|
|
|
| The Moderating Effect of Multi-dimensional Proximity on the Key Inventors and Dual Innovation of Enterprises:A Research Based on the Patent Data of High-tech Enterprises in the "Two Belts" |
| Sun Xiaoming,Wang Chenhui,Yang Xinmeng,Wang Yalan |
| (School of Management,Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, Xi'an 710055,China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The knowledge economy has grown with the continuous development of the world. It is difficult for enterprises to gain market competitiveness by relying only on their own resources with the changing market and new technologies. Collaborative innovation has become an effective choice for enterprises to reduce R&D costs, risks and gain competitive advantages. The participation ratio of key inventor is an important allocation of innovation resources and it determines the achievements of exploitative innovation or exploratory innovation output. It has been found that in collaborative innovation between enterprises, the higher the proportion of key inventors participants, the more inclined it will be to have exploitative innovation, which is not conducive to exploratory innovation. In addition, the innovation activities of key inventors are embedded in the social relations of the organization and affect the collaborative innovation process between enterprises by influencing knowledge acquisition and flow. Multi-dimensional proximity refers to the similarity of collaborative enterprises in space, social relations and knowledge base, and it affects the knowledge creation process of key inventors embedded in the organization and moderates the relationship between key inventors and enterprise collaboration and innovation. Therefore, this paper explores the moderating mechanism of multidimensional proximity in the participation ratio of key inventors and collaborative innovation output of enterprises.#br#The patent data of China's Silk Road Economic Belt and the National High-tech Industrial Development Zone (High-tech Zone) located in the Yangtze River Economic Belt is from the China National Intellectual Property Administration, and the data is taken as the sample in the preliminary screening, with 390 qualified partnerships between enterprises selected. The negative binomial regression model is used to analyze the moderating effects of multidimensional proximity on the relationship between key inventor-firm collaborative exploratory and exploitative innovation outputs. The research results show that geographical proximity has a positive and significant impact on the promotion of the proportion of key inventor participants to collaborative innovation. Social proximity is positively and significantly moderating the relationship between the participation ratio of key inventors and collaborative innovation in enterprises. The closer the proximity of technology is, the greater the promotion effect of the participation ratio of key inventors on collaborative utilization innovation. With the increase of technological proximity, the participation ratio of key inventors has a stronger inhibitory effect on collaborative exploratory innovation.#br#From the perspective of micro-individual research, this paper combines multi-dimensional proximity with the participation ratio of key inventors, and elaborates the influence of the interaction between individuals and firms on inter-firm collaborative innovation, which enriches the research on the relationship between multi-dimensional proximity and inter-firm innovation cooperation. Different from the previous literature, this paper introduces multi-dimensional proximity as a moderating role, suggesting a new research perspective from multi-dimensional proximity.#br#The research results have practical significance for enterprises to optimize the external collaborative relationships and effectively allocate human and knowledge resources. Firstly the geographical distance between cooperative enterprises affects the mechanism of the key R&D participation ratio on the output of cooperative innovation, and this conclusion is helpful for enterprises to better seek partners and develop systems; secondly, in order to reduce knowledge monopolization and free riding in innovation cooperation, focal enterprises could choose partners with more social relations to ensure the smooth completion of innovation cooperation. Finally, when the innovation cooperation project is expected to make exploratory innovation, but the proportion of key R&D staff is small, the focal enterprise can choose partners with low similarity in their technical knowledge. When exploitative innovation is expected to be achieved, the focal enterprises can choose partners with similar technology fields for cooperation.#br#The research is subjective to a number of limitations, for it only takes patent data of innovation cooperation in the "Two Belts", and the number of research samples is small. In addition,it is necessary to further explore if the influence of multi-dimensional proximity on the binary cooperative innovation relationship between key R&D makers and enterprises has a substitutive or complementary effect. Finally, the individual characteristics of key inventors may play a certain role in the dual innovation between key researchers and enterprises, and it is worthy of further study.#br#
|
|
Received: 18 July 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] HSU D H, ZIEDONIS R H. Resources as dual sources of advantage:implications for valuing entrepreneurial-firm patents[J].Strategic Management Journal, 2013, 34 (7):761-781.
[2] 吴宁,马志强,朱永跃, 等. 我国科技型小微企业合作研发现状实证研究[J].科技进步与对策, 2018, 35(19):82-87.
[3] 孙笑明,杨新蒙,王巍, 等. 企业间合作创新产出类型可预期吗——基于关键研发者的作用[J].中国科技论坛, 2020，36(12):76-85.
[4] RSENKOPF L, NERKAR A. Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry[J].Strategic Management Journal, 2001, 22(4): 287-306.
[5] ZUCKER L G, DARBY M R, TORERO M. Labor mobility from academe to commerce[J].Journal of labor economics, 2002, 20 (3): 629-660.
[6] AZOULAY P, GRAFF ZIVIN J S, WANG J. Superstar extinction[J].The Quarterly Journal of Economics,2010, 125(2): 549-589.
[7] GROYSBERG B, LEE L E. Hiring stars and their colleagues: exploration and exploitation in professional service firms[J].Organization science, 2009, 20(4): 740-758.
[8] HESS A M, ROTHAERMEL F T. When are assets complementary? star scientists, strategic alliances, and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry[J].Strategic Management Journal, 2011, 32(8): 895-909.
[9] 汤小莉, 田高良, 孙笑明, 等. 占据合作网络切割点位置与关键研发者创造力[J].系统工程理论与实践, 2016, 36(12): 3152-3163.
[10] LIN H E, MCDONOUGH III E F. Cognitive frames, learning mechanisms, and innovation ambidexterity[J].Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2014, 31: 170-188.
[11] ARIKAN A T. Inter-firm knowledge exchanges and the knowledge creation capability of clusters[J].Academy of Management Review, 2009, 34(4): 658-676.
[12] HANSEN M T. The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits[J].Administrative Science Quarterly, 1999, 44(1): 82-111.
[13] GUAN J,LIU N.Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network: a patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy[J].Research Policy, 2016, 45(1): 97-112.
[14] CHENG J T, TRACY J L, FOULSHAM T, et al. Two ways to the top: evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence[J].Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 2013, 104(1): 103-125.
[15] SMITH S M, WARD T B, SCHUMACHER J S. Constraining effects of examples in a creative generation task[J].Memory & Cognition, 1993, 21(6): 837-845.
[16] BOSCHMA R A.Proximity and innovation:a critical assessment[J].Regional Studies, 2005, 39 (1) :61-74.
[17] KNOBEN J, OERLEMANS L A G. Proximity and inter-organizational collaboration:a literature review[J].Inter-national Journal of Management Reviews, 2006, 8 (2) :71-89.
[18] 余谦, 白梦平, 覃一冬. 多维邻近性能促进中国新能源汽车企业的合作创新吗[J].研究与发展管理, 2018, 30(6): 67-74.
[19] 李琳, 熊雪梅. 多维邻近性在集群外部知识获取与创新中的作用机制分析[J].科技进步与对策, 2012, 29(21): 130-134.
[20] 殷存毅, 刘婧玥. 所有制区隔与跨域合作创新——基于2005—2015京、沪、深三大城市专利数据分析[J].中国软科学, 2019(1): 82-97.
[21] SONN J W, STORPER M. The increasing importance of geographical proximity in knowledge production: an analysis of US patent citations, 1975—1997[J].Environment and Planning A , 2008, 40: 1020-1039.
[22] PETRUZZELLI A M. The impact of technological relatedness, prior ties, and geographical distance on university-industry collaborations: a joint-patent analysis[J].Technovation, 2011, 31(7): 309-319.
[23] 毛磊, 谢富纪, 凌峰. 多维邻近视角下跨区域协同创新影响因素实证研究[J].科技进步与对策, 2017, 34(8):37-44.
[24] 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.
[25] 刘凤朝, 邬德林, 马荣康. 专利技术许可对企业创新产出的影响研究—三种邻近性的调节作用[J].科研管理, 2015, 36(4): 91-100.
[26] PONCE C . Knowledge disclosure as intellectual property rights protection[J].Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 2011:80(3):418-434.
[27] CAPALDO G, ZOLLO G. IT and competence in the framework of the learning organization[J].Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 2002, 4(2): 1-5.
[28] BELL G G, ZAHEER A. Geography, networks, and knowledge flow[J].Organization Science, 2007, 18(6):955-972.
[29] GERTLER M S. Tacit knowledge and the economic geography of context, or the undefinable tacitness of being (there)[J].Journal of Economic Geography, 2007(1):75-99.
[30] POUDER R, ST. JOHN C H. Hot spots and blind spots: geographical clusters of firms and innovation[J].Academy of Management Review, 1996, 21(4):1192-1225.
[31] PROFF S, BRENNER T. The dynamics of inter-regional collaboration: an analysis of co-patenting[J].The Annals of Regional Science, 2014, 52(1):41-64.
[32] WHITENER E M, BRODT S E, KORSGAARD M A, et al. Managers as initiators of trust: an exchange relationship framework for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior[J].Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23(3): 513-530.
[33] BROEKEL T, BOSCHMA R. Knowledge networks in the Dutch aviation industry: the proximity paradox[J].Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography, 2012, 12(2):409-433.
[34] BALLAND P A, VAAN M D, BOSCHMA R. The dynamics of inter-firm networks along the industry life cycle:the case of the global video game industry, 1987—2007[J].Journal of Economic Geography, 2013, 13 (5): 741-765.
[35] BRUNEEL J, D'ESTE P, SALTER A. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry collaboration[J].Research Policy, 2010, 39 (7): 858-868.
[36] CALLOIS J M. The two sides of proximity in industrial clusters: the trade-off between process and product innovation[J].Journal of Urban Economics, 2008, 63 (1) :146-162.
[37] 阮平南, 王文丽, 刘晓燕. 技术创新网络多维邻近性演化研究——基于IBM专利合作网络数据[J].科技进步与对策, 2018, 35(8): 1-7.
[38] FLEMING L, SORENSON O. Technology as a complex adaptive system: evidence from patent data[J].Research Policy, 2001, 30(7): 1019-1039.
[39] 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.
[40] ERNST H, VITT J. The influence of corporate acquisitions on the behaviour of key inventors[J].R&D Management, 2000, 30(2): 105-119.
[41] HONG W, SU Y S. The effect of institutional proximity in non-local university-industry collaborations: an analysis based on Chinese patent data[J].Research Policy, 2013, 42(2): 454-464.
[42] JAFFE A B. Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms' patents, profits and market value[J].American Economic Review, 1986, 76(5):984-1001.
[43] 向希尧, 蔡虹, 裴云龙. 跨国专利合作网络中3种接近性的作用[J].管理科学, 2010, 23(5): 43-52.
[44] LEWBEL A. Using heteroscedasticity to identify and estimate mismeasured and endogenous regressor models[J].Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 2012, 30(1): 67-80.
[45] MOLINA-MORALES F X, GARCIA-VILLAVERDE P M, PARRA-REQUENA G. Geographical and cognitive proximity effects on innovation performance in SMEs: a way through knowledge acquisition[J].International Entrepreneurship and Management Jounal, 2014, 10(2): 231-251.
|
|
|
|
