基于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新研究
|
摘要
校企知识转移是高新技术企业获取外部知识的重要渠道，属于一类重要的企业开放式创新模式，也是促进我国产业结构升级的重要手段。但我国企业在走校企知识转移的开放式创新道路时，存在很多问题，如高校知识的转化效率低下，不稳定的校企合作关系，知识转移的机制不够完善，创新链不够顺畅等。这些问题的存在引发了学术界对于校企合作创新的持续讨论和深入研究。但通过梳理现有文献发现，多数研究关注的是企业开放式创新行为对创新绩效的影响，或者是校企知识转移过程本身的效率与影响因素问题。然而校企知识转移有着丰富的渠道资源，企业对这些开放式创新资源的利用水平会对创新绩效产生重要影响，同时这种资源利用水平也会受到校企知识转移过程的各种因素的影响。因此，通过研究校企知识转移的企业开放式创新特性与影响因素，及其长期的演化规律，将有助于对这一企业开放式创新模式的深入理解，并为管理者提供更具针对性的政策建议。基于这一背景，站在高新技术企业角度，从以下几个方面展开对上述问题的研究：
（1）首先，构建校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为影响因素模型。以校企知识转移的信息传播模型为基础，分析校企知识转移过程中知识转移动机、企业知识吸收能力、高校知识释放能力以及知识产权关系的特性。并且从创新开放广度、深度方面，提出这些特性要素对校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为影响的研究假设与理论模型。
（2）其次，对校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为影响因素模型进行实证检验。以问卷调查的实证研究方法，先确定需要进行测度的构念及其测量维度，包括：基于校企知识转移的企业创新开放广度、深度，企业知识吸收能力，高校知识释放能力，校企知识产权关系冲突性。据此设计这些构念的测度量表，以及调查问卷。然后通过发放与回收问卷，获得调查数据。利用探索性因子与验证性因子分析法，对量表质量进行检验，以确定最终量表结构。接着采用结构方程模型（SEM）以及AMOS软件，进行数据分析处理，对校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为影响因素模型进行假设检验，获得实证研究的结论。
（3）再次，利用系统动力学仿真方法揭示基于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为的长期演化规律。根据校企知识转移的动态阶段等过程模型，以及获得实证研究支持的影响因素变量，构建起校企知识转移的企业开放式创新系统的因果关系模型。利用流率基本入树模型，构建具有定量分析效果的系统流图模型，以及系统变量方程。通过Vensim软件仿真出基于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为演化过程。并且对知识吸收能力、释放能力、知识产权冲突应对系数、知识效益系数、知识差异、知识契合度、知识复杂性等系统参数进行灵敏度分析，获得影响系统演化过程的关键因素，并据此进行政策方案的设计。
通过以上的理论分析、实证检验以及系统仿真研究，获得了如下的主要结论：
（1）只有生存动机对于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为具有显著影响。企业虽然期望通过与高校创新合作，开展知识转移活动，并且愿意维系长期的信任合作关系，以此提高自身竞争优势。但是我国校企合作创新还处于初始成长阶段，企业面临到更多的是资金、劳动力资源、缩短研发周期等较低层次的生存动机的需要，因而其动机行为表现是现实而理性的。同时，从长期来看，生存动机不会无限增长，而是逐渐趋于稳定状态，企业会寻求更高层次的动机需要。
（2）潜在吸收能力中的知识消化能力会影响到校企知识转移过程中企业创新开放广度。而实际吸收能力中的知识利用能力会对校企知识转移过程中企业创新开放深度产生显著影响。同时企业吸收能力对于创新开放程度的影响处于一种平衡状态，其中知识利用能力对创新绩效会产生重要影响。并且企业实际知识吸收能力还会显著增加校企之间知识产权关系的冲突性。
（3）目前高校知识释放能力对校企双方创新开放深度产生重要影响，但不是创新开放广度的决定因素。长远来看，高校知识释放能力对于校企创新开放深度演化模式的影响不大，也不会使得创新绩效发展水平显著提升，但保持现有水平却是必要的。
（4）知识产权冲突对校企创新开放广度与深度均造成负面影响。应对知识产权冲突的措施与力度成为改善创新绩效提升空间的关键因素。
（5）目前校企知识转移活动更加偏重于知识交易模式，吻合了目前校企知识转移的开放式创新动机为生存动机这一结论。同时通过加速知识转化能力的提升、加大应对知识产权冲突力度等多项政策设计，可以挖掘出更多校企知识转移渠道的潜力，从而带来创新绩效提升空间的改善。
（6）存在多个影响系统演化过程的关键因素，并且成为克服因过度开放而造成创新绩效下降的政策设计依据。
与国内外该领域的研究相比，本研究的创新点与理论贡献在于：
（1）构建了基于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为影响因素模型，并通过实证研究对该模型进行了验证，从校企知识转移层面拓展了企业开放式创新的行为理论。
（2）结合ERG动机模型，层次化校企知识转移过程中企业动机因素，从而获得了关于校企知识转移动机行为理论更加细化的研究结论。
（3）构建基于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新系统动力学模型，通过复杂系统反馈环分析，结合仿真结果，找到决定系统演化过程的基模，揭示了校企开放式创新行为规律背后的原因。
（4）通过系统动力学的灵敏度仿真分析，找到影响基于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为与创新绩效演化规律的关键因素。
University-industry knowledge transferring (U-I KT) is an important channel ofacquiring outside knowledge for high-tech enterprises, which is also a key openinnovation pattern that takes the important route for upgrading industrial structures inour country. But there are lots of problems on taking the way of open innovation basedon U-I KT. For examples, the efficiency of transforming universities’ knowledge is low;the relationship of innovation cooperation between university and industry is unstable;the mechanism of U-I KT is not perfect; the chain of innovation is not unhindered, et al.These problems initiate the discussing and researching for the innovation cooperationbehavior between university and industry in academic. But through the literature review,most of them focus the impact of the open innovation for innovation performance andU-I KT’s efficiency. There are affluent channel resources of U-I KT, however, the levelof exploiting which influences the innovation performance and at the same time isaffected by factors in the process of U-I KT. Therefore, the research working on thefeatures of open innovation behavior based on the U-I KT and the behavior evolution isbenefit to improve the recognition for enterprises’ open innovation pattern and providethe recommendations for innovation managers. Yet the literatures relating to theseresearch focuses are insufficient. With the background this paper launches the researchworking about the following facets by standing the enterprises’ view.
(1)Firstly, the factor model of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT isconstructed. Through the U-I KT communication theory, there are some factors’ featuresto be analyzed about motivation, absorptive capacity, disseminative capacity,intellectual property right (IPR) relationship. On these factors some hypothesis andcorresponding theory model are built from the innovation open breadth and depth.
(2)Secondly, the factor model of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT isempirically tested. According to the method of questionnaire, some constructs andscales are designed: the innovation open breadth and depth based on U-I KT, absorptivecapacity, disseminative capacity and IPR conflicts between university and industry. Bysending and receiving the questionnaires, the data are collected. Testing the scales’validity and reliability is by EFA and CFA, and then the scales’ structures are checkedand confirmed. The structure equity model (SEM) and AMOS software are used for data dealing and analyzing. The empirical results are obtained after testing the hypothesisabout the factor model of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT.
(3)Thirdly, the evolution principles of open innovation behavior based on U-I KTare revealed by System Dynamics simulation. On the basis of the dynamic phasingprocess model and the empirical results, the causality model of open innovation basedon U-I KT is built. The rate variable fundamental in-tree is adopted in constructing thesystem flow graph model and equations. The Vensim software is used to simulate theevolution of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT. Furthermore, sensitivityanalysis towards the absorptive capacity, disseminative capacity, IPR conflict factor,knowledge effectiveness factor, knowledge difference, knowledge fitness, knowledgecomplexity et al. is applied for finding the key factors impacting the system evolutionand policy designing.
From the above theory analysis, empirical testing and system simulation, someconclusions are obtained.
(1)Only the existence motivation affects significantly the open innovation behaviorbased on U-I KT. This implies that although the enterprise expects to improve thecompetence by means of innovation cooperation with universities, U-I KT activities,and to maintain the cooperation relationship. But the activities of innovationcooperation between university and industry are in the initial and growing phase inwhich enterprises are confronted with lots of lower level requirements of funds, laborresources, shortening the development cycle that indicates it is realistic and rational.Simultaneously, the existence motivation is not growing limitlessly in the long run,while it is gradually stabilized. After it enterprises try to find the higher levelrequirements.
(2)The assimilative capacity of the potential absorptive capacity can impact theinnovation open breadth based on U-I KT. Meanwhile, the knowledge exploitedcapacity of realized absorptive capacity affects the innovation open depth significantly.The absorptive capacity is in the status of equilibrium to affect the openness, yet theexploiting capacity play the conspicuous role of affecting the innovation performance.In addition the realized absorptive capacity actually brings out the IPR conflictsbetween university and industry.
(3)The disseminative capacity of universities is affecting the innovation open depthof U-I KT, but not the breadth. And the disseminative capacity does not make better the effect of improving the innovation open depth and innovation performance. But holdingthe level of dissemination is necessary.
(4)The negative impact to the innovation openness is created by the IPR conflicts.Measures to deal with IPR conflicts with efforts are the key factors to change thenegative impact on the innovation performance.
(5)The emphasis of activities of U-I KT is on the knowledge trading pattern thatfits the existence motivation is the key requirement. But the channels of U-I KT can beexploited sufficiently by accelerating the improvement of knowledge transformation,enhancing the measures of dealing with IPR conflicts et al. This will ameliorate thepromoting of innovation performance.
(6)There are some key factors which can change the mode of system evolution.These key factors are able to be used for policies designing of overcoming thedeclination of innovation performance caused by over-openness.
The innovations of this research are showed from the followings compared to theresearches in this field:
(1)The factor model of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT is constructedand tested by the empirical study. This expands the theory of enterprise open innovationbehavior from the level of U-I KT.
(2)Hierarchical motivations of U-I KT with the ERG model create the refiningresearch results about the U-I KT behavior.
(3)The system dynamics model of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT issimulated that gives the results of evolution principles and gets the system archetypesby feedback loops analysis on the complex system.
(4)The key factors of impacting the open innovation behavior and innovationperformance evolution based on U-I KT are found by sensitivity analysis in systemdynamics.
（1）首先，构建校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为影响因素模型。以校企知识转移的信息传播模型为基础，分析校企知识转移过程中知识转移动机、企业知识吸收能力、高校知识释放能力以及知识产权关系的特性。并且从创新开放广度、深度方面，提出这些特性要素对校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为影响的研究假设与理论模型。
（2）其次，对校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为影响因素模型进行实证检验。以问卷调查的实证研究方法，先确定需要进行测度的构念及其测量维度，包括：基于校企知识转移的企业创新开放广度、深度，企业知识吸收能力，高校知识释放能力，校企知识产权关系冲突性。据此设计这些构念的测度量表，以及调查问卷。然后通过发放与回收问卷，获得调查数据。利用探索性因子与验证性因子分析法，对量表质量进行检验，以确定最终量表结构。接着采用结构方程模型（SEM）以及AMOS软件，进行数据分析处理，对校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为影响因素模型进行假设检验，获得实证研究的结论。
（3）再次，利用系统动力学仿真方法揭示基于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为的长期演化规律。根据校企知识转移的动态阶段等过程模型，以及获得实证研究支持的影响因素变量，构建起校企知识转移的企业开放式创新系统的因果关系模型。利用流率基本入树模型，构建具有定量分析效果的系统流图模型，以及系统变量方程。通过Vensim软件仿真出基于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为演化过程。并且对知识吸收能力、释放能力、知识产权冲突应对系数、知识效益系数、知识差异、知识契合度、知识复杂性等系统参数进行灵敏度分析，获得影响系统演化过程的关键因素，并据此进行政策方案的设计。
通过以上的理论分析、实证检验以及系统仿真研究，获得了如下的主要结论：
（1）只有生存动机对于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为具有显著影响。企业虽然期望通过与高校创新合作，开展知识转移活动，并且愿意维系长期的信任合作关系，以此提高自身竞争优势。但是我国校企合作创新还处于初始成长阶段，企业面临到更多的是资金、劳动力资源、缩短研发周期等较低层次的生存动机的需要，因而其动机行为表现是现实而理性的。同时，从长期来看，生存动机不会无限增长，而是逐渐趋于稳定状态，企业会寻求更高层次的动机需要。
（2）潜在吸收能力中的知识消化能力会影响到校企知识转移过程中企业创新开放广度。而实际吸收能力中的知识利用能力会对校企知识转移过程中企业创新开放深度产生显著影响。同时企业吸收能力对于创新开放程度的影响处于一种平衡状态，其中知识利用能力对创新绩效会产生重要影响。并且企业实际知识吸收能力还会显著增加校企之间知识产权关系的冲突性。
（3）目前高校知识释放能力对校企双方创新开放深度产生重要影响，但不是创新开放广度的决定因素。长远来看，高校知识释放能力对于校企创新开放深度演化模式的影响不大，也不会使得创新绩效发展水平显著提升，但保持现有水平却是必要的。
（4）知识产权冲突对校企创新开放广度与深度均造成负面影响。应对知识产权冲突的措施与力度成为改善创新绩效提升空间的关键因素。
（5）目前校企知识转移活动更加偏重于知识交易模式，吻合了目前校企知识转移的开放式创新动机为生存动机这一结论。同时通过加速知识转化能力的提升、加大应对知识产权冲突力度等多项政策设计，可以挖掘出更多校企知识转移渠道的潜力，从而带来创新绩效提升空间的改善。
（6）存在多个影响系统演化过程的关键因素，并且成为克服因过度开放而造成创新绩效下降的政策设计依据。
与国内外该领域的研究相比，本研究的创新点与理论贡献在于：
（1）构建了基于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为影响因素模型，并通过实证研究对该模型进行了验证，从校企知识转移层面拓展了企业开放式创新的行为理论。
（2）结合ERG动机模型，层次化校企知识转移过程中企业动机因素，从而获得了关于校企知识转移动机行为理论更加细化的研究结论。
（3）构建基于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新系统动力学模型，通过复杂系统反馈环分析，结合仿真结果，找到决定系统演化过程的基模，揭示了校企开放式创新行为规律背后的原因。
（4）通过系统动力学的灵敏度仿真分析，找到影响基于校企知识转移的企业开放式创新行为与创新绩效演化规律的关键因素。
University-industry knowledge transferring (U-I KT) is an important channel ofacquiring outside knowledge for high-tech enterprises, which is also a key openinnovation pattern that takes the important route for upgrading industrial structures inour country. But there are lots of problems on taking the way of open innovation basedon U-I KT. For examples, the efficiency of transforming universities’ knowledge is low;the relationship of innovation cooperation between university and industry is unstable;the mechanism of U-I KT is not perfect; the chain of innovation is not unhindered, et al.These problems initiate the discussing and researching for the innovation cooperationbehavior between university and industry in academic. But through the literature review,most of them focus the impact of the open innovation for innovation performance andU-I KT’s efficiency. There are affluent channel resources of U-I KT, however, the levelof exploiting which influences the innovation performance and at the same time isaffected by factors in the process of U-I KT. Therefore, the research working on thefeatures of open innovation behavior based on the U-I KT and the behavior evolution isbenefit to improve the recognition for enterprises’ open innovation pattern and providethe recommendations for innovation managers. Yet the literatures relating to theseresearch focuses are insufficient. With the background this paper launches the researchworking about the following facets by standing the enterprises’ view.
(1)Firstly, the factor model of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT isconstructed. Through the U-I KT communication theory, there are some factors’ featuresto be analyzed about motivation, absorptive capacity, disseminative capacity,intellectual property right (IPR) relationship. On these factors some hypothesis andcorresponding theory model are built from the innovation open breadth and depth.
(2)Secondly, the factor model of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT isempirically tested. According to the method of questionnaire, some constructs andscales are designed: the innovation open breadth and depth based on U-I KT, absorptivecapacity, disseminative capacity and IPR conflicts between university and industry. Bysending and receiving the questionnaires, the data are collected. Testing the scales’validity and reliability is by EFA and CFA, and then the scales’ structures are checkedand confirmed. The structure equity model (SEM) and AMOS software are used for data dealing and analyzing. The empirical results are obtained after testing the hypothesisabout the factor model of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT.
(3)Thirdly, the evolution principles of open innovation behavior based on U-I KTare revealed by System Dynamics simulation. On the basis of the dynamic phasingprocess model and the empirical results, the causality model of open innovation basedon U-I KT is built. The rate variable fundamental in-tree is adopted in constructing thesystem flow graph model and equations. The Vensim software is used to simulate theevolution of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT. Furthermore, sensitivityanalysis towards the absorptive capacity, disseminative capacity, IPR conflict factor,knowledge effectiveness factor, knowledge difference, knowledge fitness, knowledgecomplexity et al. is applied for finding the key factors impacting the system evolutionand policy designing.
From the above theory analysis, empirical testing and system simulation, someconclusions are obtained.
(1)Only the existence motivation affects significantly the open innovation behaviorbased on U-I KT. This implies that although the enterprise expects to improve thecompetence by means of innovation cooperation with universities, U-I KT activities,and to maintain the cooperation relationship. But the activities of innovationcooperation between university and industry are in the initial and growing phase inwhich enterprises are confronted with lots of lower level requirements of funds, laborresources, shortening the development cycle that indicates it is realistic and rational.Simultaneously, the existence motivation is not growing limitlessly in the long run,while it is gradually stabilized. After it enterprises try to find the higher levelrequirements.
(2)The assimilative capacity of the potential absorptive capacity can impact theinnovation open breadth based on U-I KT. Meanwhile, the knowledge exploitedcapacity of realized absorptive capacity affects the innovation open depth significantly.The absorptive capacity is in the status of equilibrium to affect the openness, yet theexploiting capacity play the conspicuous role of affecting the innovation performance.In addition the realized absorptive capacity actually brings out the IPR conflictsbetween university and industry.
(3)The disseminative capacity of universities is affecting the innovation open depthof U-I KT, but not the breadth. And the disseminative capacity does not make better the effect of improving the innovation open depth and innovation performance. But holdingthe level of dissemination is necessary.
(4)The negative impact to the innovation openness is created by the IPR conflicts.Measures to deal with IPR conflicts with efforts are the key factors to change thenegative impact on the innovation performance.
(5)The emphasis of activities of U-I KT is on the knowledge trading pattern thatfits the existence motivation is the key requirement. But the channels of U-I KT can beexploited sufficiently by accelerating the improvement of knowledge transformation,enhancing the measures of dealing with IPR conflicts et al. This will ameliorate thepromoting of innovation performance.
(6)There are some key factors which can change the mode of system evolution.These key factors are able to be used for policies designing of overcoming thedeclination of innovation performance caused by over-openness.
The innovations of this research are showed from the followings compared to theresearches in this field:
(1)The factor model of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT is constructedand tested by the empirical study. This expands the theory of enterprise open innovationbehavior from the level of U-I KT.
(2)Hierarchical motivations of U-I KT with the ERG model create the refiningresearch results about the U-I KT behavior.
(3)The system dynamics model of open innovation behavior based on U-I KT issimulated that gives the results of evolution principles and gets the system archetypesby feedback loops analysis on the complex system.
(4)The key factors of impacting the open innovation behavior and innovationperformance evolution based on U-I KT are found by sensitivity analysis in systemdynamics.
引文
[1]曹勇,赵莉,李杨.基于开放式创新环境的企业专利管理模式研究[J].情报杂志,2011,30(3):196-201.
[2]陈桂尧,党红.关于我国大学与企业合作研究动机的实证分析[J].高等工程教育研究,2005(4):76-80.
[3]陈劲,蒋子军,陈钰芬.开放式创新视角下企业知识吸收能力影响因素研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2011,41(5):71-82.
[4]陈莞,谢富纪.开放式自主创新与其支撑体系互动机制研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007(3):58-61.
[5]陈伟.创新管理[M].北京:科学出版社,1996.
[6]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放度对企业技术创新绩效的影响[J].科学学研究,2008,26(2):419-426.
[7]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放式创新：机理与模式[M].北京:科学出版社,2008.
[8]董晋曦.关于国家创新体系的若干思考——兼论高校应成为知识创新系统的第一执行主体[J].研究与发展管理,1999,11(6):6-10.
[9]范洁凭,焦秀焕,许治.我国校企联合申请发明专利质量评估[J].华南理工大学学报（社会科学版）,2012,14(5):44-49.
[10]费钟琳,赵顺.主体风险态度对校企联盟知识转移模式的影响[J].软科学,2010,24(2):6-9.
[11]福勒著,蒋逸民译.调查问卷的设计与评估[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,2010.
[12]傅家骥.技术创新学[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1998.
[13]国家发改委宏观经济研究院课题组.“十二五”时期产业结构调整战略框架[J].理论参考,2010(11):48-52.
[14]郝生宾,于渤.技术战略对企业自主创新作用路径的实证研究[J].研究与发展管理,2009,21(3):63-69.
[15]贺俊,黄阳华,沈云昌.校企合作研发的最优制度安排[J].中国工业经济,2011(2):1-11.
[16]候杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2004.
[17]胡配农,肖条军,陈怡.大学科研与教学的最优管理策略[C].管理科学与系统科学研究新进展,2001:177-182.
[18]华尔特.罗斯托.经济成长的阶段[M].北京:商务印书馆,1962.
[19]黄芳铭.结构方程模式：理论与应用[M].台北:五南图书出版公司,2002.
[20]贾仁安,丁荣华.系统动力学：反馈动态性复杂分析[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2002.
[21]蒋兴华,张明.产学研战略联盟合作动机多理论视角研究及实证探讨[J].科技管理研究,2012(13):10-14.
[22]蒋洋,鲁若愚.四川省大中型企业自主创新能力分析评价[J].软科学,2011,25(2):89-93.
[23]金瑜.心理测量[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[24]李怀祖.管理研究方法论（第2版）[M].西安:西安交通大学出版社,2004.
[25]李同吉,杜伟宇,吴庆麟.复杂陈述性知识学习过程中学习活动对学习成绩影响研究[J].心理科学,2009,32(4):980-982.
[26]李应博,周立,何建坤.协同创新服务视角下的中国大学创新能力转移[J].中国科技论坛,2007(2):21-25.
[27]廖述梅.校企知识转移促进企业技术创新的实证研究[M].经济科学出版社,2010.
[28]林晶晶,周国华.企业-大学合作中的知识转移机制研究——以某转制院所实施项目管理模式为例[J].中国软科学,2006(3):139-144.
[29]林莉,郑旭,葛继平.基于小世界网络视角的产学研合作知识转移活动分析[J].科技进步与对策,2010,27(3):5-8.
[30]林淼,苏竣,张雅娴,陈玲.技术链、产业链和技术创新链：理论分析与政策含义[J].科学学研究,2001,19(4):28-32.
[31]凌亢,王浣尘,陈传美.南京市可持续发展系统模型的运行与检验[J].武汉大学学报（社会科学版）,2002(1):64-69.
[32]刘劲杨.知识创新、技术创新与制度创新概念的再界定[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2002(5):5-8.
[33]刘奕岑.国内外高校技术转移模式及其分析[D].重庆:重庆大学,2006.
[34]芦亮.校企知识转移的机制与效用研究[D].南昌:江西财经大学,2010.
[35]马钦玉,杨胜刚.区域自主创新能力评价指标体系及其测算方法[J].统计与决策,2008(11):51-53.
[36]马庆国,徐青,廖振鹏,张彩江.知识转移的影响因素分析[J].北京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2006,8(1):40-43.
[37]毛蕴诗,汪建成.基于产品升级的自主创新路径研究[J].管理世界,2006(5):114-120.
[38]苗东升.系统科学大学讲稿[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[39]潘杰义,李燕,詹美求.企业—大学知识联盟中知识转移影响因素分析[J].科技管理研究,2006(7):206-210.
[40]彭正龙,王海花,蒋旭灿.开放式创新模式下资源共享对创新绩效的影响：知识转移的中介效应[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2011,32(1):48-53.
[41]齐丽云,汪克夷,张芳芳,赵笑一.企业内部知识传播的系统动力学模型研究[J].管理科学,2008,21(6):9-20.
[42]邱皓政,林碧芳.结构方程模型的原理与应用[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社,2012.
[43]沈伟国,陈艺春.我国开放式自主创新体系要素模型分析[J].中国软科学,2007(11):129-135.
[44]施陈彬,李南,林敏,郭慧.知识释放能力影响知识转移效果的模拟研究[J].情报理论与实践,2011,34(1):23-26.
[45]石军伟,付海艳.激励机制、科研合作网络与大学声誉之间的关系研究[J].教育研究,2012,(1):81-88.
[46]孙丽文,李娜,刘伟.高校技术转移模式选择的影响因素分析[J].河北工业大学学报,2008,37(1):77-81.
[47]谭大鹏,霍国庆.知识转移一般过程研究[J].当代经济管理,2006,28(3):11-14.
[48]谭可欣,郭东强.知识转移与企业自主创新能力提高[J].江西财经大学学报,2008,57(3):31-34.
[49]汤建影.基于员工流动的技术知识转移机理研究[M].北京:科学出版社,2009.
[50]唐方成,仝允桓.经济全球化背景下的开放式创新与企业的知识产权保护[J].中国软科学,2007(6):58-62.
[51]唐方成,席酉民.知识转移与网络组织的动力学行为模式(Ⅱ):吸收能力与释放能力[J].系统工程理论与实践,2006(9):84-89.
[52]王昌林.人力资本溢出与自主创新能力[J].科技管理研究,2009(7):331-333.
[53]王萍,刘思峰.基于熵值法的高新园区自主创新能力综合评价研究[J].科技管理研究,2009(7):161-163.
[54]王兴辉,张际平.试论学习型社会中的自我导向学习及策略[J].电化教育研究,2005(4):58-62.
[55]王一鸣,王君.关于提高企业自主创新能力的几个问题[J].中国软科学,2005(7):10-15.
[56]魏江,王铜安,陆江平.知识密集型服务企业创新组织结构特征及其与创新绩效关系实证研究[J].管理工程学报,2009,23(3):103-110.
[57]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰,刘红云.中介效应检验程序及其应用[J].心理学报,2004,36(5):614-620.
[58]吴洁,张运华,施琴芬.高校知识创新效率研究——以专利申请为例[J].研究与发展管理,2008,20(6):117-121.
[59]吴晓波,高忠仕,魏仕杰.隐性知识显性化与技术创新绩效实证研究[J].科学学研究,2007,25(6):1233-1239.
[60]谢科范,陈云,董芹芹.我国产学研结合传统模式与现代模式分析[J].科学管理研究,2008,26(1):38-41.
[61]邢文凤,严建援.供应链知识纵向转移特征研究[J].科技进步与对策,2009,26(6):145-148.
[62]熊硕真.高新技术企业认定管理办法实施效果(一)[J].中国科技产业,2012(3):58-59.
[63]徐金发,许强,顾惊雷.企业知识转移的情境分析模型[J].科研管理,2003,24(2):54-60.
[64]徐升华,芦亮.校企研发合作模式下的知识转移博弈与仿真分析[J].当代财经,2010,307(6):68-74.
[65]杨波.系统动力学建模的知识转移演化模型与仿真[J].图书情报工作,2010,54(18):94.
[66]杨德林,邹毅.中国研究型大学科技企业衍生模式分析[J].科学管理研究,2003,21(4):45-50.
[67]杨东升,张永安.产学研合作的系统动力学分析[J].北京工业大学学报,2009,35(1):140-144.
[68]杨钢,薛惠锋.高校团队内知识转移的系统动力学建模与仿真[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2009(6):87-92.
[69]杨武,申长江.开放式创新理论及企业实践[J].管理现代化,2005(5):4-6.
[70]杨武.基于开放式创新的知识产权管理理论研究[J].科学学研究,2006,24(2):311-314.
[71]杨轶,陈德棉,张玉臣.中小型高新技术企业存在的问题及对策[J].经济理论与经济管理,2001(10):47-51.
[72]易高峰,程骄杰,赵文华.我国大学衍生企业发展的影响因素分析[J].清华大学教育研究,2010,31(4):65-69.
[73]易高峰.国内战略性新兴产业的研究热点及其启示:知识图谱的新视角[J].经济问题探索,2012(11):88-92.
[74]余芳珍,唐奇良.提升自主创新能力的开放式创新源管理[J].科学学研究,2007,25(6S):134-138.
[75]余敏,丁照蕾.图书馆知识转移的情境构建[J].情报杂志,2008(11):137-140.
[76]余雅风. U/I合作创新中学习的过程与机制研究[D].北京:北京航空航天大学.
[77]张凤,何传启.知识创新的原理和路径[J].中国科学院院刊,2005,20(5):389-394.
[78]张莉,和金生.产业自主创新能力评价指标体系构建与实例分析[J].科技管理研究,2009(7):155-157.
[79]张晓燕,李元旭.论内在激励对隐性知识转移的优势作用[J].研究与发展管理,2007,19(1):28-33.
[80]张也卉,刘林青.大学技术转移中的专利作用——基于界面理论的考察[J].研究与发展管理,2007,19(5):95-99.
[81]章琰.大学技术转移的界面移动及模式选择研究[D].北京:清华大学,2004.
[82]章琰.大学技术转移的双重过程分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2004(7):27-30.
[83]赵黎明,高杨.专利引文分析在知识转移机制研究中的应用[J].科学学研究,2002(3):297-300.
[84]郑小平,刘立京,蒋美英.企业开放式创新的产权欲望研究[J].科学管理研究,2007,25(3):42-45.
[85]支军,王忠辉.自主创新能力测度理论与评估指标体系构建[J].管理世界,2007(5):168-169.
[86]钟永光,贾晓菁,李旭.系统动力学[M].北京:科学出版社,2009.
[87]周竺,黄瑞华.产学研合作中的知识产权冲突及协调[J].研究与发展管理,2004,16(1):90-94.
[88]朱建新,冯志军.高新技术企业自主创新环境要素构成及测度研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2009(8):65-72.
[89]庄亚明,李金生.高技术企业知识联盟中的知识转移研究[J].科研管理,2005,25(6):50-55.
[90]邹波,田金信,张庆普.面向企业技术创新的校企知识转移绩效提升策略分析[J].学术交流,2009,184(7):116-118.
[91]邹波,于渤,卜琳华.校企知识转移网络中企业员工吸收能力研究[J].科学学研究,2011,29(1):106-111.
[92]Agrawal, A, Henderson, R. Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transferfrom MIT [R]. Mimeo, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,2000.
[93]Agrawal, A. University-to-Industry knowledge transfer: literature review andunanswered questions [J]. International Journal of Management Reviews,2001,3(4):258-302.
[94]Albino, V., Garavelli, A.C., Schiuma, G. Knowledge transfer and interfirmrelationships in industrial districts: the role of the leader firm [J].Technovation Journal,1998,19(1):53-63.
[95]Alderfer, C.P. An empirical test of a new theory of human needs [J]. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance,1969,4(2):142-175.
[96]Amar, A.D. Motivating knowledge workers to innovate: a model integratingmotivation dynamics and antecedents [J]. European Journal of Innovation Management,2004,7(2):89-101.
[97]Amidon, D.M. Innovation strategy for the knowledge economy: The Ken Awakening
[M]. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA,1997.
[98]Anderson, J. C., Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A reviewand recommended two-step approach [J]. Psychological Bulletin,1988,103(3):411-423.
[99]Andrews, F.M., Aichholzer, G. Scientific productivity: the effectiveness of researchgroups in six countries [M]. Cambridge University Press,1979.
[100]Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., Woerter, M. Is there any impact of university–industryknowledge transfer on innovation and productivity? an empirical analysis based on swissfirm data [J]. Review Industry Organization,2008,32(2):77–94.
[101]Baca, M.R. Barriers to innovation: intellectual property transaction costs inscientific collaboration [J]. Duke Law&Technology Review,2006(4):1-14.
[102]Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models [J]. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science,1998,16(1):74-94.
[103]Balachandra, R., Friar, J.H. Factors for success in R&D projects and new productinnovation: a contextual framework [J]. Engineering Management IEEE Transactions,1997,44(3):276-287.
[104]Bandalos, D.L., Finney, S.J. Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling.In G.A. Marcoulides&R.E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques instructural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,2001.
[105]Baron. R.M., Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,1986,51(6):1173-1182.
[106]Bekkers, R. van der Steen, M. IP-based spin-offs of public research organisations inthe dutch life sciences and ICT sectors [C]. In: OECD, Turning Business into Science:Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organisations. Paris: OECD.2003:263-289.
[107]Bekkers, R., Freitas, I.M.B. Analysing knowledge transfer channels betweenuniversities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?[J]. Research Policy,2008,37(10):1837-1853.
[108]Bentler, P.M., Chou, C.P. Practical issues in structural equation modeling.Sociological Methods&Research,1987(6):78-117.
[109]Boomsma, A., Hoogland, J.J. The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited
[EB/OL]. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.11.684,2001.
[110]Boulding, KE. Conflict and defense: a general theory [M]. England Harper: Oxford,1962.
[111]Bound, J., Cummins, C., Griliches, Z., Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A.B. Who does R&D andwho patents? R&D, patents and productivity [M]. Germany: RePEc,1984.
[112]Brainard, H.R. Survey and study of technology development and transfer needs inNew York City [J]. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology,1999,9:423-470.
[113]Brennenraedts, R., Bekkers, R., Verspagen, B. The different channels ofuniversity-industry knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence from BiomedicalEngineering [EB/OL]. http://repository.tue.nl/612847,2006.
[114]Bruneel, J., D'Este, P., Salter, A. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriersto university-industry collaboration [J]. Research Policy,2010,39(7):858-868.
[115]Cabrera, E. Socio-psychological aspects of knowledge sharing in organizations [C].Proceedings of the7th Conference on International Human Resource Management,Limerick,2003/6/4-6.
[116]Chesbrough, H.W. Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profitingfrom technology [M]. HBS Press,2003.
[117]Chesbrough, H.W. The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property [J].California Management Review,2003,45(3):33-58.
[118]Chesbrough, H.W., Crowther, A.K. Beyond high tech: early adopters of openinnovation in other industries [J]. R&D Management2006,36(3):229-236.
[119]Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. Open innovation: researching a newparadigm [M]. Oxford University Press,2006.
[120]Cockburn, I., Henderson, R. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior and theorganization of research in drug discovery [J]. Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46(2):157-182.
[121]Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learningand innovation [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1):128-152.
[122]Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D [J].The Economic Journal,1989,99(397):569-596.
[123]Cohen, W.M, Nelson, R., Walsh, J. Links and impacts: survey results on theinfluence of public research on industrial R&D [R]. Mimeo, Carnegie Mellon University,2000.
[124]Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R., Rosenberg, N.,Sampat, B.N. How do university inventions get into practice?[R]. Mimeo, StanfordUniversity,2000.
[125]Crespi, G., D’Este, P., Fontana, R., Geuna, A. The impact of academic patenting onuniversity research and its transfer [Z]. Working paper series in International Centre ForEconomic Research,2009(1):1-24.
[126]Crespi, G., Geuna, A., Nomaler, O., Verspagen, B. University IPRs and KnowledgeTransfer: Is university ownership more efficient?[Z]. ICER Working Papers from ICER-International Centre for Economic Research,2007(3):1-41.
[127]Crespi, G.A., Geuna, A., Verspagen, B. University IPRs and Knowledge Transfer. Isthe IPR ownership model more efficient?[R]. SPRU Electronic Working Paper,2006.
[128]Cummings, J.L., Teng, B.S. Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affectingknowledge transfer success [J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2003,20(1,2):39-68.
[129]D’Este, P., Patel, P. University-industry linkages in the UK:what are the factorsdetermining the variety of interactions with industry?[J]. Research Policy,2007,36(9):1295-1313.
[130]Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L. Working knowledge: How organizations manage whatthey know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,1998.
[131]Diem, Ho. Research, innovation and knowledge management:the ICT Factor [R].UNESCO Forum,2007.
[132]Dixon, N. M. Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what theyknow [M].Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press,2000.
[133]Drucker, P.F. The practice of management [M]. US: Routledge,1955.
[134]Dyer, J.H., Singh, H. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources ofinterorganizational competitive advantage [J]. Academy of Management Review,1998,23(4):660–680.
[135]Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P., O'Keefe, R.D. Organization strategy and structuraldifferences for radical versus incremental innovation [J]. Management Science,1984,30(6):682-695.
[136]Etzkowitz, H. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the newuniversity–industry linkages [J]. Research Policy,1998,27(8):823-833.
[137]Faems, D., Van Looy, B., Debackere, K. Interorganizational collaboration andinnovation: Toward a portfolio approach [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2005,22(3):238-250.
[138]Faggian, A., McCann, P. Human capital, graduate migration and innovation inBritish regions [J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,2009,33(2):317-333.
[139]Fontana, R., Geuna, A., Matt, M. Factors affecting university–industry R&Dprojects: The importance of searching, screening and signaling [J]. Research Policy,2006,35(2):309-323.
[140]Garavelli, A.C., Gorgoglione, M., Scozzi, B. Managing knowledge transfer byknowledge technologies [J]. Technovation Journal,2000,22(5):269-279.
[141]George, G., Zahra, S.A., Wood, D.R. The effects of business–university alliances oninnovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnologycompanies [J]. Journal of Business Venturing,2002,17(6):577–609.
[142]Geuna, A., Muscio, A. The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: ACritical Review of the Literature [J]. Minerva,2009,47(1):93-114.
[143]Gils, M., Vissers, G., Wit, J. Selecting the right channel for knowledge transferbetween industry and science consider the R&D-activity [J]. European Journal ofInnovation Management,2009,12(4):492-511.
[144]Goh, A.L.S. Harnessing knowledge for innovation: an integrated managementframework [J]. Journal of Knowledge Management,2005,9(4):6-18.
[145]Grant, R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue):109-122.
[146]Grimpe, C., Fier, H. Informal university technology transfer: a comparison betweenthe United States and Germany [J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer,2010,35(6):637-650.
[147]Gulati, R., Singh, H. The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costsand appropriation concerns in strategic alliances [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1998,43(4):781-814.
[148]Gunasekara, C. Reframing the role of universities in the development of regionalinnovation systems [J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer,2006,31(1):101-113.
[149]Hall, B.H., Griliches, Z., Hausman, J.A. Patents and R and D: Is there a lag?[J].International Economics Review,1986,27(2):265-283.
[150]Heller, M., Eisenberg, R. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons inbiomedical research [J]. Science,1998,280(5364):698-701.
[151]Henkel, J., von Hippel, E. Welfare implications of user innovation [C]. Essays inHonor of Edwin Mansfield,2005:45-59.
[152]Hermans, J., Castiaux, A. Knowledge creation through university-industrycollaborative research projects [J]. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management,2007,5(1):43-54.
[153]Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. Life cycle theory of leadership [J]. Training&Development Journal,1969,23(5):26-34.
[154]Herstatt, C., von Hippel, E. From experience: Development new product conceptvia the lead user method: A case study in a “Low” Field [J]. The Journal of ProductInnovation Management,1992,9(3):213-221.
[155]Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B.B. The motivation to work [M]. NewYork: John Wiley,1959.
[156]Huang, W. IPR barriers in collaboration between university and engineeringindustry in Sweden [EB/OL].http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:458384,2011.
[157]Hughes, A. Open innovation, the Haldane principle and the new production ofknowledge: science policy and university-industry links in the UK after the financialcrisis [J]. Prometheus,2011,29(4):411-442.
[158]Hurmicz, L. On informationally decentralized systems, in decision and organization
[M]. Amsterdam:North-Holland: R.Radner and C.B.McGuire,1972.
[159]Hutchins, R.M. Learning society [M].U. S: Penguin Books Ltd.,1968:133.
[160]Iivari, J. From a macro innovation theory of IS diffusion to a micro innovationtheory of IS adoption: an application to CASE adoption[C]. Human, Organizational, andSocial Dimensions of Information Systems Development, North-Holland, Amsterdam,1993:295-320.
[161]Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W. Managing potential andrealized absorptive capacity: antecedents and consequences [C]. DRUID SummerConference2003on Creating, Sharing and Transferring Knowledge, Copenhagen,2003/6/12-14.
[162]Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W. Managing potential andrealized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter?[J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2005,48(6):999-1015.
[163]Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B.A. Forms of knowledge andmodes of innovation [J]. Research Policy,2007,36(5):680–693.
[164]Johnson, J.L., Cullen, J.B., Sakano, T., Takenouchi, W. Setting the stage for trustand strategic integration in Japanese-U.S.[J]. Journal of International Business Studies,1996,27(5):981-1004.
[165]Joshi, K.D., Sarker, S., Sarker, S. Knowledge transfer within information systemsdevelopment teams: examing the role of knowledge source attributes [J]. DecisionSupport Systems,2007,43(2):322-335.
[166]Judd, C.M., Kenny, D.A. Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatmentevaluations. Evaluation Review,1981,5(5):602-619.
[167]Ko, D.G., Kirsch, L.J., King, W.R. Antecedents of knowledge transfer fromconsultants to clients in enterprise system implementations [J]. MIS Quarterly,2005,29(1):59-115.
[168]Koellinger, P. The relationship between technology, innovation, and firmperformance-Empirical evidence from e-business in Europe [J]. Research Policy,2008,37(8):1317–1328.
[169]Koput, K.W. A chaotic model of innovative search: some answers, many questions.Organization Science,1997,8(5):528-542.
[170]Kotabe, M., Martin, X., Domoto, H. Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledgetransfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the u.s. andjapanese automotive industries [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(4):293-316.
[171]Kuiken, J., van der Sijde, P. Knowledge transfer and disseminative capacity: Areview and propositions for further research on academic knowledge transfer [J].Industry and Higher Education,2011,25(3):173-179.
[172]Lane, P.J., Koka, B. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review andrejuvenation of the construct [J]. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4):833-863.
[173]Lane, P.J., Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizationallearning [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5):461-478.
[174]Lane,P.J., Koka,B.R., Pathak,S. The reification of absorptive capacity: a criticalreview and rejuvenation of the construct [J].Academy of Management Review,2006,31:833-63.
[175]Laursen, K., Foss, N.J. New human resource management practices,complementarities and the impact on innovation performance [J]. Cambridge Journal ofEconomics,2003,27(2):243-263.
[176]Laursen, K., Salter, A. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaininginnovation performance among u.k. manufacturing firms [J]. Strategic ManagementJournal,2006,27(2):131-150.
[177]Lavie, D. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of theresource-based view [J]. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3):153–174.
[178]Lazaric, N., Longhi, C., Thomas, C. Gatekeepers of Knowledge versus platforms ofknowledge: from potential to realized absorptive capacity [J]. Regional Studies,2008,42(6):837-852.
[179]Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., Gemuenden, H.G. Learning from users for radical innovation[J]. International Journal of Technology Management,2006,33(1):25-45.
[180]Leydesdorff, L. The university-industry knowledge relationship: Analyzing patentsand the science base of technologies [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information,2004,55(11):991–1001.
[181]Liao, S., Fei, W.C., Liu, C.T. Relationships between knowledge inertia,organizational learning and organization innovation [J]. Technovation,2008,28(4):183-195.
[182]Lim, K. The many faces of absorptive capacity: spillovers of copper interconnecttechnology for semiconductor chips [M]. Mimeo, MIT,2000.
[183]Lopez-Martinez, R.E., Medellin, E., Scanlon, A.P., Solleiro, J.L. Motivations andobstacles to university industry cooperation (UIC): a Mexican case [J]. R&DManagement,1994,24(1):17-41.
[184]L vàs, B., Sorenson, O. Mobilizing scarce resources: The strength of indirect ties[J]. Advances in Strategic Management,2008,25(1):361-389.
[185]MacKinnon, D.P. et al. Comparison of methods to test mediation and otherintervening variable effects. Psychological Methods,2002,7(1):83-104.
[186]Makino, S., Delios, A. Local knowledge transfer and performance: implications foralliance formation in Asia [J]. Journal of International Business Studies,1996,27(5):905-927.
[187]Maranda, P. Structuralism in cultural anthropology [J]. Annual Review ofAnthropology,1972,1(3):29-348.
[188]Markman,G.D., Gianiodis, P.T., Phan, P.H. Full-time faculty or part-timeentrepreneurs [J]. IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management,2008,55:29-36.
[189]Maskell, P., Eskelinen, H., Hannibalsson, I., Malmberg, A., Vatne, E.Competitiveness, localised learning and regional development [C]. Specialisation andProsperity in Small Open Economies, London:1998.
[190]Maslow, A.H. A theory of human motivation [J]. Psychological Review,1943,50(4):370-96.
[191]McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R.J., van Engelen, J. Rethinking social capital theory: aknowledge management perspective [J]. Journal of Knowledge Management,2006,10(5):124-36.
[192]Mesquita, L.F., Anand, J., Brush, T.H. Comparing the resource-based and relationalviews: knowledge transfer and spillover in vertical alliances [J]. Strategic ManagementJournal,2008,29(9):913-941.
[193]Mina, A. The emergence of new knowledge, market evolution and the dynamics ofmicro-innovation systems [J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2009,18(5):447-466.
[194]Minbaeva, D.B. Knowledge transfer in multinational corporations [J]. ManagementInternational Review,2007,47(4):567-593.
[195]Minbaeva, D.B., Michailova, S. Knowledge transfer and expatriation inmultinational corporations: The role of disseminative capacity [J]. Employee Relations,2004,26(6):663-679.
[196]Miotti, L., Sachwald, F. Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integratedframework of analysis [J]. Research Policy,32(8):1481-1499.
[197]Modi, S.B., Mabert, V.A. Supplier development: Improving supplier performancethrough knowledge transfer [J]. Journal of Operations Management,2007,25(1):42-64.
[198]Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptionsof adopting an information technology innovation [J]. Information Systems Research,1991,2(3):192-223.
[199]Morrison, P.D., Roberts, J.H., von Hippel, E. Determinants of user innovation andinnovation sharing in a local market [J]. Management Science,2000,46(12):1513-1527.
[200]Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E., Silverman, B.S. Strategic alliances and interfirmknowledge transfer [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter):77-91.
[201]Myers, M B., Cheung, M S. Sharing global supply chain knowledge [J]. MIT Sloanmanagement review,2008,49(4):67-73.
[202]Nelson,R.R., Winter, S.G. The evolutionary theory of economic change [M].Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1982.
[203]Niosi, J. Success factors in Canadian academic spin-offs [J]. Journal of TechnologyTransfer,2006(31):451–457.
[204]Nonaka, I., Konno, N.The concept of “Ba”: Building foundation for knowledgecreation [J].California Management Review,1998(3):40-54.
[205] stergaard, C.R. Knowledge flows through social networks in a cluster: Comparinguniversity and industry links [J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,2009,20(3):196-210.
[206]Osterloh, M., Frey, B.S. Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms[J]. Organization science,2000,11(5):538-550.
[207]Pakes, A. On patents, R&D and the stock market rate of return [J]. Journal ofPolitical Economy,1985,93(2):390-409.
[208]Papageorgiou, G., Abrosimova, K. An overview of system dynamics methods fordeveloping management flight simulators [C]. The6th WSEAS Int. Conference onComputational Intelligence, Man-Machine Systems and Cybernetics, Tenerife, Spain,2007,11.
[209]Parent, R., Roy, M., St-Jacques, D. A systems-based dynamic knowledge transfercapacity model [J]. Journal of Knowledge Management,2007,11(6):81-93.
[210]Pérez, M., Sánchez, A.M. The development of university spin-offs: early dynamicsof technology transfer and networking [J]. Technovation,2003,23(10):823-831.
[211]Perkmann, M., Walsh, K. Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consultingand their impact on universities and industry [J]. Research Policy2008(37):1884–1891.
[212]Perkmann, M., Walsh, K. The two faces of collaboration: Impacts ofuniversity-industry relations on public research [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2009,18(6):1033–1065.
[213]Perkmann, M., Walsh, K. University-industry relationships and open innovation:towards a research agenda [J]. International Journal of Management Reviews,2007,9(4):259–280.
[214]Phan, P.H., Siegel, D. The Effectiveness of university technology transfer: LessonsLearned from quantitative and qualitative research in the U.S. and the U.K. RensselaerWorking Papers in Economics[R].2006.
[215]Pisano, G.P. Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: an empiricalanalysis of process development [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(S1):85-100.
[216]Ponds, R., Oort, F., Frenken, K. Innovation, spillovers and university–industrycollaboration: an extended knowledge production function approach [J]. Journal ofEconomic Geography,2010,10(2):231–255.
[217]Porter, M.E. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance
[M]. New York: The Free Press,1998.
[218]Porteus, E.L. Foundations of stochastic inventory theory [M]. US: StanfordUniversity Press,2002.
[219]Pratt, M.G.“The Sparrow May Be Small…”: Deep learning from longitudinal casestudies within single contexts [C].北京:“中国企业管理案例与质性研究论坛（2012）”暨“第六届中国人民大学管理论坛”,2012.
[220]Priestley, J.L. Inter-organizational knowledge transfer difficulty: The influence oforganizational network type, absorptive capacity, causal ambiguity and outcomeambiguity [EB/OL].http://science.kennesaw.edu/~jpriestl/PubPapers/PostDissertation.pdf,2003.
[221]Pritchard, R., Ashwood, E. Managing motivation [M]. New York: Taylor&FrancisGroup,2008.
[222]Ranson, S. Towards the learning society [J]. Educational ManagementAdministration Leadership,1992,20(2):68-79.
[223]Rapperta, B., Webstera, A., Charlesb, D. Making sense of diversity and reluctance:academic–industrial relations and intellectual property [J]. Research Policy,1999,28(8):873-890.
[224]Ratten, V. The Dynamic nature of absorptive capacity and trust: How they influenceand impact upon one another [C]. ANZIBA Conference: Dynamism and challenges ininternationalization, Canberra,2004.
[225]Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of innovation (3Ed.)[M]. New York: The Free Press,1983.
[226]Sampat, B.N., Mowery, D.C., Ziedonis, A.A. Changes in university patent qualityafter the Bayh–Dole act: a reexamination [J]. International Journal of IndustrialOrganization,2003,21(9):1371-1390.
[227]Santoro, M.D. Self-Interest Assumption and relational trust in university-industryknowledge transfers [J]. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions,2006,53(3):335-347.
[228]Santoro, M.D., Chakrabarti, A.K. Firm size and technology centrality inindustry–university interactions [J]. Research Policy,2002,31(7):1163-1180.
[229]Savignac, F. The impact of financial constraints on innovation: What can be learnedfrom a direct measure?[J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2008,17(6):553-569.
[230]Senge, P.M. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization
[M]. NSW: Random House,1990.
[231]Shane, S., Somaya, D. The effects of patent litigation on university licensing efforts[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,2007,63(4):739-755.
[232]Shannon, C.E. The mathematical theory of communication [J]. The Bell SystemTechnical Journal,1948,27:379-423.
[233]Siadat, S.A., Hoveida, R., Abbaszadeh, M., Moghtadaie, L. Knowledge creation inuniversities and some related factors [J]. Journal of Management Development,2012,31(8):845-872.
[234]Siegel, D.S., Phan, P.H. Analyzing the effectiveness of university technologytransfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education [J]. Innovation and EconomicGrowth,2005,16:1-38.
[235]Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A., Atwater, L.E., Link, A.N. Commercial knowledgetransfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university-industrycollaboration [J]. Journal of High Technology Management Research,2003,14(1):111-33.
[236]Siegel, S.M., Kaemmerer, W.F. Measuring the Perceived Support for Innovation inOrganizations [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology,1978,63(5):553-562.
[237]Stover, M. Making tacit knowledge explicit: the ready reference database ascodified knowledge [J]. Reference Services Review,2004,32(2):164-173.
[238]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of bestpractice within the firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,Winter,17:27-43.
[239]Szulanski, G. The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000,82(1):9-27.
[240]Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management[J].Stratgaic Managemeni Journal,1997,18(7):509-533.
[241]Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of networkposition and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance [J].Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5):996-1004.
[242]Turkenburg, W.C. The innovation chain: Policies to promote energy innovations [R].Energy for Sustainable Development Policy Agenda,2002.
[243]Upadhyayula, R.S., Kumar, R. Social capital as an antecedent of absorptivecapacity of firms [C]. DRUID Summer Conference on Industrial Dynamics, Innovationand Development Elsinore, Denmark,2004/6/14-16.
[244]Utterback, J.M. Mastering the dynamics of innovation [M]. Boston, Massachusetts:Harvard Business School Press,1994.
[245]Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., Boer, M. Coevolution of firm absorptivecapacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities[J]. Organization Science,1999,10(5):551-568.
[246]Vanhaverbeke, W., Cloodt, M., Van de Vrande, V. Connecting absorptive capacityand open innovation [EB/OL].http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1091265,2008.
[247]Veugelers, R. Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing [J].Research Policy,1997,26(3):303-315.
[248]von Hippel, E."Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving:Implications for Innovation [J]. Management science,1994,40(4):429-439.
[249]von Hippel, E. Democratizing innovation [M]. The MIT Press,2005.
[250]von Hippel, E. Lead Uses: A source of novel product concepts [J]. ManagementScience,1986,32(7):791-805.
[251]von Hippel, E. New product ideas from “Lead Users”[J]. Research TechnologyManagement,1989,32(3):24-27.
[252]Vrande, V., Jong, J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke, M., Rochemont, M. Open innovation inSMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges [J]. Technovation,2009,29(6-7):423-437.
[253]Youtie, J., Shapira, P. Building an innovation hub: A case study of thetransformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development[J]. Research Policy,2008,37(8):1188-1204.
[254]Zahra, S., George, G. Absorptive capability: a review, reconceptualization andextension [J]. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2):185-203.
[255]Zoltan, J., Audretsch, D.B. Innovation in large and small firms: An empiricalanalysis [J]. The American Economic Review,1998,78(4):678-690.
[256]Zuber-Skerritt, O., Perry, C. Action research within organisations and universitythesis writing [J]. The Learning Organization,2002,9(4):171-179.
[2]陈桂尧,党红.关于我国大学与企业合作研究动机的实证分析[J].高等工程教育研究,2005(4):76-80.
[3]陈劲,蒋子军,陈钰芬.开放式创新视角下企业知识吸收能力影响因素研究[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2011,41(5):71-82.
[4]陈莞,谢富纪.开放式自主创新与其支撑体系互动机制研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2007(3):58-61.
[5]陈伟.创新管理[M].北京:科学出版社,1996.
[6]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放度对企业技术创新绩效的影响[J].科学学研究,2008,26(2):419-426.
[7]陈钰芬,陈劲.开放式创新：机理与模式[M].北京:科学出版社,2008.
[8]董晋曦.关于国家创新体系的若干思考——兼论高校应成为知识创新系统的第一执行主体[J].研究与发展管理,1999,11(6):6-10.
[9]范洁凭,焦秀焕,许治.我国校企联合申请发明专利质量评估[J].华南理工大学学报（社会科学版）,2012,14(5):44-49.
[10]费钟琳,赵顺.主体风险态度对校企联盟知识转移模式的影响[J].软科学,2010,24(2):6-9.
[11]福勒著,蒋逸民译.调查问卷的设计与评估[M].重庆:重庆大学出版社,2010.
[12]傅家骥.技术创新学[M].北京:清华大学出版社,1998.
[13]国家发改委宏观经济研究院课题组.“十二五”时期产业结构调整战略框架[J].理论参考,2010(11):48-52.
[14]郝生宾,于渤.技术战略对企业自主创新作用路径的实证研究[J].研究与发展管理,2009,21(3):63-69.
[15]贺俊,黄阳华,沈云昌.校企合作研发的最优制度安排[J].中国工业经济,2011(2):1-11.
[16]候杰泰,温忠麟,成子娟.结构方程模型及其应用[M].北京:教育科学出版社,2004.
[17]胡配农,肖条军,陈怡.大学科研与教学的最优管理策略[C].管理科学与系统科学研究新进展,2001:177-182.
[18]华尔特.罗斯托.经济成长的阶段[M].北京:商务印书馆,1962.
[19]黄芳铭.结构方程模式：理论与应用[M].台北:五南图书出版公司,2002.
[20]贾仁安,丁荣华.系统动力学：反馈动态性复杂分析[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2002.
[21]蒋兴华,张明.产学研战略联盟合作动机多理论视角研究及实证探讨[J].科技管理研究,2012(13):10-14.
[22]蒋洋,鲁若愚.四川省大中型企业自主创新能力分析评价[J].软科学,2011,25(2):89-93.
[23]金瑜.心理测量[M].上海:华东师范大学出版社,2001.
[24]李怀祖.管理研究方法论（第2版）[M].西安:西安交通大学出版社,2004.
[25]李同吉,杜伟宇,吴庆麟.复杂陈述性知识学习过程中学习活动对学习成绩影响研究[J].心理科学,2009,32(4):980-982.
[26]李应博,周立,何建坤.协同创新服务视角下的中国大学创新能力转移[J].中国科技论坛,2007(2):21-25.
[27]廖述梅.校企知识转移促进企业技术创新的实证研究[M].经济科学出版社,2010.
[28]林晶晶,周国华.企业-大学合作中的知识转移机制研究——以某转制院所实施项目管理模式为例[J].中国软科学,2006(3):139-144.
[29]林莉,郑旭,葛继平.基于小世界网络视角的产学研合作知识转移活动分析[J].科技进步与对策,2010,27(3):5-8.
[30]林淼,苏竣,张雅娴,陈玲.技术链、产业链和技术创新链：理论分析与政策含义[J].科学学研究,2001,19(4):28-32.
[31]凌亢,王浣尘,陈传美.南京市可持续发展系统模型的运行与检验[J].武汉大学学报（社会科学版）,2002(1):64-69.
[32]刘劲杨.知识创新、技术创新与制度创新概念的再界定[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2002(5):5-8.
[33]刘奕岑.国内外高校技术转移模式及其分析[D].重庆:重庆大学,2006.
[34]芦亮.校企知识转移的机制与效用研究[D].南昌:江西财经大学,2010.
[35]马钦玉,杨胜刚.区域自主创新能力评价指标体系及其测算方法[J].统计与决策,2008(11):51-53.
[36]马庆国,徐青,廖振鹏,张彩江.知识转移的影响因素分析[J].北京理工大学学报(社会科学版),2006,8(1):40-43.
[37]毛蕴诗,汪建成.基于产品升级的自主创新路径研究[J].管理世界,2006(5):114-120.
[38]苗东升.系统科学大学讲稿[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2007.
[39]潘杰义,李燕,詹美求.企业—大学知识联盟中知识转移影响因素分析[J].科技管理研究,2006(7):206-210.
[40]彭正龙,王海花,蒋旭灿.开放式创新模式下资源共享对创新绩效的影响：知识转移的中介效应[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2011,32(1):48-53.
[41]齐丽云,汪克夷,张芳芳,赵笑一.企业内部知识传播的系统动力学模型研究[J].管理科学,2008,21(6):9-20.
[42]邱皓政,林碧芳.结构方程模型的原理与应用[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社,2012.
[43]沈伟国,陈艺春.我国开放式自主创新体系要素模型分析[J].中国软科学,2007(11):129-135.
[44]施陈彬,李南,林敏,郭慧.知识释放能力影响知识转移效果的模拟研究[J].情报理论与实践,2011,34(1):23-26.
[45]石军伟,付海艳.激励机制、科研合作网络与大学声誉之间的关系研究[J].教育研究,2012,(1):81-88.
[46]孙丽文,李娜,刘伟.高校技术转移模式选择的影响因素分析[J].河北工业大学学报,2008,37(1):77-81.
[47]谭大鹏,霍国庆.知识转移一般过程研究[J].当代经济管理,2006,28(3):11-14.
[48]谭可欣,郭东强.知识转移与企业自主创新能力提高[J].江西财经大学学报,2008,57(3):31-34.
[49]汤建影.基于员工流动的技术知识转移机理研究[M].北京:科学出版社,2009.
[50]唐方成,仝允桓.经济全球化背景下的开放式创新与企业的知识产权保护[J].中国软科学,2007(6):58-62.
[51]唐方成,席酉民.知识转移与网络组织的动力学行为模式(Ⅱ):吸收能力与释放能力[J].系统工程理论与实践,2006(9):84-89.
[52]王昌林.人力资本溢出与自主创新能力[J].科技管理研究,2009(7):331-333.
[53]王萍,刘思峰.基于熵值法的高新园区自主创新能力综合评价研究[J].科技管理研究,2009(7):161-163.
[54]王兴辉,张际平.试论学习型社会中的自我导向学习及策略[J].电化教育研究,2005(4):58-62.
[55]王一鸣,王君.关于提高企业自主创新能力的几个问题[J].中国软科学,2005(7):10-15.
[56]魏江,王铜安,陆江平.知识密集型服务企业创新组织结构特征及其与创新绩效关系实证研究[J].管理工程学报,2009,23(3):103-110.
[57]温忠麟,张雷,侯杰泰,刘红云.中介效应检验程序及其应用[J].心理学报,2004,36(5):614-620.
[58]吴洁,张运华,施琴芬.高校知识创新效率研究——以专利申请为例[J].研究与发展管理,2008,20(6):117-121.
[59]吴晓波,高忠仕,魏仕杰.隐性知识显性化与技术创新绩效实证研究[J].科学学研究,2007,25(6):1233-1239.
[60]谢科范,陈云,董芹芹.我国产学研结合传统模式与现代模式分析[J].科学管理研究,2008,26(1):38-41.
[61]邢文凤,严建援.供应链知识纵向转移特征研究[J].科技进步与对策,2009,26(6):145-148.
[62]熊硕真.高新技术企业认定管理办法实施效果(一)[J].中国科技产业,2012(3):58-59.
[63]徐金发,许强,顾惊雷.企业知识转移的情境分析模型[J].科研管理,2003,24(2):54-60.
[64]徐升华,芦亮.校企研发合作模式下的知识转移博弈与仿真分析[J].当代财经,2010,307(6):68-74.
[65]杨波.系统动力学建模的知识转移演化模型与仿真[J].图书情报工作,2010,54(18):94.
[66]杨德林,邹毅.中国研究型大学科技企业衍生模式分析[J].科学管理研究,2003,21(4):45-50.
[67]杨东升,张永安.产学研合作的系统动力学分析[J].北京工业大学学报,2009,35(1):140-144.
[68]杨钢,薛惠锋.高校团队内知识转移的系统动力学建模与仿真[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2009(6):87-92.
[69]杨武,申长江.开放式创新理论及企业实践[J].管理现代化,2005(5):4-6.
[70]杨武.基于开放式创新的知识产权管理理论研究[J].科学学研究,2006,24(2):311-314.
[71]杨轶,陈德棉,张玉臣.中小型高新技术企业存在的问题及对策[J].经济理论与经济管理,2001(10):47-51.
[72]易高峰,程骄杰,赵文华.我国大学衍生企业发展的影响因素分析[J].清华大学教育研究,2010,31(4):65-69.
[73]易高峰.国内战略性新兴产业的研究热点及其启示:知识图谱的新视角[J].经济问题探索,2012(11):88-92.
[74]余芳珍,唐奇良.提升自主创新能力的开放式创新源管理[J].科学学研究,2007,25(6S):134-138.
[75]余敏,丁照蕾.图书馆知识转移的情境构建[J].情报杂志,2008(11):137-140.
[76]余雅风. U/I合作创新中学习的过程与机制研究[D].北京:北京航空航天大学.
[77]张凤,何传启.知识创新的原理和路径[J].中国科学院院刊,2005,20(5):389-394.
[78]张莉,和金生.产业自主创新能力评价指标体系构建与实例分析[J].科技管理研究,2009(7):155-157.
[79]张晓燕,李元旭.论内在激励对隐性知识转移的优势作用[J].研究与发展管理,2007,19(1):28-33.
[80]张也卉,刘林青.大学技术转移中的专利作用——基于界面理论的考察[J].研究与发展管理,2007,19(5):95-99.
[81]章琰.大学技术转移的界面移动及模式选择研究[D].北京:清华大学,2004.
[82]章琰.大学技术转移的双重过程分析[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2004(7):27-30.
[83]赵黎明,高杨.专利引文分析在知识转移机制研究中的应用[J].科学学研究,2002(3):297-300.
[84]郑小平,刘立京,蒋美英.企业开放式创新的产权欲望研究[J].科学管理研究,2007,25(3):42-45.
[85]支军,王忠辉.自主创新能力测度理论与评估指标体系构建[J].管理世界,2007(5):168-169.
[86]钟永光,贾晓菁,李旭.系统动力学[M].北京:科学出版社,2009.
[87]周竺,黄瑞华.产学研合作中的知识产权冲突及协调[J].研究与发展管理,2004,16(1):90-94.
[88]朱建新,冯志军.高新技术企业自主创新环境要素构成及测度研究[J].科学学与科学技术管理,2009(8):65-72.
[89]庄亚明,李金生.高技术企业知识联盟中的知识转移研究[J].科研管理,2005,25(6):50-55.
[90]邹波,田金信,张庆普.面向企业技术创新的校企知识转移绩效提升策略分析[J].学术交流,2009,184(7):116-118.
[91]邹波,于渤,卜琳华.校企知识转移网络中企业员工吸收能力研究[J].科学学研究,2011,29(1):106-111.
[92]Agrawal, A, Henderson, R. Putting patents in context: exploring knowledge transferfrom MIT [R]. Mimeo, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,2000.
[93]Agrawal, A. University-to-Industry knowledge transfer: literature review andunanswered questions [J]. International Journal of Management Reviews,2001,3(4):258-302.
[94]Albino, V., Garavelli, A.C., Schiuma, G. Knowledge transfer and interfirmrelationships in industrial districts: the role of the leader firm [J].Technovation Journal,1998,19(1):53-63.
[95]Alderfer, C.P. An empirical test of a new theory of human needs [J]. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance,1969,4(2):142-175.
[96]Amar, A.D. Motivating knowledge workers to innovate: a model integratingmotivation dynamics and antecedents [J]. European Journal of Innovation Management,2004,7(2):89-101.
[97]Amidon, D.M. Innovation strategy for the knowledge economy: The Ken Awakening
[M]. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston, MA,1997.
[98]Anderson, J. C., Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A reviewand recommended two-step approach [J]. Psychological Bulletin,1988,103(3):411-423.
[99]Andrews, F.M., Aichholzer, G. Scientific productivity: the effectiveness of researchgroups in six countries [M]. Cambridge University Press,1979.
[100]Arvanitis, S., Sydow, N., Woerter, M. Is there any impact of university–industryknowledge transfer on innovation and productivity? an empirical analysis based on swissfirm data [J]. Review Industry Organization,2008,32(2):77–94.
[101]Baca, M.R. Barriers to innovation: intellectual property transaction costs inscientific collaboration [J]. Duke Law&Technology Review,2006(4):1-14.
[102]Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models [J]. Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science,1998,16(1):74-94.
[103]Balachandra, R., Friar, J.H. Factors for success in R&D projects and new productinnovation: a contextual framework [J]. Engineering Management IEEE Transactions,1997,44(3):276-287.
[104]Bandalos, D.L., Finney, S.J. Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling.In G.A. Marcoulides&R.E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques instructural equation modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum,2001.
[105]Baron. R.M., Kenny, D.A. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology,1986,51(6):1173-1182.
[106]Bekkers, R. van der Steen, M. IP-based spin-offs of public research organisations inthe dutch life sciences and ICT sectors [C]. In: OECD, Turning Business into Science:Patenting and Licensing at Public Research Organisations. Paris: OECD.2003:263-289.
[107]Bekkers, R., Freitas, I.M.B. Analysing knowledge transfer channels betweenuniversities and industry: To what degree do sectors also matter?[J]. Research Policy,2008,37(10):1837-1853.
[108]Bentler, P.M., Chou, C.P. Practical issues in structural equation modeling.Sociological Methods&Research,1987(6):78-117.
[109]Boomsma, A., Hoogland, J.J. The robustness of LISREL modeling revisited
[EB/OL]. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.11.684,2001.
[110]Boulding, KE. Conflict and defense: a general theory [M]. England Harper: Oxford,1962.
[111]Bound, J., Cummins, C., Griliches, Z., Hall, B.H., Jaffe, A.B. Who does R&D andwho patents? R&D, patents and productivity [M]. Germany: RePEc,1984.
[112]Brainard, H.R. Survey and study of technology development and transfer needs inNew York City [J]. Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology,1999,9:423-470.
[113]Brennenraedts, R., Bekkers, R., Verspagen, B. The different channels ofuniversity-industry knowledge transfer: Empirical evidence from BiomedicalEngineering [EB/OL]. http://repository.tue.nl/612847,2006.
[114]Bruneel, J., D'Este, P., Salter, A. Investigating the factors that diminish the barriersto university-industry collaboration [J]. Research Policy,2010,39(7):858-868.
[115]Cabrera, E. Socio-psychological aspects of knowledge sharing in organizations [C].Proceedings of the7th Conference on International Human Resource Management,Limerick,2003/6/4-6.
[116]Chesbrough, H.W. Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profitingfrom technology [M]. HBS Press,2003.
[117]Chesbrough, H.W. The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property [J].California Management Review,2003,45(3):33-58.
[118]Chesbrough, H.W., Crowther, A.K. Beyond high tech: early adopters of openinnovation in other industries [J]. R&D Management2006,36(3):229-236.
[119]Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. Open innovation: researching a newparadigm [M]. Oxford University Press,2006.
[120]Cockburn, I., Henderson, R. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior and theorganization of research in drug discovery [J]. Journal of Industrial Economics,1998,46(2):157-182.
[121]Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learningand innovation [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1):128-152.
[122]Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A. Innovation and learning: the two faces of R&D [J].The Economic Journal,1989,99(397):569-596.
[123]Cohen, W.M, Nelson, R., Walsh, J. Links and impacts: survey results on theinfluence of public research on industrial R&D [R]. Mimeo, Carnegie Mellon University,2000.
[124]Colyvas, J., Crow, M., Gelijns, A., Mazzoleni, R., Nelson, R., Rosenberg, N.,Sampat, B.N. How do university inventions get into practice?[R]. Mimeo, StanfordUniversity,2000.
[125]Crespi, G., D’Este, P., Fontana, R., Geuna, A. The impact of academic patenting onuniversity research and its transfer [Z]. Working paper series in International Centre ForEconomic Research,2009(1):1-24.
[126]Crespi, G., Geuna, A., Nomaler, O., Verspagen, B. University IPRs and KnowledgeTransfer: Is university ownership more efficient?[Z]. ICER Working Papers from ICER-International Centre for Economic Research,2007(3):1-41.
[127]Crespi, G.A., Geuna, A., Verspagen, B. University IPRs and Knowledge Transfer. Isthe IPR ownership model more efficient?[R]. SPRU Electronic Working Paper,2006.
[128]Cummings, J.L., Teng, B.S. Transferring R&D knowledge: the key factors affectingknowledge transfer success [J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2003,20(1,2):39-68.
[129]D’Este, P., Patel, P. University-industry linkages in the UK:what are the factorsdetermining the variety of interactions with industry?[J]. Research Policy,2007,36(9):1295-1313.
[130]Davenport, T.H., Prusak, L. Working knowledge: How organizations manage whatthey know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press,1998.
[131]Diem, Ho. Research, innovation and knowledge management:the ICT Factor [R].UNESCO Forum,2007.
[132]Dixon, N. M. Common knowledge: How companies thrive by sharing what theyknow [M].Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press,2000.
[133]Drucker, P.F. The practice of management [M]. US: Routledge,1955.
[134]Dyer, J.H., Singh, H. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources ofinterorganizational competitive advantage [J]. Academy of Management Review,1998,23(4):660–680.
[135]Ettlie, J.E., Bridges, W.P., O'Keefe, R.D. Organization strategy and structuraldifferences for radical versus incremental innovation [J]. Management Science,1984,30(6):682-695.
[136]Etzkowitz, H. The norms of entrepreneurial science: cognitive effects of the newuniversity–industry linkages [J]. Research Policy,1998,27(8):823-833.
[137]Faems, D., Van Looy, B., Debackere, K. Interorganizational collaboration andinnovation: Toward a portfolio approach [J]. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2005,22(3):238-250.
[138]Faggian, A., McCann, P. Human capital, graduate migration and innovation inBritish regions [J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics,2009,33(2):317-333.
[139]Fontana, R., Geuna, A., Matt, M. Factors affecting university–industry R&Dprojects: The importance of searching, screening and signaling [J]. Research Policy,2006,35(2):309-323.
[140]Garavelli, A.C., Gorgoglione, M., Scozzi, B. Managing knowledge transfer byknowledge technologies [J]. Technovation Journal,2000,22(5):269-279.
[141]George, G., Zahra, S.A., Wood, D.R. The effects of business–university alliances oninnovative output and financial performance: a study of publicly traded biotechnologycompanies [J]. Journal of Business Venturing,2002,17(6):577–609.
[142]Geuna, A., Muscio, A. The Governance of University Knowledge Transfer: ACritical Review of the Literature [J]. Minerva,2009,47(1):93-114.
[143]Gils, M., Vissers, G., Wit, J. Selecting the right channel for knowledge transferbetween industry and science consider the R&D-activity [J]. European Journal ofInnovation Management,2009,12(4):492-511.
[144]Goh, A.L.S. Harnessing knowledge for innovation: an integrated managementframework [J]. Journal of Knowledge Management,2005,9(4):6-18.
[145]Grant, R. M. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm [J]. StrategicManagement Journal,1996,17(Winter Special Issue):109-122.
[146]Grimpe, C., Fier, H. Informal university technology transfer: a comparison betweenthe United States and Germany [J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer,2010,35(6):637-650.
[147]Gulati, R., Singh, H. The architecture of cooperation: Managing coordination costsand appropriation concerns in strategic alliances [J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1998,43(4):781-814.
[148]Gunasekara, C. Reframing the role of universities in the development of regionalinnovation systems [J]. The Journal of Technology Transfer,2006,31(1):101-113.
[149]Hall, B.H., Griliches, Z., Hausman, J.A. Patents and R and D: Is there a lag?[J].International Economics Review,1986,27(2):265-283.
[150]Heller, M., Eisenberg, R. Can patents deter innovation? The anticommons inbiomedical research [J]. Science,1998,280(5364):698-701.
[151]Henkel, J., von Hippel, E. Welfare implications of user innovation [C]. Essays inHonor of Edwin Mansfield,2005:45-59.
[152]Hermans, J., Castiaux, A. Knowledge creation through university-industrycollaborative research projects [J]. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management,2007,5(1):43-54.
[153]Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. Life cycle theory of leadership [J]. Training&Development Journal,1969,23(5):26-34.
[154]Herstatt, C., von Hippel, E. From experience: Development new product conceptvia the lead user method: A case study in a “Low” Field [J]. The Journal of ProductInnovation Management,1992,9(3):213-221.
[155]Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Snyderman, B.B. The motivation to work [M]. NewYork: John Wiley,1959.
[156]Huang, W. IPR barriers in collaboration between university and engineeringindustry in Sweden [EB/OL].http://kth.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:458384,2011.
[157]Hughes, A. Open innovation, the Haldane principle and the new production ofknowledge: science policy and university-industry links in the UK after the financialcrisis [J]. Prometheus,2011,29(4):411-442.
[158]Hurmicz, L. On informationally decentralized systems, in decision and organization
[M]. Amsterdam:North-Holland: R.Radner and C.B.McGuire,1972.
[159]Hutchins, R.M. Learning society [M].U. S: Penguin Books Ltd.,1968:133.
[160]Iivari, J. From a macro innovation theory of IS diffusion to a micro innovationtheory of IS adoption: an application to CASE adoption[C]. Human, Organizational, andSocial Dimensions of Information Systems Development, North-Holland, Amsterdam,1993:295-320.
[161]Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W. Managing potential andrealized absorptive capacity: antecedents and consequences [C]. DRUID SummerConference2003on Creating, Sharing and Transferring Knowledge, Copenhagen,2003/6/12-14.
[162]Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W. Managing potential andrealized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter?[J]. Academy ofManagement Journal,2005,48(6):999-1015.
[163]Jensen, M.B., Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., Lundvall, B.A. Forms of knowledge andmodes of innovation [J]. Research Policy,2007,36(5):680–693.
[164]Johnson, J.L., Cullen, J.B., Sakano, T., Takenouchi, W. Setting the stage for trustand strategic integration in Japanese-U.S.[J]. Journal of International Business Studies,1996,27(5):981-1004.
[165]Joshi, K.D., Sarker, S., Sarker, S. Knowledge transfer within information systemsdevelopment teams: examing the role of knowledge source attributes [J]. DecisionSupport Systems,2007,43(2):322-335.
[166]Judd, C.M., Kenny, D.A. Process analysis: estimating mediation in treatmentevaluations. Evaluation Review,1981,5(5):602-619.
[167]Ko, D.G., Kirsch, L.J., King, W.R. Antecedents of knowledge transfer fromconsultants to clients in enterprise system implementations [J]. MIS Quarterly,2005,29(1):59-115.
[168]Koellinger, P. The relationship between technology, innovation, and firmperformance-Empirical evidence from e-business in Europe [J]. Research Policy,2008,37(8):1317–1328.
[169]Koput, K.W. A chaotic model of innovative search: some answers, many questions.Organization Science,1997,8(5):528-542.
[170]Kotabe, M., Martin, X., Domoto, H. Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowledgetransfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the u.s. andjapanese automotive industries [J]. Strategic Management Journal,2003,24(4):293-316.
[171]Kuiken, J., van der Sijde, P. Knowledge transfer and disseminative capacity: Areview and propositions for further research on academic knowledge transfer [J].Industry and Higher Education,2011,25(3):173-179.
[172]Lane, P.J., Koka, B. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review andrejuvenation of the construct [J]. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4):833-863.
[173]Lane, P.J., Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizationallearning [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1998,19(5):461-478.
[174]Lane,P.J., Koka,B.R., Pathak,S. The reification of absorptive capacity: a criticalreview and rejuvenation of the construct [J].Academy of Management Review,2006,31:833-63.
[175]Laursen, K., Foss, N.J. New human resource management practices,complementarities and the impact on innovation performance [J]. Cambridge Journal ofEconomics,2003,27(2):243-263.
[176]Laursen, K., Salter, A. Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaininginnovation performance among u.k. manufacturing firms [J]. Strategic ManagementJournal,2006,27(2):131-150.
[177]Lavie, D. The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of theresource-based view [J]. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(3):153–174.
[178]Lazaric, N., Longhi, C., Thomas, C. Gatekeepers of Knowledge versus platforms ofknowledge: from potential to realized absorptive capacity [J]. Regional Studies,2008,42(6):837-852.
[179]Lettl, C., Herstatt, C., Gemuenden, H.G. Learning from users for radical innovation[J]. International Journal of Technology Management,2006,33(1):25-45.
[180]Leydesdorff, L. The university-industry knowledge relationship: Analyzing patentsand the science base of technologies [J]. Journal of the American Society for Information,2004,55(11):991–1001.
[181]Liao, S., Fei, W.C., Liu, C.T. Relationships between knowledge inertia,organizational learning and organization innovation [J]. Technovation,2008,28(4):183-195.
[182]Lim, K. The many faces of absorptive capacity: spillovers of copper interconnecttechnology for semiconductor chips [M]. Mimeo, MIT,2000.
[183]Lopez-Martinez, R.E., Medellin, E., Scanlon, A.P., Solleiro, J.L. Motivations andobstacles to university industry cooperation (UIC): a Mexican case [J]. R&DManagement,1994,24(1):17-41.
[184]L vàs, B., Sorenson, O. Mobilizing scarce resources: The strength of indirect ties[J]. Advances in Strategic Management,2008,25(1):361-389.
[185]MacKinnon, D.P. et al. Comparison of methods to test mediation and otherintervening variable effects. Psychological Methods,2002,7(1):83-104.
[186]Makino, S., Delios, A. Local knowledge transfer and performance: implications foralliance formation in Asia [J]. Journal of International Business Studies,1996,27(5):905-927.
[187]Maranda, P. Structuralism in cultural anthropology [J]. Annual Review ofAnthropology,1972,1(3):29-348.
[188]Markman,G.D., Gianiodis, P.T., Phan, P.H. Full-time faculty or part-timeentrepreneurs [J]. IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management,2008,55:29-36.
[189]Maskell, P., Eskelinen, H., Hannibalsson, I., Malmberg, A., Vatne, E.Competitiveness, localised learning and regional development [C]. Specialisation andProsperity in Small Open Economies, London:1998.
[190]Maslow, A.H. A theory of human motivation [J]. Psychological Review,1943,50(4):370-96.
[191]McElroy, M.W., Jorna, R.J., van Engelen, J. Rethinking social capital theory: aknowledge management perspective [J]. Journal of Knowledge Management,2006,10(5):124-36.
[192]Mesquita, L.F., Anand, J., Brush, T.H. Comparing the resource-based and relationalviews: knowledge transfer and spillover in vertical alliances [J]. Strategic ManagementJournal,2008,29(9):913-941.
[193]Mina, A. The emergence of new knowledge, market evolution and the dynamics ofmicro-innovation systems [J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2009,18(5):447-466.
[194]Minbaeva, D.B. Knowledge transfer in multinational corporations [J]. ManagementInternational Review,2007,47(4):567-593.
[195]Minbaeva, D.B., Michailova, S. Knowledge transfer and expatriation inmultinational corporations: The role of disseminative capacity [J]. Employee Relations,2004,26(6):663-679.
[196]Miotti, L., Sachwald, F. Co-operative R&D: why and with whom? An integratedframework of analysis [J]. Research Policy,32(8):1481-1499.
[197]Modi, S.B., Mabert, V.A. Supplier development: Improving supplier performancethrough knowledge transfer [J]. Journal of Operations Management,2007,25(1):42-64.
[198]Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I. Development of an instrument to measure the perceptionsof adopting an information technology innovation [J]. Information Systems Research,1991,2(3):192-223.
[199]Morrison, P.D., Roberts, J.H., von Hippel, E. Determinants of user innovation andinnovation sharing in a local market [J]. Management Science,2000,46(12):1513-1527.
[200]Mowery, D.C., Oxley, J.E., Silverman, B.S. Strategic alliances and interfirmknowledge transfer [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,17(Winter):77-91.
[201]Myers, M B., Cheung, M S. Sharing global supply chain knowledge [J]. MIT Sloanmanagement review,2008,49(4):67-73.
[202]Nelson,R.R., Winter, S.G. The evolutionary theory of economic change [M].Cambridge: Harvard University Press,1982.
[203]Niosi, J. Success factors in Canadian academic spin-offs [J]. Journal of TechnologyTransfer,2006(31):451–457.
[204]Nonaka, I., Konno, N.The concept of “Ba”: Building foundation for knowledgecreation [J].California Management Review,1998(3):40-54.
[205] stergaard, C.R. Knowledge flows through social networks in a cluster: Comparinguniversity and industry links [J]. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics,2009,20(3):196-210.
[206]Osterloh, M., Frey, B.S. Motivation, knowledge transfer, and organizational forms[J]. Organization science,2000,11(5):538-550.
[207]Pakes, A. On patents, R&D and the stock market rate of return [J]. Journal ofPolitical Economy,1985,93(2):390-409.
[208]Papageorgiou, G., Abrosimova, K. An overview of system dynamics methods fordeveloping management flight simulators [C]. The6th WSEAS Int. Conference onComputational Intelligence, Man-Machine Systems and Cybernetics, Tenerife, Spain,2007,11.
[209]Parent, R., Roy, M., St-Jacques, D. A systems-based dynamic knowledge transfercapacity model [J]. Journal of Knowledge Management,2007,11(6):81-93.
[210]Pérez, M., Sánchez, A.M. The development of university spin-offs: early dynamicsof technology transfer and networking [J]. Technovation,2003,23(10):823-831.
[211]Perkmann, M., Walsh, K. Engaging the scholar: Three types of academic consultingand their impact on universities and industry [J]. Research Policy2008(37):1884–1891.
[212]Perkmann, M., Walsh, K. The two faces of collaboration: Impacts ofuniversity-industry relations on public research [J]. Industrial and Corporate Change,2009,18(6):1033–1065.
[213]Perkmann, M., Walsh, K. University-industry relationships and open innovation:towards a research agenda [J]. International Journal of Management Reviews,2007,9(4):259–280.
[214]Phan, P.H., Siegel, D. The Effectiveness of university technology transfer: LessonsLearned from quantitative and qualitative research in the U.S. and the U.K. RensselaerWorking Papers in Economics[R].2006.
[215]Pisano, G.P. Knowledge, integration, and the locus of learning: an empiricalanalysis of process development [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1994,15(S1):85-100.
[216]Ponds, R., Oort, F., Frenken, K. Innovation, spillovers and university–industrycollaboration: an extended knowledge production function approach [J]. Journal ofEconomic Geography,2010,10(2):231–255.
[217]Porter, M.E. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance
[M]. New York: The Free Press,1998.
[218]Porteus, E.L. Foundations of stochastic inventory theory [M]. US: StanfordUniversity Press,2002.
[219]Pratt, M.G.“The Sparrow May Be Small…”: Deep learning from longitudinal casestudies within single contexts [C].北京:“中国企业管理案例与质性研究论坛（2012）”暨“第六届中国人民大学管理论坛”,2012.
[220]Priestley, J.L. Inter-organizational knowledge transfer difficulty: The influence oforganizational network type, absorptive capacity, causal ambiguity and outcomeambiguity [EB/OL].http://science.kennesaw.edu/~jpriestl/PubPapers/PostDissertation.pdf,2003.
[221]Pritchard, R., Ashwood, E. Managing motivation [M]. New York: Taylor&FrancisGroup,2008.
[222]Ranson, S. Towards the learning society [J]. Educational ManagementAdministration Leadership,1992,20(2):68-79.
[223]Rapperta, B., Webstera, A., Charlesb, D. Making sense of diversity and reluctance:academic–industrial relations and intellectual property [J]. Research Policy,1999,28(8):873-890.
[224]Ratten, V. The Dynamic nature of absorptive capacity and trust: How they influenceand impact upon one another [C]. ANZIBA Conference: Dynamism and challenges ininternationalization, Canberra,2004.
[225]Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of innovation (3Ed.)[M]. New York: The Free Press,1983.
[226]Sampat, B.N., Mowery, D.C., Ziedonis, A.A. Changes in university patent qualityafter the Bayh–Dole act: a reexamination [J]. International Journal of IndustrialOrganization,2003,21(9):1371-1390.
[227]Santoro, M.D. Self-Interest Assumption and relational trust in university-industryknowledge transfers [J]. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions,2006,53(3):335-347.
[228]Santoro, M.D., Chakrabarti, A.K. Firm size and technology centrality inindustry–university interactions [J]. Research Policy,2002,31(7):1163-1180.
[229]Savignac, F. The impact of financial constraints on innovation: What can be learnedfrom a direct measure?[J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2008,17(6):553-569.
[230]Senge, P.M. The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization
[M]. NSW: Random House,1990.
[231]Shane, S., Somaya, D. The effects of patent litigation on university licensing efforts[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior&Organization,2007,63(4):739-755.
[232]Shannon, C.E. The mathematical theory of communication [J]. The Bell SystemTechnical Journal,1948,27:379-423.
[233]Siadat, S.A., Hoveida, R., Abbaszadeh, M., Moghtadaie, L. Knowledge creation inuniversities and some related factors [J]. Journal of Management Development,2012,31(8):845-872.
[234]Siegel, D.S., Phan, P.H. Analyzing the effectiveness of university technologytransfer: Implications for entrepreneurship education [J]. Innovation and EconomicGrowth,2005,16:1-38.
[235]Siegel, D.S., Waldman, D.A., Atwater, L.E., Link, A.N. Commercial knowledgetransfers from universities to firms: improving the effectiveness of university-industrycollaboration [J]. Journal of High Technology Management Research,2003,14(1):111-33.
[236]Siegel, S.M., Kaemmerer, W.F. Measuring the Perceived Support for Innovation inOrganizations [J]. Journal of Applied Psychology,1978,63(5):553-562.
[237]Stover, M. Making tacit knowledge explicit: the ready reference database ascodified knowledge [J]. Reference Services Review,2004,32(2):164-173.
[238]Szulanski, G. Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of bestpractice within the firm [J]. Strategic Management Journal,1996,Winter,17:27-43.
[239]Szulanski, G. The process of knowledge transfer: A diachronic analysis of stickiness[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,2000,82(1):9-27.
[240]Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management[J].Stratgaic Managemeni Journal,1997,18(7):509-533.
[241]Tsai, W. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of networkposition and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance [J].Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5):996-1004.
[242]Turkenburg, W.C. The innovation chain: Policies to promote energy innovations [R].Energy for Sustainable Development Policy Agenda,2002.
[243]Upadhyayula, R.S., Kumar, R. Social capital as an antecedent of absorptivecapacity of firms [C]. DRUID Summer Conference on Industrial Dynamics, Innovationand Development Elsinore, Denmark,2004/6/14-16.
[244]Utterback, J.M. Mastering the dynamics of innovation [M]. Boston, Massachusetts:Harvard Business School Press,1994.
[245]Van den Bosch, F.A.J., Volberda, H.W., Boer, M. Coevolution of firm absorptivecapacity and knowledge environment: Organizational forms and combinative capabilities[J]. Organization Science,1999,10(5):551-568.
[246]Vanhaverbeke, W., Cloodt, M., Van de Vrande, V. Connecting absorptive capacityand open innovation [EB/OL].http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1091265,2008.
[247]Veugelers, R. Internal R&D expenditures and external technology sourcing [J].Research Policy,1997,26(3):303-315.
[248]von Hippel, E."Sticky Information" and the Locus of Problem Solving:Implications for Innovation [J]. Management science,1994,40(4):429-439.
[249]von Hippel, E. Democratizing innovation [M]. The MIT Press,2005.
[250]von Hippel, E. Lead Uses: A source of novel product concepts [J]. ManagementScience,1986,32(7):791-805.
[251]von Hippel, E. New product ideas from “Lead Users”[J]. Research TechnologyManagement,1989,32(3):24-27.
[252]Vrande, V., Jong, J.P.J., Vanhaverbeke, M., Rochemont, M. Open innovation inSMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges [J]. Technovation,2009,29(6-7):423-437.
[253]Youtie, J., Shapira, P. Building an innovation hub: A case study of thetransformation of university roles in regional technological and economic development[J]. Research Policy,2008,37(8):1188-1204.
[254]Zahra, S., George, G. Absorptive capability: a review, reconceptualization andextension [J]. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(2):185-203.
[255]Zoltan, J., Audretsch, D.B. Innovation in large and small firms: An empiricalanalysis [J]. The American Economic Review,1998,78(4):678-690.
[256]Zuber-Skerritt, O., Perry, C. Action research within organisations and universitythesis writing [J]. The Learning Organization,2002,9(4):171-179.