|
|
|
| Technological Intergenerational "Bridges" of Discontinuous Technological Change in Incumbent Enterprises |
| Ma Liang,Zhang Shumin |
| (School of Economics and Management, Lanzhou University of Technology, Lanzhou 730050，China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract With the deepening of the new round of scientific and technological revolution and industrial transformation, the international competition among major countries based on technological innovation is becoming increasingly fierce, and the global competition pattern in science and technology is in a critical period of constant adjustment and remodeling. In order to effectively cope with the complexity and uncertainty of the "big science era”, "digital intelligence era” and "era of diversified and in-depth integration of scientific and technological innovation”, China is in an urgent need to create original innovation sources and comprehensively improve the independent innovation capacity of core technologies from the source of innovation.#br#Along with a long history of development, rich market resources and significant technological competitive advantages, incumbent enterprises are regarded as the important subjects of implementing core technology radical innovation and the main force of scientific and technological revolution and industrial revolution. In the era of knowledge economy and network information, a large number of discontinuous technological changes have been brought about. The technology life cycle has been shortened, the speed of knowledge updating has been accelerated, and the frequency and intensity of radical innovation have been enhanced. Accordingly incumbent enterprises are facing great challenges. Discontinuous technological changes requires incumbent enterprises to overcome difficulties in new technology research and development and their own potential inertia to respond positively, so as to obtain sustainable competitive advantages in the competition with new entrants in the market, and to defuse the threat of disruptive innovation proposed by Schumpeter. #br#Most of the existing research on technological innovation of incumbent enterprises is based on specific technology fields, revealing the process mechanism that affects enterprise financial performance, macro-economic development, industrial ecological chain and consumer willingness, and there are few theoretical results on the discontinuous technological change period of incumbent enterprises. Cohen & Tripsas for the first time put forward the concept of technology intergenerational knowledge bridge for the process of technological change, but only focused on the internal R&D process of enterprises, and did not study all the functions of intellectual capital owned by enterprises. #br#This paper integrates the social network theory, knowledge management theory and innovation management theory, and takes 65 incumbent automobile manufacturing enterprises as samples. Through the construction of three dimensions of technology intergenerational bridges, i.e. inventor bridge, cooperative R&D bridge, and hybrid technology bridge at the human capital level, social capital level and organizational capital level, the paper discusses how incumbent enterprises can improve the performance of new technology innovation on the premise of maintaining the periodic balance of the two generations of technology. The research has found that the inventor bridge and the enterprise's new technology innovation performance have an "inverted U” relationship; the collaborative R&D bridge and the hybrid technology bridge have a significant role in promoting the enterprise's new technology innovation performance; the old technology innovation has negative moderating effect in "inverted U” relationship between the inventor bridge and the new technological innovation performance. #br#Therefore, when the incumbent enterprises try to improve the negative impact of inventor bridge on the performance of new technology innovation in the middle and late stages of technological change by reviewing the performance of old technology innovation, they should first attach importance to the value of the performance of old technology innovation, define the general mechanism of organizational innovation, identify which innovation systems are effective and which are ineffective, and extend the enterprise's R&D capabilities in the old technology field to the new technology field; second, in the process of establishing a heterogeneous R&D team, it is necessary to strengthen the knowledge communication and sharing mechanism, better utilize and integrate diverse human capital resources, and clarify what old technical knowledge and experience should be used when "bridging" new technical knowledge; third, it is critical to identify opportunities for new technology innovation, conduct reasonable allocation of resources and orderly scheduling of personnel between the new and old generations of technologies, efficiently use the R&D experience of old technologies in a flexible, relaxed and failure-tolerant R&D atmosphere following the mutation principle within the organization.#br#
|
|
Received: 16 April 2021
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [1] 王一鸣.百年大变局、高质量发展与构建新发展格局[J].管理世界,2020,36(12):1-13.[2] COOPER A C, SCHENDEL D. Strategic responses to technological threats[J]. Business horizons, 1976, 19(1): 61-69.[3] ADNER R, SNOW D. Old technology responses to new technology threats: demand heterogeneity and technology retreats[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2010, 19(5): 1655-1675.[4] ROSENBLOOM R S. Leadership, capabilities, and technological change: the transformation of NCR in the electronic era[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2000, 21(10-11): 1083-1103.[5] 张劲松,李沐瑶.企业社会责任、内部控制与财务绩效关系研究：基于技术创新视角[J].预测,2021,40(4):81-87.[6] LEE S, JOHNSON Z S. The effect of new product design and innovation on South Korean consumer's willingness to buy[J]. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 2017, 29(1): 98-113.[7] COHEN S L, TRIPSAS M. Managing technological transitions by building bridges[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2018, 61(6): 2319-2342.[8] K?NIG A, GRAF-VLACHY L, SCH?BERL M. Opportunity/threat perception and inertia in response to discontinuous change: replicating and extending Gilbert (2005)[J]. Journal of Management, 2021, 47(3): 771-816.[9] ZAHRA S A, GEORGE G. Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension[J]. Academy of management review, 2002, 27(2): 185-203.[10] SCHILLING M A, SHANKAR R. Strategic management of technological innovation[M]. McGraw-Hill Education, 2019.[11] RAFFAELLI R, GLYNN M A, TUSHMAN M. Frame flexibility: the role of cognitive and emotional framing in innovation adoption by incumbent firms[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2019, 40(7): 1013-1039.[12] SUBRAMANIAM M, YOUNDT M A. The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2005, 48(3): 450-463.[13] TASHEVA S, HILLMAN A J. Integrating diversity at different levels: multilevel human capital, social capital, and demographic diversity and their implications for team effectiveness[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2019, 44(4): 746-765.[14] 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.[15] DANNEELS E. Trying to become a different type of company: dynamic capability at Smith Corona[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2011, 32(1): 1-31.[16] ARGOTE L, REN Y. Transactive memory systems: a microfoundation of dynamic capabilities[J]. Journal of Management Studies, 2012, 49(8): 1375-1382.[17] GRUBER M, HARHOFF D, HOISL K. Knowledge recombination across technological boundaries: Scientists vs. engineers[J]. Management Science, 2013, 59(4): 837-851.[18] LEONARD-BARTON D. Core capabilities and core rigidities: a paradox in managing new product development[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1992, 13(S1): 111-125.[19] PERRY-SMITH J E, MANNUCCI P V. From creativity to innovation: the social network drivers of the four phases of the idea journey[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2017, 42(1): 53-79.[20] HILL C W L, ROTHAERMEL F T. The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation[J]. Academy of Management Review, 2003, 28(2): 257-274.[21] 张庆芝,杨雅程,赵天翊,等.科学家参与、知识转移与基于科学的企业持续创新[J].科学学研究,2019,37(11):2082-2091.[22] COZZOLINO A, ROTHAERMEL F T. Discontinuities, competition, and cooperation: coopetitive dynamics between incumbents and entrants[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2018, 39(12): 3053-3085.[23] 白景坤, 查逸凡, 梁秋燕. 跨界搜寻对新创企业创新成长影响研究——资源拼凑和学习导向的视角[J]. 中国软科学, 2021(3): 166-174.[24] CHOW W S, CHAN L S. Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing[J]. Information & Management, 2008, 45(7): 458-465.[25] HANNAN M T, FREEMAN J. Structural inertia and organizational change[J]. American Sociological Review, 1984, 49(2): 149-164.[26] COOPER R G. Agile-Stage-gate hybrids: the next stage for product development blending agile and stage-gate methods can provide flexibility, speed, and improved communication in new-product development[J]. Research-Technology Management, 2016, 59(1): 21-29.[27] MCGRATH R G. A real options logic for initiating technology positioning investments[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1997, 22(4): 974-996.[28] 许爱萍. 产业技术创新实现路径的“黑箱”过程——基于路径依赖视角的分析[J]. 技术经济, 2014, 33(5): 35-39.[29] 李金生,宋丹丹.技术范式演进下企业动态创新能力模型研究[J].科技进步与对策,2016,33(11):73-79.[30] CARDINAL L B. Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: the use of organizational control in managing research and development[J]. Organization Science, 2001, 12(1): 19-36.[31] HAGEDOORN J, WANG N. Is there complementarity or substitutability between internal and external R&D strategies[J]. Research Policy, 2012, 41(6): 1072-1083.[32] 汪守霞, 汪张林. 基于专利信息的新能源汽车及驱动电机发展现状分析[J]. 中国科技论坛, 2016(4): 63-69.[33] 陈培祯, 曾德明. 网络位置、知识基础对企业新产品开发绩效的影响[J]. 管理评论, 2019, 31(11): 128-138.[34] 刘建华,孟战,姜照华.基于“要素—结构—功能—成本”视角的丰田混合动力汽车技术演化阶段研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2017,38(12):26-36.[35] 王博,刘则渊,刘盛博.我国新能源汽车产业技术标准演进路径研究[J].科研管理,2020,41(3):12-22.[36] SILVA J M C S, TENREYRO S. The log of gravity[J]. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 2006, 88(4): 641-658.[37] 孙江明, 居文静. 跨国并购对我国企业创新绩效的影响——基于上市公司数据的实证研究[J]. 世界经济与政治论坛, 2019(2): 149-172. |
|
|
|
