Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 121, Issue 2, pp 1067–1084 | Cite as

Dynamics of collaboration network community and exploratory innovation: the moderation of knowledge networks

  • Jingbei WangEmail author
  • Naiding Yang
Article
  • 184 Downloads

Abstract

Previous studies have explored the effects of network structures on organization’s exploratory innovation from different perspectives. However, few studies focus on the network community, and there still exists a possible tension on the relationship between network community and organization’s exploratory innovation. In an attempt to make theoretical and empirical contributions to the literature, this study addresses the above research gap by focusing on the dynamics of the network community, and developed a research model that explains how the dynamics of network community affect organization’s exploratory innovation. Furthermore, organizations are not only embedded in the collaboration network, but also in the knowledge network, and we further proposed that the configuration of organizational knowledge network has a moderating effect on the above relationships. We mainly focused on the network cohesion of organizational knowledge network and divided it into global cohesion and local cohesion. With the patent data of smartphone collaboration network from year 2004 to 2017, we empirically examined our hypotheses. The estimation results verified the inverted-U-shaped relationship between dynamics of network community and organization’s exploratory innovation. Furthermore, global cohesion of focal organization’s knowledge network moderates the process in the way that when it is at high level, organization’s exploratory innovation can benefit more from a moderate level of dynamics of network community. Nevertheless, local cohesion moderates the process in the way that when it is at low level, organization’s exploratory innovation can benefit more from a moderate level of dynamics of network community.

Keywords

Network dynamics Network community Exploratory innovation Global cohesion Local cohesion 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number, 71871182, 71471146, 71501158], Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [grant number, 3102018JCC013], Shaanxi Provincial Soft Science Research Program [grant number, 2019KRM158].

References

  1. Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.Google Scholar
  2. Arora, S. K., Porter, A. L., Youtie, J., & Shapira, P. (2013). Capturing new developments in an emerging technology: An updated search strategy for identifying nanotechnology research outputs. Scientometrics, 95(1), 351–370.Google Scholar
  3. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.Google Scholar
  4. Chiang, Y. H., & Hung, K. P. (2010). Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows. R&D Management, 40(3), 292–299.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. Choe, H., & Lee, D. H. (2013). The structure and change of the research collaboration network in korea (2000–2011): Network analysis of joint patents. Scientometrics, 111(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  6. Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.Google Scholar
  7. Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. (2007). Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(3), 443–475.Google Scholar
  8. Gemser, G., Leenders, M. A. A. M., & Wijnberg, N. J. (1996). The dynamics of inter-firm networks in the course of the industry life cycle: The role of appropriability. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 8(4), 439–454.Google Scholar
  9. Ghosh, A., & Rosenkopf, L. (2015). Perspective—Shrouded in structure: Challenges and opportunities for a friction-based view of network research. Organization Science, 26(2), 622–631.Google Scholar
  10. Grant, R. (1997). The knowledge-based view of the firm. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 450–454.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Guan, J., & Na, L. (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.Google Scholar
  12. Guler, I., & Nerkar, A. (2012). The impact of global and local cohesion on innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic Management Journal, 33(5), 535–549.Google Scholar
  13. Hanaki, N., Nakajima, R., & Ogura, Y. (2010). The dynamics of R&D network in the IT industry. Research Policy, 39(3), 386–399.Google Scholar
  14. Lee, S., & Kim, W. (2017). The knowledge network dynamics in a mobile ecosystem: A patent citation analysis. Scientometrics, 111(2), 717–742.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis, K., Belliveau, M., Herndon, B., & Keller, J. (2007). Group cognition, membership change, and performance: Investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(2), 159–178.Google Scholar
  16. Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515–1530.Google Scholar
  17. Lind, J. T., & Mehlum, H. (2010). With or without U? The appropriate test for a U-shaped relationship. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 72(1), 109–118.Google Scholar
  18. Liu, C. H. (2011). The effects of innovation alliance on network structure and density of cluster. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(1), 299–305.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu, X., Wang, J., & Ji, D. (2011). Network characteristics, absorptive capacity and technological innovation performance. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 11(2), 97–116.Google Scholar
  20. Liu, X., Xie, Y., & Wu, M. (2015). How latecomers innovate through technology modularization: Evidence from China’s Shanzhai industry. Innovation, 17(2), 266–280.Google Scholar
  21. Lyu, Y., Liu, Q., He, B., & Nie, J. (2017). Structural embeddedness and innovation diffusion: The moderating role of industrial technology grouping. Scientometrics, 111(2), 889–916.Google Scholar
  22. Majchrzak, A., Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Bagherzadeh, M. (2015). A review of interorganizational collaboration dynamics. Journal of Management, 41(5), 1338–1360.Google Scholar
  23. Mangematin, V., & Nesta, L. (1999). What kind of knowledge can a firm absorb? International Journal of Technology Management, 18(3), 149–172.Google Scholar
  24. Moliner, L. A., Gallardo-Gallardo, E., & Puelles, P. G. D. (2017). Understanding scientific communities: A social network approach to collaborations in talent management research. Scientometrics, 113(3), 1–24.Google Scholar
  25. Newman, M. E. J., & Girvan, M. (2004). Finding and evaluating community structure in networks. Physical Review E: Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics, 69(2), 026113.Google Scholar
  26. Park, H., & Yoon, J. (2014). Assessing coreness and intermediarity of technology sectors using patent co-classification analysis: The case of Korean national R&D. Scientometrics, 98(2), 853–890.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks a review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 1115–1166.Google Scholar
  28. Powell, W. W. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.Google Scholar
  29. Powers, J. B., & McDougall, P. (2005). Policy orientation effects on performance with licensing to start-ups and small companies. Research Policy, 34(7), 1028–1042.Google Scholar
  30. Putnam, J. (1996). The value of international patent rights. New Haven: Yale University.Google Scholar
  31. Salman, N., & Saives, A. L. (2010). Indirect networks: An intangible resource for biotechnology innovation. R&D Management, 35(2), 203–215.Google Scholar
  32. Scherngell, T. (2013). Is the European R&D network homogeneous? Distinguishing relevant network communities using graph theoretic and spatial interaction modelling approaches. Regional Studies, 47(8), 1283–1298.Google Scholar
  33. 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.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Stein, N. V., Sick, N., & Leker, J. (2015). How to measure technological distance in collaborations: The case of electric mobility. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 97, 154–167.Google Scholar
  35. Sytch, M., Tatarynowicz, A., & Gulati, R. (2012). Toward a theory of extended contact: The incentives and opportunities for bridging across network communities. Organization Science, 23(6), 1658–1681.Google Scholar
  36. Tu, C. (2010). Balancing exploration and exploitation capabilities in high technology firms: A multi-source multi-context examination. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(4), 672–680.Google Scholar
  37. Wang, C. H., & Hsu, L. C. (2014). Building exploration and exploitation in the high-tech industry: The role of relationship learning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81(1), 331–340.Google Scholar
  38. Wang, C., Rodan, S., Fruin, M., & Xu, X. (2014). Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 484–514.Google Scholar
  39. Wei, L., & Dang, X. (2017). Study on the emergence of technological innovation network community structure and effect on ambidexterity innovation in asymmetric perspective. Operations Research and Management Science, 26(10), 188–199.Google Scholar
  40. Xu, L., Jian, L., & Xin, Z. (2017). Exploring new knowledge through research collaboration: The moderation of the global and local cohesion of knowledge networks. Journal of Technology Transfer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-10017-19614-10968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yan, Y., & Guan, J. (2018a). Social capital, exploitative and exploratory innovations: The mediating roles of ego-network dynamics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126, 244–258.Google Scholar
  42. Yan, Y., & Guan, J. (2018b). How multiple networks help in creating knowledge: Evidence from alternative energy patents. Scientometrics, 115(1), 51–77.Google Scholar
  43. Yayavaram, S., & Ahuja, G. (2008). Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(2), 333–362.Google Scholar
  44. Zang, J. (2018). Structural holes, exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation. Management Decision, 56(8), 1682–1695.Google Scholar
  45. Zhang, G., Duan, H., & Zhou, J. (2017). Network stability, connectivity and innovation output. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 339–349.Google Scholar
  46. Zhang, G., & Tang, C. (2018). How R&D partner diversity influences innovation performance: An empirical study in the nano-biopharmaceutical field. Scientometrics, 116(3), 1–26.Google Scholar
  47. Zhao, L., Zhang, H., & Wu, W. (2019). Cooperative knowledge creation in an uncertain network environment based on a dynamic knowledge supernetwork. Scientometrics, 119(2), 657–685.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of ManagementNorthwestern Polytechnical UniversityXi’anPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations