This paper investigates the linkage between network characteristics of the innovation ecosystem, knowledge collaboration and enterprise innovation in the case of China. The results demonstrate that knowledge collaboration plays a part in the mediating role between network characteristics of the innovation ecosystem and enterprise innovation. The resource integration capability could regulate the mediating role of knowledge collaboration, which means the stronger the resource integration capability, the stronger the mediating effect.
AcemogluD., AkcigitU., & KerrW. R. (2016). Innovation network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(41), 11483–11488.
2.
BendisR. & AmericaI. (2011). Science & innovation-based trends in the US. 36th Annual AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy, 11–20.
3.
BerraiesS. (2019). The effect of enterprise social networks use on exploitative and exploratory innovations: Mediating effect of sub-dimensions of intellectual capital. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 20(3), 426–452.
4.
CannonJ. N., HuB. B., LeeJ. J., & YangD. G. (2020). The effect of international takeover laws on corporate resource adjustments: market discipline and/or managerial myopia?Journal of International Business Studies, 51(9), 1443–1477.
5.
ChatenierD. E., VerstegenJ. A. A. M., & BiemansH. (2009). The challenges of collaborative knowledge creation in open innovation teams. Human Resource Development Review, 8(3), 350–381.
6.
ChesbroughH., & RosenbloomR. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from xerox corporation’s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.
7.
ChoiY., ParkS., & LeeS. (2021). Identifying emerging technologies to envision a future innovation ecosystem: a machine learning approach to patent data. Scientometrics, 126(7), 5431–5476.
8.
DodgsonM., GannD., & PhillipsN. (2013). The Oxford handbook of innovation management. Oxford University Press.
9.
DogbeC. S. K., TianH. Y., PomegbeW. W. K., SarsahS. A., & OtooC. O. A. (2020). Effect of network embeddedness on innovation performance of small and medium-sized enterprises: the moderating role of innovation openness. Journal of Strategy and Management, 13(2), 181–197.
10.
DuJ. Y., XiongS. X., & WangX. (2017). A research on the effect of small and medium-sized enterprise dynamic capability on innovation performance based on the moderating effect of environmental dynamic. Science and Technology Management Research, 37(1), 25–31.
11.
DuY. S., & LiuZ. S. (2021). Technology diversification, R&D collaboration network centrality, and enterprise innovation performance. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 38(15), 74–81.
12.
FallahM. R. (2022). Presenting a paradigmatic model for conceptualisation of open innovation ecosystem in start-ups using meta-synthesis approach. International Journal of Technology Management, 88(1), 13–33.
13.
FeyC. F., & BirkinshawJ. (2005). External sources of knowledge, governance mode and R&D performance. Journal of Management, 31(4), 597–621.
14.
HanC. H., TongZ. H., LiuX. T., SunJ., XueX. N., & LiuY. R. B. (2019). The construction of knowledge collaboration behavior model of industrial cluster innovation in complex dynamic environment. Science & Technology Progress and Policy, 36(9), 69–76.
15.
HeY. B., ZouY. Y., & ZuoL. F. (2021). Research on the relationship between technology diversification, knowledge collaboration among organizations and the persistence of enterprise’s innovation. Journal of Technology Economics, 40(6), 47–58.
16.
HislopD. (2005). The effect of network size on intra-network knowledge processes. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 3(4), 244–252.
17.
JohnsonW. H. A., & FilippiniR. (2009). Internal vs. external collaboration: what works. Research-Technology Management, 52(3), 15–17.
18.
KarlenzigW. (2002). Tap into the power of knowledge collaboration. Customer Interaction Solutions, 20(11), 22–23.
19.
KestingP., MuellerS., JoørgensenF., & UlhoøiJ. P. (2011). Innovation and network collaboration: an HRM perspective. International Journal of Technology Management, 56(2–4), 138–153.
20.
LaursenK., & SalterA. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.
21.
LeoE. (2020). Toward a contingent model of mirroring between product and organization: a knowledge management perspective. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 37(1), 97–117.
22.
LiM., & GaoS. X. (2014). A study on the impact of environmental uncertainty on incremental innovation and radical innovation. East China Economic Management, 28(7), 131–136.
23.
LiX. D., ZhangX. Y., & HouJ. (2020). The mechanism of technical standardization driving innovation performance of high-tech enterprises: The perspective of network characteristics of innovation ecosystem. Management Review, 32(5), 96–108.
24.
LiY. R., & MaY. H. (2021). The influence of network characteristics of regional innovation network on knowledge innovation performance. Frontiers of Science and Technology of Engineering Management, 40(5), 83–89.
25.
NguyenD. Q. (2022). How firms accumulate knowledge to innovate an empirical study of Vietnamese firms. Management Decision, 60(5), 1413–1437.
26.
ParenteR., MurrayJ. Y., ZhaoY., KotabeM., & DiasR. (2022). Relational resources, tacit knowledge integration capability, and business performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 26(4), 805–823.
27.
ParsonsS. (2021). The importance of collaboration for knowledge co-construction in “close-to-practice” research. British Educational Research Journal, 47(6), 1490–1499.
28.
SammarraA., & BiggieroL. (2008). Heterogeneity and specificity of inter-firm knowledge flows in innovation networks. Journal of Management Studies, 45(4), 800–829.
29.
SongY., & WangJ. (2020). Impact of network characteristics and knowledge attribute on enterprise innovation performance. Journal of Management Science, 33(3), 63–77.
30.
SuD. M., WuZ. F., & LiuC. (2017). External knowledge search and its ambidexterity effect on innovation performance. Science of Science and Management of S&T, 38(8), 109–121.
31.
WenZ. L., ZhangL., HouJ. T., & LiuH. Y. (2004). Testing and application of the mediating effects. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 36(5), 614–620.
32.
WuL. Y. (2007). Entrepreneurial resources, dynamic capabilities and start-up performance of Taiwan’s high-tech firms. Journal of Business Research, 60(5), 549–555.
33.
WuY., & WeiZ. L. (2017). Dual knowledge exploration, dynamic resource bundling and radical innovation. Science Research Management, 38(12), 11–19.
34.
XieX. M., & ZuoL. L. (2013). Characteristics of collaborative innovation networks and innovation performance of firms: the mediating effect of knowledge absorptive capacity. Nankai Business Review, 16(3), 47–56.
35.
YangH. J., & YangJ. J. (2016). Research on the impact of external search, linking intensity and absorptive capacity on innovation performance. Journal of Management Science, 29(3), 24–37.
36.
ZengP. (2009). The relationship among knowledge innovation, dynamic capabilities and organizational performance: a structural equation model analysis. Studies in Science of Science, 27(8), 1271–1280.
37.
ZhangY. H., & ZhuX. Y. (2014). Research on the method of process-oriented knowledge collaboration based on Wiki. Information Studies: Theory & Application, 37(5), 51–56.
