Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Inventors’ brokerages dynamic and exploratory innovation: the moderating role of knowledge diversity

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An inventor’s exploratory innovation is driven by an extensive external knowledge search. This paper contributes to this understanding by exploring how inventors’ brokerages dynamic influence exploratory innovation from the perspective of ego-network, and the moderating role of knowledge diversity is also explored. Specifically, we define an inventor’s direct partners (tier-1) as brokerages between the inventor and its indirect partners (tier-2) and discuss the effects of the inventor’s brokerage expansion, stability, and recession on its exploratory innovation. Our empirical research is based on 4198 inventors working in the artificial intelligence field during the period from 1991 to 2019, and we identify those inventors through the USPTO database. Our results indicate that the brokerage expansion of an inventor has an inverted U-shaped impact on exploratory innovation, the brokerage stability has a positive impact on exploratory innovation, and the brokerage recession has a negative impact on exploratory innovation. Furthermore, knowledge diversity strengthens the positive impact of brokerage expansion and stability on exploratory innovation and strengthens the negative impact of brokerage recession on exploratory innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahuja, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D. (1992). Patenting as an indicator of technological innovation: Are view. Science and Public Policy, 19(6), 357–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arts, S., & Veugelers, R. (2015). Technology familiarity, recombinant novelty, and breakthrough invention. Industrial and Corporate Change, 24(6), 1215–1246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breschi, S., & Lenzi, C. (2015). The role of external linkages and gatekeepers for the renewal and expansion of US Cities’ knowledge base, 1990–2004. Regional Studies, 49(5), 782–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2008). Information and structural holes: Comment on Reagans and Zuckerman. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(5), 953–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnabuci, G., & Operti, E. (2013). Where do firms’ recombinant capabilities come from? Intraorganizational networks, knowledge, and firms’ ability to innovate through technological recombination. Strategic Management Journal, 34(13), 1591–1613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, S., Lee, J., & Song, J. (2023). Giant cluster formation and integrating role of bridges in social diffusion. Strategic Management Journal, 44(12), 2950–2985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y. S., & Chang, K. C. (2012). Using the entropy-based patent measure to explore the influences of related and unrelated technological diversification upon technological competences and firm performance. Scientometrics, 90(3), 825–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, Y., Choi, S. K., Kim, J., & Kwak, K. T. (2015). Antecedents of relational inertia and information sharing in SNS usage: The moderating role of structural autonomy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 95, 32–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlander, L., & McFarland, D. A. (2013). Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1), 69–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, J. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dibiaggio, L., Nasiriyar, M., & Nesta, L. (2014). Substitutability and complementarity of technological knowledge and the inventive performance of semiconductor companies. Research Policy, 43(9), 1582–1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duysters, G., & Lemmens, C. (2003). Alliance group formation enabling and constraining effects of embeddedness and social capital in strategic technology alliance networks. International Studies of Management & Organization, 33(2), 49–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Ismagilova, E., et al. (2021). Artificial Intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of Information Management, 57, 101994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47(1), 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L., & Waguespack, D. M. (2007). Brokerage, boundary spanning, and leadership in open innovation communities. Organization Science, 18(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, J. L., & Plunket, A. (2020). Regional gatekeepers, inventor networks and inventive performance: Spatial and organizational channels. Research Policy, 49(5), 103981.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V., & Nooteboom, B. (2006). Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy, 35(1), 1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & van den Oord, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37(10), 1717–1731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E. (2011). Role of technological gatekeepers in the growth of industrial clusters: Evidence from Chile. Regional Studies, 45(10), 1329–1348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuliani, E., & Bell, M. (2005). The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: Evidence from a Chilean wine cluster. Research Policy, 34(1), 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Brambila, C. N., Veloso, F. M., & Krackhardt, D. (2013). The impact of network embeddedness on research output. Research Policy, 42(9), 1555–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of mediation: A formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granados, F. J., & Knoke, D. (2013). Organizational status growth and structure: An alliance network analysis. Social Networks, 35(1), 62–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & Liu, N. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & Liu, N. (2015). Invention profiles and uneven growth in the field of emerging nano-energy. Energy Policy, 76, 146–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., Zhang, J. J., & Yan, Y. (2017). A dynamic perspective on diversities and network change: Partner entry, exit and persistence. International Journal of Technology Management, 74(1–4), 221–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haans, R. F., Pieters, C., & He, Z. L. (2016). Thinking about U: Theorizing and testing U-and inverted U-shaped relationships in strategy research. Strategic Management Journal, 37, 1177–1195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanaki, N., Nakajima, R., & Ogura, Y. (2010). The dynamics of R&D network in the IT industry. Research Policy, 39(3), 386–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J., Hall, B. H., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52(4), 909–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, C. L. (2017). Social networks, technology ties, and gatekeeper functionality: Implications for the performance management of R&D projects. Research Policy, 46(1), 305–315.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Huo, D., Motohashi, K., & Gong, H. (2019). Team diversity as dissimilarity and variety in organizational innovation. Research Policy, 48(6), 1564–1572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, P. C. (2019). Introduction to artificial intelligence (3rd ed.). Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe, A., Fogarty, M., & Banks, B. (1998). Evidence from patents and patent citations on the impact of NASA and other federal labs on commercial innovation. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(2), 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, Y., Yang, Y., Zhao, Y., & Li, Y. (2020). Partners’ centrality diversity and firm innovation performance: Evidence from China. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 22–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale, P., Singh, H., & Perlmutter, H. (2000). Learning and protection of proprietary assets in strategic alliances: Building relational capital. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 217–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, T. Y., Oh, H., & Swaminathan, A. (2006). Framing interorganizational network change: A network inertia perspective. Academy Management Review, 31(3), 704–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok, H., Faems, D., & De Faria, P. (2020). Ties that matter: The impact of alliance partner knowledge recombination novelty on knowledge utilization in R&D alliances. Research Policy, 49(7), 104011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, P., & Zaheer, A. (2022). Network stability: The role of geography and brokerage structure inequity. Academy of Management Journal, 65(4), 1139–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 109–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leten, B., Belderbos, R., & Van Looy, B. (2007). Technological diversification, coherence, and performance of firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(6), 567–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, M. B., & Montgomery, D. B. (1998). First-mover (dis) advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 19(12), 1111–1125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N., & Guan, J. C. (2015). Dynamic evolution of collaborative networks: Evidence from nano-energy research in China. Scientometrics, 102(3), 1895–1919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N., Shapira, P., & Yue, X. X. (2021). Tracking developments in artificial intelligence research: Constructing and applying a new search strategy. Scientometrics, 126(4), 3153–3192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansfield, E. (1986). Patents and innovation: An empirical study. Management Science, 32(2), 173–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otte, E., & Rousseau, R. (2002). Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. Journal of Information Science, 28(6), 441–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qian, Y., Liu, Y., & Sheng, Q. Z. (2020). Understanding hierarchical structural evolution in a scientific discipline: A case study of artificial intelligence. Journal of Informetrics, 14(3), 101047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintana-García, C., & Benavides-Velasco, C. A. (2008). Innovative competence, exploration and exploitation: The influence of technological diversification. Research Policy, 37(3), 492–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rychen, F., & Zimmermann, J. B. (2008). Clusters in the global knowledge-based economy: Knowledge gatekeepers and temporary proximity. Regional Studies, 46(2), 767–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, R. C. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 364–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schroder, H. M., Driver, M. J., & Streufert, S. (1967). Human information processing. Holt, Rinelhart and Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soda, G., Zaheer, A., Sun, X., & Cui, W. (2021). Brokerage evolution in innovation contexts: Formal structure, network neighborhoods and knowledge. Research Policy, 50(10), 104343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sytch, M., & Tatarynowicz, A. (2014). Exploring the locus of invention: The dynamics of network communities and firms’ invention productivity. Academy of Management Journal, 57(1), 249–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhaverbeke, W., Beerkens, B., Gilsing, V., & Duysters, G. (2006). Explorative and exploitative learning strategies in technology-based alliance networks. Academy of Management, 1, I1–I6.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. L., Rodan, S., Fruin, M., & Xu, X. Y. (2014). Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 57(2), 484–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, C., & Kratzer, J. (2013). Social entrepreneurship, social networks and social value creation: A quantitative analysis among social entrepreneurs. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 5(3), 217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, J. Y., Qualls, W. J., & Zeng, D. M. (2021). To explore or exploit: The influence of inter-firm R&D network diversity and structural holes on innovation outcomes. Technovation, 100, 102178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, Y., & Guan, J. C. (2018). Social capital, exploitative and exploratory innovations: The mediating roles of ego-network dynamics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 126, 244–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, Y., Li, J., & Zhang, J. (2022). Protecting intellectual property in foreign subsidiaries: An internal network defense perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 53(9), 1924–1944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, Y., Zhang, X., Jiang, W., & Feng, T. (2021). Does second-order social capital matter to green innovation? The moderating role of governance ambidexterity. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 25, 271–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zaheer, A., & Soda, G. (2009). Network evolution: The origins of structural holes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54(1), 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Major Program of the National Social Science Fund of China (Grant No. 20&ZD074).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Administration and Policy, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China

    Xueyun Rong & Zhongkai Yang

  2. School of Economics and Management, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, 116024, China

    Yutao Sun

Authors
  1. Xueyun Rong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zhongkai Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yutao Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yutao Sun.

Ethics declarations

Competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables A1, A2, A3, A4.

Table A1 Definition of search terms for patents of Artificial Intelligence technology
Full size table
Table A2 Results of fixed effects panel negative binomial regression for exploratory innovations
Full size table
Table A3 Test of an inverted U-shaped relationship between BE and EI
Full size table
Table A4 Test of an inverted U-shaped relationship between BS and EI
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rong, X., Yang, Z. & Sun, Y. Inventors’ brokerages dynamic and exploratory innovation: the moderating role of knowledge diversity. Scientometrics (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04993-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04993-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation