006. Organizational learning, commitment, and joint value creation in interfirm relationships. Journal of Business Research, 59: 81-89.
174. Wu, L.-Y., Wang, C.-J., Chen, C.-P., & Pan, L.-Y. 2008. Internal resources, external network, and competitiveness during the growth stage: A study of Taiwanese high-tech ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32 (3): 529-549.
175. Wuyts, S., Colombo, M. G., Dutta, S., & Nooteboom, B. 2005. Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58 (2): 277-302.
176. Yang, C.-H., Motohashi, K., & Chen, J.-R. 2009. Are new technology-based firms located on science parks really more innovative? Evidence from Taiwan. Research Policy, 38 (1): 77-85.
177. Yli-Renko, H., Autio, E., & Sapienza, H. J. 2001. Social capital, knowledge acquisition, and knowledge exploitation in young technology-based firms. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 6, 587–613.
178. Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. 2005. Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26 (9): 809-825.
179. Zheng, Y., Liu, J., & George, G. 2010. The dynamic impact of innovative capability and inter-firm network on firm valuation: A longitudinal study of biotechnology start-ups. Journal of Business Venturing, 25 (6): 593-609.