The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Strategic Management

2018 Edition
| Editors: Mie Augier, David J. Teece

Recombination of Knowledge

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-00772-8_368
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

Many literatures suggest recombinant search as the source of invention, creativity, novelty and  innovation. We discuss the history of this idea, the challenge of defining and operationalizing the idea, the social influences upon recombinant search, and the strategic implications.

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

References

  1. Amabile, T.M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin, C.L., and K.B. Clark. 2000. Design rules, The Power of Modularity, vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Basalla, G. 1988. The evolution of technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burt, R.S. 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110: 349–399.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, D.T. 1960. Blind variation and selective retention in creative thought as in other knowledge processes. Psychological Review 67: 380–400.Google Scholar
  6. Fleming, L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science 47: 117–132.Google Scholar
  7. Fleming, L. 2002. Finding the organizational sources of technological breakthroughs: The story of Hewlett Packard’s ink jet invention. Industrial and Corporate Change 11: 1059–1084.Google Scholar
  8. Fleming, L., and O. Sorenson. 2004. Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal 25: 909–928.Google Scholar
  9. Fleming, L., S. Mingo, and D. Chen. 2007. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly 52: 443–475.Google Scholar
  10. Galunic, C.R., and S. Rodan. 1998. Resource recombination in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal 19: 1193–1201.Google Scholar
  11. Henderson, M., and K.B. Clark. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Special Issue, Administrative Science Quarterly 35: 9–30.Google Scholar
  12. Henderson, R., and I. Cockburn. 1994. Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in pharmaceutical research. Special Issue, Strategic Management Journal 15: 63–84.Google Scholar
  13. Kirk, G.S., J.E. Raven, and M. Schofield. 1983. The presocratic philosophers: A critical history, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kogut, B., and U. Zander. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science 3: 383–397.Google Scholar
  15. Koza, J.R., M.A. Keane, and M.J. Streeter. 2003. Evolving inventions. Scientific American 288: 52–59.Google Scholar
  16. Kurzberg, T.R., and T.M. Amabile. 2000. From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal 13: 285–294.Google Scholar
  17. Loasby, B.J. 2002. The evolution of knowledge: Beyond the biological model. Research Policy 31: 1227–1239.Google Scholar
  18. March, J.G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organization learning. Organization Science 2: 71–87.Google Scholar
  19. March, J.G., and H. Simon. 1958. Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Mokyr, J. 1990. The lever of riches: Technological creativity and economic progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Nelson, R., and S. Winter. 1982. An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  22. Padgett, J.F., and W.W. Powell. 2011. The emergence of organizations and markets. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Penrose, E.G. 1959. The theory of the growth of the firm. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Poincaré, H. 1921. The foundations of science: Science and hypothesis, the value of science, science and method. New York: Science Press.Google Scholar
  25. Riccaboni, M., and M.L. Frigotto. 2011. A few special cases: Scientific creativity and network dynamics in the field of rare diseases. Sociometrics 89: 397–420.Google Scholar
  26. Rosenkopf, L., and A. Nerkar. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal 22: 287–306.Google Scholar
  27. Russell, B. 1945. A history of western philosophy, and its connection with political and social circumstances from the earliest times to the present day. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  28. Schumpeter, J. 1939. Business cycles. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  29. Simon, H. 1991. Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organization Science 2: 125–134.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, A. 1982. Lectures on jurisprudence. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  31. Teece, D.J., G. Pisano, and A. Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18: 509–533.Google Scholar
  32. Tushman, M.L., and P. Anderson. 1986. Technological discontinuties and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 439–465.Google Scholar
  33. Uzzi, B., and J. Spiro. 2005. Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology 111: 447–504.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Harvard University, Business SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.University of TrentoTrentoItaly