The scientific research group is an important capability base to propel a country like China to the forefront of innovative countries. Given its importance, increasing the number of scientific research groups in China is an important strategy for enhancing the country’s scientific research capacity and promoting scientific development in the world. Our study employs grounded theory and in-depth interviews to explore the construction of scientific capabilities of Chinese scientific research groups. We adopt the actor-activity-position-linkage (AAPL) model of innovation ecosystems to explore the contributing factors to the innovation output of research groups. From an actor’s perspective, research group members’ scientific competence, technological compartmentalises, and personal characteristics are important influences on scientific research capacity. Meanwhile, the academic competence of the team leader is the most central element of the team’s innovation capability. The internal structure of first-class scientific research group (FSRG) members, the management system, and the FSRG climate have a significant impact on innovation within the FSRG organisation. This study challenges the structural view of innovative talent, responds to the debate about the impact of administrative positions on scientific research, and provides insights into how to develop a tradition of innovation and maintain continuous innovation.
AhmedW., NajmiA., & IkramM. (2020). Steering firm performance through innovative capabilities: A contingency approach to innovation management. Technology in Society, 63, Article 101392.
2.
ArvanitisR., MoutonJ., & NeronA. (2022). Funding research in Africa: Landscapes of re-institutionalisation. Science, Technology and Society, 27, 351–367.
3.
BillingsB. A., MusaziB. G. N., & MooreJ. W. (2004). The effects of funding source and management ownership on the productivity of R&D. R & D Management, 34, 281–294.
4.
BobeB. J., & KoberR. (2020). University dean personal characteristics and use of management control systems and performance measures. Studies in Higher Education, 45, 235–257.
5.
BraunS., PeusC., WeisweilerS., & FreyD. (2013). Transformational leadership, job satisfaction, and team performance: A multilevel mediation model of trust. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 270–283.
6.
Buljac-SamardzicM., DoekhieK. D., & van WijngaardenJ. D. H. (2020). Interventions to improve team effectiveness within health care: A systematic review of the past decade. Human Resources for Health, 18, Article 13.
7.
CabriloS., & DahmsS. (2018). How strategic knowledge management drives intellectual capital to superior innovation and market performance. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22, 621–648.
8.
CarmagnacL., & CarboneV. (2019). Making supply networks more sustainable together: The role of meta-organisations. Supply Chain Forum, 20, 56–67.
9.
ChangY., ShiY., & IOP. (2020). Preliminary study on the evaluation system of technological innovation index for the central enterprises of international first-class enterprises. In 5th International Conference on Advances in Energy Resources and Environment, Engineering (ICAESEE 2019) (Chongqing, China; December 6–8, 2019). IOP Publishing.
10.
CiveraA., LehmannE. E., & MeoliM. (2022). The importance of team diversity for academic spinoff performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 14, 472–496.
11.
De CamargoK. R. (2002). The thought style of physicians: Strategies for keeping up with medical knowledge. Social Studies of Science, 32, 827–855.
12.
DingJ., YangJ., HuD., & LiangL. (2022). Research on performance-based budgeting management system for high educational institutions under information asymmetry. Journal of Systems Science and Mathematical Sciences, 42, 1246–1260.
13.
DongY., & CaoQ. (2023). Research on the cultivation of college students’ innovation ability and the development of self-survival innovation team from the perspective of green ecology. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2023, Article 5824976.
14.
DrosteN., HansjürgensB., KuikmanP., OtterN., AntikainenR., LeskinenP., PitkänenK., SaikkuL., LoiseauE., & ThomsenM. (2016). Steering innovations towards a green economy: Understanding government intervention. Journal of Cleaner Production, 135, 426–434.
15.
GaofengY. (2019). Cross-border collaboration strategies in academic entrepreneurship of new R&D institutions: Insights from explorative case studies in China. Science, Technology and Society, 24, 288–315.
16.
GuY., & ZhuangY. (2019). Research on evaluation of university scientific research team based on SOM neural network. In Chinese Automation Congress (CAC 2019) (pp. 3251–3256). IEEE.
17.
GurlekM., & CemberciM. (2020). Understanding the relationships among knowledge-oriented leadership, knowledge management capacity, innovation performance, and organizational performance: A serial mediation analysis. Kybernetes, 49, 2819–2846.
18.
HamannJ. (2019). The making of professors: Assessment and recognition in academic recruitment. Social Studies of Science, 49, 919–941.
19.
JiX., & ZhaoW. (2022). Research on the key factors of the growth of first-class research innovation teams: Based on the perspective of the scientific elite. Studies in Science of Science, 40, 1721–1728.
20.
KlotzA. C., HmieleskiK. M., BradleyB. H., & BusenitzL. W. (2014). New venture teams: A review of the literature and roadmap for future research. Journal of Management, 40, 226–255.
21.
LiW., & ZhangX. (2021). Research on the relationship among executive education background, R&D efficiency and enterprise value. In Proceedings of the 2021 12th International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics, 638–642.
22.
LiangH. J., LiuJ. S., WangR., SongY. Q., & ZhouY. Y. (2020). Application research of ‘field’theory in the problem of colleges and universities’ innovation team aggregation. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2020, Article 4623617.
23.
LiefnerI. (2003). Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education, 46, 469–489.
24.
MeadM. (1973). Social responsibility of anthropologists. Scientia, 108, 685–691.
25.
MugnainiR., DamacenoR. J. P., & Mena-ChalcoJ. P. (2019). An empirical analysis on the relationship between publications and academic genealogy. In 17th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (ISSI 2019) (pp. 2376–2386). Sapienza University of Rome.
26.
NakataC., & HwangJ. (2020). Design thinking for innovation: Composition, consequence, and contingency. Journal of Business Research, 118, 117–128.
27.
Nguyen NgocT., & Pham AnhT. (2020). Knowledge acquisition, knowledge management strategy and innovation: An empirical study of Vietnamese firms. Cogent Business & Management, 7, Article 1806007.
28.
PanJ., LuX., & WangG. (2021). Transforming scientific research: Organized basic research. Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version), 36, 1395–1403.
29.
SecundoG., RippaP., & CerchioneR. (2020). Digital academic entrepreneurship: A structured literature review and avenue for a research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, Article 120127.
30.
StrakerD. M. (2000). The customer and supplier innovation team guidebook. Quality Progress, 33, 124–124.
31.
TochkovK., NenovskyN., & TochkovK. (2012). University efficiency and public funding for higher education in Bulgaria. Post-Communist Economies, 24, 517–534.
32.
WalraveB., TalmarM, PodoynitsynaK. S., RommeA. G. L., & VerbongG. P. J. (2018). A multi-level perspective on innovation ecosystems for path-breaking innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 103–113.
33.
WanT., WangQ., XuK. T., ZhaoJ. Q., & OtsukiH. (2021). Research on innovation management of science and technology innovation team members based on constructive conflict evolution game. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 69, 1245–1252.
34.
WuL., WangD., & EvansJ. A. (2019). Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature, 566, 378–384.
35.
YeK., LiW., & ZhaoQ. (2021). An old hand is a good guide: The relationship between ‘experienced’officers and innovation of enterprises. Science Research Management, 42, 157–165.
36.
ZhangY., ZhaoJ., & LiQ. (2019). Group patent: An institutional arrangement for transformation of patents into standards. Science Research Management, 40, 203–211.
37.
ZhaoT.-Y., PeiR., & YangG.-L. (2022). S&T resource allocation considering both performance and potential: The case of Chinese research institutes. Research Evaluation, 32, 58–59.
38.
ZouM., LiuP., WuX., ZhouW., JinY., & XuM. Q. (2023). Cognitive characteristics of an innovation team and collaborative innovation performance: The mediating role of cooperative behavior and the moderating role of team innovation efficacy. Sustainability, 15, Article 12345.
39.
ZuckermanH. (1996). Proliferation of scientific prizes reinforces Nobel’s distinguished honor. The Scientist, 10, 10–10.
40.
ZuckermanM. (1990). Some dubious premises in research and theory on racial differences: Scientific, social, and ethical issues. American Psychologist, 45, 1297–1303.
