The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collaboration Networks, Structural Holes, and Innovation: A Longitudinal Study
Open accessAbstract
To assess the effects of a firm's network of relations on innovation, this paper elaborates a theoretical framework that relates three aspects of a firm's ego network—direct ties, indirect ties, and structural holes (disconnections between a firm's partners)—to the firm's subsequent innovation output. It posits that direct and indirect ties both have a positive impact on innovation but that the impact of indirect ties is moderated by the number of a firm's direct ties. Structural holes are proposed to have both positive and negative influences on subsequent innovation. Results from a longitudinal study of firms in the international chemicals industry indicate support for the predictions on direct and indirect ties, but in the interfirm collaboration network, increasing structural holes has a negative effect on innovation. Among the implications for interorganizational network theory is that the optimal structure of interfirm networks depends on the objectives of the network members.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors
(1980) · Journal of Sustainable Competitive Intelligence · doi:10.24883/iberoamericanic.v2i2.38 · Cited by 16,592
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939 · cited 4×
“In distinguishing between the resource-sharing and knowledge-spillover benefits of collaboration, it is important to distinguish between know-how and information (Kogut and Zander, 1992).”
BackgroundInfluentialBurt, R. S. (1992) · doi:10.4159/9780674029095 · Cited by 9,093
Interorganizational Collaboration and the Locus of Innovation: Networks of Learning in Biotechnology
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393988 · Cited by 8,499
Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm
Szulanski, G. (1996) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250171105 · Cited by 7,839
Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R & D
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1989) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2233763 · Cited by 7,530
Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2391211 · Cited by 3,937 · cited 1×
“…the debate about the appropriate form of social capital may be profitably informed by the extension of an established principle of organization design to the network arena: the optimal structural design is contingent on the actions that the structure seeks to facilitate (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967).”
BackgroundEmbeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action
Portes, A., & Sensenbrenner, J. (1993) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/230191 · Cited by 3,493
Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry
Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. (1994) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.4250150505 · Cited by 1,166
Cited by
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.507 · Cited by 6,324
SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF SEARCH BEHAVIOR AND NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION.
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/3069433 · Cited by 3,640
Self-citationDahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013 · Cited by 2,435
Orchestrating Innovation Networks
Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. (2006) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2006.21318923 · Cited by 1,803
The Competent Boundary Spanner
Williams, P. (2002) · Public Administration · doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00296 · Cited by 1,311
Metadata
- Authors
- Ahuja, G.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 45
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 425-455
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- 1930-3815
- OpenAlex
- W2087765149
- Cited by
- 5,079
- References
- 9
- FWCI
- 100.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
