多重网络视角下突破性技术创新的研究述评与展望

Under the new developmental stage, Chinese enterprises are unable to make use of the second-mover advantages, benefitting from the incremental technological innovations. The competitive advantage derived from incremental innovation is not sustained any longer. Accordingly, there is an urgent need to generate breakthrough technology innovations, i.e., key generic technologies, advanced leading technologies, etc., and garner key and core competencies as well as cultivate high-tech self-reliance and self-improvement capabilities. Technological breakthroughs play a vital role in the generation of enterprise core competencies, market share, and performance. Because breakthrough technology innovation is typically novel and impactful, its R&D processes are usually described as promising but long-periodic, difficult, and at times risky. Although a voluminous number of reviews has scrutinized the concept of radical innovation and disruptive innovation, theoretical evolution of innovative processes and mechanisms, buyer- and supplier-sided innovations, as well as the Chinese settings, the distinctions and similarities amongst breakthrough innovation, radical innovation, disruptive innovation, destructive innovation, and discontinuous innovation remain elusive. This research gap is buttressed by the underdevelopment of a social-network-based view: multiple networks inherently affect the generation of breakthrough innovations. Therefore, a literature review is highly needed to distinguish and analyze these related concepts and provide a comprehensive overview of technological innovation.
To achieve this objective, we review the definitions of related concepts from the perspective of the antecedents, processes, and consequences of technology innovation to lay out the foundation of network mechanisms underlying the breakthrough generation. Results indicate that the focus of related concepts varies as different stages of technology innovation. In particular, radical innovation is prominent at the generating stage, discontinuous innovation is salient at the evolution stage, and disruptive or destructive innovation is highlighted at the outcome stage. As such, we attempt to take breakthrough technology innovation as an umbrella construct, which covers different stages of technology innovation. Thus, breakthrough technology innovation is a brand new technology innovation, which separates from or spans existing technological systems, builds new discontinuous technology trajectories or R&D paradigms, facilitates a series of subsequent technology evolutions, improves or changes product properties and functions, and thereby enhances or destroys organizational capabilities. Meanwhile, breakthrough technology innovation manifests multi-dimensional characteristics, i.e., radicalization (reconfiguring organizational knowledge base), discontinuousness (separating from existing knowledge systems and triggering a series of subsequent technological evolutions), disruptiveness or destructiveness (changing organizational
competencies), and breakthrough (achieving a substantial increase in competitiveness by launching new products or services).
Additionally, this study systematically accounts for network types, levels, and boundaries from the perspective of multiple networks. In particular, we distinguish knowledge networks, intra-organizational inventor networks, inter-organizational inventor networks, and organization networks. Building on relational, structural, and positional embeddedness, we further review the influences of multiple networks on breakthrough technology innovation. We end with three concluding remarks. First, different dimensions of embeddedness (i.e., relational, structural, and positional) of multiple networks have a "double-edged sword" effect on breakthrough technology innovation. However, given the features of breakthrough technology innovation, future research should investigate the mechanisms behind the "double-edged sword" effects, the transformation between positive and negative effects, and the contingencies, which may affect the vantages and costs of multiple networks. Second, the coupling mechanism behind different dimensions of embeddedness has been scarcely investigated. In particular, we know little about the coupling mechanism underlying cross-type, cross-boundary, and cross-level network embeddedness. Hence, future research could fully reveal the coupling mechanism between different dimensions of embeddedness or multiple network embeddedness, figuring out the best combination of embeddedness and extending the theoretical understanding of breakthrough technology innovation. Third, little attention has been paid to the event history analysis of a dynamic view of breakthrough technology innovation's formation, evolution, and consequences. In this regard, future research could investigate how the changes of multiple network embeddedness influence different stages of breakthrough technology innovation and uncover the dynamic evolutionary mechanisms of network nodes and edges
during the transition of innovation stages.