Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Network inertia and inbound open innovation: is there a bidirectional relationship?

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Based on the patent data collected from smartphone industry over the period 2000–2017, we utilize two-stage least squares to investigate the bidirectional relationship between network inertia and inbound open innovation practices. Furthermore, our research is of great benefit to better understanding of the interplay of network reach and network centrality on network inertia and inbound open innovation, and the moderating effects of network centrality on the reciprocal relationship between network inertia and inbound open innovation practice. The empirical results confirm that there is a bidirectional relationship between network inertia and inbound open innovation, and network centrality shows the moderating effect on the above relationship. Moreover, network centrality moderates the positive effects of network reach on network inertia and inbound open innovation. These findings suggest that network centrality and network reach are important factors of the firms’ network inertia and inbound open innovation. The results of the models in this paper suggest that firms with higher network inertia in the innovation networks are less likely to search for sources outside their boundary. In summary, we fill the research gap in exploring the bidirectional relationship between network inertia and inbound open innovation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguiar-Diaz, I., Diaz-Diaz, N. L., Ballesteros-Rodriguez, J. L., & De Saa-Perez, P. (2016). University-industry relations and research group production: Is there a bidirectional relationship? Industrial and Corporate Change,25(4), 611–632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., Soda, G., & Zaheer, A. (2012). The genesis and dynamics of organizational networks. Organization Science,23(2), 434–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aquilani, B., Abbate, T., & Codini, A. (2017). Overcoming cultural barriers in open innovation processes through intermediaries: A theoretical framework. Knowledge Management Research & Practice,15(3), 447–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardito, L., Natalicchio, A., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Garavelli, A. C. (2018a). Organizing for continuous technology acquisition: The role of R&D geographic dispersion. R&D Management,48(2), 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ardito, L., Petruzzelli, A. M., Dezi, L., & Castellano, S. (2018b). The influence of inbound open innovation on ambidexterity performance: Does it pay to source knowledge from supply chain stakeholders? Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Autry, C. W., & Griffis, S. E. (2008). Supply chain capital: The impact of structural and relational linkages on firm execution and innovation. Journal of Business Logistics,29(1), 157–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, R. M., & Knoben, J. (2014). Built to last or meant to end: Intertemporal choice in strategic alliance portfolios. Organization Science,26(1), 256–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barberá-Tomás, D., Jiménez-Sáez, F., & Castelló-Molina, I. (2011). Mapping the importance of the real world: The validity of connectivity analysis of patent citations networks. Research Policy,40(3), 473–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basole, R. C., & Park, H. (2019). Interfirm collaboration and firm value in software ecosystems: Evidence from cloud computing. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,66(3), 368–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand, O., & Mol, M. J. (2013). The antecedents and innovation effects of domestic and offshore R&D outsourcing: The contingent impact of cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Strategic Management Journal,34(6), 751–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, M., Cavaliere, A., Chiaroni, D., Frattini, F., & Chiesa, V. (2011). Organisational modes for Open Innovation in the bio-pharmaceutical industry: An exploratory analysis. Technovation,31(1), 22–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., Bessant, J., & Delbridge, R. (2007). Finding, forming, and performing: Creating networks for discontinuous innovation. California Management Review,49(3), 67–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H., & Moedas, C. (2018a). Open innovation: Research, practices, and policies. California Management Review,60(2), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogers, M., Foss, N. J., & Lyngsie, J. (2018b). The “human side” of open innovation: The role of employee diversity in firm-level openness. Research Policy,47(1), 218–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich, P. (1972). Factoring and weighting approaches to status scores and clique identification. Journal of Mathematical Sociology,2(1), 113–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Boston, MA.

  • Cammarano, A., Michelino, F., & Caputo, M. (2019). Open innovation practices for knowledge acquisition and their effects on innovation output. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(11), 1297–1313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caner, T., Sun, J., & Prescott, J. E. (2014). When a firm’s centrality in R&D alliance network is (not) the answer for invention: The interaction of centrality, inward and outward knowledge transfer. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,33, 193–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capaldo, A., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2015). Origins of knowledge and innovation in R&D alliances: A contingency approach. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,27(4), 461–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capaldo, A., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2014). Partner geographic and organizational proximity and the innovative performance of knowledge-creating alliances. European Management Review,11(1), 63–84.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cepeda, J., & Arias-Perez, J. (2019). Information technology capabilities and organizational agility: The mediating effects of open innovation capabilities. Multinational Business Review,27(2), 198–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M., Yang, Z., Dou, W. Y., & Wang, F. (2018). Flying or dying? Organizational change, customer participation, and innovation ambidexterity in emerging economies. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,35(1), 97–119.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.

  • Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiang, Y. H., & Hung, K. P. (2010). Exploring open search strategies and perceived innovation performance from the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows. R&D Management,40(3), 292–299.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, H., & Park, S. (2018). Network variations at the intersection of national capability orientation and technological path dependence—Patent citation network analysis of the hydrogen energy and nano-tech sectors. Industry and Innovation,25(8), 809–831.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cracolici, M. F., Cuffaro, M., & Nijkamp, P. (2010). The measurement of economic, social and environmental performance of countries: A novel approach. Social Indicators Research,95(2), 339–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curado, C., Muñoz-Pascual, L., & Galende, J. (2018). Antecedents to innovation performance in SMEs: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Business Research,89, 206–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cvelkovic, D., Doob, M., & Sachs, H. (1980). Spectra of graphs, theory and applications (Vol. 575, p. 576). Cambridge: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E., Verona, G., & Provera, B. (2017). Overcoming the inertia of organizational competence: Olivetti’s transition from mechanical to electronic technology. Industrial and Corporate Change.,27, 595–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deligianni, I., Voudouris, I., & Lioukas, S. (2014). The relationship between innovation and diversification in the case of new ventures: Unidirectional or bidirectional? IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,61(3), 462–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demirkan, I., Deeds, D. L., & Demirkan, S. (2013). Exploring the role of network characteristics, knowledge quality, and inertia on the evolution of scientific networks. Journal of Management,39(6), 1462–1489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Díez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sánchez, Á. (2017). From incubation to maturity inside parks: The evolution of local knowledge networks. International Journal of Technology Management,73(1–3), 132–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ding, Y. (2011). Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks. Journal of Informetrics,5(1), 187–203.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, J. Q., & Netten, J. (2017). Information technology and external search in the open innovation age: New findings from Germany. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,120, 223–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong, J. Q., & Yang, C.-H. (2016). Being central is a double-edged sword: Knowledge network centrality and new product development in US pharmaceutical industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,113, 379–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dow, D., Liesch, P., & Welch, L. (2018). Inertia and managerial intentionality: Extending the uppsala model. Management International Review,58(3), 465–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elia, S., Petruzzelli, A. M., & Piscitello, L. (2019). The impact of cultural diversity on innovation performance of MNC subsidiaries in strategic alliances. Journal of Business Research,98, 204–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Érdi, P., Makovi, K., Somogyvári, Z., Strandburg, K., Tobochnik, J., Volf, P., et al. (2013). Prediction of emerging technologies based on analysis of the US patent citation network. Scientometrics,95(1), 225–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flor, M. L., Cooper, S. Y., & Oltra, M. J. (2018). External knowledge search, absorptive capacity and radical innovation in high-technology firms. European Management Journal,36(2), 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, H., von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. (2013). How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic Management Journal,34(9), 1134–1144.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnyawali, D. R., He, J., & Madhavan, R. (2006). Impact of co-opetition on firm competitive behavior: An empirical examination. Journal of Management,32(4), 507–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, M., Grimaldi, M., & Cricelli, L. (2016). An analysis of the open innovation effect on firm performance. European Management Journal,34(5), 501–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J. C., & Pang, L. X. (2018). Bidirectional relationship between network position and knowledge creation in Scientometrics. Scientometrics,115(1), 201–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan, J., Yan, Y., & Zhang, J. (2015). How do collaborative features affect scientific output? Evidences from wind power field. Scientometrics,102(1), 333–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gui, Q. C., Liu, C. L., & Du, D. B. (2018). Does network position foster knowledge production? Evidence from international scientific collaboration network. Growth and Change,49(4), 594–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannan, M. T. (2005). Ecologies of organizations: Diversity and identity. Journal of Economic Perspectives,19(1), 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannen, J., Antons, D., Piller, F., Salge, T. O., Coltman, T., & Devinney, T. M. (2019). Containing the Not-invented-here syndrome in external knowledge absorption and open innovation: The role of indirect countermeasures. Research Policy,48(9), 103822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppmann, J., Sakhel, A., & Richert, M. (2018). With a little help from a stranger: The impact of external change agents on corporate sustainability investments. Business Strategy and the Environment,27(7), 1052–1066.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, H.-C., Lai, M.-C., Lin, L.-H., & Chen, C.-T. (2013). Overcoming organizational inertia to strengthen business model innovation: An open innovation perspective. Journal of Organizational Change Management,26(6), 977–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R., Prokop, D., & Thompson, P. (2019). Universities and open innovation: The determinants of network centrality. The Journal of Technology Transfer. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-019-09720-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huggins, R., & Thompson, P. (2017). Entrepreneurial networks and open innovation: The role of strategic and embedded ties. Industry and Innovation,24(4), 403–435.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hung, K.-P., & Chou, C. (2013). The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation,33(10–11), 368–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Hesterly, W. S., Fladmoe-Lindquist, K., & Borgatti, S. P. (1998). Professional service constellations: How strategies and capabilities influence collaborative stability and change. Organization Science,9(3), 396–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao, T. W., Su, H. C., & Chen, Y. S. (2019). The curvilinear relationships between structural embeddedness and productive efficiency: An exploratory study. International Journal of Production Economics,212, 176–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karamanos, A. G. (2012). Leveraging micro-and macro-structures of embeddedness in alliance networks for exploratory innovation in biotechnology. R&D Management,42(1), 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karamanos, A. G. (2016). Effects of a firm’s and their partners’ alliance ego–network structure on its innovation output in an era of ferment. R&D Management,46(S1), 261–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K., Jung, S., & Hwang, J. (2019). Technology convergence capability and firm innovation in the manufacturing sector: An approach based on patent network analysis. R&D Management,49(4), 595–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, B., Kim, E., & Foss, N. J. (2016). Balancing absorptive capacity and inbound open innovation for sustained innovative performance: An attention-based view. European Management Journal,34(1), 80–90.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, D. Y., & Zhu, P. C. (2018). Supplier supplier dependence and R&D intensity: The moderating role of network centrality and interconnectedness. Journal of Operations Management,64, 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, M. V. S. (2009). The relationship between product and international diversification: The effects of short-run constraints and endogeneity. Strategic Management Journal,30(1), 99–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, P., & Zaheer, A. (2019). Ego-network stability and innovation in alliances. Academy of Management Journal,62(3), 691–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyebambe, M. N., Cheng, G., Huang, Y., He, C., & Zhang, Z. (2017). Forecasting emerging technologies: A supervised learning approach through patent analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,125, 236–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrañeta, B., Zahra, S. A., & Galán González, J. L. (2014). Strategic repertoire variety and new venture growth: The moderating effects of origin and industry dynamism. Strategic Management Journal,35(5), 761–772.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,27(2), 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Mens, G., Hannan, M. T., & Pólos, L. (2015). Age-related structural inertia: A distance-based approach. Organization Science,26(3), 756–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. Y., Wang, M. C., & Huang, Y. C. (2015). The double-edged sword of technological diversity in R&D alliances: Network position and learning speed as moderators. European Management Journal,33(6), 450–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S. X., & Rowley, T. J. (2002). Inertia and evaluation mechanisms in interorganizational partner selection: Syndicate formation among US investment banks. Academy of Management Journal,45(6), 1104–1119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S., & Yayavaram, S. (2019). Attenuating the negative effects of network change on innovation: A whole network level analysis of Taiwanese business groups. Asia Pacific Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-018-9621-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao, Y.-C., & Phan, P. H. (2016). Internal capabilities, external structural holes network positions, and knowledge creation. The Journal of Technology Transfer,41(5), 1148–1167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenthaler, U. (2016). Absorptive capacity and firm performance: An integrative framework of benefits and downsides. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,28(6), 664–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, C. Y., Wu, H. L., & Lee, C. Y. (2018). The relationship between patent attributes and patent litigation: Considering the moderating effects of managerial characteristics. Asia Pacific Management Review,23(2), 121–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, A., & de Carvalho, M. M. (2018). Evolution of the open innovation paradigm: Towards a contingent conceptual model. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,132, 284–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyu, Y. B., He, B. Y., Zhu, Y. Q., & Li, L. (2019). Network embeddedness and inbound open innovation practice: The moderating role of technology cluster. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,144, 12–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyu, Y., Liu, Q., He, B., & Nie, J. (2017). Structural embeddedness and innovation diffusion: The moderating role of industrial technology grouping. Scientometrics,111(2), 889–916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandad, M., De Marco, C. E., Piccaluga, A., & Di Minin, A. (2019). Harnessing adaptive capacity to close the pandora’s box of open innovation. Industry and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2019.1633910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markovic, S., & Bagherzadeh, M. (2018). How does breadth of external stakeholder co-creation influence innovation performance? Analyzing the mediating roles of knowledge sharing and product innovation. Journal of Business Research,88, 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martín-de Castro, G. (2015). Knowledge management and innovation in knowledge-based and high-tech industrial markets: The role of openness and absorptive capacity. Industrial Marketing Management,47, 143–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mc Knight, J., Galbraith, B., & Hewitt-Dundas, N. (2019). Network centrality and open innovation: A social network analysis of an SME manufacturing cluster. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2019.2934765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meulman, F., Reymen, I. M., Podoynitsyna, K. S., & Romme, A. G. L. (2018). Searching for partners in open innovation settings: How to overcome the constraints of local search. California Management Review,60(2), 71–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, M. P. (2006). Avoiding invalid instruments and coping with weak instruments. Journal of Economic Perspectives,20(4), 111–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review,23(2), 242–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naqshbandi, M. M., Tabche, I., & Choudhary, N. (2019). Managing open innovation: The roles of empowering leadership and employee involvement climate. Management Decision,57(3), 703–723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opsahl, T., Agneessens, F., & Skvoretz, J. (2010). Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Networks,32(3), 245–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parida, V., & Wincent, J. (2019). Why and how to compete through sustainability: A review and outline of trends influencing firm and network-level transformation. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,15(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paruchuri, S., & Awate, S. (2017). Organizational knowledge networks and local search: The role of intra-organizational inventor networks. Strategic Management Journal,38(3), 657–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry-Smith, J. E. (2006). Social yet creative: The role of social relationships in facilitating individual creativity. Academy of Management Journal,49(1), 85–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petruzzelli, A. M., Albino, V., Carbonara, N., & Rotolo, D. (2010). Leveraging learning behavior and network structure to improve knowledge gatekeepers’ performance. Journal of Knowledge Management,14(5), 635–658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petruzzelli, A. M., Rotolo, D., & Albino, V. (2015). Determinants of patent citations in biotechnology: An analysis of patent influence across the industrial and organizational boundaries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,91, 208–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, C., Heidl, R., & Wadhwa, A. (2012). Knowledge, networks, and knowledge networks: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management,38(4), 1115–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piazza, M., Mazzola, E., Abbate, L., & Perrone, G. (2019). Network position and innovation capability in the regional innovation network. European Planning Studies,27(9), 1857–1878.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology,107(1), 33–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P., & Martinez-Conesa, I. (2017). Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,118, 134–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & Smith-Doer, L. (1994). Network and economic life. In N. J. Smelser & R. Swedberg (Eds.), The handbook of economic sociology. Princenton: Princenton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qi Dong, J., McCarthy, K. J., & Schoenmakers, W. W. (2017). How central is too central? Organizing interorganizational collaboration networks for breakthrough innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,34(4), 526–542.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R. (2005). Preferences, identity, and competition: Predicting tie strength from demographic data. Management Science,51(9), 1374–1383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotolo, D., & Petruzzelli, A. M. (2013). When does centrality matter? Scientific productivity and the moderating role of research specialization and cross-community ties. Journal of Organizational Behavior,34(5), 648–670.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruan, A., & Chen, J. (2017). Does formal knowledge search depth benefit Chinese firms’ innovation performance? Effects of network centrality, structural holes, and knowledge tacitness. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation,25(1), 79–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanou, F. H., Le Roy, F., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2016). How does centrality in coopetition networks matter? An empirical investigation in the mobile telephone industry. British Journal of Management,27(1), 143–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, L. W., Tate, W. L., Zsidisin, G. A., & Miemczyk, J. (2019). The influence of network exchange brokers on sustainable initiatives in organizational networks. Journal of Business Ethics,154(3), 849–868.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. (2007). Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science,53(7), 1113–1126.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal,44(2), 219–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A., Kumar, V., Yan, J., Borah, S. B., & Adhikary, A. (2019). Understanding the structural characteristics of a firm’s whole buyer-supplier network and its impact on international business performance. Journal of International Business Studies,50(3), 365–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, X., & Zhang, Q. (2018). Inbound open innovation and radical innovation capability: The moderating role of organizational inertia. Journal of Organizational Change Management,31(3), 581–597.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, X., Zhang, Q., & Zheng, Z. (2019). The double-edged sword of external search in collaboration networks: embeddedness in knowledge networks as moderators. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-04-2018-0226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, S. K., Gupta, S., Busso, D., & Kamboj, S. (2019). Top management knowledge value, knowledge sharing practices, open innovation and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skilton, P. F., & Dooley, K. J. (2010). The effects of repeat collaboratiton on creative abrasion. Academy of Management Review,35(1), 118–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanko, M. A., Fisher, G. J., & Bogers, M. (2017). Under the wide umbrella of open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management,34(4), 543–558.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieglitz, N., Knudsen, T., & Becker, M. C. (2016). Adaptation and inertia in dynamic environments. Strategic Management Journal,37(9), 1854–1864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh, Y., & Jeon, J. (2018). Monitoring patterns of open innovation using the patent-based brokerage analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 146, 595–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., Liu, J., & Ding, Y. (2019). Analysis of the relationship between open innovation, knowledge management capability and dual innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2019.1632431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sydow, J., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2018). Open innovation at the interorganizational network level–Stretching practices to face technological discontinuities in the semiconductor industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, C.-Y. (2009). Technological innovation and knowledge network in Asia: Evidence from comparison of information and communication technologies among six countries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,76(5), 654–663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tzeng, C. H. (2018). How domestic firms absorb spillovers: A routine-based model of absorptive capacity view. Management and Organization Review,14(3), 543–576.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Doorn, J., & Verhoef, P. C. (2008). Critical incidents and the impact of satisfaction on customer share. Journal of Marketing,72(4), 123–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2012). How firms shape knowledge to explore and exploit: A study of knowledge flows, knowledge stocks and innovative performance across units. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,24(9), 929–950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. H., & Quan, X. I. (2017). The effect of R&D alliance diversity and network position on firm innovation performance: Evidence from the emerging biotechnology industry. Science Technology & Society,22(3), 407–424.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. F., & Zhang, G. P. (2019). Examining the moderating effect of technology spillovers embedded in the intra- and inter-regional collaborative innovation networks of China. Scientometrics,119(2), 561–593.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H., Zhao, Y., Dang, B., Han, P., & Shi, X. (2019). Network centrality and innovation performance: The role of formal and informal institutions in emerging economies. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(6), 1388–1400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J. (1999). Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon. American Journal of Sociology,105(2), 493–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westergren, U. H., & Holmstrom, J. (2012). Exploring preconditions for open innovation: Value networks in industrial firms. Information and Organization,22(4), 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, G., & Baldassare, M. (1996). Overall “sense of community” in a suburban region: The effects of localism, privacy, and urbanization. Environment and Behavior,28(1), 27–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S., Huang, Z., & Zhong, W. (2014). Does inertia matter for parts manufacturers’ innovation? Scientometrics,101(1), 705–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., & Pangarkar, N. (2010). The bidirectional relationship between competitive intensity and collaboration: Evidence from China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management,27(3), 503–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xia, J., Wang, Y. G., Lin, Y., Yang, H. B., & Li, S. L. (2018). Alliance formation in the midst of market and network: Insights from resource dependence and network perspectives. Journal of Management,44(5), 1899–1925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, L., Li, J., & Zeng, D. (2017). How does knowledge network affect a firm’s explorative innovation? The contingent role of R&D collaborations. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,29(9), 973–987.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, S. H., & Chen, H. C. (2019). External knowledge, intraorganisational networks and exploratory innovation: An empirical examination. Innovation-Organization & Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2019.1642764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, C. H., Li, Y., Vlas, C. O., & Peng, M. W. (2018). Dynamic capabilities, subnational environment, and university technology transfer. Strategic Organization,16(1), 35–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yun, J. J., Jeong, E., Lee, C., Park, J., & Zhao, X. (2017). Effect of distance on open innovation: Differences among institutions according to patent citation and reference. Sustainability,9(8), 1478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, G., Duan, H., & Zhou, J. (2017). Network stability, connectivity and innovation output. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,114, 339–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, G. Y., & Tang, C. Y. (2018). How R&D partner diversity influences innovation performance: An empirical study in the nano-biopharmaceutical field. Scientometrics,116(3), 1487–1512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., Yang, D. L., Qiu, S. M., Bao, X., & Li, J. Z. (2018). Open innovation and firm performance: Evidence from the Chinese mechanical manufacturing industry. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management,48, 76–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, X. X., Dong, M. C. Y., Gu, J. B., & Dou, W. Y. (2017). How do informal ties drive open innovation? The contingency role of market dynamism. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,64(2), 208–219.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Prof. Wolfgang Glänzel, and two anonymous reviewers for their many constructive insights and suggestions. This research was supported by National Nature Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71573064, 71490724, 71801169, 71771161, 71804056), Humanities and Social Sciences Research Project of the Ministry of Education of China (Grant Nos. 18YJC630250), and China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant Nos. 2018M642033).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin, 150001, People’s Republic of China

    Xiaoxiao Shi & Qingpu Zhang

Authors
  1. Xiaoxiao Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qingpu Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Qingpu Zhang.

Additional information

Xiaoxiao Shi is a doctoral candidate at the School of Management, Harbin Institute of Technology. She was also a Visiting Scholar (10/2017-10/2018) at Haas School of Business, University of California Berkeley, USA. Her current research interests include open innovation, innovation network, crowdsourcing, and social media.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, X., Zhang, Q. Network inertia and inbound open innovation: is there a bidirectional relationship?. Scientometrics 122, 791–815 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03321-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03321-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation