Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance

被引:237
作者
Wuyts, S
Colombo, MG
Dutta, S
Nooteboom, B
机构
[1] Tilburg Univ, NL-2494 EE The Hague, Netherlands
[2] Erasmus Univ, Rotterdam, Netherlands
[3] Politecn Milan, Dept Econ Management & Ind Engn, I-20133 Milan, Italy
[4] Univ So Calif, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
[5] London Business Sch, London NW1 4SA, England
关键词
alliances; innovation; organizational learning; biotechnology; ICT; areas of study : economics; business; strategy; organization;
D O I
10.1016/j.jebo.2004.03.019
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
This article provides empirical tests of the hypothesis of 'optimal cognitive distance', proposed by Nooteboom [Nooteboom, B., 1998. Cost, quality and learning based governance of buyer-supplier relations. In: Colombo, M.G. (Ed.), The Changing Boundaries of the Firm. Routledge, London, pp. 187-208; Nooteboom, B., 2000. Learning and Innovation in Organizations and Economies. Oxford University Press, Oxford], in two distinct empirical settings. Variety of cognition, needed for learning, has two dimensions: the number of agents with different cognition, and differences in cognition between them (cognitive distance). The hypothesis is that in interfirm relationships optimal learning entails a trade-off between the advantage of increased cognitive distance for a higher novelty value of a partner's knowledge, and the disadvantage of less mutual understanding. If the value of learning is the mathematical product of novelty value and understandability, it has an inverse U-shaped relation with cognitive distance, with an optimum level that yields maximal value of learning. With auxiliary hypotheses, the hypothesis is tested on interfirm agreements between pharmaceutical companies and biotech companies, as well as on interfirm agreements in ICT industries. (c) 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:277 / 302
页数:26
相关论文
共 80 条
  • [51] VisiTile - A visual language development toolkit
    Lewicki, D
    Fisher, G
    [J]. IEEE SYMPOSIUM ON VISUAL LANGUAGES, PROCEEDINGS, 1996, : 114 - 121
  • [52] MCALLISTER DJ, 1995, ACAD MANAGE J, V38, P24, DOI 10.5465/256727
  • [53] Mead G. H., MIND SELF SOC
  • [54] NELSON R., 1982, EVOL THEOR
  • [55] Nooteboom B., 1999, INTERFIRM ALLIANCES
  • [56] NOOTEBOOM B, 1998, CHANGING BOUNDARIES, P187, DOI DOI 10.4324/9780203443408.PT3
  • [57] Nooteboom B., 1992, J EVOLUTIONARY EC, V2, P281, DOI [DOI 10.1007/BF01200127, 10.1007/BF01200127]
  • [58] OHMAE K, 1989, HARVARD BUS REV, V67, P143
  • [59] OSBORN RN, 1990, ACAD MANAGE J, V33, P503, DOI 10.5465/256578
  • [60] The technological competencies of the world's largest firms: complex and path-dependent, but not much variety
    Patel, P
    Pavitt, K
    [J]. RESEARCH POLICY, 1997, 26 (02) : 141 - 156