技术经济

基于知识的动态能力与价值共创：平台型云服务商与用户的多案例研究

PDF下载

宋卿清 ¹^,² , 郭京京 ¹^,³ , 袁军 ⁴

技术经济 | 技术经济管理 2025,44(12): 116-129

收起

技术经济 |技术经济管理 2025 , 44 (12) : 116 -129

基于知识的动态能力与价值共创：平台型云服务商与用户的多案例研究

全屏

宋卿清¹^,², 郭京京¹^,³, 袁军⁴

作者信息

^1．中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院，北京 100190

^2．深圳市科技创新战略研究中心，深圳 518052

^3．中国科学院大学公共政策与管理学院，北京 100049

^4．国家数据发展研究院，北京 100037

通讯作者:

郭京京（1984—），博士，中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院研究员，研究方向：创新政策、创新管理

作者简介:

宋卿清（1997—），博士，深圳市科技创新战略研究中心博士后，研究方向：创业管理、创新政策

袁军（1973—），博士，国家数据发展研究院副院长，研究方向：科技创新、数据要素。

Knowledge-based Dynamic Capabilities and Value Co-creation: A Multi-case Study of Platform-based Cloud Service Providers and Users

Qingqing Song¹^,², Jingjing Guo¹^,³, Jun Yuan⁴

Affiliations

^1.Institutes of Science and Development, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China

^2.Shenzhen Science and Technology Innovation Strategy Research Center, Shenzhen 518052, China

^3.School of Public Policy and Management, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China

^4.National Data Development Research Institute, Beijing 100037, China

出版时间: 2025-12-25 doi: 10.12404/j.issn.1002-980X.J24120409

文章导航

摘要

收起

围绕平台型云服务商与用户价值共创的12个典型案例，系统剖析双方价值共创的前因条件与作用机制，构建了群体动力作用下平台型云服务商与用户依托基于知识的动态能力（KBDCs）的价值共创整合模型。研究发现：①平台型云服务商与用户的价值共创过程历经“价值评估-价值桥接-价值集聚”三个阶段；②基于知识的动态能力是推动平台型云服务商与用户共创价值的关键前因，知识搜寻动态能力、知识融合动态能力与知识开发动态能力分别在价值共创的评估、桥接、集聚阶段发挥关键作用；③群体动力是影响基于知识的动态能力推动价值共创的边界条件，契合的群体认知与积极的群体行动提高了平台型云服务商与用户价值共创的内聚力。研究结论丰富了云服务商与用户价值共创的研究体系，细化了基于知识的动态能力理论内涵，拓展了群体动力理论应用边界，为平台型云服务商与用户共创价值提供了有益的实践指导。

关键词

价值共创 / 基于知识的动态能力 / 群体动力 / 云服务 / 平台型云服务商

Abstract

收起

Based on twelve typical cases of value co-creation between platform-based cloud service providers and users, the antecedent conditions and operational mechanisms of value co-creation between the two parties were systematically analyzed, and an integrated model of value co-creation was constructed for platform-based cloud service providers and users relying on knowledge-based dynamic capabilities (KBDCs) under the influence of group dynamics. The findings are as follows. The value co-creation process between platform-based cloud service providers and users evolves through three stages: value assessment, value bridging, and value aggregation. KBDCs constitute the key antecedents driving value co-creation, with knowledge search dynamic capabilities, among which knowledge search dynamic capabilities, knowledge integration dynamic capabilities, and knowledge development dynamic capabilities exert key roles in the assessment, bridging, and aggregation stages of value co-creation respectively. Group dynamics serve as boundary conditions affecting the impact of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities on value co-creation, whereby congruent group cognition and proactive group actions enhance the cohesion of value co-creation between platform-based cloud service providers and users. The conclusions enrich the theoretical system of value co-creation between cloud service providers and users, refine the conceptual connotations of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities, expand the application boundaries of group dynamics theory, and provide practical guidance for facilitating value co-creation in platform-based cloud service contexts.

Key words

value co-creation / knowledge-based dynamic capabilities / group dynamics / cloud service / platform-based cloud service providers

引用本文

宋卿清, 郭京京, 袁军. 基于知识的动态能力与价值共创：平台型云服务商与用户的多案例研究. 技术经济, 2025 , 44 (12) : 116 -129 . DOI: 10.12404/j.issn.1002-980X.J24120409

Qingqing Song, Jingjing Guo, Jun Yuan. Knowledge-based Dynamic Capabilities and Value Co-creation: A Multi-case Study of Platform-based Cloud Service Providers and Users[J]. Journal of Technology Economics, 2025 , 44 (12) : 116 -129 . DOI: 10.12404/j.issn.1002-980X.J24120409

基金

收起

国家自然科学基金面上项目“中国新兴产业创新政策组合的绩效影响机制研究”(72074204)
国家社会科学基金重大项目“科技革命、产业革命对世界格局的影响塑造和前瞻性应对研究”(25&ZD278)

参考文献

收起

文献

收起

参考文献引证文献

排序方式：

[1]

YOSEOB L. Analysis of cloud service providers[J]. The International Journal of Advanced Culture Technology, 2021, 9(3): 315-320.

[2]

TERPOORTEN C, KLEIN J F, MERFELD K. Understanding B2B customer journeys for complex digital services: The case of cloud computing[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2024, 119: 178-192.

[3]

RIZVI S, MITCHELL J, RAZAQUE A, et al. A fuzzy inference system (FIS) to evaluate the security readiness of cloud service providers[J]. Journal of Cloud Computing-Advances Systems and Applications, 2020, 9(1): 42.

[4]

SHARMA M, SEHRAWAT R. A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making method for cloud adoption: Evidence from the healthcare sector[J]. Technology in Society, 2020, 61: 101258.

[5]

LAL P, BHARADWAJ S S. Understanding the drivers of cloud-based service adoption and their impact on the organizational performance: An Indian perspective[J]. Journal of Global Information Management, 2020, 28(1): 56-85.

[6]

BALCAO A, RUIZ N, ROSA F D, et al. Applying a consumer-centric framework for trust assessment of cloud computing service providers[J]. Ieee Transactions on Services Computing, 2023, 16(1): 95-107.

[7]

LANG M, WIESCHE M, KRCMAR H. Criteria for selecting cloud service providers: A Delphi study of quality-of-service attributes[J]. Information & Management, 2018, 55(6): 746-758.

[8]

HUNTGEBURTH J, BLASCHKE M, KARWATZKI S. Exploring value co-creation in cloud ecosytems: A revelatory case study[M]. Münster, Germany: European Conference on Information Systems, 2015.

[9]

CHOUDRIE J, EFPRAXIA Z. Understanding and exploring the value co-creation of cloud computing innovation using resource based value theory: An interpretive case study[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2023, 164: 113970.

[10]

FACCIN K, BALESTRIN A, MARTINS B V, et al. Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities: A joint R&D project in the French semiconductor industry[J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2019, 23(3): 439-465.

[11]

ZHENG S, ZHANG W, WU X, et al. Knowledge-based dynamic capabilities and innovation in networked environments[J]. Journal of Knowledge Management, 2011, 15(6): 1035-1051.

[12]

ZOTOO I K, LU Z, LIU G. Big data management capabilities and librarians' innovative performance: The role of value perception using the theory of knowledge-based dynamic capability[J]. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 2021, 47(2): 102272.

[13]

SCHRUIJER S G L. Whatever happened to group dynamics in the scientific study of groups?[J]. Team Performance Management, 2021, 27(34): 229-239.

[14]

DAVIS J P. The group dynamics of interorganizational relationships: Collaborating with multiple partners in innovation ecosystems[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2016, 61(4): 621-661.

[15]

JAMES T L, CALDERON E D V, BELANGER F, et al. The mediating role of group dynamics in shaping received social support from active and passive use in online health communities[J]. Information & Management, 2022, 59(3): 103606.

[16]

WALLER M J, OKHUYSEN G A, SAGHAFIAN M. Conceptualizing emergent states: A strategy to advance the study of group dynamics[J]. Academy of Management Annals, 2016, 10(1): 561-598.

[17]

KARUNAKARAN A. In cloud we trust? Coopting occupational gatekeepers to produce normalized trust in platform-mediated interorganizational relationships[J]. Organization Science, 2022, 33(3): 1188-1211.

[18]

DE SILVA M, HOWELLS J, MEYER M. Innovation intermediaries and collaboration: Knowledge-based practices and internal value creation[J]. Research Policy, 2018, 47(1): 70-87.

[19]

陈海峰，张芙榕，辛冲．知识耦合流动对价值共创的影响——基于创新生态系统的研究[J]．技术经济，2024，43（8）：12-22．

[20]

VARGO S L, LUSCH R F. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing[J]. Journal of Marketing, 2004, 68(1): 1-17.

[21]

李雪灵，樊镁汐，龙玉洁，等．工业互联网平台与“双重身份”用户企业价值共创的协同演化机理研究[J]．管理世界，2025，41（6）：158-181．

[22]

李东红，周平录，杨震宁，等．领导者企业如何与参与者企业协同实现价值共创？——基于小米生态链的案例研究[J]．管理世界，2025，41（1）：151-168．

[23]

SIAW C A, SARPONG D. Dynamic exchange capabilities for value co-creation in ecosystems[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2021, 134: 493-506.

[24]

PERKS H, KOWALKOWSKI C, WITELL L, et al. Network orchestration for value platform development[J]. Industrial Marketing Management, 2017, 67: 106-121.

[25]

MEI J, LI K L, LI K Q. Customer-satisfaction-aware optimal multiserver configuration for profit maximization in cloud computing[J]. IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing, 2017, 2(1): 17-29.

[26]

LAL P, BHARADWAJ S S. Understanding the impact of cloud-based services adoption on organizational flexibility: An exploratory study[J]. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 2016, 29(4): 566-588.

[27]

GUPTA S, MISRA S C, KOCK N, et al. Organizational, technological and extrinsic factors in the implementation of cloud ERP in SMEs[J]. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2018, 31(1): 83-102.

[28]

ISMAIL U M, ISLAM S, OUEDRAOGO M, et al. A framework for security transparency in cloud computing[J]. Future Internet, 2016, 8(1): 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi8010005.

[29]

JABBAR S, NASEER K, GOHAR M, et al. Trust model at service layer of cloud computing for educational institutes[J]. Journal of Supercomputing, 2016, 72(1): 58-83.

[30]

STRUWE S, SLEPNIOV D. Unlocking digital servitization: A conceptualization of value co-creation capabilities[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2023, 160: 113825.

[31]

CHIEN S Y, TSAI C H. Entrepreneurial orientation, learning, and store performance of restaurant: The role of knowledge-based dynamic capabilities[J]. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 2021, 46: 384-392.

[32]

TEECE D J. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 2007, 28(13): 1319-1350.

[33]

HAN Y, LI D. Effects of intellectual capital on innovative performance: The role of knowledge-based dynamic capability[J]. Management Decision, 2015, 53(1): 40-56.

[34]

CHENG C C J, YANG C, SHEU C. Effects of open innovation and knowledge-based dynamic capabilities on radical innovation: An empirical study[J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2016, 41: 79-91.

[35]

QIAO S, LIU Z, WU J, et al. Generative AI on innovation performance of construction enterprises: A knowledge-based dynamic capabilities perspective[J]. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 2025, 76: 101871.

[36]

ARIAS-PEREZ J, VELEZ-JARAMILLO J. Ignoring the three-way interaction of digital orientation, not-invented-here syndrome and employee's artificial intelligence awareness in digital innovation performance: A recipe for failure[J]. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2022, 174: 121305.

[37]

VU M N, NGUYEN H H, PHAM H C, et al. Digital supply chain transformation: Effect of firm's knowledge creation capabilities under COVID-19 supply chain disruption risk[J]. Operations Management Research, 2023, 16(2): 1003-1018.

[38]

XIE Y, CHEN Z, BOADU F, et al. How does digital transformation affect agricultural enterprises' pro-land behavior: The role of environmental protection cognition and cross-border search[J]. Technology in Society, 2022, 70: 101991.

[39]

REN Y Q, HARPER F M, DRENNER S, et al. Building member attachment in online communities: Applying theories of group identity and interpersonal bonds[J]. MIS Quarterly, 2012, 36(3): 841-864.

[40]

CHOI B, AHN S, LEE S. Construction workers' group norms and personal standards regarding safety behavior: Social identity theory perspective[J]. Journal of Management in Engineering, 2017, 33(4). DOI:10. 1061/ (ASCE) ME. 1943-5479. 0000511.

[41]

FREY L. The symbolic-interpretive perspective on group dynamics[J]. Small Group Research, 2004, 35: 277-306.

[42]

WONG S S. Distal and local group learning: Performance trade-offs and tensions[J]. Organization Science, 2004, 15(6): 645-656.

[43]

BRESMAN H. Changing routines: A process model of vicarious group learning in pharmaceutical R&D[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2013, 56(1): 35-61.

[44]

YIN R K. Case study research: Design and methods[M]. CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2009.

[45]

EISENHARDT K M, GRAEBNER M E. Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 2007, 50(1): 25-32.

[46]

GIOIA D A, CORLEY K G, HAMILTON A L. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research: Notes on the gioia methodology[J]. Organizational Research Methods, 2013, 16(1): 15-31.

[47]

简兆权，戴炳钦，卢荷芳，等．知识搜寻、知识吸收与服务创新：大数据能力的调节效应[J]．科技管理研究，2022，42（17）：158-165．

[48]

孙新波，苏钟海，钱雨，等．数据赋能研究现状及未来展望[J]．研究与发展管理，2020，32（2）：155-166．

[49]

FREI F, MORRISS A. Begin with trust the first step to becoming a genuinely empowering leader[J]. Harvard Business Review, 2020, 98(3): 112-121.

[50]

MATARAZZO M, PENCO L, PROFUMO G, et al. Digital transformation and customer value creation in Made in Italy SMEs: A dynamic capabilities perspective[J]. Journal of Business Research, 2021, 123: 642-656.

2025年第44卷第12期

PDF下载

引用本文

BibTeX

文章信息

doi: 10.12404/j.issn.1002-980X.J24120409

接收时间：2024-12-04
首发时间：2026-10-27
出版时间：2025-12-25

补充材料

相关文章

文章信息

作者

出版历史

收稿日期：2024-12-04

基金

国家自然科学基金面上项目“中国新兴产业创新政策组合的绩效影响机制研究”(72074204)

国家社会科学基金重大项目“科技革命、产业革命对世界格局的影响塑造和前瞻性应对研究”(25&ZD278)

作者信息

^1．中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院，北京 100190

^2．深圳市科技创新战略研究中心，深圳 518052

^3．中国科学院大学公共政策与管理学院，北京 100049

^4．国家数据发展研究院，北京 100037

通讯作者:

郭京京（1984—），博士，中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院研究员，研究方向：创新政策、创新管理

参考文献

分享链接

https://castjournals.cast.org.cn/joweb/jsyjj/CN/10.12404/j.issn.1002-980X.J24120409

分享至

全文二维码

扫描看全文

引用本文

BibTeX

本文的引用情况

2种不同金属材料的力学参数

科 Family	属数 Number of genus	种数 Number of species	占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%)	属 Genus	种数 Number of species	占总种数比例 Percentage of total species (%)
鹅膏菌科Amanitaceae	2	11	5.26	鹅膏菌属 Amanita	10	4.78
小菇科 Mycenaceae	2	12	5.74	丝盖伞属 Inocybe	5	2.39
多孔菌科 Polyporaceae	8	14	6.70	蜡蘑属 Laccaria	5	2.39
红菇科 Russulaceae	3	23	11.00	小皮伞属 Marasmius	6	2.87
				小菇属 Mycena	11	5.26
				光柄菇属 Pluteus	5	2.39
				红菇属 Russula	17	8.13
				栓菌属 Trametes	5	2.39

关闭全屏

BibTeX
EndNote
RefWorks
TxT