How do prolific inventors impact firm innovation in ICT: implications from patent co-inventing network

References

• Agrawal, A., I. Cockburn, and J. McHale. 2006. Gone but not forgotten: Knowledge flows, labor mobility, and enduring social relationships. Journal of Economic Geography 6: 571–91. doi: 10.1093/jeg/lbl016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly 45: 425–55. doi: 10.2307/2667105
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amabile, T.M. 1988. A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In Research in organizational behavior, ed. B.M. Staw, 123–67. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ambos, T.C., and B. Ambos. 2009. The impact of distance on knowledge transfer effectiveness in multinational corporations. Journal of International Management 15: 1–14. doi: 10.1016/j.intman.2008.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barsky, N. 1999. A core/periphery structure in a corporate budgeting process. Connections 22: 22–9.
   Google Scholar
• Baum, J.A.C., R. Cowan, and N. Jonard. 2010. Network-independent partner selection and the evolution of innovation networks. Management Science 56: 2094–110. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1100.1229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brusco, S. 1990. The idea of the industrial district: Its genesis. In Industrial districts and inter-firm cooperation in Italy, ed. F. Pyke, G. Becattini, and W. Sengenberger. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Cattani, G., and S. Ferriani. 2008. A core/periphery perspective on individual creative performance: Social networks and cinematic achievements in the Hollywood film industry. Organization Science 19: 824–44. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, Z.F., and J.C. Guan. 2010. The impact of small world on innovation: An empirical study of 16 countries. Journal of Informetrics 4: 97–106. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2009.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, J.N. 2004. Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: The mediating role of psychological processes. Creativity Research Journal 16: 187–99. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2004.9651452
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, R., and N. Jonard. 2003. The dynamics of collective invention. Journal of Economic Behavior Organizations 52: 513–32. doi: 10.1016/S0167-2681(03)00091-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, R., N. Jonard, and J.B. Zimmermann. 2007. Bilateral collaboration and the emergence of innovation networks. Management Science 53: 1051–67. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0618
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, J. 2003. Knowledge sharing: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: The World Bank Evaluation Department, The World Bank.
   Google Scholar
• Cummings, J., and R. Cross. 2003. Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance. Social Networks 25: 197–210. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8733(02)00049-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, M.S., and C.R. Pedersen. Knowledge flows through informal contacts in industrial clusters: Myth or reality. Research Policy 33: 1673–86. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ernst, H. 1996. Patent informationen fur die strategische planung von F&E. Wiesdbaden: DUV Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Ernst, H. 1999. Key inventors: Implications for human resource management in R&D. In Technology and innovation management, PICMET’99, ed. D. Kocaoglu, and T. Anderson, 420–27. Portland, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, M.M., T. Scherngell, and E. Jansenberger. 2006. The geography of knowledge spillovers between high-technology firms in Europe: Evidence from a spatial interaction modeling perspective. Geographical Analysis 38: 288–309. doi: 10.1111/j.1538-4632.2006.00687.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fleming, L., C. King, and A.I. Juda. 2007. Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization Science 18: 938–54. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0289
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fowler, J.H. 2005. Turnout in a small world. In Social logic of politics, ed. A. Zuckerman. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman, L. 1977. A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40: 35–41. doi: 10.2307/3033543
   Google Scholar
• Frietsch, R., and H. Grupp. 2006. There is a new man in town: The paradigm shift in optical technology. Technovation 26: 463–72. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2004.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gambardella, A., D. Harhoff, and B. Verspagen. 2006. The value of patents. Paper presented at the EPIP conference, Munich, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Gay, C., C. Le Bas, and B. Latham. 2008. Collective knowledge, prolific inventors and the value of inventions: An empirical study of French, German and British owned U.S. patents, 1975–1998. The Economics of Innovation and New Technology 17: 5–22. doi: 10.1080/10438590701279193
   Google Scholar
• Griliches, Z. 1990. Patent statistics as economic indicators: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature 28: 1661–707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guan, J.C., and Y. Shi. 2012. Transnational citation, technological diversity and small world in global nanotechnology patenting. Scientometrics 93: 609–33. doi: 10.1007/s11192-012-0706-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guimera, R., B. Uzzi, J. Spiro, and L.A.N. Amaral. 2005. Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308: 697–702. doi: 10.1126/science.1106340
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulati, R., M. Sytch, and A. Tatarynowicz. 2012. The rise and fall of small worlds: Exploring the dynamics of social structure. Organization Science 23: 449–71. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hargadon, A. 2003. How breakthroughs happen: The surprising truth about how companies innovate. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hausman, J., B. Hall, and Z. Griliches. 1984. Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents R&D relationship. Econometrica 52: 909–38. doi: 10.2307/1911191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Idson, T.L., and L.H. Kahane. 2004. Team effects on compensation: An application to salary determination in the national hockey league. Economic Inquiry 38: 345–57. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2000.tb00022.x
   Google Scholar
• James, P., and S. Sankaran. 2006. How and why redundant knowledge assets are identified: A case study of the end of the knowledge asset lifecycle. International Journal of Knowledge, Culture and Change Management 6: 151–9.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, B.F. 2010. Age and great invention. The Review of Economics and Statistics 92: 1–14. doi: 10.1162/rest.2009.11724
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolaczyk, E.D. 2009. Statistical analysis of network data: Methods and models. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Latham, W., C. Le Bas, and K. Touach. 2006. The prolific inventor as persistent inventor: An empirical study, avec William Latham et Karim Touach. In The economics of persistent innovation, ed. W. Latham, and C. Le Bas. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Le Bas, C., A. Cabagnols, and R. Bouklia. 2010. Prolific inventors: Who are they and where do they locate? Evidence from a five countries US patenting data set. International Centre for Economic Research Working Paper No. 14/2010.
   Google Scholar
• Leptien, C. 1996. Anreizsysteme in furschung und entwicklung. Wiesdbaden: DUV Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Levine, L.O. 1986. Prolific inventors, a bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 10: 35–42. doi: 10.1007/BF02016858
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, S., and H. Scullion. 2006. Bridging the distance: Managing cross-border knowledge holders. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 23: 71–92. doi: 10.1007/s10490-006-6116-x
   Google Scholar
• Mintz, B., and M. Schwartz. 1981. The structure of intercorporate unity in American business. Social Problems 29: 87–103. doi: 10.2307/800416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narin, F. 1993. Technology indicators and corporate strategy. Review of Business 14: 19–23.
   Google Scholar
• Narin, F., and A. Breitman. 1995. Inventive productivity. Research Policy 24: 507–19. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(94)00780-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nerkar, A.A., and S. Paruchuri. 2005. Evolution of R&D capabilities: The role of knowledge networks within a firm. Management Science 51: 771–85. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0354
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paruchuri, S. 2010. Intraorganizational networks, interorganizational networks, and the impact of central inventors: A longitudinal study of pharmaceutical firms. Organization Science 21: 63–80. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1080.0414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilkington, A. 2006. Key inventors and key firms in fuel cell development: A patent analysis. Research paper series, London, UK: University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Pilkington, A., and R. Dyerson. 2001. Patent data as indicators of technological development. Portland, OR: PICMET.
   Google Scholar
• Pilkington, A., and R. Dyerson. 2002. All steering in the same direction? Patterns of patent activity and the development of fuel cell technology. Engineering Management Conference, 2002. IEMC’02. 2002 IEEE International (Vol. 2, 713–18). IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Pilkington, A., L.L. Lee, and C.K. Chan. 2009. Defining key inventors: A comparison of fuel cell and nanotechnology industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 76: 118–27. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2008.03.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, D. 1976. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantages processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 27: 292–306. doi: 10.1002/asi.4630270505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russo, M. 1985. Technical change and the industrial district: The role of interfirm relations in the growth and transformation of ceramic tile production in Italy. Research Policy 14: 329–43. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(85)90003-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sabidussi, G. 1966. The centrality index of a graph. Psychometrika 31: 581–683. doi: 10.1007/BF02289527
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schilling, M.A., and C.C. Phelps. 2007. Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure on firm innovation. Management Science 53: 1113–26. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh, J. 2005. Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management Science 51: 756–70. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.1040.0349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sorenson, O., J.W. Rivkin, and L. Fleming. 2006. Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Research Policy 35: 994–1017. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.05.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sytch, M., A. Tatarynowicz, and R. Gulati. 2011. Toward a theory of extended contact: The incentives and opportunities for bridging across network communities. Organization Science 23: 1658–81. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0712
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M.L. 1977. Special boundary roles in innovation process. Administrative Science Quarterly 22: 587–605. doi: 10.2307/2392402
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Uzzi, B., and J. Spiro. 2005. Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology 111: 447–504. doi: 10.1086/432782
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verspagen, B., and G. Duysters. 2004. The small worlds of strategic technology alliances. Technovation 24: 563–71. doi: 10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00123-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, G.P., J.C. Guan, and X.L. Liu. 2014. The impact of small world on patent productivity in China. Scientometrics 98: 945–60. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1142-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar