Establishing the Enterprises’ Innovation Ecosystem Based on Dynamics Core Competence—The Case of China’s High-Speed Railway

References

• Adner, 1996. Plasticity of contractile endothelinB receptors in human arteries after organ culture. British journal of pharmacology 119(6):1159–66. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-5381.1996.tb16018.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adner, R. 2006. Match your Innovation Strategy to your Innovation Ecosystem. Harvard Business Review 84: 98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adner, R., and R., Kapoor. 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal 31 (3): 306–33. doi: 10.1002/smj.v31:3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adner, R., and R. Kapoor. 2015. Innovation ecosystems and the pace of substitution: re-examining technologist curves. Strategic Management Journal 37 (4): 625–48. 10.1002/smj.2363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adomavicius, G., J. C. Bockstedt, A., Gupta, and R. J. Kauffman. 2007. Technology roles and paths of influence in an ecosystem model of technology evolution. Information Technology and Management 8 (2): 185–202. doi: 10.1007/s10799-007-0012-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ansari, A., Cowgill, G. A., Nicholls, L. E., Raissyan, A., Ramayya, J. P., Masina, R., andMcQuarters, A. R. 2015. U.S. Washington, Patent and Trademark Office.
   Google Scholar
• Autio, E., and Thomas, L. 2014. Innovation ecosystems. The Oxford Handbook OfInnovation Management 204–88.
   Google Scholar
• Autio,E., and Thomas, L. D. W. 2012. Tilting the Playing Field: Towards a Strategic Theoryof Endogenous Action. Innovation and Entrepreneurship Group Working Papers: 1–46.
   Google Scholar
• Brandenburger, B., JandNalebuff, A. 1996. Co-opetition. Yale School of Management.
   Google Scholar
• Chen, Y., K., Rong, L., Xue, and L., Luo. 2014. Evolution of collaborative innovation network in China’s wind turbine manufacturing industry. International Journal of Technology Management 65 (1–4): 262–99. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2014.060954.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H. 2003. OpenInnovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting form Technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2: 45–50.
   Google Scholar
• Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., and West, J. 2014. New frontiers in open innovation. Oup Oxford.
   Google Scholar
• Dess, G.G, and Picken, J.G. 2000. Changing roles: leadership in the 21st century. Organizational Dynamics, 28:18–34. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(00)88447-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dyer J.H, Singh, H. 1998. The Relational View: Cooperative Strategy and Sources of Interorganizational Competitive Advantage. Academy of Management Review 23:660–79. doi: 10.5465/amr.1998.1255632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy of Management Review 14: 532–50. doi: 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: what are they? Strategic Management Journal 21: 1105–21. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenmann, T. R., Parker, G., and Van Alstyne, M. 2009. Opening platforms: how, when and why? Platforms, Markets and Innovation 131–62.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, D.S., Hagiu, A., and Schmalensee, R. 2006. Invisible Engines: How Soft ware Platforms Drive Innovation and Transform Industries. Cambridge, MA : TheMIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gawer, and Cusumano. 2002. Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation. Harvard Business School Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gawer, A., and Cusumano, M.A. 2014. Industry platformsand ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (3), 417–33. doi: 10.1111/jpim.12105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gawer, A., and Henderson, R. 2007. Platform owner entry and innovation in complementary markets: Evidence from Intel. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 16 (1), 1–34. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9134.2007.00130.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American journal of sociology 91 (3), 481–510. doi: 10.1086/228311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groth, A. 2015. Two distinct modes for propagation of histone PTMs across the cell cycle. Genes and development 29 (6), 585–90. doi: 10.1101/gad.256354.114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gulati, R., Pu Ranam, P., and Tushman, M. L. 2012. Meta-organization Design: RethinkingDesign in Interorganizational and Community Contexts. Strategic Management Journal 33 (6): 571–86. doi: 10.1002/smj.1975.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halinen, A., Salmi, A., and Havila, V. 1999. From Dyadic Change to Changing Business Networks: An Analytical Framework. Journal of Management Studies 36: 779–94. doi: 10.1111/1467-6486.00158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfat, C.E., and Peteraf, M. A. 2003. The dynamic resource‐based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal 24 (10), 997–1010. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, R. 1995. Of life cycles real and imaginary: the unexpectedly long old age of optical lithography. Research Policy 24:631–43. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(94)00790-X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henkel, J. 2006. Selective revealing in open innovation processes: the case of embedded Linux. Research Policy 35:953–69. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iansiti, M., and Levien, R. 2004b. Strategy as Ecology. Harvard Business Review 82: 68–78.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kapoor, R., and Lee, J. M. 2013. Coordinating and competing in ecosystems: How organizational forms shape new technology investments. Strategic management Journal 34 (3), 274–296. doi: 10.1002/smj.2013.34.issue-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, D.,and Mendelson, H. 2008. Divide and conquer: Competing with free technology under network effects. Production and Operations Management 17 (1), 12–28. doi: 10.3401/poms.1070.0005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, Y.R. 2009. TheTechnological Roadmap of Cisco’s Business Ecosystem. Technovation 29: 379–86. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2009.01.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, G., K., Rong. 2015. The nature of the co-evolutionary process: complex product development in the mobile computing industry’s business ecosystem. Group Org. Manag. 40 (6), 809–42. doi: 10.1177/1059601115593830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• London, T, and Hart, S. 2004. Reinventing Strategies for Emerging Markets: Beyond the transnational Model. Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 350–70. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400099.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lopez-Berzosa, D., and Gawer, A. 2014. Innovation policy within private collectives: Evidence on 3GPP׳s regulation mechanisms to facilitate collective innovation. Technovation 34 (12), 734–45 doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.07.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusch, R. F., Vargo, S. L., and Tanniru, M. 2010. Service, Value Networks and Learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 38 : 19–31. doi: 10.1007/s11747-008-0131-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milgrom, P., and Roberts, J. 1990. Theeconomics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and organization. The American Economic Review 511–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, J.F. 1993. Predators and Prey: A NewEcology of Competition. HarvardBusiness Review 71 (3):75–86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, J. F. 1996. The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems. New York: HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, J.F. 2006. Business ecosystems and theview from the firm. The AntitrustBulletin 51(1),31–75.
   Google Scholar
• Nambisan, S., and Baron, R. A. 2013. Entrepreneurship in innovation ecosystems: Entrepreneurs’ self–regulatory processes and their implications for new venture success. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 37 (5), 1071–97. doi: 10.1111/etap.2013.37.issue-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, R.R., and Winter, S. G. 1982. The Schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American Economic Review 72 (1), 114–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nonaka, I., and Toyama, R. 2002. A firm as a dialectical being: towards a dynamic theory of a firm. Industrial and Corporate Change 11 (5), 995–1009. doi: 10.1093/icc/11.5.995.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Novikova, O., and Vuori, T. 2013. Business Model Topology in Emerging Business Ecosystem. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering 7 (3), 759–62
   Google Scholar
• Olson. et al., 2013. The SEED and the Rapid Annotation of microbial genomes using Subsystems Technology (RAST). Nucleic Acids Research, 42 (D1), D206–D214. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkt1226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piepenbrock, M.O. M., Lloyd, G. O., Clarke, N., and Steed, J.W. 2009. Metal-and anion-binding molecularitygels. ChemicalReviews 110 (4), 1960–2004.
   Google Scholar
• Pierce, L. 2009. Big Losses in Ecosystem Niches: How Core Firm Decisions DriveComplementary Product Shakeouts. Strategic Management Journal 30: 323–47. doi: 10.1002/smj.v30:3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poter, M.E. 1980. Competitive strategy. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rao, B., and Jimenez, B. 2011. A comparative analysis of digital innovation ecosystems. In Technology Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET), 11: (pp. 1–12).
   Google Scholar
• Schot, J.andGeels, F.W. 2008. Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 20 (5), 537–554 doi: 10.1080/09537320802292651.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, W.R. 2007. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests, 3rd edn. London, UK: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, C.and Varian, H. R. 1998. Information Rules: A Strategic Guid. Harvard Business Press.
   Google Scholar
• Subbiah, B., Katabathuni, S., Cherian, S. A., Wang, C. L., Hu, M., Rao, S., and Jimenez, L. P. 2011. U.S. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
   Google Scholar
• Teece, D. J. 1997. Capturing Value from Knowledge Assets: Th e New Economy, Markets forKnow-how, and Intangible Assets. California Management Review 40 (3): 55–79. doi: 10.2307/41165943.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teece, D.J. 1986. Profiting from Technological Innovation: Implications for Integration,Collaboration, Licensing. Research Policy 15: 285–305. doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teece, D. J., G. Pisano, and A., Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18 (7): 509–33. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teece, D. J. 2012. Dynamic capabilities: Routines versus entrepreneurial action. Journal of Management Studies 49 (8), 1395–401. doi: 10.1111/joms.2012.49.issue-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, L.D.W., and Autio, E. 2013. The Fith Facet: Th Ecosystem as Organizational Field, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Group Working Papers: 1–40.
   Google Scholar
• Tripsas, M. 1997. Unraveling the process of creative destruction: Complementary assets and incumbent survival in the typesetter industry. Strategic Management Journal 18 (s 1): 119–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tushman, M.L., and Anderson, P. 1986. Technologicaldiscontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly 439–65. doi: 10.2307/2392832.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Utterback, J. M., and Abernathy, W. J. 1975. A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3 (6), 639–56. doi: 10.1016/0305-0483(75)90068-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang, C.L, and Ahmed, P.K. 2007. Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. Internatianl Journal of Management Review 9: 31–51.
   Google Scholar
• Weiss, M., and Gangadharan, G. R. 2010. Modeling the Mashup Ecosystem: Structure andGrowth. R&D Management 40: 40–49. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00582.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt, B. 1984. A resource‐based view of the firm. Strategic management journal 5 (2), 171–80. doi: 10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R.K. 2003. CaseStudyResearch:DesignandMethods.BeverleyHills: SagePublications.
   Google Scholar
• Yin, R.K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods (applied social research methods). London and Singapore: Sage.
   Google Scholar