Strong ties and weak ties of the knowledge spillover network in the semiconductor industry

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 118, Issue , 2017, Pages 114-127

  Wang, Chun Chieh ^a   Sung, Hui Yun ^b   Chen, Dar Zen ^a   Huang, Mu Hsuan ^a  

^a NATIONAL TAIWAN UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

^b NATIONAL CHUNG HSING UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Knowledge spillover; Patent citation; R D cooperation; Semiconductor industry; Strong tie; Weak tie

Indexed keywords

FIGHTER AIRCRAFT; PATENTS AND INVENTIONS; SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE MANUFACTURE;

KNOWLEDGE SPILLOVERS; PATENT CITATION; SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY; STRONG TIE; WEAK TIE;

SILICON WAFERS;

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT; INDUSTRIAL PERFORMANCE; RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT; SEMICONDUCTOR INDUSTRY; SOCIAL NETWORK; SPILLOVER EFFECT; TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT;

EID: 85012893188     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.02.011     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Ahuja, G., Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Adm. Sci. Q., 2000, 425–455.
2. Archibugi, D., Coco, A., Is Europe becoming the most dynamic knowledge economy in the world?. J. Common Mark. Stud. 43:3 (2005), 433–459.
3. Arranz, N., Fdez de Arroyabe, J.C., The choice of partners in R&D cooperation: an empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Technovation 28:1–2 (2008), 88–100.
4. Berchicci, L., Towards an open R&D system: internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Res. Policy 42:1 (2013), 117–127.
5. Cantner, U., Graf, H., Cooperation and specialization in German technology regions. J. Evol. Econ. 14:5 (2004), 543–562.
6. Chen, C., Hicks, D., Tracing knowledge diffusion. Scientometrics 59:2 (2004), 199–211.
7. Chesbrough, H., Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. 2003, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
8. Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J., Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. 2006, Oxford University Press on Demand.
9. Choe, H., Lee, D.H., Seo, I.W., Kim, H.D., Patent citation network analysis for the domain of organic photovoltaic cells: country, institution, and technology field. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 26 (2013), 492–505.
10. Daim, T.U., Rueda, G., Martin, H., Gerdsri, P., Forecasting emerging technologies: use of bibliometrics and patent analysis. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 73:8 (2006), 981–1012, 10.1016/j.techfore.2006.04.004.
11. Deeds, D.L., Hill, C.W.L., Strategic alliances and the rate of new product development: an empirical study of entrepreneurial biotechnology firms. J. Bus. Ventur. 11:1 (1996), 41–55.
12. Degenne, A., Forsé, M., Introducing Social Networks: Sage Publications Ltd. 1999.
13. Fershtman, C., Gandal, N., Direct and indirect knowledge spillovers: the “social network” of open‐source projects. Rand. J. Econ. 42:1 (2011), 70–91.
14. Freeman, L.C., A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry, 1977, 35–41.
15. Freeman, L.C., Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc. Networks 1:3 (1979), 215–239.
16. Freeman, L.C., Networks of innovators: a synthesis of research issues. Res. Policy 20:5 (1991), 499–514.
17. Ghoshal, S., Korine, H., Szulanski, G., Interunit communication in multinational corporations. Manag. Sci. 40:1 (1994), 96–110.
18. Granovetter, M.S., The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78:6 (1973), 1360–1380.
19. Granovetter, M.S., The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol. Theory 1:1 (1983), 201–233.
20. Griliches, Z., The search for R&D spillovers. Scand. J. Econ. 94 (1992), 29–47 (Supplement).
21. Gulati, R., Social structure and alliance formation patterns: a longitudinal analysis. Adm. Sci. Q., 1995, 619–652.
22. Gulati, R., Network location and learning: the influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strateg. Manag. J. 20:5 (1999), 397–420.
23. Gupta, A.K., Govindarajan, V., Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 16:4 (1991), 768–792.
24. Hagedoorn, J., Trends and patterns in strategic technology partnering since the early seventies. Rev. Ind. Organ. 11:5 (1996), 601–616.
25. Hagedoorn, J., Sharing intellectual property rights—an exploratory study of joint patenting amongst companies. Ind. Corp. Chang. 12:5 (2003), 1035–1050.
26. Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and Methodological Tools. 2001, National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA.
27. Han, K., Oh, W., Im, K.S., Chang, R.M., Oh, H., Pinsonneault, A., Value cocreation and wealth spillover in open innovation alliances. MIS Q. 36:1 (2012), 291–325.
28. Hansen, M.T., The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Adm. Sci. Q. 44:1 (1999), 82–111.
29. Hansen, M.T., Knowledge networks: explaining effective knowledge sharing in multiunit companies. Organ. Sci. 13:3 (2002), 232–248.
30. He, J., Fallah, M.H., Is inventor network structure a predictor of cluster evolution?. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76:1 (2009), 91–106.
31. Huang, M.H., Yang, H.W., A scientometric study of fuel cell based on paper and patent analysis. J. Libr. Inf. Stud. 11:2 (2013), 1–24.
32. Jack, S.L., The role, use and activation of strong and weak network ties: a qualitative analysis. J. Manag. Stud. 42:6 (2005), 1233–1259.
33. Jaffe, A., Technological opportunity and spillovers of R&D: evidence from firms’ patents, profits, and market value. Am. Econ. Rev. 76:5 (1986), 984–1001.
34. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., International knowledge flows: evidence from patent citations. Econ. Innov. New Technol. 8:1 (1999), 105–136.
35. Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R., Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. Q. J. Econ. 108:3 (1993), 577–598.
36. Kenis, P., Knoke, D., How organizational field networks shape interorganizational tie-formation rates. Acad. Manag. Rev., 2002, 275–293.
37. Koka, B.R., Madhavan, R., Prescott, J.E., The evolution of interfirm networks: environmental effects on patterns of network change. Acad. Manag. Rev. 31:3 (2006), 721–737.
38. Krackhardt, D., The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations. Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, 216, 1992, 239.
39. Marsden, P.V., Campbell, K.E., Measuring tie strength. Soc. Forces 63:2 (1984), 482–501.
40. Michelino, F., Lamberti, E., Cammarano, A., Caputo, M., Measuring open innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry. Creat. Innov. Manag. 24:1 (2015), 4–28.
41. Mitchell, J.C., Social Networks in Urban Situations: Analyses of Personal Relationships in Central African Towns. 1969, Humanities Press Intl.
42. Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E., Silverman, B.S., Strategic alliances and interfirm knowledge transfer. Strateg. Manag. J. 17 (1996), 77–91.
43. Narin, F., Patent bibliometrics. Scientometrics 30:1 (1994), 147–155.
44. Narula, R., R&D collaboration by SMEs: new opportunities and limitations in the face of globalisation. Technovation 24:2 (2004), 153–161.
45. Narula, R., Hagedoorn, J., Innovating through strategic alliances: moving towards international partnerships and contractual agreements. Technovation 19:5 (1999), 283–294.
46. Pavitt, K., Soete, L., Innovative activities and export shares: some comparisons between industries and countries. Technical Innovation and British Economic Performance, 1980, 38–66.
47. Rigby, D., Zook, C., Open market innovation. Harv. Bus. Rev. 80:10 (2002), 80–89.
48. Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of Innovations. 2003, Free Press, New York.
49. Röller, L.-H., Siebert, R., Tombak, M.M., Why firms form (or do not form) RJVS. Econ. J. 117:522 (2007), 1122–1144.
50. Schmookler, J., Invention and Economic Growth. 1966, Harvard University Press Cambridge, MA.
51. Shih, H.Y., Chang, T.L.S., International diffusion of embodied and disembodied technology: a network analysis approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 76:6 (2009), 821–834.
52. Singh, K., The impact of technological complexity and interfirm cooperation on business survival. Acad. Manag. J., 1997, 339–367.
53. Smith, K., Interactions in Knowledge Systems: Foundations, Policy Implications and Empirical Methods. STEP Report series, 1995.
54. Sorenson, O., Fleming, L., Science and the diffusion of knowledge. Res. Policy 33:10 (2004), 1615–1634.
55. Spekman, R.E., Isabella, L.A., MacAvoy, T.C., Forbes, T., Creating strategic alliances which endure. Long Range Plan. 29:3 (1996), 346–357.
56. Spence, M., Cost reduction, competition, and industry performance. Econometrica 52:1 (1984), 101–121.
57. Szulanski, G., Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strateg. Manag. J. 17 (1996), 27–43.
58. Uzzi, B., Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness. Adm. Sci. Q. 42:1 (1997), 35–67.
59. Uzzi, B., Gillespie, J.J., Knowledge spillover in corporate financing networks: embeddedness and the firm's debt performance. Strateg. Manag. J. 23:7 (2002), 595–618.
60. Xiang, X.-Y., Cai, H., Lam, S., Pei, Y.-L., International knowledge spillover through co-inventors: an empirical study using Chinese assignees’ patent data. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 80:1 (2013), 161–174.
61. Yasuda, H., Formation of strategic alliances in high-technology industries: comparative study of the resource-based theory and the transaction-cost theory. Technovation 25:7 (2005), 763–770.