BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Karjalainen Jesse (Aalto University School of Science, Finland), Valtakoski Aku (Linköping University, Sweden), Kauranen Ilkka (Aalto University School of Science, Finland)
Tytuł
Interfirm Network Structure and Firm Resources: Towards a Unifying Concept
Źródło
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI), 2021, vol. 17, nr 3, s. 227-264, tab., rys., bibliogr. s. 254-262
Tytuł własny numeru
A Network Approach in Strategic Management : Emerging Trends and Research Concepts
Słowa kluczowe
Podejście zasobowe w zarządzaniu, Zarządzanie strategiczne, Relacje organizacyjne, Struktury sieciowe
Resource approach in management, Strategic management, Organizational relationships, Network structure
Uwagi
Klasyfikacja JEL: L25
streszcz., summ.
Abstrakt
CEL: Celem tego artykułu jest zaproponowanie koncepcji dystrybucji zasobów sieciowych, która systematycznie ujednolica zasobową i sieciową perspektywę sieci międzyorganizacyjnych oraz umożliwia zintegrowaną analizę interakcji zasobów firmy i struktury sieci w celu wpływania na wydajność firmy. METODYKA: Zawiera przegląd istniejącej literatury na temat sieci międzyorganizacyjnych, a następnie rozwija ujednoliconą koncepcję dystrybucji zasobów sieciowych. WYNIKI: Przegląd literatury wskazuje, że badacze strategii od dawna starali się zintegrować pogląd oparty na zasobach i wynikach firmy w sieciach społecznych, ale jak dotąd osiągnięto tylko częściową integrację. W szczególności badania nad heterogenicznością na poziomie zasobów sieci międzyorganizacyjnych ograniczyły się w dużej mierze do analizy diad firm. W jaki sposób zasoby firmy i struktura sieci poza bezpośrednimi partnerami sieci współdziałają, aby wpływać na wyniki firmy, nie zostało jeszcze odpowiednio wyjaśnione. Zaproponowana ujednolicona koncepcja dystrybucji zasobów sieciowych systematyzuje wcześniejsze badania i wyjaśnia, w jaki sposób struktura sieci i zasoby firmy oddziałują, wpływając na wydajność firmy poza bezpośrednimi partnerami sieci. IMPLIKACJE DLA TEORII I PRAKTYKI: Niniejszy artykuł zwraca uwagę na luki w istniejącej literaturze na temat sieci międzyorganizacyjnych i proponuje ujednoliconą koncepcję, którą można wykorzystać, aby zająć się lukami badawczymi i rozwijać dalszą teorię w tej dziedzinie. W praktyce niniejszy artykuł zachęca menedżerów, aby nie ograniczali swoich analiz strategicznych sojuszy do bezpośrednich partnerstw; ważne jest również, aby wziąć pod uwagę partnerów i ich zasoby oraz zastanowić się, w jaki sposób są ze sobą powiązani poza bezpośrednim portfolio partnerstwa. ORYGINALNOŚĆ I WARTOŚĆ: Dystrybucja zasobów sieciowych to nowatorska koncepcja, która łączy i systematyzuje różne wątki badań nad sieciami międzyorganizacyjnymi, stanowiąc w ten sposób podstawę dla przyszłych badań w tej dziedzinie. Koncepcja jest również podatna na szczegółową operacjonalizację, ułatwiając późniejsze ilościowe testowanie argumentów teoretycznych łączących zasoby firmy i strukturę sieci. (abstrakt oryginalny)

PURPOSE: The objective of this paper is to propose a concept of network resource distribution that systematically unifies the resource-based and network-based perspectives on interfirm networks and enables integrated analysis of how firm resources and network structure interact to affect firm performance. METHODOLOGY: This conceptual paper first reviews the extant literature on interfirm networks and then develops the unifying concept of network resource distribution. FINDINGS: The literature review indicates that strategy scholars have long sought to integrate the resource-based view and the social network explanations of firm performance but, thus far, only a partial integration has been achieved. In particular, studies on the resource-level heterogeneity of interfirm networks have largely been limited to the analysis of firm dyads. How firm resources and network structure beyond the immediate network partners interact to affect firm performance has not yet been adequately addressed. The proposed unified concept of network resource distribution systematizes prior research and illuminates how network structure and firm resources interact to affect firm performance beyond the immediate network partners. IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE: For theory, this paper highlights gaps in the extant literature on interfirm networks and proposes a unifying concept that can be utilized to address these gaps and to develop further theory in the area. For practice, this paper encourages managers not to limit their analyses of strategic alliances to immediate partnerships; it is also crucial to consider the partners and their resources, and reflect on how they are related to one another outside of the immediate partnership portfolio. ORIGINALITY AND VALUE: Network resource distribution is a novel concept that ties together and systematizes various strands of research on interfirm networks, thus providing a foundation for future research in the area. The concept is also amenable to detailed operationalization, facilitating subsequent quantitative testing of theoretical arguments combining firm resources and the structure of a network. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Afuah, A. (2000). How much do your co-opetitors' capabilities matter in the face of technological change? Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 397-404. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3%3C397::AID-SMJ88%3E3.0.CO;2-1
  2. Aggarwal, V. A. (2020). Resource congestion in alliance networks: How a firm's partners' partners influence the benefits of collaboration. Strategic Management Journal, 41(4), 627-655. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3109
  3. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425-455. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667105
  4. Andrevski, G., Brass. D., & Ferrier, W. (2016). Alliance portfolio configurations and competitive action frequency. Journal of Management, 42(4), 811-837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313498901
  5. Arya, B., & Lin, Z. (2007). Understanding collaboration outcomes from an extended resource-based view perspective: The roles of organizational characteristics, partner attributes, and network structures. Journal of Management, 33(5), 697-723. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307305561
  6. Asgari, N., Tandon, V., Singh, K., & Mitchell, W. (2018). Creating and taming discord: How firms manage embedded competition in alliance portfolios to limit alliance termination. Strategic Management Journal, 39, 3273-3299. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2784
  7. Bae, J., & Gargiulo, M. (2004). Partner substitutability, alliance network structure, and firm profitability in the telecommunications industry. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 843-859. https://doi.org/10.5465/20159626
  8. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
  9. Baum, J. A. C., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don't go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups' performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267-294. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<267::AID-SMJ89>3.0.CO;2-8
  10. Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011). On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5), 1168-1181. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0641
  11. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169939403700410
  12. Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-3085(00)22009-1
  13. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349-399. https://doi.org/10.1086/421787
  14. Burt, R. S., & Soda, G. (2021). Network capabilities: Brokerage as a bridge between network theory and the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, forthcoming. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320988764
  15. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-568. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0094
  16. Carnabuci, G., & Operti, E. (2013). Where do firms' recombinant capabilities come from? Intraorganizational networks, knowledge, and firms' ability to innovate through technological recombination. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13), 1591-1613. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2084
  17. Carpenter, M. A., Li, M., & Jiang, H. (2012). Social network research in organizational contexts: A systematic review of methodological issues and choices. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1328-1361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312440119
  18. Chiambaretto, P., Masse, D., & Mirc, N. (2019). "All for One and One for All?" - Knowledge broker roles in managing tensions of internal coopetition: The Ubisoft case. Research Policy, 48, 584-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.10.009
  19. Chiambaretto, P., & Wassmer, U. (2019). Resource utilization as an internal driver of alliance portfolio evolution: The Qatar Airways case (1993-2010). Long Range Planning, 52, 51-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.02.004
  20. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-52. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
  21. Cui, A. S., & O'Connor, G. (2012). Alliance portfolio resource diversity and firm innovation. Journal of Marketing, 76(4), 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0130
  22. Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 31-61. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.11.0130
  23. Dittrich, K., & Duysters, G. (2007). Networking as a means to strategy change: The case of open innovation in mobile telephony. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), 510-521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2007.00268.x
  24. Dushnitky, G., & Shaver, J. M. (2009). Limitations to inter-organizational knowledge acquisitions: The paradox of corporate venture capital. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 1045-1064. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.781
  25. Dyer, J. H., & Hatch, N. W. (2006). Relation-specific capabilities and barriers to knowledge transfers: Creating advantage through network relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 27(8), 701-719. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.543
  26. Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660-679. https://doi.org/10.2307/259056
  27. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7(2), 136-150. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.7.2.136
  28. Galunic, D. C., & Rodan, S. (1998). Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12), 1193-1201. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(1998120)19:12<1193::AID-SMJ5>3.0.CO;2-F
  29. Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science, 11(2), 183-196. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.2.183.12514
  30. Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & van den Oord, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37(10), 1717-1731. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2008.08.010
  31. Grigoriou, K., & Rothaermel, F. (2017). Organizing for knowledge creation: Internal knowledge networks and the contingent effect of external knowledge sourcing. Strategic Management Journal, 38, 395-414. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2489
  32. Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61-84. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00421.x
  33. Guan, J., & Liu, N. (2016). Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy. Research Policy, 45(1), 97-112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.08.002
  34. Gulati, R. (1995a). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 619-652. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393756
  35. Gulati, R. (1995b). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 85-112. https://doi.org/10.5465/256729
  36. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293-317. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199804)19:4<293::AID-SMJ982>3.0.CO;2-M
  37. Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 397-420. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199905)20:5<397::AID-SMJ35>3.0.CO;2-K
  38. Gulati, R. (2007). Managing Network Resources: Alliances, Affiliations and Other Relational Assets. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  39. Gulati, R., & Higgins, M. C. (2003). Which ties matter when? The contingent effects of interorganizational partnerships on IPO success. Strategic Management Journal, 24(2), 127-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.287
  40. Gulati, R., Lavie, D., & Madhavan, R. (2011). How do networks matter? The performance effects of interorganizational networks. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 207-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.005
  41. Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 203. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<203::AID-SMJ102>3.0.CO;2-K
  42. Hagedoorn, J., Lokshin, B., & Zobel, A-K. (2018). Partner type diversity in alliance portfolios: Multiple dimensions, boundary conditions and firm innovation performance. Journal of Management Studies, 55(5), 809-836. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12326
  43. Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 12, 83-103. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120908
  44. Hansen, M. T. (2002). Knowledge networks: Explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organization Science, 13(3), 232-248. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.3.232.2771
  45. Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716-749. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393655
  46. Hernandez, E., & Shaver, J. M. (2019). Network synergy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 171-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839218761369
  47. Howells, J. (2006). Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Research Policy, 35(5), 715-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
  48. Huggins, R. (2010). Forms of network resource: Knowledge access and the role of inter firm networks. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(3), 335-352. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00266.x
  49. Inkpen, A. C. (2000). Learning through joint ventures: A framework of knowledge acquisition. Journal of Management Studies, 37(7), 1019-1044. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00215
  50. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, E. W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146-165. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159100
  51. Jiang, R. J., Tao, Q. T., & Santoro, M. D. (2010). Alliance portfolio diversity and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 31(10), 1136-1144. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.869
  52. Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (2002). Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal, 23(8), 747-767. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.248
  53. Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 217-237. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(200003)21:3<217::AID-SMJ95>3.0.CO;2-Y
  54. Koka, B. R., & Prescott, J. E. (2002). Strategic alliances as social capital: A multidimensional view. Strategic Management Journal, 23(9), 795-816. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.252
  55. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.679
  56. Kraatz, M. S. (1998). Learning by association? Interorganizational networks and adaptation to environmental change. Academy of Management Journal, 41(6), 621-643. https://doi.org/10.5465/256961
  57. Krishnan, R., Martin, X., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2006). When does trust matter to alliance performance? Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 894-917. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2006.22798171
  58. Kwon, S.-W., Rondi, E., Levin, D. Z., De Massis, A., & Brass, D. J. (2020). Network brokerage: An integrative review and future research agenda. Journal of Management, 46(6), 1092-1120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320914694
  59. Lado, A. A., Boyd, N. G., & Hanlon, S. C. (1997). Competition, cooperation, and the search for economic rents: A syncretic model. Academy of Management Review, 22(1), 110-141. https://doi.org/10.2307/259226
  60. Lane, P. J., & Lubatkin, M. (1998). Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strategic Management Journal, 19(5), 461-477. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199805)19:5<461::AID-SMJ953>3.0.CO;2-L
  61. Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638-658. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159233
  62. Lavie, D. (2007). Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the US software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28(12), 1187-1212. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.637
  63. Lee, D., Kirkpatrick-Husk, K., & Madhavan, R. (2017). Diversity in alliance portfolios and performance outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1472-1497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314556316
  64. Lin, C., Wu, Y-J., Chang, C., Wang, W., & Lee, C-Y. (2012). The alliance innovation performance of R&D alliances-the absorptive capacity perspective. Technovation, 32(5), 282-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2012.01.004
  65. Madhok, A., & Tallman, S. B. (1998). Resources, transactions and rents: Managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships. Organization Science, 9(3), 326-339. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.3.326
  66. Martinez, M., Zouaghi, F., & Garcia, S. (2017). Capturing value from alliance portfolio diversity: The mediating role of R&D human capital in high and low tech industries. Technovation, 59, 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2016.06.003
  67. McEvily, B., & Marcus, A. (2005). Embedded ties and the acquisition of competitive capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 26(11), 1033-1055. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.484
  68. Mesquita, L. F., Anand, J., & Brush, T. H. (2008). Comparing the resource-based and relational views: Knowledge transfer and spillover in vertical alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(9), 913-941. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.699
  69. Monaghan, S., Lavelle, J., & Gunnigle, P. (2017). Mapping networks: Exploring the utility of social network analysis in management research and practice. Journal of Business Research, 76, 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.03.020
  70. Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171108
  71. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242-266. https://doi.org/10.2307/259373
  72. 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. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0054
  73. Parachuri, S., Goosen, M., & Phelps, C. (2019). Conceptual foundations of multilevel social networks. In S. E. Humphrey & J. M. LeBreton (Eds.), The Handbook of Multilevel Theory, Measurement, and Analysis (pp. 201-221). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000115-010
  74. Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179-191. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303
  75. Phelps, C. (2010). A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 890-913. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.52814627
  76. Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1115-1166. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311432640
  77. Polidoro, F., Ahuja, G., & Mitchell, W. (2011). When the social structure overshadows competitive incentives: the effects of network embeddedness on joint venture dissolution. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 369-392. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.59215088
  78. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393988
  79. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91.
  80. Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240-267. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556658
  81. Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. (2004). More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25(6), 541-562. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.398
  82. Rothaermel, F. T., & Boeker, W. (2008). Old technology meets new technology: Complementarities, similarities, and alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 47-77. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.634
  83. Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2006). Alliance type, alliance experience and alliance management capability in high-technology ventures. Journal of Business Venturing, 21(4), 429-460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2005.02.006
  84. Rulke, D. L., & Galaskiewicz, J. (2000). Distribution of knowledge, group network structure, and group performance. Management Science, 46(5), 612-625. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.5.612.12052
  85. Schilling, M. A. (2009). Understanding the alliance data. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 233-260. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.731
  86. Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science, 53(7), 1113-1126. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0624
  87. Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994). Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 15(5), 387-394. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250150505
  88. Shohet, S., & Prevezer, M. (1996). UK biotechnology: Institutional linkages, technology transfer and the role of intermediaries. R&D Management, 26, 283-298. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1996.tb00962.x
  89. Simonin, B. L. (2004). An empirical investigation of the process of knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 35(5), 407-427. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400091
  90. Soh, P. (2010). Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design. Strategic Management Journal, 31(4), 438-461. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.819
  91. Subramanian, A., & Soh, P. (2017). Linking alliance portfolios to recombinant innovation: The combined effects of diversity and alliance experience. Long Range Planning, 50(5), 636-652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2016.11.001
  92. Subramanian, A., Bo, W., & Kah-Hin, C. (2018). The role of knowledge base homogeneity in learning from strategic alliances. Research Policy, 47: 158-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.10.005
  93. 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(3), 668-698. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393679
  94. Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21(8), 791-811. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0266(200008)21:8<791::AID-SMJ121>3.0.CO;2-K
  95. Tasselli, S., Kilduff, M., & Menges, J. (2015). The microfoundations of organizational social networks: A review and an agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1361-1387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206315573996
  96. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2
  97. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::AID-SMJ882>3.0.CO;2-Z
  98. 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. https://doi.org/10.5465/3069443
  99. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998) Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464-476. https://doi.org/10.5465/257085
  100. Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61, 674-698. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096399
  101. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35-67. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393808
  102. Vasudeva, G., Zaheer, A., & Hernandez, E. (2013). The embeddedness of networks: Institutions, structural holes, and innovativeness in the fuel cell industry. Organization Science, 24(3), 645-663. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0780
  103. Walker, G., Kogut, B., & Shan, W. (1997). Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an industry network. Organization Science, 8(2), 109-125. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.2.109
  104. Wang, L., & Zajac, E. J. (2007). Alliance or acquisition? A dyadic perspective on interfirm resource combinations. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1291-1317. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.638
  105. Wang, C., Rodan, S., Fruin, M., & Xu, X. (2014). Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 484-514. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0917
  106. Wassmer, U. (2010). Alliance portfolios: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 36(1), 141-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308328484
  107. Wassmer, U., Li, S., & Madhok, A. (2017). Resource ambidexterity through alliance portfolios and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 38(2), 384-394. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2488
  108. Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207
  109. Whittington, K., Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. (2009). Networks, propinquity, and innovation in knowledge-intensive industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 90-122. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2009.54.1.90
  110. Wibbens, P. (2019). Performance persistence in the presence of higher-order resources. Strategic Management Journal, 40, 181-202. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2979
  111. Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2008). The effectiveness of alliances and acquisitions: The role of resource combination activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(1), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2008.00286.x
  112. Wuyts, S., & Dutta, S. (2014). Benefiting from alliance portfolio diversity: The role of past internal knowledge creation strategy. Journal of Management, 40(6), 1653-1674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312442339
  113. Yan, Y., & Guan, J. (2018). Social capital, exploitative and exploratory innovations: The mediating roles of ego-network dynamics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126, 244-258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.09.004
  114. Zaheer, A., & Bell, G. G. (2005). Benefiting from network position: Firm capabilities, structural holes, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 26(9), 809-825. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.482
  115. Zaheer, A., Gözübüyük, R. & Milanov, H. (2010). It's the connections: The network perspective in interorganizational research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(1), 62-77. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.24.1.62
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
2299-7075
Język
eng
URI / DOI
https://doi.org/10.7341/20211737
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu