基于组织模块性与技术模块性匹配的全球研发系统架构设计规则
|
摘要
面对日趋激烈的国际竞争与快速变化的市场环境,当今企业的竞争已经不再是单个企业静态能力的比拼,而日渐成为平台之间的竞争与网络之间的竞争。面对提升技术的急迫需求,研发国际化已经成为新兴经济国家的后发企业实现技术追赶的必然路径。后发企业必须打破封闭条件下的能力追赶模式,依托全球化资源配置的机会,将中国企业的比较优势与海外技术资源相结合,实现企业技术能力的突破。在这样的情境下,以中国企业为代表的后发企业,越来越多得开始实施走出去战略,建立起服务于自身技术能力提升的全球研发系统。
设计与构建全球研发系统架构的关键,在于处理组织模块性与技术模块性之间动态的匹配关系。学术界对于组织模块性与技术模块性间的关系一直存在争论,争论的焦点在于“镜像假设”是否成立,即“为了实现系统运行效率的最大化,技术模块性和组织模块性是否应该完全对应”。许多学者发现,现实中的企业会选择组织模块性与技术模块性并不对应的方式构建系统架构。本文加入这一经典争论的探讨之中,在紧密围绕“全球研发系统架构的设计规则”这一主题的基础上,试图通过回答“在研发全球化情境下,组织模块性与技术模块性应当如何进行匹配以促进后发企业的技术追赶”这一具体的研究问题,来对架构理论研究中的镜像假设争论作出深入探讨。
在文献梳理的基础上,本文展开了四个系统性关联的子研究。首先,通过探索性的多案例比较分析,研究技术差距在全球研发系统架构构建过程中呈现出的前因作用。随后,通过集合论式的实证分析,研究组织身份认同差距在全球研发系统架构内如何影响组织模块性、技术模块性与技术追赶的关系。在此基础上,比较区域制度认同差距与组织身份认同差距在作用机制上是否存在差异。最后,基于组织模块性与技术模块性“同构／异构”的协同模式,进一步探讨研发系统架构构建的动态过程,从而在上述三个子研究的基础上展现全球研发系统架构设计规则的全景。
通过四个子研究的系统性递进,本文解构了组织模块性与技术模块性的协同机制,剖析了技术差距和组织身份认同差距这两个关键因素的作用机制,从而深入阐释了全球研发系统架构的设计规则,得出了以下三个方面的主要结论：
(1)基于“不对称假设”的全球研发系统架构设计规则,更符合后发企业技术追赶的实际。在研发国际化情境下,由于面临与目标组织单元之间的技术差距,包括单体技术差距和系统技术差距,后发企业往往难以设计并控制其架构的关键部分,继而无法同步完成组织模块性与技术模块性的设计,并难以遵照传统的“镜像假设”实现两者完全对应的理想状态。后发企业需要根据单体技术差距和系统技术差距的不同程度,选择不同步建立、不完全对应或模块性程度不一的技术架构和组织架构。这样的架构构建方式虽然没有遵循理论上更为有效的镜像假设模式,但却是特定情境下最为可行的路径选择。
(2)组织身份认同差距对于技术模块性与组织模块性的影响作用并不相同。用新产品开发绩效表征系统的技术追赶时,一方面由于知识与身份认同在集体性实践中的共同嵌入,组织身份认同差距会负向影响技术模块性与新产品开发绩效间的关系；另一方面又由于模块性设计对子系统的分隔效应,组织身份认同差距正向影响组织模块性与新产品开发绩效间的关系。因而组织模块性的设计相比于技术模块性的设计更容易在组织身份认同差距较高的情境下发挥作用。组织身份认同差距的存在,同样让组织模块性与技术模块性之间难以呈现出符合镜像假设要求的设计。此外,区域制度认同差距与组织身份认同差距产生的影响作用高度趋同,这种趋同产生的原因可能是区域制度认同差距是通过影响组织身份认同差距而间接影响研发系统的技术追赶。
(3)后发企业可以选择组织模块性与技术模块性之间“同构/异构”的不同协同模式,应对技术差距与组织身份认同差距带来的影响。在构建全球研发系统并进行架构协调的过程中,在理论上松散耦合程度更高、模块性更强、更符合镜像假设的架构设计并不一定适用于后发企业面临的情境。后发企业必须选择最合适的设计规则来实现组织模块性和技术模块性的协同匹配,其协同模式可以包括“短时同构、长时同构、短时异构、长时异构”四种类型,分别适用于技术与制度因素影响之下的不同情境。在实现全球研发系统模块性设计的过程中,后发企业可以引入实时的、人为的协调策略与控制策略,并通过实施“接受、减弱、回避、整合”等组织身份认同管理响应机制,保障组织模块性与技术模块性之间协同匹配的顺利进行。
本文研究的理论贡献主要在于：
(1)填补了后发企业研发国际化过程机制研究的欠缺。现有文献相对缺少对于后发企业通过构建全球研发系统的方式实现研发国际化这一新兴现象的关注,更忽略了对于全球研发系统的具体构建路径和构建过程的解构与剖析,继而也忽略了从中体现的连接后发企业研发国际化前因与后果的中间机制。本研究创新性得从技术模块性和组织模块性协同匹配的动态过程视角出发,针对后发企业研发国际化中遇到的创新体系整合失败、境外单元运行困难、技术学习难以实现等问题,分析全球研发系统的构建路径、协同模式及其背后的作用机制,从而弥补了国际化文献中对于后发企业全球研发系统构建过程机制研究的欠缺。
(2)促进了架构理论研究的深入和模块化研究的情境化发展。本文从设计规则的角度分析了组织模块性和技术模块性在边界条件影响下展现的动态关系,提出“同步同构”的匹配方式并不一定是后发企业构建研发系统的最佳选择,并讨论了组织模块性与技术模块性协同的四种模式,对于镜像假设的理论争论作出进一步探讨。同时,本文选取新兴经济国家后发企业寻求技术追赶的这一特殊且重要的情境,探讨后发企业构建研发系统架构过程中的模块性问题,发现技术差距与组织身份认同差距的存在让不符合镜像假设的架构设计反而拥有更强的适用性,从而对架构理论与模块化研究的情境化发展做出贡献。
(3)对于组织身份认同研究的跨领域拓展作出探索。本文在战略管理研究领域内,引入组织行为研究关注的与“组织身份”相关的构念,认为“组织身份认同差距”影响了组织模块性与技术模块性在全球研发系统内发挥的作用,并比较了区域层面与组织层面的认同因素在影响机制上的异同,最终将“组织身份认同差距”认定为影响后发企业全球研发系统架构构建最为关键的制度要素。通过多种研究方法相结合的综合分析,本文将组织身份认同相关的研究进一步融入到战略管理这一主流管理研究领域之中,从而对“组织身份认同”这一核心构念的跨领域拓展作出了有益的探索。
同时,本文针对开展研发国际化以寻求技术赶超的后发企业所存在的架构构建通病,基于模块性设计的思路来呈现、分析与解构系统建构的复杂性与动态性,并对案例企业中呈现出的经验与问题进行了深入的比较与剖析,为正在或将要面临这些问题的中国企业提供了解决问题的重要思路与架构设计的实践参考。
Faced with increasingly fierce international competition and rapidly changing market environment, the race of today's firms is no longer based on the firm's own static capabilities, but based on the network or platform the firm embedded in. In order to improve technological capabilities within such context, globalization of R&D has already become an inevitable path of technological catch-up for latecomer firms from emerging economies. As a result, China's latecomer firms should utilize the chance of global resource orchestration, and lead an open catch-up mode to realize the breakthrough of innovation capability. More and more Chinese firms begin to implement R&D going-out strategy and establish global R&D system to enhance their R&D capabilities.
The key of designing and constructing global R&D system is to deal with the fit between organizational modularity and technological modularity. The relationship between these two remains unsolved within academic domain, and the focus of the argument lies on "Mirroring hypothesis", which argues that the technology architecture tends to "mirror" the architecture of an organization, so that a corresponding design of organizational modularity and technological modularity has been an important predictor of product performance, product variety and process flexibility. However, many researchers found that lots of firms in reality would not build architectures according to the mirroring hypothesis. This paper tries to communicate with this theoretical argument. Focus on the research topic of "design rules of global R&D system architecture", this dissertation will answer the question of how organizational modularity and technological modularity could fit with each other under the R&D globalization context to realize R&D catch-up.
Based on the literature review, this dissertation launches four sub-research designs which are systematically connected with each other. Firstly, multiple case study method is used to analyze the influence of technological gap within global R&D system architecture. Secondly, fsQCA method is introduced in to analyze the moderating mechanism of organizational identification gap on the relationship of organizational modularity, technological modularity and new product performance. In addition, in order to further discuss the effect of regional level identification factors, another fsQCA analysis is conducted. Moreover, based on those three sub-researches, a further discussion of the isomeric/isomorphic synergy between organizational modularity and technological modularity is used to show the whole picture of the design rules research of this dissertation.
Through the in-depth analysis and discussion from the four sub-research designs, this paper mainly comes to several essential conclusions as follows:
(1) Compared with Mirroring hypothesis, the "Asymmetric hypothesis" design rules of global R&D system architecture would be more suitable for the technological catch-up context. As technological gap existing between the latecomer firm and its target organization, including component technological gap and system technological gap, the corresponding design of organizational modularity and technological modularity may not be the optimal strategy, due to the lack of architecture capabilities of latecomer firms. An asymmetric building path of organizational architecture and technological architecture is approved to be more decent for latecomer firms.
(2) Organizational identification gap shows a pair of difference effects on organizational modularity and technological modularity. It positively influences the relationship between organizational modularity and performance due to the sub-module isolation effect of modularity design, and negatively influences the relationship between technological modularity and performance due to the dual embeddedness of knowledge and identity into collective practice. The effects of regional institution identification gap are highly similar with the effects of organizational identification gap, and the former may tend to influence the global R&D system architecture indirectly through the latter.
(3) The isomorphic/isomeric synergy between organizational modularity and technological modularity is the key for designing and constructing global R&D system. And the synergy modes of coherent synergy, assembling synergy, acquiring synergy, and integrating synergy are four main solutions for managing technological gaps and organizational identification gap. Furthermore, accepting, weakening, avoiding, and integrating are four kinds of organizational identity management response mechanism to safeguard the realization of synergy.
This dissertation makes important theoretical contributions in three aspects:
(1) Contribution to the academic research of R&D Globalization. There is relatively little research on the R&D globalization of emerging economy firms either into other emerging economies or into developed economies. And the detailed process deconstructing and mechanism analysis of latecomer firms' global R&D system architecture building are even fewer within current researches. Based on the dynamic perspective of architecture design rules, this paper discusses the problems that latecomer firms may occor and the optimal paths that latecomer firms need to choose within R&D system constructing process, and tries to make contribution to the shortcoming of R&D globalization research.
(2) Contribution to the development of architecture theory and the contextualization of modularity research. This paper proposes that design rules according to mirroring hypothesis would not be the optimal choice for latecomer firms if considering the technological factor and identification factor within the specific context. With further discussion about the synergy mechanisms between organizational modularity and technological modularity, this paper make contribution to the classical argument of architecture theory and be helpful for the contextualization of modularity research.
(3) Accelerating the fusion between identification research and strategic management research. This paper fully discusses the effecting mechanism of organizational identification gap on organizational modularity and technological modularity, and compares its effects with regional institution identification gap, then identifies organizational identification gap to be the most vital institutional factor within the design of global R&D system architecture. By introducing this construct directly into the mainstream research of strategic management field, this paper makes meaningful progress on the cross-field integration between organizational behavior research and strategic management research.
In addition, this paper also has essential practical implications. Based on the perspective of modularity, this paper interprets and analyzes the complexity and dynamic of architecture design rules. The results can provide valuable references and insights for latecomer enterprises that seek to develop global R&D system and faces context-specific problems while constructing global R&D system architecture.
设计与构建全球研发系统架构的关键,在于处理组织模块性与技术模块性之间动态的匹配关系。学术界对于组织模块性与技术模块性间的关系一直存在争论,争论的焦点在于“镜像假设”是否成立,即“为了实现系统运行效率的最大化,技术模块性和组织模块性是否应该完全对应”。许多学者发现,现实中的企业会选择组织模块性与技术模块性并不对应的方式构建系统架构。本文加入这一经典争论的探讨之中,在紧密围绕“全球研发系统架构的设计规则”这一主题的基础上,试图通过回答“在研发全球化情境下,组织模块性与技术模块性应当如何进行匹配以促进后发企业的技术追赶”这一具体的研究问题,来对架构理论研究中的镜像假设争论作出深入探讨。
在文献梳理的基础上,本文展开了四个系统性关联的子研究。首先,通过探索性的多案例比较分析,研究技术差距在全球研发系统架构构建过程中呈现出的前因作用。随后,通过集合论式的实证分析,研究组织身份认同差距在全球研发系统架构内如何影响组织模块性、技术模块性与技术追赶的关系。在此基础上,比较区域制度认同差距与组织身份认同差距在作用机制上是否存在差异。最后,基于组织模块性与技术模块性“同构／异构”的协同模式,进一步探讨研发系统架构构建的动态过程,从而在上述三个子研究的基础上展现全球研发系统架构设计规则的全景。
通过四个子研究的系统性递进,本文解构了组织模块性与技术模块性的协同机制,剖析了技术差距和组织身份认同差距这两个关键因素的作用机制,从而深入阐释了全球研发系统架构的设计规则,得出了以下三个方面的主要结论：
(1)基于“不对称假设”的全球研发系统架构设计规则,更符合后发企业技术追赶的实际。在研发国际化情境下,由于面临与目标组织单元之间的技术差距,包括单体技术差距和系统技术差距,后发企业往往难以设计并控制其架构的关键部分,继而无法同步完成组织模块性与技术模块性的设计,并难以遵照传统的“镜像假设”实现两者完全对应的理想状态。后发企业需要根据单体技术差距和系统技术差距的不同程度,选择不同步建立、不完全对应或模块性程度不一的技术架构和组织架构。这样的架构构建方式虽然没有遵循理论上更为有效的镜像假设模式,但却是特定情境下最为可行的路径选择。
(2)组织身份认同差距对于技术模块性与组织模块性的影响作用并不相同。用新产品开发绩效表征系统的技术追赶时,一方面由于知识与身份认同在集体性实践中的共同嵌入,组织身份认同差距会负向影响技术模块性与新产品开发绩效间的关系；另一方面又由于模块性设计对子系统的分隔效应,组织身份认同差距正向影响组织模块性与新产品开发绩效间的关系。因而组织模块性的设计相比于技术模块性的设计更容易在组织身份认同差距较高的情境下发挥作用。组织身份认同差距的存在,同样让组织模块性与技术模块性之间难以呈现出符合镜像假设要求的设计。此外,区域制度认同差距与组织身份认同差距产生的影响作用高度趋同,这种趋同产生的原因可能是区域制度认同差距是通过影响组织身份认同差距而间接影响研发系统的技术追赶。
(3)后发企业可以选择组织模块性与技术模块性之间“同构/异构”的不同协同模式,应对技术差距与组织身份认同差距带来的影响。在构建全球研发系统并进行架构协调的过程中,在理论上松散耦合程度更高、模块性更强、更符合镜像假设的架构设计并不一定适用于后发企业面临的情境。后发企业必须选择最合适的设计规则来实现组织模块性和技术模块性的协同匹配,其协同模式可以包括“短时同构、长时同构、短时异构、长时异构”四种类型,分别适用于技术与制度因素影响之下的不同情境。在实现全球研发系统模块性设计的过程中,后发企业可以引入实时的、人为的协调策略与控制策略,并通过实施“接受、减弱、回避、整合”等组织身份认同管理响应机制,保障组织模块性与技术模块性之间协同匹配的顺利进行。
本文研究的理论贡献主要在于：
(1)填补了后发企业研发国际化过程机制研究的欠缺。现有文献相对缺少对于后发企业通过构建全球研发系统的方式实现研发国际化这一新兴现象的关注,更忽略了对于全球研发系统的具体构建路径和构建过程的解构与剖析,继而也忽略了从中体现的连接后发企业研发国际化前因与后果的中间机制。本研究创新性得从技术模块性和组织模块性协同匹配的动态过程视角出发,针对后发企业研发国际化中遇到的创新体系整合失败、境外单元运行困难、技术学习难以实现等问题,分析全球研发系统的构建路径、协同模式及其背后的作用机制,从而弥补了国际化文献中对于后发企业全球研发系统构建过程机制研究的欠缺。
(2)促进了架构理论研究的深入和模块化研究的情境化发展。本文从设计规则的角度分析了组织模块性和技术模块性在边界条件影响下展现的动态关系,提出“同步同构”的匹配方式并不一定是后发企业构建研发系统的最佳选择,并讨论了组织模块性与技术模块性协同的四种模式,对于镜像假设的理论争论作出进一步探讨。同时,本文选取新兴经济国家后发企业寻求技术追赶的这一特殊且重要的情境,探讨后发企业构建研发系统架构过程中的模块性问题,发现技术差距与组织身份认同差距的存在让不符合镜像假设的架构设计反而拥有更强的适用性,从而对架构理论与模块化研究的情境化发展做出贡献。
(3)对于组织身份认同研究的跨领域拓展作出探索。本文在战略管理研究领域内,引入组织行为研究关注的与“组织身份”相关的构念,认为“组织身份认同差距”影响了组织模块性与技术模块性在全球研发系统内发挥的作用,并比较了区域层面与组织层面的认同因素在影响机制上的异同,最终将“组织身份认同差距”认定为影响后发企业全球研发系统架构构建最为关键的制度要素。通过多种研究方法相结合的综合分析,本文将组织身份认同相关的研究进一步融入到战略管理这一主流管理研究领域之中,从而对“组织身份认同”这一核心构念的跨领域拓展作出了有益的探索。
同时,本文针对开展研发国际化以寻求技术赶超的后发企业所存在的架构构建通病,基于模块性设计的思路来呈现、分析与解构系统建构的复杂性与动态性,并对案例企业中呈现出的经验与问题进行了深入的比较与剖析,为正在或将要面临这些问题的中国企业提供了解决问题的重要思路与架构设计的实践参考。
Faced with increasingly fierce international competition and rapidly changing market environment, the race of today's firms is no longer based on the firm's own static capabilities, but based on the network or platform the firm embedded in. In order to improve technological capabilities within such context, globalization of R&D has already become an inevitable path of technological catch-up for latecomer firms from emerging economies. As a result, China's latecomer firms should utilize the chance of global resource orchestration, and lead an open catch-up mode to realize the breakthrough of innovation capability. More and more Chinese firms begin to implement R&D going-out strategy and establish global R&D system to enhance their R&D capabilities.
The key of designing and constructing global R&D system is to deal with the fit between organizational modularity and technological modularity. The relationship between these two remains unsolved within academic domain, and the focus of the argument lies on "Mirroring hypothesis", which argues that the technology architecture tends to "mirror" the architecture of an organization, so that a corresponding design of organizational modularity and technological modularity has been an important predictor of product performance, product variety and process flexibility. However, many researchers found that lots of firms in reality would not build architectures according to the mirroring hypothesis. This paper tries to communicate with this theoretical argument. Focus on the research topic of "design rules of global R&D system architecture", this dissertation will answer the question of how organizational modularity and technological modularity could fit with each other under the R&D globalization context to realize R&D catch-up.
Based on the literature review, this dissertation launches four sub-research designs which are systematically connected with each other. Firstly, multiple case study method is used to analyze the influence of technological gap within global R&D system architecture. Secondly, fsQCA method is introduced in to analyze the moderating mechanism of organizational identification gap on the relationship of organizational modularity, technological modularity and new product performance. In addition, in order to further discuss the effect of regional level identification factors, another fsQCA analysis is conducted. Moreover, based on those three sub-researches, a further discussion of the isomeric/isomorphic synergy between organizational modularity and technological modularity is used to show the whole picture of the design rules research of this dissertation.
Through the in-depth analysis and discussion from the four sub-research designs, this paper mainly comes to several essential conclusions as follows:
(1) Compared with Mirroring hypothesis, the "Asymmetric hypothesis" design rules of global R&D system architecture would be more suitable for the technological catch-up context. As technological gap existing between the latecomer firm and its target organization, including component technological gap and system technological gap, the corresponding design of organizational modularity and technological modularity may not be the optimal strategy, due to the lack of architecture capabilities of latecomer firms. An asymmetric building path of organizational architecture and technological architecture is approved to be more decent for latecomer firms.
(2) Organizational identification gap shows a pair of difference effects on organizational modularity and technological modularity. It positively influences the relationship between organizational modularity and performance due to the sub-module isolation effect of modularity design, and negatively influences the relationship between technological modularity and performance due to the dual embeddedness of knowledge and identity into collective practice. The effects of regional institution identification gap are highly similar with the effects of organizational identification gap, and the former may tend to influence the global R&D system architecture indirectly through the latter.
(3) The isomorphic/isomeric synergy between organizational modularity and technological modularity is the key for designing and constructing global R&D system. And the synergy modes of coherent synergy, assembling synergy, acquiring synergy, and integrating synergy are four main solutions for managing technological gaps and organizational identification gap. Furthermore, accepting, weakening, avoiding, and integrating are four kinds of organizational identity management response mechanism to safeguard the realization of synergy.
This dissertation makes important theoretical contributions in three aspects:
(1) Contribution to the academic research of R&D Globalization. There is relatively little research on the R&D globalization of emerging economy firms either into other emerging economies or into developed economies. And the detailed process deconstructing and mechanism analysis of latecomer firms' global R&D system architecture building are even fewer within current researches. Based on the dynamic perspective of architecture design rules, this paper discusses the problems that latecomer firms may occor and the optimal paths that latecomer firms need to choose within R&D system constructing process, and tries to make contribution to the shortcoming of R&D globalization research.
(2) Contribution to the development of architecture theory and the contextualization of modularity research. This paper proposes that design rules according to mirroring hypothesis would not be the optimal choice for latecomer firms if considering the technological factor and identification factor within the specific context. With further discussion about the synergy mechanisms between organizational modularity and technological modularity, this paper make contribution to the classical argument of architecture theory and be helpful for the contextualization of modularity research.
(3) Accelerating the fusion between identification research and strategic management research. This paper fully discusses the effecting mechanism of organizational identification gap on organizational modularity and technological modularity, and compares its effects with regional institution identification gap, then identifies organizational identification gap to be the most vital institutional factor within the design of global R&D system architecture. By introducing this construct directly into the mainstream research of strategic management field, this paper makes meaningful progress on the cross-field integration between organizational behavior research and strategic management research.
In addition, this paper also has essential practical implications. Based on the perspective of modularity, this paper interprets and analyzes the complexity and dynamic of architecture design rules. The results can provide valuable references and insights for latecomer enterprises that seek to develop global R&D system and faces context-specific problems while constructing global R&D system architecture.
引文
1 数据来自清科研究中心2010年发布的报告《中国海外并购概况》(www.zero2ipo.com.en)。
2 本章节中迈瑞公司的基本信息摘录自迈瑞的官方网站(www.mindray.com/)和百度百科的“迈瑞”词条(http://baike.baidu.com/view/953263.htm?fr=aladdin)
3 对于迈瑞收购Datascope的部分信息参考了网易财经2008年4月7日发布的《环球企业家》的文章《闯入者迈瑞下一个华为?》,作者沈霄戈(http://money.163.com/08/0407/20/48V3SE51002510FT.html)。
4 迈瑞获得知识产权的具体数字摘自BusinessValue阅读网上的文章《迈瑞：非典型中国制造》,作者吴以四,2011年10月19日(http://content.businessvalue.com.cn/post/4666.html).
[1]Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., Sarkar, M.. The process of creative construction: knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,2007,1(3-4),263-286.
[2]Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P.. Competition and innovation:An inverted-U relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2005,120(2),701-728.
[3]Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., Dutton, J. E.. Organizational identity and identification:Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review,2000,25(1),13-17.
[4]Albert, S., Whetten, D. A.. Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior,1985,7(1),263-295.
[5]Alon, I., Child, J., Li, S., McIntyre, J. R.. Globalization of Chinese firms: Theoretical universalism or particularism. Management and Organization Review,2011,7(2),191-200.
[6]Anteby, M., Molnar, V.. Collective memory meets organizational identity: remembering to forget in a firm's rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal,2012,55(3),515-540.
[7]Argyres, N., Bigelow, L.. Innovation, modularity, and vertical deintegration: evidence from the early US auto industry. Organization S cience,2010,21 (4), 842-853.
[8]Asakawa, K., Lehrer, M.. Managing local knowledge assets globally:The role of regional innovation relays. Journal of World Business,2003,38(1),31-42.
[9]Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., Corley, K. G. Identification in organizations:An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management,2008, 34(3),325-374.
[10]Ashforth, B. E., Mael, F.. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(1),20-39.
[11]Athreye, S., Keeble, D.. Technological convergence, globalisation and ownership in the UK computer industry. Technovation,2000,20(5),227-245.
[12]Atuahene-Gima, K., Murray, J. Y.. Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development:a social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing,2007,15(2),1-29.
[13]Baldwin, C. Y.. Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms. Industrial and Corporate Change,2008,17(1),155-195.
[14]Baldwin, C. Y., Clark, K. B.. Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review,1997,75(5),84-93.
[15]Baldwin, C. Y, Clark, K. B.. Design rules:The power of modularity. Boston, MA:The MIT Press,2000,1-5,5-11,50-59,65,77-80,113-126.
[16]Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., De Jong, M., Joustra, I.. Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2007,28(2), 173-190.
[17]Blomstrom, M.. Foreign investment and productive efficiency:The case of Mexico. The Journal of Industrial Economics,1986,15,97-110.
[18]Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G, Whetten, D. A.. Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation:an interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,2006,34(2),99-106.
[19]Bruche, G. The emergence of China and India as new competitors in MNCs' innovation networks. Competition & Change,2009,13(3),267-288.
[20]Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A.. Unpacking the black box of modularity:Technologies, products and organizations. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001,10(1), 179-205.
[21]Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A.. Making design rules:A multidomain perspective. Organization Science,2006,17(2),179-189.
[22]Campagnolo, D., Camuffo, A.. The concept of modularity in management studies a literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews,2010,12(3), 259-283.
[23]Cantwell, J.. The globalisation of technology:what remains of the product cycle model?. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1995,19,155-155.
[24]Cebon, P., Shekhar, C, Hauptman, O.. Industries in the making:Product modularity, technological innovation and the product lifecycle. Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne,2002, unpublished.
[25]Cheng, C. F., Chang, M. L., Li, C. S.. Configural paths to successful product innovation. Journal of Business Research,2013,66(12),2561-2573.
[26]Chesbrough, H. W., Kusunoki, K..10 The modularity trap:Innovation, technology phase shifts and the resulting limits of virtual organizations. London: Sage,2001,202-230.
[27]Child, J.. Organizational structure, environment and performance:the role of strategic choice. Sociology,1972,6(1),1-22.
[28]Christensen, C. M.. Exploring the limits of the technology S-Curve. Part I: Component technologies. Production and Operations Management,1992a,1(4), 334-357.
[29]Christensen, C.M.. Exploring the limits of the technology S-Curve. Part II: Architectural technologies. Production and Operations Management,1992b, 1(4),358-366.
[30]Chryssochoou, X.. Chapter7 "Identity processes in culturally diverse societies: how is cultural diversity reflected in the self?" from the book Identity Process Theory:Identity, Social Action and Social Change. London:Cambridge University Press,2013,135-154.
[31]Chung, C. C., Beamish, P. W.. The impact of institutional reforms on characteristics and survival of foreign subsidiaries in emerging economies. Journal of Management Studies,2005,42(1),35-62.
[32]Coe, D. T., Helpman, E.. International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review,1995,39(5),859-887.
[33]Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., Walsh, J. P.. R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy,2002,31(8),1349-1367.
[34]Colfer, L., Baldwin, C.. The mirroring hypothesis:Theory, evidence and exceptions. Harvard Business School Finance,2010, Working Paper (10-058).
[35]Corley, K. G., Gioia, D. A.. Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly,2004,49(2),173-208.
[36]Corley, K. G., Harquail, C. V., Pratt, M. G, Glynn, M. A., Fiol, C. M., Hatch, M. J.. Guiding organizational identity through aged adolescence. Journal of Management Inquiry,2006,15(2),85-99.
[37]Crawley, E., Weck, O. d., Eppinger, S., Magee, C., Moses, J., Seering, W., Schindall, J., Wallace, D., Whitney, D.. The influence of architecture in engineering systems. MIT Engineering Systems Division,2004.
[38]Crespo, J., Martin, C., Velazquez, F. J.. International technology spillovers from trade:the importance of the technological gap. Investigaciones Economicas, 2004,28(3),515-533.
[39]Dahmus, J. B., Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., Otto, K. N.. Modular product architecture. Design Studies,2001,22(5),409-424.
[40]De Clercq, D., Dimov, D.. Internal knowledge development and external knowledge access in venture capital investment performance. Journal of Management Studies,2008,45(3),585-612.
[41]Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M.. Keeping an eye on the mirror:Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal,1991,34(3), 517-554.
[42]Eisenhardt, K. M.. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4),532-550.
[43]Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E.. Theory building from cases:opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(1),25-32.
[44]Ernst, D.. Complexity and internationalisation of innovation—why is chip design moving to Asia?. International Journal of Innovation Management,2005a,9(1), 47-73.
[45]Ernst, D.. Limits to modularity:reflections on recent developments in chip design. Industry and Innovation,2005b,12(3),303-335.
[46]Ethiraj, S. K., Levinthal, D.. Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Science,2004,50(2),159-173.
[47]Fiol, C. M.. Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management,2001,27(6),691-699.
[48]Fiss, P. C. Building better causal theories:A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal,2011,54(2),393-420.
[49]Fixson, S. K., Park, J. K.. The power of integrality:Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure. Research Policy,2008,37(8), 1296-1316.
[50]Fleming, L., Sorenson, O.. Technology as a complex adaptive system:evidence from patent data. Research Policy,2001,30,1019-1039.
[51]Foreman, P., Whetten, D. A.. Members' identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science,2002,13(6),618-635.
[52]Fredriksson, P.. Mechanisms and rationales for the coordination of a modular assembly system-The case of Volvo cars. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2006,26(3-4),350-370.
[53]Fredriksson, P., Gadde, L. E.. Flexibility and rigidity in custornization and build-to-order production. Industrial Marketing Management,2005,34(7), 695-705.
[54]Frigant, V., Talbot, D.. Technological determinism and modularity:lessons from a comparison between aircraft and auto industries in Europe. Industry and Innovation,2005,12(3),337-355.
[55]Furlan, A., Cabigiosu, A., Camuffo, A.. When the mirror gets misted up: Modularity and technological change. Strategic Management Journal,2013, 10.1002/smj.2138.
[56]Galunic, D. C, Eisenhardt, K. M.. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(6),1229-1249.
[57]Galvin, P.. Product modularity, information structures and the diffusion of innovation. International Journal of Technology Management,1999,17(5), 467-479
[58]Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A.. Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management Journal,1995, 16(special),93-109.
[59]Gassmann, O., Von Zedtwitz, M.. New concepts and trends in international R&D organization. Research Policy,1999,28(2),231-250.
[60]Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. A.. How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review,2008,49(2),28-35.
[61]Gerybadze, A., Reger, G. Globalization of R&D:recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy,1999, 28(2),251-274.
[62]Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamilton, A. L., Corley, K. G. Organizational identity formation and change. The Academy of Management Annals,2013,7(1), 123-192.
[63]Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., Corley, K. G. Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review,2000,25(1),63-81.
[64]Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B.. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(3),370-403.
[65]Golden-Biddle, K., Rao, H.. Breaches in the boardroom:Organizational identity and conflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization. Organization Science, 1997,8(6),593-611.
[66]Goldstein, A.. Multinational companies from emerging economies composition, conceptualization & direction in the global economy. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,2009,45(1),137-147.
[67]Grant, R. M.. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science,1996, 7(4),375-387.
[68]Grant, R. M., Baden-Fuller, C. A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies,2004,41(1),61-84.
[69]Haddad, M., Harrison, A.. Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment?:Evidence from panel data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics,1993,42(1),51-74.
[70]Hagedoorn, J., Cloodt, M.. Measuring innovative performance:is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?. Research Policy,2003,32(8), 1365-1379.
[71]Hannan, M. T., Freeman, J.. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology,1977,82(5),929-964.
[72]Helfat, C. E., Eisenhardt, K. M.. Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(13),1217-1232.
[73]Henderson, J., Dicken, P., Hess, M., Coe, N., Yeung, H. W. C. Global production networks and the analysis of economic development. Review of International Political Economy,2002,9(3),436-464.
[74]Henderson, R. M., Clark, K. B.. Architectural innovation:The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1),9-30.
[75]Hermelo, F. D., Vassolo, R.. Institutional development and hypercompetition in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(13),1457-1473.
[76]Herrigel, G., Wittke, V., Voskamp, U.. The process of Chinese manufacturing upgrading:transitioning from unilateral to recursive mutual learning relations. Global Strategy Journal,2013,3(1),109-125.
[77]Hitt, M. A., Li, H., Worthington, W. J.. Emerging markets as learning laboratories: Learning behaviors of local firms and foreign entrants in different institutional contexts. Management and Organization Review,2005,1(3),353-380.
[78]Hobday, M.. Firm-level innovation models:perspectives on research in developed and developing countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2005, 17(2),121-146.
[79]Hoetker, G. Do modular products lead to modular organizations?. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(6),501-518.
[80]Hofstede, G H.. Culture's consequences:Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage,2001, 2-12.
[81]Holland, J. H.. Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity,2006,19(1),1-8.
[82]Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., Wright, M.. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(3),249-267.
[83]Hoskisson, R. E., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Peng, M. W.. Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies:The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies,2013,50(7),1295-1321.
[84]Hsu, G, Hannan, M. T.. Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organization Science,2005,16(5),474-490.
[85]Imbriani, C, Reganati, F.. Spillovers internazionali di efficienza nel settore manifatturiero italiano-International efficiency spillovers into the Italian manufacturing sector. Economia Intemazionale/International Economics,1997, 50(4),583-595.
[86]Jarvinen, J., Lamberg, J.-A., Murmann, J.-P., Ojala, J.. Alternative paths to competitive advantage:a fuzzy-set analysis of the origins of large firms. Industry and Innovation,2009,16(6),545-574.
[87]Kar, S., Subramanian, S., Saran, D.. Managing global R&D operations-lessons from the trenches. Research-Technology Management,2009,52(2),14-21.
[88]Karim, S.. Modularity in organizational structure:the reconfiguration of internally developed and acquired business units. Strategic Management Journal, 2006,27(9),799-823.
[89]Katila, R., Ahuja, G. Something old, something new:A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal,2002,45(6),1183-1194.
[90]Keen, C, Wu, Y.. An ambidextrous learning model for the internationalization of firms from emerging economies. Journal of International Entrepreneurship,2011, 9(4),316-339.
[91]Kiss, A. N., Danis, W. M., Cavusgil, S. T.. International entrepreneurship research in emerging economies:A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing,2012,27(2),266-290.
[92]Knippenberg, V. D., Knippenberg, V. B., Monden, L., Lima, F.. Organizational identification after a merger:A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology,2002,41(2),233-252.
[93]Knippenberg, V. D., Schipper, M. C.. Work Group Diversity. Annual Review of Psychology,2007,58(1),515-541.
[94]Kokko, A.. Technology, market characteristics, and spillovers. Journal of Development Economics,1994,43(2),279-293.
[95]Kokko, A.. Productivity spillovers from competition between local firms and foreign affiliates. Journal of International Development,1996,8(4),517-530.
[96]Kusunoki, K., Nonaka, I., Nagata, A.. Organizational capabilities in product development of Japanese firms:A conceptual framework and empirical findings. Organization Science,1998,9(6),699-718.
[97]Laamanen, T., Wallin, J.. Cognitive dynamics of capability development paths. Journal of Management Studies,2009,46(6),950-981.
[98]Langlois, R. N.. Modularity in technology and organization. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2002,49(1),19-37.
[99]Laursen, K., Salter, A.. Open for innovation:the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2),131-150.
[100]Li, P. P.. Toward a learning-based view of internationalization:The accelerated trajectories of cross-border learning for latecomers. Journal of International Management,2010,16(1),43-59.
[101]Li, X., Liu, X., Parker, D.. Foreign direct investment and productivity spillovers in the Chinese manufacturing sector. Economic Systems,2001,25(4), 305-321.
[102]Lu, J. W., Beamish, P. W.. International diversification and firm performance: The S-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(4), 598-609.
[103]Luo, J., Baldwin, C. Y., Whitney, D. E., Magee, C. L.. The architecture of transaction networks:a comparative analysis of hierarchy in two sectors. Industrial and Corporate Change,2012,21(6),1307-1335.
[104]MacCormack, A., Baldwin, C, Rusnak, J.. Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures:A test of the'mirroring' hypothesis. Research Policy,2012,41(8),1309-1324.
[105]MacDougall, D.. Why are EU countries focusing on R&D credits?. Journal of International Taxation,2004,15(7),38-43.
[106]MacDuffie, J. P.. Modularity as property, modularization as process, and 'modularity'as frame:Lessons from product architecture initiatives in the global automotive industry. Global Strategy Journal,2013,3(1),8-40.
[107]Mael, F., Ashforth, B. E.. Alumni and their alma mater:A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior,1992,13(2),103-123.
[108]Manolova, T. S., Manev, I. M.s Gyoshev, B. S.. In good company:The role of personal and inter-firm networks for new-venture internationalization in a transition economy. Journal of World Business,2010,45(3),257-265.
[109]Marcussen, M., Torfing, J.. Democratic network governance in Europe. London:St. Martin's Press,2006,11-27.
[110]Markus, H., Nurius, P.. Possible selves. American Psychologist,1986,41(9), 954.
[111]Mathews, J. A.. Competitive advantages of the latecomer firm:A resource-based account of industrial catch-up strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2002,19(4),467-488.
[112]Mathews, J. A.. Dragon multinationals:New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2006,23(1),5-27.
[113]Meuer, J.. Archetypes of inter-firm relations in the implementation of management innovation:A set-theoretic study in China's biopharmaceutical industry. Organization Studies,2014,35(1),121-145.
[114]Meyer, J. W., Rowan, B.. Institutionalized organizations:Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology,1977,83(2),340-363.
[115]Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R.. Organizational environments:Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage,1983,6-15.
[116]Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., Peng, M. W.. Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 2009,30(1),61-80.
[117]Meyer, K. E., Thaijongrak, O.. The dynamics of emerging economy MNEs: How the internationalization process model can guide future research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2013,30,1125-1153.
[118]Meyer, M. H., Utterback, J. M.. The product family and the dynamics of core capability. Sloan Management Review,1993,25,29-47.
[119]Mikkola, J. H.. Capturing the degree of modularity embedded in product architectures. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,23(2),128-146.
[120]Nag, R., Corley, K. G, Gioia, D. A.. The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge, and practice:Attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(4),821-847.
[121]Osborn, R. N., Ashforth, B. E.. Investigating the challenges to senior leadership in complex, high-risk technologies. The Leadership Quarterly,1990, 1(3),147-163.
[122]O'Sullivan, A.. Dispersed collaboration in a multi-firm, multi-team product-development project. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2003,20(1-2),93-116.
[123]Paoli, M., Prencipe, A.. The role of knowledge bases in complex product systems:Some empirical evidence from the aero engine industry. Journal of Management and Governance,1999,3(2),137-160.
[124]Park, Y., El Sawy, O. A.. The value of configurational approaches for studying digital business strategy. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 2013,38,205-224.
[125]Patel, P., Pavitt, K.. The innovative performance of the world's largest firms: Some new evidence. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,1992,2(2), 91-102.
[126]Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., Jiang, Y.. An institution-based view of international business strategy:A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies,2008,39(5),920-936.
[127]Pil, F. K., Cohen, S. K.. Modularity:Implications for imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4), 995-1011.
[128]Platt, J.. Case study in American methodological thought. Current Sociology,1992,40(1),17-48.
[129]Posner, M. V.. International trade and technical change. Oxford Economic Papers,1961,13(3),323-341.
[130]Powell, W. W., DiMaggio, P.. The iron cage revisited:Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,1983,48(2),147-160.
[131]Pratt, M. G, Foreman, P. O.. Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review,2000,25(1),18-42.
[132]Pratt, M. G, Rafaeli, A.. Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities. Academy of Management Journal,1997,40(4),862-898.
[133]Prencipe, A.. Technological competencies and product's evolutionary dynamics a case study from the aero-engine industry. Research Policy,1997, 25(8),1261-1276.
[134]Ragin, C. C.. Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). Los Angeles:Sage,2009,87-121.
[135]Ranft, A. L., Lord, M. D.. Acquiring new knowledge:The role of retaining human capital in acquisitions of high-tech firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,2000,11(2),295-319.
[136]Ritter, T., Gemunden, H. G.. The impact of a company's business strategy on its technological competence, network competence and innovation success. Journal of Business Research,2004,57(5),548-556.
[137]Ruef, M., Scott, W. R.. A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy:Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1998,43(4),877-904.
[138]Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J. T.. Modularity, flexibility and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 1996,17(special issue),63-76.
[139]Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J. T.. Modularity and economic organization: Concepts, theory, observations, and predictions.2012, paper provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business in its series Working Papers with number 12-0101.
[140]Santos, F. M., Eisenhardt, K. M.. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science,2005,16(5),491-508.
[141]Schilling, M. A.. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 2000,25(2),312-334.
[142]Schilling, M. A., Phelps, C. C. Interfirm collaboration networks:The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science,2007, 53(7),1113-1126.
[143]Schilling, M. A., Steensma, H. K.. The use of modular organizational forms: An industry-level analysis. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(6), 1149-1168.
[144]Schneider, M. R., Eggert, A.. Embracing complex causality with the QCA method:An invitation. Journal of Business Market Management,2014,7(1), 312-328.
[145]Schneider, S. C.. Strategy formulation:The impact of national culture. Organization Studies,1989,10(2),149-168.
[146]Scott, W. R.. The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly,1987,32(4),493-511.
[147]Scott, W. R.. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 1995,2-15,19-20.52-54.
[148]Sears, J., Hoetker, G. Technological overlap, technological capabilities, and resource recombination in technological acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal,2014,35(1),48-67.
[149]Sigurdson, J.. "The Internationalization of R&D-An Interpretation of Forces and Responses"in J. Sigurdson ed. Measuring the Dynamics of Technological Change, London:Pinter,1990,15-42.
[150]Simon, H. A.. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,1962,106,467-482.
[151]Sjoholm, F.. Technology gap, competition and spillovers from direct foreign investment:evidence from establishment data. The Journal of Development Studies,1999,36(1),53-73.
[152]Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., Van Riel, C. B.. The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5),1051-1062.
[153]Staudenmayer, N., Tripsas, M., Tucci, C. L.. Interfirm modularity and its implications for product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2005,22(4),303-321.
[154]Sturgeon, T. J.. Modular production networks:a new American model of industrial organization. Industrial and Corporate Change,2002,11(3),451-496.
[155]Swaminatham, J. M.. Enabling customization using standarized operations. California Management Review,2001,43(Spring),125-135.
[156]Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,1979,33,47.
[157]Takeishi, A.. Knowledge partitioning in the interfirm division of labor:The case of automotive product development. Organization Science,2002,13(3), 321-338.
[158]Tiwana, A.. Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing. Strategic Management Journal, 2008,29(7),769-780.
[159]Tsang, E. W.. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy:learning-by-doing and learning myopia. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(9),835-854.
[160]Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M. A., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Ragu-Nathan, B.. Measuring modularity-based manufacturing practices and their impact on mass customization capability:A customer-driven perspective. Decision Sciences,2004,35(2),147-168.
[161]Ullrich, J., Wieseke, J., Dick, R. V.. Continuity and change in mergers and acquisitions:A social identity case study of a German industrial merger. Journal of Management Studies,2005,42(8),1549-1569.
[162]Ulrich, K.. The role of product architecture in the manufactureing firm. Research Policy,1995,24(3),419-440.
[163]Van de Ven, A. H., Poole, M. S.. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review,1995,20(3),510-540.
[164]Van Der Vegt, G S., Bunderson, J. S.. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams:The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(3),532-547.
[165]Venkatraman, N.. The concept of fit in strategy research:Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(3), 423-444.
[166]Verweij, S., Klijn, E. H., Edelenbos, J., van Buuren, A.. What makes governance network work? A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of 14 Dutch spatial planning projects. Public Administration,2013, 10.1111/padm.12007.
[167]Von Zedtwitz, M.. Managing foreign R&D laboratories in China. R&D Management,2004,34(4),439-452.
[168]Wang, J.-Y., Blomstrom, M.. Foreign investment and technology transfer:A simple model. European Economic Review,1992,36(1),137-155.
[169]Waurzyniak, P.. Modular automation for the aerospace industry. Manufacturing Engineering,2006, (3),26-31.
[170]Weber, M.. The Protestan ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Charlse Scribner,1958,38-52.
[171]Weick, K. E.. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 1995,14-29.
[172]Williamson, P. J., Raman, A. P.. How China reset its global acquisition agenda. Harvard Business Review,2011,89(4),109-113.
[173]Worren, N., Moore, K., Cardona, P.. Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance:A study of the home appliance industry. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(12),1123-1140.
[174]Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., Peng, M. W.. Strategy research in emerging economies:Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies,2005,42(1),1-33.
[175]Xiao, S. S., Jeong, I., Moon, J. J., Chung, C. C., Chung, J.. Internationalization and performance of firms in China:Moderating effects of governance structure and the degree of centralized control. Journal of International Management,2013,19(2),118-137.
[176]Yamakawa, Y, Peng, M. W., Deeds, D. L.. What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to developed economies?. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,2008,32(1),59-82.
[177]Ybema, S.. Talk of change:Temporal contrasts and collective identities. Organization Studies,2010,31(4),481-503.
[178]Yin,R.K..案例研究：设计与方法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004,1-5、106-113.
[179]Zaheer, S.. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal,1995,38(2),341-363.
[180]Zaheer, S., Mosakowski, E.. The dynamics of the liability of foreignness:A global study of survival in financial services. Strategic Management Journal, 1997,18(6),439-463.
[181]Zaheer, S., Schomaker, M. S., Nachum, L.. Distance without direction: Restoring credibility to a much-loved construct. Journal of International Business Studies,2012,43(1),18-27.
[182]Zimmerman, M. A., Zeitz, G J.. Beyond survival:Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(3), 414-431.
[183]曹亮,汪海粟,陈硕颖.论模块化生产网络的二重性——兼论其对中国企业的影响.中国工业经济,2009,(10),33-42.
[184]陈晓萍,徐淑英,樊景立.组织与管理研究的实证方法.北京：北京大学出版社,2008,160-165、200-211.
[185]方佳佳.产品模块化对组织模块化的影响机制研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[186]苟昂,廖飞.基于组织模块化的价值网研究.中国工业经济,2005,2(7),66-72.
[187]顾良丰,许庆瑞.企业知识的模块化管理与全球化战略.中国地质大学学报：社会科学版,2005,5(3),17-21.
[188]胡晓鹏.从分工到模块化：经济系统演进的思考.中国工业经济,2004,(9),5-11.
[189]黄学,魏江,刘洋.二元视角下的文化创意产业模块化研究.外国经济与管理,2012,34(12),30-38.
[190]江诗松.转型经济中后发企业创新能力的追赶路径：所有权的视角.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2012.
[191]刘延松,张宏涛.复杂产品系统技术能力演进与业务模式升级-理论探讨及案例研究.科学学研究,2008,26(2),487-490.
[192]刘洋,魏江,江诗松.后发企业如何进行创新追赶?——研发网络边界拓展的视角.管理世界,2013,(003),96-110.
[193]刘洋,应瑛.架构理论研究脉络梳理与未来展望.外国经济与管理,2012,6,74-84.
[194]栾琨,谢小云.国外团队认同研究进展与展望.外国经济与管理,2014,(4),57-64.
[195]吕萍,杨震宁,王以华.我国高新技术企业研发国际化的发展与现状.中国软科学,2008,4,109-116.
[196]欧阳桃花,丁玲,郭瑞杰.组织边界跨越与IT能力的协同演化：海尔信息系统案例.中国工业经济,2012,(12),128-140.
[197]潘秋玥,魏江,刘洋.企业研发网络国际化研究述评与未来展望.外国经济与管理,2013,35(8),27-35.
[198]彭新敏,吴晓波,吴东.基于二次创新动态过程的企业网络与组织学习平衡模式演化——海天1971～2010年纵向案例研究.管理世界,2011,4,013.
[199]青木昌彦,安藤晴彦.模块时代：新产业结构的本质.上海：上海远东出版社,2003,5-9、39-49、69-73、131-149.
[200]王凤彬,李东红,张婷婷,杨阳.产品开发组织超模块化及其对创新的影响——以丰田汽车为案例的研究.中国工业经济,2011,(2),131-141.
[201]魏江,黄学,刘洋.基于组织模块化与技术模块化“同构/异构”协同的跨边界研发网络架构.中国工业经济,2014,(4),148-160.
[202]谢伟.全球生产网络中的中国轿车工业.管理世界,2006,(12),67-103.
[203]徐二明,郑平.国际化经营中的企业社会责任概念模型.经济与管理研究,2006,(3),54-57.
[204]徐宏玲,李双海.价值链形态演变与模块化组织协调.中国工业经济,2006,(11),81-88.
[205]易先忠,张亚斌.技术差距与人力资本约束下的技术进步模式.管理科学学报,2008,11(6),51-60.
[206]张建红,卫新江,海柯,艾伯斯.决定中国企业海外收购成败的因素分析.管理世界,2010,(3),97-107.
[207]章鹏.组织模块化与交互记忆对知识共享的影响研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[208]赵江琦.专业服务业服务模块化对客户响应的作用机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2011.
2 本章节中迈瑞公司的基本信息摘录自迈瑞的官方网站(www.mindray.com/)和百度百科的“迈瑞”词条(http://baike.baidu.com/view/953263.htm?fr=aladdin)
3 对于迈瑞收购Datascope的部分信息参考了网易财经2008年4月7日发布的《环球企业家》的文章《闯入者迈瑞下一个华为?》,作者沈霄戈(http://money.163.com/08/0407/20/48V3SE51002510FT.html)。
4 迈瑞获得知识产权的具体数字摘自BusinessValue阅读网上的文章《迈瑞：非典型中国制造》,作者吴以四,2011年10月19日(http://content.businessvalue.com.cn/post/4666.html).
[1]Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., Sarkar, M.. The process of creative construction: knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,2007,1(3-4),263-286.
[2]Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P.. Competition and innovation:An inverted-U relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2005,120(2),701-728.
[3]Albert, S., Ashforth, B. E., Dutton, J. E.. Organizational identity and identification:Charting new waters and building new bridges. Academy of Management Review,2000,25(1),13-17.
[4]Albert, S., Whetten, D. A.. Organizational identity. Research in Organizational Behavior,1985,7(1),263-295.
[5]Alon, I., Child, J., Li, S., McIntyre, J. R.. Globalization of Chinese firms: Theoretical universalism or particularism. Management and Organization Review,2011,7(2),191-200.
[6]Anteby, M., Molnar, V.. Collective memory meets organizational identity: remembering to forget in a firm's rhetorical history. Academy of Management Journal,2012,55(3),515-540.
[7]Argyres, N., Bigelow, L.. Innovation, modularity, and vertical deintegration: evidence from the early US auto industry. Organization S cience,2010,21 (4), 842-853.
[8]Asakawa, K., Lehrer, M.. Managing local knowledge assets globally:The role of regional innovation relays. Journal of World Business,2003,38(1),31-42.
[9]Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., Corley, K. G. Identification in organizations:An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management,2008, 34(3),325-374.
[10]Ashforth, B. E., Mael, F.. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(1),20-39.
[11]Athreye, S., Keeble, D.. Technological convergence, globalisation and ownership in the UK computer industry. Technovation,2000,20(5),227-245.
[12]Atuahene-Gima, K., Murray, J. Y.. Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development:a social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing,2007,15(2),1-29.
[13]Baldwin, C. Y.. Where do transactions come from? Modularity, transactions, and the boundaries of firms. Industrial and Corporate Change,2008,17(1),155-195.
[14]Baldwin, C. Y., Clark, K. B.. Managing in an age of modularity. Harvard Business Review,1997,75(5),84-93.
[15]Baldwin, C. Y, Clark, K. B.. Design rules:The power of modularity. Boston, MA:The MIT Press,2000,1-5,5-11,50-59,65,77-80,113-126.
[16]Bartels, J., Pruyn, A., De Jong, M., Joustra, I.. Multiple organizational identification levels and the impact of perceived external prestige and communication climate. Journal of Organizational Behavior,2007,28(2), 173-190.
[17]Blomstrom, M.. Foreign investment and productive efficiency:The case of Mexico. The Journal of Industrial Economics,1986,15,97-110.
[18]Brown, T. J., Dacin, P. A., Pratt, M. G, Whetten, D. A.. Identity, intended image, construed image, and reputation:an interdisciplinary framework and suggested terminology. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,2006,34(2),99-106.
[19]Bruche, G. The emergence of China and India as new competitors in MNCs' innovation networks. Competition & Change,2009,13(3),267-288.
[20]Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A.. Unpacking the black box of modularity:Technologies, products and organizations. Industrial and Corporate Change,2001,10(1), 179-205.
[21]Brusoni, S., Prencipe, A.. Making design rules:A multidomain perspective. Organization Science,2006,17(2),179-189.
[22]Campagnolo, D., Camuffo, A.. The concept of modularity in management studies a literature review. International Journal of Management Reviews,2010,12(3), 259-283.
[23]Cantwell, J.. The globalisation of technology:what remains of the product cycle model?. Cambridge Journal of Economics,1995,19,155-155.
[24]Cebon, P., Shekhar, C, Hauptman, O.. Industries in the making:Product modularity, technological innovation and the product lifecycle. Melbourne Business School, University of Melbourne,2002, unpublished.
[25]Cheng, C. F., Chang, M. L., Li, C. S.. Configural paths to successful product innovation. Journal of Business Research,2013,66(12),2561-2573.
[26]Chesbrough, H. W., Kusunoki, K..10 The modularity trap:Innovation, technology phase shifts and the resulting limits of virtual organizations. London: Sage,2001,202-230.
[27]Child, J.. Organizational structure, environment and performance:the role of strategic choice. Sociology,1972,6(1),1-22.
[28]Christensen, C. M.. Exploring the limits of the technology S-Curve. Part I: Component technologies. Production and Operations Management,1992a,1(4), 334-357.
[29]Christensen, C.M.. Exploring the limits of the technology S-Curve. Part II: Architectural technologies. Production and Operations Management,1992b, 1(4),358-366.
[30]Chryssochoou, X.. Chapter7 "Identity processes in culturally diverse societies: how is cultural diversity reflected in the self?" from the book Identity Process Theory:Identity, Social Action and Social Change. London:Cambridge University Press,2013,135-154.
[31]Chung, C. C., Beamish, P. W.. The impact of institutional reforms on characteristics and survival of foreign subsidiaries in emerging economies. Journal of Management Studies,2005,42(1),35-62.
[32]Coe, D. T., Helpman, E.. International R&D spillovers. European Economic Review,1995,39(5),859-887.
[33]Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., Walsh, J. P.. R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy,2002,31(8),1349-1367.
[34]Colfer, L., Baldwin, C.. The mirroring hypothesis:Theory, evidence and exceptions. Harvard Business School Finance,2010, Working Paper (10-058).
[35]Corley, K. G., Gioia, D. A.. Identity ambiguity and change in the wake of a corporate spin-off. Administrative Science Quarterly,2004,49(2),173-208.
[36]Corley, K. G., Harquail, C. V., Pratt, M. G, Glynn, M. A., Fiol, C. M., Hatch, M. J.. Guiding organizational identity through aged adolescence. Journal of Management Inquiry,2006,15(2),85-99.
[37]Crawley, E., Weck, O. d., Eppinger, S., Magee, C., Moses, J., Seering, W., Schindall, J., Wallace, D., Whitney, D.. The influence of architecture in engineering systems. MIT Engineering Systems Division,2004.
[38]Crespo, J., Martin, C., Velazquez, F. J.. International technology spillovers from trade:the importance of the technological gap. Investigaciones Economicas, 2004,28(3),515-533.
[39]Dahmus, J. B., Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., Otto, K. N.. Modular product architecture. Design Studies,2001,22(5),409-424.
[40]De Clercq, D., Dimov, D.. Internal knowledge development and external knowledge access in venture capital investment performance. Journal of Management Studies,2008,45(3),585-612.
[41]Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M.. Keeping an eye on the mirror:Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal,1991,34(3), 517-554.
[42]Eisenhardt, K. M.. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(4),532-550.
[43]Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E.. Theory building from cases:opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(1),25-32.
[44]Ernst, D.. Complexity and internationalisation of innovation—why is chip design moving to Asia?. International Journal of Innovation Management,2005a,9(1), 47-73.
[45]Ernst, D.. Limits to modularity:reflections on recent developments in chip design. Industry and Innovation,2005b,12(3),303-335.
[46]Ethiraj, S. K., Levinthal, D.. Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Science,2004,50(2),159-173.
[47]Fiol, C. M.. Revisiting an identity-based view of sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Management,2001,27(6),691-699.
[48]Fiss, P. C. Building better causal theories:A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal,2011,54(2),393-420.
[49]Fixson, S. K., Park, J. K.. The power of integrality:Linkages between product architecture, innovation, and industry structure. Research Policy,2008,37(8), 1296-1316.
[50]Fleming, L., Sorenson, O.. Technology as a complex adaptive system:evidence from patent data. Research Policy,2001,30,1019-1039.
[51]Foreman, P., Whetten, D. A.. Members' identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science,2002,13(6),618-635.
[52]Fredriksson, P.. Mechanisms and rationales for the coordination of a modular assembly system-The case of Volvo cars. International Journal of Operations & Production Management,2006,26(3-4),350-370.
[53]Fredriksson, P., Gadde, L. E.. Flexibility and rigidity in custornization and build-to-order production. Industrial Marketing Management,2005,34(7), 695-705.
[54]Frigant, V., Talbot, D.. Technological determinism and modularity:lessons from a comparison between aircraft and auto industries in Europe. Industry and Innovation,2005,12(3),337-355.
[55]Furlan, A., Cabigiosu, A., Camuffo, A.. When the mirror gets misted up: Modularity and technological change. Strategic Management Journal,2013, 10.1002/smj.2138.
[56]Galunic, D. C, Eisenhardt, K. M.. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(6),1229-1249.
[57]Galvin, P.. Product modularity, information structures and the diffusion of innovation. International Journal of Technology Management,1999,17(5), 467-479
[58]Garud, R., Kumaraswamy, A.. Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management Journal,1995, 16(special),93-109.
[59]Gassmann, O., Von Zedtwitz, M.. New concepts and trends in international R&D organization. Research Policy,1999,28(2),231-250.
[60]Gawer, A., Cusumano, M. A.. How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan Management Review,2008,49(2),28-35.
[61]Gerybadze, A., Reger, G. Globalization of R&D:recent changes in the management of innovation in transnational corporations. Research Policy,1999, 28(2),251-274.
[62]Gioia, D. A., Patvardhan, S. D., Hamilton, A. L., Corley, K. G. Organizational identity formation and change. The Academy of Management Annals,2013,7(1), 123-192.
[63]Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., Corley, K. G. Organizational identity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review,2000,25(1),63-81.
[64]Gioia, D. A., Thomas, J. B.. Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly,1996,41(3),370-403.
[65]Golden-Biddle, K., Rao, H.. Breaches in the boardroom:Organizational identity and conflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization. Organization Science, 1997,8(6),593-611.
[66]Goldstein, A.. Multinational companies from emerging economies composition, conceptualization & direction in the global economy. Indian Journal of Industrial Relations,2009,45(1),137-147.
[67]Grant, R. M.. Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science,1996, 7(4),375-387.
[68]Grant, R. M., Baden-Fuller, C. A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies,2004,41(1),61-84.
[69]Haddad, M., Harrison, A.. Are there positive spillovers from direct foreign investment?:Evidence from panel data for Morocco. Journal of Development Economics,1993,42(1),51-74.
[70]Hagedoorn, J., Cloodt, M.. Measuring innovative performance:is there an advantage in using multiple indicators?. Research Policy,2003,32(8), 1365-1379.
[71]Hannan, M. T., Freeman, J.. The population ecology of organizations. American Journal of Sociology,1977,82(5),929-964.
[72]Helfat, C. E., Eisenhardt, K. M.. Inter-temporal economies of scope, organizational modularity, and the dynamics of diversification. Strategic Management Journal,2004,25(13),1217-1232.
[73]Henderson, J., Dicken, P., Hess, M., Coe, N., Yeung, H. W. C. Global production networks and the analysis of economic development. Review of International Political Economy,2002,9(3),436-464.
[74]Henderson, R. M., Clark, K. B.. Architectural innovation:The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly,1990,35(1),9-30.
[75]Hermelo, F. D., Vassolo, R.. Institutional development and hypercompetition in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal,2010,31(13),1457-1473.
[76]Herrigel, G., Wittke, V., Voskamp, U.. The process of Chinese manufacturing upgrading:transitioning from unilateral to recursive mutual learning relations. Global Strategy Journal,2013,3(1),109-125.
[77]Hitt, M. A., Li, H., Worthington, W. J.. Emerging markets as learning laboratories: Learning behaviors of local firms and foreign entrants in different institutional contexts. Management and Organization Review,2005,1(3),353-380.
[78]Hobday, M.. Firm-level innovation models:perspectives on research in developed and developing countries. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,2005, 17(2),121-146.
[79]Hoetker, G. Do modular products lead to modular organizations?. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(6),501-518.
[80]Hofstede, G H.. Culture's consequences:Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage,2001, 2-12.
[81]Holland, J. H.. Studying complex adaptive systems. Journal of Systems Science and Complexity,2006,19(1),1-8.
[82]Hoskisson, R. E., Eden, L., Lau, C. M., Wright, M.. Strategy in emerging economies. Academy of Management Journal,2000,43(3),249-267.
[83]Hoskisson, R. E., Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Peng, M. W.. Emerging multinationals from mid-range economies:The influence of institutions and factor markets. Journal of Management Studies,2013,50(7),1295-1321.
[84]Hsu, G, Hannan, M. T.. Identities, genres, and organizational forms. Organization Science,2005,16(5),474-490.
[85]Imbriani, C, Reganati, F.. Spillovers internazionali di efficienza nel settore manifatturiero italiano-International efficiency spillovers into the Italian manufacturing sector. Economia Intemazionale/International Economics,1997, 50(4),583-595.
[86]Jarvinen, J., Lamberg, J.-A., Murmann, J.-P., Ojala, J.. Alternative paths to competitive advantage:a fuzzy-set analysis of the origins of large firms. Industry and Innovation,2009,16(6),545-574.
[87]Kar, S., Subramanian, S., Saran, D.. Managing global R&D operations-lessons from the trenches. Research-Technology Management,2009,52(2),14-21.
[88]Karim, S.. Modularity in organizational structure:the reconfiguration of internally developed and acquired business units. Strategic Management Journal, 2006,27(9),799-823.
[89]Katila, R., Ahuja, G. Something old, something new:A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal,2002,45(6),1183-1194.
[90]Keen, C, Wu, Y.. An ambidextrous learning model for the internationalization of firms from emerging economies. Journal of International Entrepreneurship,2011, 9(4),316-339.
[91]Kiss, A. N., Danis, W. M., Cavusgil, S. T.. International entrepreneurship research in emerging economies:A critical review and research agenda. Journal of Business Venturing,2012,27(2),266-290.
[92]Knippenberg, V. D., Knippenberg, V. B., Monden, L., Lima, F.. Organizational identification after a merger:A social identity perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology,2002,41(2),233-252.
[93]Knippenberg, V. D., Schipper, M. C.. Work Group Diversity. Annual Review of Psychology,2007,58(1),515-541.
[94]Kokko, A.. Technology, market characteristics, and spillovers. Journal of Development Economics,1994,43(2),279-293.
[95]Kokko, A.. Productivity spillovers from competition between local firms and foreign affiliates. Journal of International Development,1996,8(4),517-530.
[96]Kusunoki, K., Nonaka, I., Nagata, A.. Organizational capabilities in product development of Japanese firms:A conceptual framework and empirical findings. Organization Science,1998,9(6),699-718.
[97]Laamanen, T., Wallin, J.. Cognitive dynamics of capability development paths. Journal of Management Studies,2009,46(6),950-981.
[98]Langlois, R. N.. Modularity in technology and organization. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,2002,49(1),19-37.
[99]Laursen, K., Salter, A.. Open for innovation:the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,2006,27(2),131-150.
[100]Li, P. P.. Toward a learning-based view of internationalization:The accelerated trajectories of cross-border learning for latecomers. Journal of International Management,2010,16(1),43-59.
[101]Li, X., Liu, X., Parker, D.. Foreign direct investment and productivity spillovers in the Chinese manufacturing sector. Economic Systems,2001,25(4), 305-321.
[102]Lu, J. W., Beamish, P. W.. International diversification and firm performance: The S-curve hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal,2004,47(4), 598-609.
[103]Luo, J., Baldwin, C. Y., Whitney, D. E., Magee, C. L.. The architecture of transaction networks:a comparative analysis of hierarchy in two sectors. Industrial and Corporate Change,2012,21(6),1307-1335.
[104]MacCormack, A., Baldwin, C, Rusnak, J.. Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures:A test of the'mirroring' hypothesis. Research Policy,2012,41(8),1309-1324.
[105]MacDougall, D.. Why are EU countries focusing on R&D credits?. Journal of International Taxation,2004,15(7),38-43.
[106]MacDuffie, J. P.. Modularity as property, modularization as process, and 'modularity'as frame:Lessons from product architecture initiatives in the global automotive industry. Global Strategy Journal,2013,3(1),8-40.
[107]Mael, F., Ashforth, B. E.. Alumni and their alma mater:A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior,1992,13(2),103-123.
[108]Manolova, T. S., Manev, I. M.s Gyoshev, B. S.. In good company:The role of personal and inter-firm networks for new-venture internationalization in a transition economy. Journal of World Business,2010,45(3),257-265.
[109]Marcussen, M., Torfing, J.. Democratic network governance in Europe. London:St. Martin's Press,2006,11-27.
[110]Markus, H., Nurius, P.. Possible selves. American Psychologist,1986,41(9), 954.
[111]Mathews, J. A.. Competitive advantages of the latecomer firm:A resource-based account of industrial catch-up strategies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2002,19(4),467-488.
[112]Mathews, J. A.. Dragon multinationals:New players in 21st century globalization. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2006,23(1),5-27.
[113]Meuer, J.. Archetypes of inter-firm relations in the implementation of management innovation:A set-theoretic study in China's biopharmaceutical industry. Organization Studies,2014,35(1),121-145.
[114]Meyer, J. W., Rowan, B.. Institutionalized organizations:Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology,1977,83(2),340-363.
[115]Meyer, J. W., Scott, W. R.. Organizational environments:Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage,1983,6-15.
[116]Meyer, K. E., Estrin, S., Bhaumik, S. K., Peng, M. W.. Institutions, resources, and entry strategies in emerging economies. Strategic Management Journal, 2009,30(1),61-80.
[117]Meyer, K. E., Thaijongrak, O.. The dynamics of emerging economy MNEs: How the internationalization process model can guide future research. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,2013,30,1125-1153.
[118]Meyer, M. H., Utterback, J. M.. The product family and the dynamics of core capability. Sloan Management Review,1993,25,29-47.
[119]Mikkola, J. H.. Capturing the degree of modularity embedded in product architectures. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2006,23(2),128-146.
[120]Nag, R., Corley, K. G, Gioia, D. A.. The intersection of organizational identity, knowledge, and practice:Attempting strategic change via knowledge grafting. Academy of Management Journal,2007,50(4),821-847.
[121]Osborn, R. N., Ashforth, B. E.. Investigating the challenges to senior leadership in complex, high-risk technologies. The Leadership Quarterly,1990, 1(3),147-163.
[122]O'Sullivan, A.. Dispersed collaboration in a multi-firm, multi-team product-development project. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,2003,20(1-2),93-116.
[123]Paoli, M., Prencipe, A.. The role of knowledge bases in complex product systems:Some empirical evidence from the aero engine industry. Journal of Management and Governance,1999,3(2),137-160.
[124]Park, Y., El Sawy, O. A.. The value of configurational approaches for studying digital business strategy. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 2013,38,205-224.
[125]Patel, P., Pavitt, K.. The innovative performance of the world's largest firms: Some new evidence. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,1992,2(2), 91-102.
[126]Peng, M. W., Wang, D. Y., Jiang, Y.. An institution-based view of international business strategy:A focus on emerging economies. Journal of International Business Studies,2008,39(5),920-936.
[127]Pil, F. K., Cohen, S. K.. Modularity:Implications for imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage. Academy of Management Review,2006,31(4), 995-1011.
[128]Platt, J.. Case study in American methodological thought. Current Sociology,1992,40(1),17-48.
[129]Posner, M. V.. International trade and technical change. Oxford Economic Papers,1961,13(3),323-341.
[130]Powell, W. W., DiMaggio, P.. The iron cage revisited:Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,1983,48(2),147-160.
[131]Pratt, M. G, Foreman, P. O.. Classifying managerial responses to multiple organizational identities. Academy of Management Review,2000,25(1),18-42.
[132]Pratt, M. G, Rafaeli, A.. Organizational dress as a symbol of multilayered social identities. Academy of Management Journal,1997,40(4),862-898.
[133]Prencipe, A.. Technological competencies and product's evolutionary dynamics a case study from the aero-engine industry. Research Policy,1997, 25(8),1261-1276.
[134]Ragin, C. C.. Qualitative comparative analysis using fuzzy sets (fsQCA). Los Angeles:Sage,2009,87-121.
[135]Ranft, A. L., Lord, M. D.. Acquiring new knowledge:The role of retaining human capital in acquisitions of high-tech firms. The Journal of High Technology Management Research,2000,11(2),295-319.
[136]Ritter, T., Gemunden, H. G.. The impact of a company's business strategy on its technological competence, network competence and innovation success. Journal of Business Research,2004,57(5),548-556.
[137]Ruef, M., Scott, W. R.. A multidimensional model of organizational legitimacy:Hospital survival in changing institutional environments. Administrative Science Quarterly,1998,43(4),877-904.
[138]Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J. T.. Modularity, flexibility and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management Journal, 1996,17(special issue),63-76.
[139]Sanchez, R., Mahoney, J. T.. Modularity and economic organization: Concepts, theory, observations, and predictions.2012, paper provided by University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business in its series Working Papers with number 12-0101.
[140]Santos, F. M., Eisenhardt, K. M.. Organizational boundaries and theories of organization. Organization Science,2005,16(5),491-508.
[141]Schilling, M. A.. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of Management Review, 2000,25(2),312-334.
[142]Schilling, M. A., Phelps, C. C. Interfirm collaboration networks:The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science,2007, 53(7),1113-1126.
[143]Schilling, M. A., Steensma, H. K.. The use of modular organizational forms: An industry-level analysis. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(6), 1149-1168.
[144]Schneider, M. R., Eggert, A.. Embracing complex causality with the QCA method:An invitation. Journal of Business Market Management,2014,7(1), 312-328.
[145]Schneider, S. C.. Strategy formulation:The impact of national culture. Organization Studies,1989,10(2),149-168.
[146]Scott, W. R.. The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly,1987,32(4),493-511.
[147]Scott, W. R.. Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 1995,2-15,19-20.52-54.
[148]Sears, J., Hoetker, G. Technological overlap, technological capabilities, and resource recombination in technological acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal,2014,35(1),48-67.
[149]Sigurdson, J.. "The Internationalization of R&D-An Interpretation of Forces and Responses"in J. Sigurdson ed. Measuring the Dynamics of Technological Change, London:Pinter,1990,15-42.
[150]Simon, H. A.. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society,1962,106,467-482.
[151]Sjoholm, F.. Technology gap, competition and spillovers from direct foreign investment:evidence from establishment data. The Journal of Development Studies,1999,36(1),53-73.
[152]Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., Van Riel, C. B.. The impact of employee communication and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management Journal,2001,44(5),1051-1062.
[153]Staudenmayer, N., Tripsas, M., Tucci, C. L.. Interfirm modularity and its implications for product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management,2005,22(4),303-321.
[154]Sturgeon, T. J.. Modular production networks:a new American model of industrial organization. Industrial and Corporate Change,2002,11(3),451-496.
[155]Swaminatham, J. M.. Enabling customization using standarized operations. California Management Review,2001,43(Spring),125-135.
[156]Tajfel, H., Turner, J. C. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,1979,33,47.
[157]Takeishi, A.. Knowledge partitioning in the interfirm division of labor:The case of automotive product development. Organization Science,2002,13(3), 321-338.
[158]Tiwana, A.. Does technological modularity substitute for control? A study of alliance performance in software outsourcing. Strategic Management Journal, 2008,29(7),769-780.
[159]Tsang, E. W.. Acquiring knowledge by foreign partners from international joint ventures in a transition economy:learning-by-doing and learning myopia. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(9),835-854.
[160]Tu, Q., Vonderembse, M. A., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Ragu-Nathan, B.. Measuring modularity-based manufacturing practices and their impact on mass customization capability:A customer-driven perspective. Decision Sciences,2004,35(2),147-168.
[161]Ullrich, J., Wieseke, J., Dick, R. V.. Continuity and change in mergers and acquisitions:A social identity case study of a German industrial merger. Journal of Management Studies,2005,42(8),1549-1569.
[162]Ulrich, K.. The role of product architecture in the manufactureing firm. Research Policy,1995,24(3),419-440.
[163]Van de Ven, A. H., Poole, M. S.. Explaining development and change in organizations. Academy of Management Review,1995,20(3),510-540.
[164]Van Der Vegt, G S., Bunderson, J. S.. Learning and performance in multidisciplinary teams:The importance of collective team identification. Academy of Management Journal,2005,48(3),532-547.
[165]Venkatraman, N.. The concept of fit in strategy research:Toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review,1989,14(3), 423-444.
[166]Verweij, S., Klijn, E. H., Edelenbos, J., van Buuren, A.. What makes governance network work? A fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis of 14 Dutch spatial planning projects. Public Administration,2013, 10.1111/padm.12007.
[167]Von Zedtwitz, M.. Managing foreign R&D laboratories in China. R&D Management,2004,34(4),439-452.
[168]Wang, J.-Y., Blomstrom, M.. Foreign investment and technology transfer:A simple model. European Economic Review,1992,36(1),137-155.
[169]Waurzyniak, P.. Modular automation for the aerospace industry. Manufacturing Engineering,2006, (3),26-31.
[170]Weber, M.. The Protestan ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Charlse Scribner,1958,38-52.
[171]Weick, K. E.. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage, 1995,14-29.
[172]Williamson, P. J., Raman, A. P.. How China reset its global acquisition agenda. Harvard Business Review,2011,89(4),109-113.
[173]Worren, N., Moore, K., Cardona, P.. Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance:A study of the home appliance industry. Strategic Management Journal,2002,23(12),1123-1140.
[174]Wright, M., Filatotchev, I., Hoskisson, R. E., Peng, M. W.. Strategy research in emerging economies:Challenging the conventional wisdom. Journal of Management Studies,2005,42(1),1-33.
[175]Xiao, S. S., Jeong, I., Moon, J. J., Chung, C. C., Chung, J.. Internationalization and performance of firms in China:Moderating effects of governance structure and the degree of centralized control. Journal of International Management,2013,19(2),118-137.
[176]Yamakawa, Y, Peng, M. W., Deeds, D. L.. What drives new ventures to internationalize from emerging to developed economies?. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,2008,32(1),59-82.
[177]Ybema, S.. Talk of change:Temporal contrasts and collective identities. Organization Studies,2010,31(4),481-503.
[178]Yin,R.K..案例研究：设计与方法.重庆：重庆大学出版社,2004,1-5、106-113.
[179]Zaheer, S.. Overcoming the liability of foreignness. Academy of Management Journal,1995,38(2),341-363.
[180]Zaheer, S., Mosakowski, E.. The dynamics of the liability of foreignness:A global study of survival in financial services. Strategic Management Journal, 1997,18(6),439-463.
[181]Zaheer, S., Schomaker, M. S., Nachum, L.. Distance without direction: Restoring credibility to a much-loved construct. Journal of International Business Studies,2012,43(1),18-27.
[182]Zimmerman, M. A., Zeitz, G J.. Beyond survival:Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review,2002,27(3), 414-431.
[183]曹亮,汪海粟,陈硕颖.论模块化生产网络的二重性——兼论其对中国企业的影响.中国工业经济,2009,(10),33-42.
[184]陈晓萍,徐淑英,樊景立.组织与管理研究的实证方法.北京：北京大学出版社,2008,160-165、200-211.
[185]方佳佳.产品模块化对组织模块化的影响机制研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[186]苟昂,廖飞.基于组织模块化的价值网研究.中国工业经济,2005,2(7),66-72.
[187]顾良丰,许庆瑞.企业知识的模块化管理与全球化战略.中国地质大学学报：社会科学版,2005,5(3),17-21.
[188]胡晓鹏.从分工到模块化：经济系统演进的思考.中国工业经济,2004,(9),5-11.
[189]黄学,魏江,刘洋.二元视角下的文化创意产业模块化研究.外国经济与管理,2012,34(12),30-38.
[190]江诗松.转型经济中后发企业创新能力的追赶路径：所有权的视角.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2012.
[191]刘延松,张宏涛.复杂产品系统技术能力演进与业务模式升级-理论探讨及案例研究.科学学研究,2008,26(2),487-490.
[192]刘洋,魏江,江诗松.后发企业如何进行创新追赶?——研发网络边界拓展的视角.管理世界,2013,(003),96-110.
[193]刘洋,应瑛.架构理论研究脉络梳理与未来展望.外国经济与管理,2012,6,74-84.
[194]栾琨,谢小云.国外团队认同研究进展与展望.外国经济与管理,2014,(4),57-64.
[195]吕萍,杨震宁,王以华.我国高新技术企业研发国际化的发展与现状.中国软科学,2008,4,109-116.
[196]欧阳桃花,丁玲,郭瑞杰.组织边界跨越与IT能力的协同演化：海尔信息系统案例.中国工业经济,2012,(12),128-140.
[197]潘秋玥,魏江,刘洋.企业研发网络国际化研究述评与未来展望.外国经济与管理,2013,35(8),27-35.
[198]彭新敏,吴晓波,吴东.基于二次创新动态过程的企业网络与组织学习平衡模式演化——海天1971～2010年纵向案例研究.管理世界,2011,4,013.
[199]青木昌彦,安藤晴彦.模块时代：新产业结构的本质.上海：上海远东出版社,2003,5-9、39-49、69-73、131-149.
[200]王凤彬,李东红,张婷婷,杨阳.产品开发组织超模块化及其对创新的影响——以丰田汽车为案例的研究.中国工业经济,2011,(2),131-141.
[201]魏江,黄学,刘洋.基于组织模块化与技术模块化“同构/异构”协同的跨边界研发网络架构.中国工业经济,2014,(4),148-160.
[202]谢伟.全球生产网络中的中国轿车工业.管理世界,2006,(12),67-103.
[203]徐二明,郑平.国际化经营中的企业社会责任概念模型.经济与管理研究,2006,(3),54-57.
[204]徐宏玲,李双海.价值链形态演变与模块化组织协调.中国工业经济,2006,(11),81-88.
[205]易先忠,张亚斌.技术差距与人力资本约束下的技术进步模式.管理科学学报,2008,11(6),51-60.
[206]张建红,卫新江,海柯,艾伯斯.决定中国企业海外收购成败的因素分析.管理世界,2010,(3),97-107.
[207]章鹏.组织模块化与交互记忆对知识共享的影响研究.硕士学位论文,浙江大学,2008.
[208]赵江琦.专业服务业服务模块化对客户响应的作用机制研究.博士学位论文,浙江大学,2011.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |