Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146893
|
| Title: | 供應鏈共址、技術相似度與創新產出
Co-location, Technology Proximity, and Innovation Output through Supply Chains |
| Authors: | 周君臨
Chou, Chun-Lin |
| Contributors: | 李曉惠
Lee, Hsiao-Hui
周君臨
Chou, Chun-Lin |
| Keywords: | 供應鏈創新
地理共址
外溢效應
技術相似度
吸收能力
Supply chain innovation
Co-location
Spillover Effects
Technology Proximity
Absorptive Capacity |
| Date: | 2023 |
| Issue Date: | 2023-09-01 14:54:37 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 在越來越多的企業積極地以外部知識取代內部知識的背景下，研究如何有效地利用知識的外溢效應，吸收外部知識並為企業帶來正面影響是十分有價值的。本研究以供應商與顧客的地理共址為研究對象，旨在探討兩種知識外溢—地理外溢以及供應鏈外溢同時作用時，會對供應商的創新產出產生什麼影響，並且與顧客的技術相似度會如何調節這一影響。本研究以美國上市公司為研究對象，使用吸收能力作為理論框架，並採用固定效應縱橫回歸模型分析1990年至2017年共5072家獨立年-供應商的資料。研究結果顯示與顧客的地理共址確實能增加供應商的創新產出，並且與顧客的技術相似度會正向調節這一作用。
Against the background of an increasing number of companies actively replacing internal knowledge with external knowledge, studying how to effectively utilize the spillover effects of knowledge, absorb external knowledge, and bring positive effect to businesses is really important.In this study, we take geographic co-location between suppliers and customers as the research object and aim to explore the impacts on supplier innovation output when two types of knowledge spillovers(geographic spillover and supply chain spillover) act simultaneously. We also investigates how the technology proximity between supplier and its customers moderates this effect. Focusing on publicly listed U.S. companies, this research employs absorptive capacity as the theoretical framework and employs a fixed-effects panel regression model to analyze data from 1990 to 2017, encompassing a total of 5072 unique year-supplier observations. The study results demonstrate that geographic co-location with customers indeed enhances supplier`s innovation output, and technology proximity between supplier and its customers also positively moderates this relationship. |
| Reference: | Agrawal, A., Bhattacharya, S., and Hasija, S. (2016). Cost-reducing innovation and the role of patent intermediaries in increasing market efficiency. Production and Operations Management, 25(2):173–191.
Argote, L. and Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 82(1):150–169.
Arora, A., Cohen, W. M., and Walsh, J. P. (2016). The acquisition and commercialization of invention in american manufacturing: Incidence and impact. Research Policy, 45(6):1113–1128.
Artz, K. W., Norman, P. M., Hatfield, D. E., and Cardinal, L. B. (2010). A longitudinal study of the impact of r&d, patents, and product innovation on firm performance. Journal of product innovation management, 27(5):725–740
Audretsch, D. B. (1995). Innovation, growth and survival. International journal of industrial organization, 13(4):441–457.
Azadegan, A., Dooley, K. J., Carter, P. L., and Carter, J. R. (2008). Supplier innovativeness and the role of interorganizational learning in enhancing manufacturer capabilities. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 44(4):14–35.
Balachandran, S. and Hernandez, E. (2018). Networks and innovation: Accounting for structural and institutional sources of recombination in brokerage triads. Organization Science, 29(1):80–99..
Balasubramanian, N. and Lee, J. (2008). Firm age and innovation. Industrial and corporate change, 17(5):1019–1047.
Ballester, M., Garcia-Ayuso, M., and Livnat, J. (2003). The economic value of the r&d intangible asset. European Accounting Review, 12(4):605–633.
Basole, R. C., Ghosh, S., and Hora, M. S. (2017). Supply network structure and firm performance: Evidence from the electronics industry. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 65(1):141–154.
Bloom, N., Schankerman, M., and Van Reenen, J. (2013). Identifying technology spillovers and product market rivalry. Econometrica, 81(4):1347–1393.
Byun, J., Sung, T.-E., and Park, H.-W. (2018). Technological innovation strategy: how do technology life cycles change by technological area. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 30(1):98–112.
Caloghirou, Y., Kastelli, I., and Tsakanikas, A. (2004). Internal capabilities and external knowledge sources: complements or substitutes for innovative performance? Technovation, 24(1):29–39.
Cantù, C. (2010). Exploring the role of spatial relationships to transform knowledge in a business idea—beyond a geographic proximity. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(6):887–897.
Cassi, L. and Plunket, A. (2014). Proximity, network formation and inventive performance: in search of the proximity paradox. The Annals of Regional Science, 53:395– 422.
Catalini, C. (2018). Microgeography and the direction of inventive activity. Management Science, 64(9):4348–4364.
Catalini, C., Fons-Rosen, C., and Gaulé, P. (2020). How do travel costs shape collaboration? Management Science, 66(8):3340–3360.
Chae, S., Yan, T., and Yang, Y. (2020). Supplier innovation value from a buyer–supplier structural equivalence view: Evidence from the pace awards in the automotive industry. Journal of Operations Management, 66(7-8):820–838.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: managing intellectual property. California management review, 45(3):33–58.
Chu, Y., Tian, X., and Wang, W. (2019). Corporate innovation along the supply chain. Management Science, 65(6):2445–2466.
Coad, A., Segarra, A., and Teruel, M. (2016). Innovation and firm growth: does firm age play a role? Research policy, 45(2):387–400.
Cohen, W. M., Levinthal, D. A., et al. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly, 35(1):128–152.
Dong, Y., Skowronski, K., Song, S., Venkataraman, S., and Zou, F. (2020). Supply base innovation and firm financial performance. Journal of Operations Management, 66(7- 8):768–796.
dos Santos Silvestre, B. and Dalcol, P. R. T. (2009). Geographical proximity and innovation: Evidences from the campos basin oil & gas industrial agglomeration—brazil. Technovation, 29(8):546–561.
Dyer, J. H. and Nobeoka, K. (2000). Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the toyota case. Strategic management journal, 21(3):345–367.
Feldman, M. P. (1994). Knowledge complementarity and innovation. Small business economics, 6:363–372.
Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management science, 47(1):117–132.
Fosfuri, A. and Tribó, J. A. (2008). Exploring the antecedents of potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation performance. Omega, 36(2):173–187.
Ganesan, S., Malter, A. J., and Rindfleisch, A. (2005). Does distance still matter? geographic proximity and new product development. Journal of Marketing, 69(4):44–60.
Glaeser, E. L., Kallal, H. D., Scheinkman, J. A., and Shleifer, A. (1992). Growth in cities. Journal of political economy, 100(6):1126–1152.
Gray, J. V., Siemsen, E., and Vasudeva, G. (2015). Colocation still matters: Conformance quality and the interdependence of r&d and manufacturing in the pharmaceutical industry. Management science, 61(11):2760–2781.
Gu, T., Sanders, N. R., and Venkateswaran, A. (2017). Ceo incentives and customersupplier relations. Production and Operations Management, 26(9):1705–1727.
Hall, B. H. and Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the us semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. rand Journal of Economics, pages 101–128.
Harris, R. and Moffat, J. (2011). R&d, innovation and exporting.
Hsu, P.-H., Hui, H.-P., Lee, H.-H., and Tseng, K. (2022). Supply chain technology spillover, customer concentration, and product invention. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 31(2):393–417.
Isaksson, O. H., Simeth, M., and Seifert, R. W. (2016). Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors. Research Policy, 45(3):699–706.
Jaffe, A. B. (1986). Technological opportunity and spillovers of r&d: evidence from firms’ patents, profits and market value.
Jaffe, A. B. (1989). Real effects of academic research. The American economic review, pages 957–970.
Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., and Henderson, R. (1993). Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations. the Quarterly journal of Economics, 108(3):577–598.
Katz, J. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1):31–43.
Kim, H., Hur, D., and Schoenherr, T. (2015). When buyer-driven knowledge transfer activities really work: A motivation–opportunity–ability perspective. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(3):33–60.
Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., and Ioannou, G. (2011). Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance. Journal of business research, 64(12):1335–1343.
Lahiri, N. (2010). Geographic distribution of r&d activity: how does it affect innovation quality? Academy of Management Journal, 53(5):1194–1209.
Lee, H.-H., Zhou, J., and Wang, J. (2018). Trade credit financing under competition and its impact on firm performance in supply chains. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, 20(1):36–52.
Letaifa, S. B. and Rabeau, Y. (2013). Too close to collaborate? how geographic proximity could impede entrepreneurship and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 66(10):2071–2078.
Liu, X., Yeung, A. C., Lo, C. K., and Cheng, T. (2014). The moderating effects of knowledge characteristics of firms on the financial value of innovative technology products. Journal of Operations Management, 32(3):79–87.
Lychagin, S., Pinkse, J., Slade, M. E., and Reenen, J. V. (2016). Spillovers in space: does geography matter? The Journal of Industrial Economics, 64(2):295–335.
Menon, T. and Pfeffer, J. (2003). Valuing internal vs. external knowledge: Explaining the preference for outsiders. Management science, 49(4):497–513.
Narayanan, S., Swaminathan, J. M., and Talluri, S. (2014). Knowledge diversity, turnover, and organizational-unit productivity: An empirical analysis in a knowledge-intensive context. Production and Operations Management, 23(8):1332–1351.
Ozer, M. and Zhang, W. (2015). The effects of geographic and network ties on exploitative and exploratory product innovation. Strategic management journal, 36(7):1105–1114.
Palit, S., Hora, M., and Ghosh, S. (2022). Global buyer–supplier networks and innovation: The role of technological distance and technological breadth. Journal of Operations Management, 68(6-7):755–774.
Park, G. and Park, Y. (2006). On the measurement of patent stock as knowledge indicators. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 73(7):793–812.
Presutti, M., Boari, C., Majocchi, A., and Molina-Morales, X. (2019). Distance to customers, absorptive capacity, and innovation in high-tech firms: The dark face of geographical proximity. Journal of Small Business Management, 57(2):343–361.
Stephan, P. (2015). How economics shapes science. Harvard University Press.
Todo, Y., Matous, P., and Inoue, H. (2016). The strength of long ties and the weakness of strong ties: Knowledge diffusion through supply chain networks. Research Policy, 45(9):1890–1906.
Todorova, G. and Durisin, B. (2007). Absorptive capacity: Valuing a reconceptualization. Academy of management review, 32(3):774–786.
Ulku, H. (2004). R&d, innovation, and economic growth: An empirical analysis.
Wei, S. and Sheng, S. (2023). Does geographic distance to customers improve or inhibit supplier innovation? a moderated inverted-u relationship. Industrial Marketing Management, 108:134–148.
Xu, X., Wang, Z., Zhou, B., and Zhang, Z. (2019). The empirical analysis of knowledge spillover effect measurement. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(1):83– 95.
Zahra, S. A. and George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of management review, 27(2):185–203.
劉日弘 (2022). 經由供應鏈共址實現創新產出. ﹝碩士論文。國立政治大學﹞臺灣 博碩士論文知識加值系統. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
資訊管理學系
110356038 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0110356038 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [資訊管理學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 603801.pdf | | 2579Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 28 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
