Exploring the relationships between knowledge sources in the innovation process: Evidence from finnish innovators

Technology Analysis and Strategic Management

Volumn 21, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 711-725

  Paananen, Mikko ^a  

^a LAPPEENRANTA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

Author keywords

Complementary; Innovation; Knowledge sources; Recombination; Search

Indexed keywords

COMPLEMENTARITY; INNOVATION; KNOWLEDGE; RECOMBINATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNCERTAINTY ROLE;

FINLAND;

EID: 74949087450     PISSN: 09537325     EISSN: 14653990     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09537320903052707     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ahuja, G., and R. Katila. 2004. Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic Management Journal 25, nos. 8-9: 887-907.
2. Ahuja, G., and C.M. Lampert. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporations: a longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough innovations. Strategic Management Journal 22: 521-43
3. Arora, A., and A. Gambardella. 1990. Complementarity and external linkages: the strategies of the large firms in biotechnology. Journal of Industrial Economics 38, no. 4: 361-79.
4. Athey, S., and S. Stern. 1998. An empirical framework for testing theories about complimentarity in organizational design. NBER Working Paper No. W6600, June.
5. Belderbos, R., M. Carree, B. Diederen, B. Lokshin, and R. Veugelers. 2004. Heterogeneity in R&D cooperation strategies. International Journal of Industrial Organization 22, nos. 8-9: 1237-63.
6. Cassiman, B., and R. Veugelers. 2002. Spillovers and R&D cooperation: some empirical evidence. The American Economic Review 92, no. 4: 1169-84.
7. Chesbrough, H. 2003. Open innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Cohen, W.M., and D.A. Levinthal. 1990. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 128-52.
9. Cohen, W.M., R.R. Nelson, and J.P. Walsh. 2002. Links and impacts: the influence of public research on industrial R&D. Management Science 48: 1-23
10. Cyert, R.M., and J.G. March. 1963. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
11. Fleming, L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science 47, no. 1: 117-32.
12. Fleming, L., and O. Sorenson. 2004. Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal 25, nos. 8-9: 909-28.
13. Foss, N.J., and K. Laursen. 2005. Performance pay, delegation, and multitasking under uncertainty and innovativeness: an empirical investigation. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 58: 246-76.
14. Galia, F., and D. Legros. 2004. Complementarities between obstacles to innovation: evidence from France. Research Policy 33, no. 8: 1185-99.
15. Grant, R.M. 1996. Towards a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal 17: 109-22.
16. Henderson, R.M., and K.B. Clark. 1990. Architectual innovation. The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 9-30.
17. Kamien, M.I., and N.L. Schwartz. 1975. Market structure and innovation: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature 13: 1-37.
18. Katila, R. 2000. In search of innovation: search determinants of new product introductions. Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.
19. Katila, R. 2002. New product search over time: past ideas in their prime? Academy of Management Journal 45, no. 5: 995-1010.
20. Katila, R., and G. Ahuja. 2002. Something old, something new: a longitudinal study on search behavior and new product introductions. Academy of Management Journal 45, no. 6: 1183-94.
21. Katz, R., and T. Allen. 1982. Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D projects. R&D Management 12, no. 1: 17-19.
22. Kleinknecht, A., ed. 1996. Determinants of innovation. The message from new indicators. London: Macmillan/NewYork: St Martin's Press.
23. Klevorick, A.K., R.C. Levin, R.R. Nelson, and S.G. Winter. 1995. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Research Policy 24: 185-205.
24. Kogut, B., and U. Zander. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3, no. 3: 383-97.
25. Laursen, K., and V. Mahnke. 2001. Knowledge strategies, firm types, and complementarity in human-resource practices. Journal of Management and Governance 5, no. 1: 1-27.
26. Laursen, K., and A. Salter. 2004. Searching high and low: what types of firms use universities as a source of innovation? Research Policy 33, no. 8: 1201-15.
27. Laursen, K., and A. Salter. 2006. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovative performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal 27, no. 2: 131-50.
28. Levinthal, D.A., and J.G. March. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal (Winter Special Issue) 14: 95-112.
29. Mairesse, J., and P. Mohnen. 2002. Accounting for innovation and measuring innovativeness: an illustrative framework and an application. The American Economic Review 92, no. 2: 226-30.
30. Malerba, F., and L. Orsenigo. 2000. Knowledge, innovative activities and industrial evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change 9: 289-314.
31. March, J.G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2, no. 1: 71-87.
32. Milgrom, P., and J. Roberts. 1990. The economics of modern manufacturing: technology, strategy and organization. American Economic Review 80: 511-28.
33. Milgrom, P., and J. Roberts. 1995. Complementarities and fit strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics 19, nos. 2-3: 179-208.
34. Mohnen, P., and C. Hoareau. 2003. What type of enterprise forges close links with universities and government labs? Evidence from CIS 2. Managerial and Decision Economics 24: 133-45.
35. Mohnen, P., and L.-H. Röller. 2005. Complementarities in innovation policy. European Economic Review 49, no. 6: 1431-50.
36. Nelson, R.R., and S. Winter. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37. Pavitt, K. 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Research Policy 13: 343-73.
38. Rosenberg, N. 1974. Science, invention and economic growth. The Economic Journal March: 90-108.
39. Rosenberg, N. 1982. Inside the black box. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
40. Rosenkopf, L., and A. Nerkar. 2001. Beyond local search: boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact of optical disc industry. Strategic Management Journal 22: 287-306.
41. Schmookler, J. 1966. Invention and economic growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42. Stuart, T.E., and J.M. Podolny. 1996. Local search and the evolution of technological capabilities. Strategic Management Journal 17: 21-38.
43. Tether, B.S. 2002. Who co-operates for innovation: an empirical analysis. Research Policy 31, no. 6: 947-67.
44. Tidd, J., J. Bessant, and K. Pavitt. 2005. Managing innovation: integrating technological, market, and organization change (3rd edn). Chichester: Wiley.
45. Tilastokeskus. 2003. Innovaatiotutkimus 2000. Helsinki: Valopaino Oy.
46. Van der Werf, P.A. 1992. Explaining downstream innovation by commodity suppliers with expected innovation benefit. Research Policy 21: 315-33.
47. Veugelers, R. 1997. Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing. Research Policy 26, no. 3: 303-15.
48. Veugelers, R., and B. Cassiman. 2005. R&D cooperation between firms and universities. Some empirical evidence from Belgian manufacturing. International Journal of Industrial Organization 23, nos. 5-6: 255-379.
49. von Hippel, E. 1986. Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science 32, no. 7: 791-805.
50. von Hippel, E. 1988. The sources of innovation. NewYork: Oxford University Press.