2009
DOI: 10.1002/smj.815
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A multilevel framework of firm boundaries: firm characteristics, dyadic differences, and network attributes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
104
1
6

Year Published

2011
2011
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 133 publications
(115 citation statements)
references
References 94 publications
4
104
1
6
Order By: Relevance
“…This is line with emphasis in prior research conducted in the context of hightechnology sectors (Hagedoorn 1993) and the computer industry specifically (e.g., Lee 2007;Yang et al 2010). …”
Section: Robustness Testssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…This is line with emphasis in prior research conducted in the context of hightechnology sectors (Hagedoorn 1993) and the computer industry specifically (e.g., Lee 2007;Yang et al 2010). …”
Section: Robustness Testssupporting
confidence: 85%
“…In line with the defense of Burt (1992) and Yang, Lin & Lin (2010), the structural holes of the firm are positive and significantly associated with its value (β 3 ≈ 0.1198; p < 0.1).…”
Section: Panel Data Regression Analysismentioning
confidence: 73%
“…Noyes (2007), in a recent piece of work, and in a way that is in line with the arguments of Burt (1992) and Yang, Lin & Lin (2010), examined the relationships between the firm's structural holes and the identification of investment alternatives. In constructing non-redundant ties (coming from positioning it self in the network of corporate relationships in such a way as to optimize structural holes, a procedure shown in Figure 3), the company can benefit because of its access to information that enables it to identify new investment opportunities (whose proxy adopted here is Tobin's Q).…”
Section: Positioning In the Corporate Network And The Firm Valuementioning
confidence: 94%
“…We thus examined resource disparity between partners in these three dimensions. Following prior studies that assessed interfirm differences by the Euclidean distance (e.g., Polidoro et al, 2011;Yang, Lin, & Lin, 2010), we evaluated resource disparity between a pair of firms in alliances along the three aspects that were captured by widely used measures, including R&D expense, cost of goods sold, and marketing expense. More specifically, we calculated a three-year average for each type of resources that an alliance participant possessed, deflated by its three-year average sales, before the year when an alliance was formed.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%