Xiao Et Al 2021 A Knowledge Recombination Perspective of Innovation Review and New Research Directions

Journal of Management
Vol. 48 No. 6, July 2022 1724-1777

DOI: 10.1177/01492063211055982
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
A Knowledge Recombination Perspective of

Innovation: Review and New Research Directions
Ting Xiao
Peking University
Mona Makhija
The Ohio State University
Samina Karim
Northeastern University
A useful theoretical lens for understanding innovation in the strategy and entrepreneurship
literatures is knowledge recombination. According to a recombination logic, innovations come
about by recombining knowledge components, each of which is associated with a core scientific
or technological concept. Interactions among a set of recombined components give rise to new
meanings and functions that become the basis of an innovation. The singular focus on the com-
ponents of knowledge underlying an innovation makes knowledge recombination stand out from
other theoretical approaches. The rapid growth in research utilizing a recombination logic sug-
gests that the time is ripe for stepping back and assessing its key insights. Therefore, this review
provides a framework for a recombination perspective and considers how the literature using a
recombination approach has progressed over time, including identification of key features of
knowledge components, influences on how components are recombined, and the outcomes of
recombination. Finally, a number of new directions for research are proposed.
Keywords: recombination; innovation; knowledge; entrepreneurship
Acknowledgments: We are very grateful to Editor William Schulze for his highly insightful suggestions for improving
the contribution of this manuscript. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback during
the review process. We acknowledge funding for this research from National Natural Science Foundation of China,
Grant/Project No. 71702004.
Corresponding author: Ting Xiao, Department of Organization and Strategy Management, Guanghua School of
Management, Peking University, Bldg. 2, 5 Yiheyuan Road, Beijing, 100871 China.
Email: xiaoting@gsm.pku.edu.cn
1724
Xiao et al. / A Knowledge Recombination Perspective of Innovation 1725
Innovation is a primary means through which new and existing firms create and maintain
an advantage over competitors. Through innovation, firms are able to create new products and
services (Ethiraj & Levinthal, 2004; Shane & Venkatraman, 2000), upgrade their capabilities
(Baker & Nelson, 2005; Lavie, 2006; Leonard-Barton, 1992), and adapt to changes in their
markets (Anderson & Tushman, 1990). Despite these benefits, the innovation process is
difficult for firms (Katila & Shane, 2005; Grégoire & Shepherd, 2012). To explain what
underlies a firm’s innovativeness, scholars have drawn on many different theoretical perspec-
tives, including resource-based (Arend, Patel, & Park, 2014; Makhija, 2003; Terziovski,
2010), dynamic capabilities (Eisenhardt & Martin, 2000; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997;
Winter, 2003), and knowledge-based views (Grant, 1996; Kogut & Zander, 1992). Many
have highlighted the role of organizational structure, contextual features, and task character-
istics in motivating innovation (Acar, Tarakci, & van Knippenberg, 2019; Anderson,
Potoč nik, & Zhou, 2014; Ellwood, Grimshaw, & Pandza, 2017; Karim, 2006, 2009), along
with the firm’s top management team (Baysinger & Hoskisson, 1990; Baysinger et al.,
1991; Crossan & Apaydin, 2010).
An alternative to these firm-specific approaches to innovation is knowledge recombination
(Schumpeter, 1934, 1939), an approach that focuses on the innovation itself. A recombination
lens puts a spotlight on the elements of knowledge that make up a firm’s innovation (Savino,
Messeni Petruzzelli, & Albino, 2017; Turkina & Van Assche, 2018), including why they are
chosen (Kaplan & Vakili, 2015; Yayavaram & Ahuja, 2008), how they are combined
(Henderson & Clark, 1990), and how their combination influences the value of the resulting
Figure 1
Articles Using a Knowledge Recombination Approach Over Time
Note: Journals included here are Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Journal of Business Venturing, Journal
of International Business Studies, Journal of Management, Journal of Management Studies, Management Science,
Organization Science, Organization Studies, Research Policy, Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, and Strategic
Management Journal.
1726 Journal of Management / July 2022
innovation (Galunic & Rodan, 1998; Nerkar, 2003; Shane, 2000). The origins of a knowledge
recombination perspective stem from Schumpeter’s (1939: 88) observation that “innovation
combines components in a new way, or that it consists in carrying out new combinations.”
The notion that knowledge components can be meaningfully rearranged has been utilized
by strategy and entrepreneurship scholars to explain how knowledge residing within an
individual, firm, or industry can be reconceptualized and extended in previously unknown
ways. Highlighting the distinct units or individual pieces of knowledge that are used to
bring about an innovation also helps us to understand how a firm’s particular knowledge
base affects its innovativeness and how decisions are made relating to its knowledge portfo-
lio, including when and how to engage in more search. This ability to zoom in on the
knowledge-related processes that lead to an innovation sets a recombination perspective
apart from other theoretical approaches.
Interestingly, a recombination approach lies at the heart of much of the innovation research
within both strategy and entrepreneurship, with a broad swath of literature discussing key
aspects of recombination even while invoking other theoretical perspectives. Our review
identified more than 1,000 published articles in the top management journals that have
utilized this logic in some way. As shown in Figure 1, use of knowledge recombination con-
cepts has gained momentum over the last decade in the literature, growing from 21 articles
published in 2001 to well over 50 articles published each year since 2010. As of yet,
however, no coherent framework accounting for different aspects of knowledge recombina-
tion exists. Given that recombination is an approach that allows one to, in a sense, look inside
the black box of innovation, presenting a holistic framework would be useful for both strategy
and entrepreneurship scholars.
Our review offers a number of contributions to strategy and entrepreneurship research relat-
ing to knowledge recombination. First, we offer a framework that delineates and synthesizes
key constructs pertaining to knowledge recombination. Because different strands of the litera-
ture utilize these concepts in disparate ways, our goal is to identify overarching patterns in the
relationships described. Second, we recognize pivotal features of knowledge components
that are used for recombination and showcase arguments for how they influence recom-
bination. By juxtaposing a broad range of attributes, we aim to provide a more
nuanced understanding of the dimensions on which knowledge components can vary
and the insights they can elicit regarding innovation. Finally, we highlight avenues for
future research on knowledge recombination.
A Knowledge Recombination Framework

A recombination approach has assisted scholars—both within strategy and entrepreneurship
—in understanding how knowledge is used by firms and their founders to create specific
innovations. Strategy scholars, for example, utilize a recombination logic for a deeper dive
into how a given innovation comes about. By shining a light into an innovation’s “innards,”
the overarching goal of work in this stream is to diagnose how the innovation is built, including
where the inputs that comprise the innovation come from (Ahuja & Katila, 2004; Kaplan &
Vakili, 2015), how they are put together (Fleming & Sorenson, 2004; Henderson & Clark,
1990), and what consequences they have for the resulting innovation (Karim & Kaul, 2015;
Rosenkopf & Nerkar, 2001; Yayavaram & Ahuja, 2008). Strategy scholars thus often
compare the use of different types of components on innovations, analyze their combinations,
and debate their value.
Researchers in the entrepreneurship stream are more likely to draw on a recombination
approach in order to explain the creation of new ventures. Entrepreneurship scholarship
often finds it less useful to pinpoint exact characteristics of knowledge components of an
innovation, as such minute attention to these details can reduce focus on what is a much
more important issue—understanding the venture on which the innovation is based (e.g.,
Shane, 2000; Shane & Venkatraman, 2000). These scholars thus tend to highlight the partic-
ular knowledge entrepreneurs bring to bear on their ventures (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Pahnke,
Katila, & Eisenhardt, 2015), which usually comes from their own expertise and insights in
combination with those of partners such as suppliers and venture capitalists (Lipparini &
Sobrero, 1994; Wiklund & Shepherd, 2009). This knowledge enables reconceptualization
of firm processes and market offerings in ways that are both innovative and value-creating.
Consideration of approaches utilized in both streams enriches our understanding of the
current state of recombination literature while providing useful insights that can be leveraged
by both. We therefore begin by offering a systematic framework for a knowledge recombi-
nation perspective that identifies key concepts and their interconnections. The framework
begins by identifying the features of an individual component, then moving to the relatively
more complicated features of a set of components, their architecture, and outcomes. The
framework, depicted in Figure 2, will serve as the basis for organizing the review.
Figure 2
Conceptual Framework of the Knowledge Recombination Literature.
Note: The constructs pertaining to recombination are indicated in the cells numbered 1–4, and the paths connecting
the constructs are depicted using the letters A–G. Solid lines indicate relationships that are reasonably well researched
in the current literature, and broken lines indicate those with gaps in research.
A recombination logic starts with the role of knowledge components as the fundamental
building blocks of an innovation (Fleming, 2001; Karim & Kaul, 2015; Rosenkopf &
Nerkar, 2001). We utilize Henderson and Clark’s (1990: 12) definition of a knowledge com-
ponent as an embodiment of a core concept based on a distinct scientific or engineering prin-
ciple. Any given knowledge component is therefore clearly distinguishable from other
components and is, in this sense, self-standing (Galunic & Rodan, 1998). As shown in
Cell 1 of Figure 2, a knowledge component possesses features or characteristics that affect
their potential for recombination. A particularly well-established feature pertains to
whether or not the component is in existence or previously used. As Schumpeter (1939)
originally pointed out, the overwhelming majority of components are those that already
exist. Even so, because firms vary in their knowledge reservoirs (Shane & Venkatraman,
2000), some components will be new to them. Completely new components also originate
from time to time, creating an insight that was previously unknown to any firm.
These elements thus reflect the newness of a knowledge component. In addition, some com-
ponents make sense only in a specific organizational context, outside of which they do not
function correctly, whereas others are more deployable in different situations and in
unusual ways. This feature—context specificity—affects the utility of a given knowledge
component. These and other features of components influence how each can be used for
recombination.
The creation of an innovation does not come about from a single knowledge component,
however, but through a combination of multiple components. A set of components yields
functions and meanings that are above and beyond that of any given component (Baker &
Nelson, 2005; Obstfeld, Ventresca, & Fisher, 2020; Rosenkopf & Nerkar, 2001; Shane,
2000). As shown in Cell 2 and Path A of Figure 2, a set of components can vary on a
number of dimensions. For example, some may exhibit greater depth, through utilization
of components from the same discipline or technological domain, whereas others demonstrate
greater breadth, due to use of components across scientific disciplines or technological
domains. Another feature characterizing a set of components is their modularity versus non-
decomposability. Modularity reflects discrete chunks of components that have strong internal
connections but weak connections to others (Baldwin & Clark, 2000; Ethiraj & Levinthal,
2004), whereas nondecomposability reflects tight connections throughout the set (Simon,
1962). Network-related properties, including number, strength, and position of direct and
indirect ties, affect complementarity among a set of components. These and other features
influence the nature of insights that can be drawn from a set of components.
Even after a set of components are identified, their effective recombination is not auto-
matic. The particular manner in which knowledge components are linked together, referred
to as their architecture, is what gives rise to desired relationships among them (Henderson
& Clark, 1990). This element is depicted in Cell 3 and Paths B-D of Figure 2. A successful
architecture ensures specific relationships among components are in operation, ones that con-
tribute toward extraordinary and fine-grained meanings and that together give rise to funda-
mentally new insights that are the basis of an innovation (Kapoor & Adner, 2012). Since
inspiration for architectural relationships may be embedded within a firm’s structure, routines,
and processes (Girod & Karim, 2017), firms will tend to vary in the architectures they employ
for recombining components. On the other hand, architectural changes may give rise to more
useful innovations (Galunic & Eisenhardt, 2001). Since it can be difficult to predict how a set
of components might interact with one another, identifying an appropriate and consequential
architecture often requires experimentation and experience with failures (Fleming &
Sorenson, 2004). The fundamentally new meanings created from a set of knowledge compo-
nents and the architecture governing their relationships together influence the resulting
innovation.
The outcome of recombination explains the characteristics of the resulting innovation.
The specifics by which a recombination is accomplished—including the characteristics of
particular components, the nature of the set of components, and the uniqueness of the
architecture employed—will influence the type of innovation that came about. As indicated
in Cell 4 and Paths E–F of Figure 2, the value of an innovation is most often determined by its
novelty or the extent to which it offers unique benefits. The monopolistic advantages
created by novel innovations allows them to generate higher profits for the firm. For
this reason, assessment of the explorative or exploitative nature of the resulting innovation
is a key issue for recombination scholars. Another often-used outcome measure in the
recombination literature is the usefulness of the innovation, referring to its ability to generate
high-quality insights that can be leveraged by others in the industry. More useful innovations
allow others to build on their insights and move the industry in new directions (Corredoira &
Banerjee, 2015). As shown in Figure 2, the connection between knowledge components and
innovation outcomes has been given much consideration in the literature (indicated by the
solid lines denoting Paths E and F), whereas relationships among other key concepts are com-
paratively less developed (indicated by the broken lines of the other paths).
The above framework is used to synthesize insights from relevant articles identified
through standard search principles (Moher, Stewart, & Shekelle, 2015; Tranfield, Denyer,
& Smart, 2003). Our search began with the 14 journals listed in the Financial Times Top
50 that publish academic research in the broad domains of management, innovation, and
entrepreneurship.1 Since scholars do not necessarily include the term “recombination” in
the title or abstract of their articles, we conducted a Boolean search of the titles, abstracts,
and keywords of articles using broad terms (combination, configuration, innovation, entrepre-
neurship, and knowledge). Our initial search procedure elicited 1,061 articles. Next, we
searched the text of these articles using an expanded set of keywords to identify those partic-
ularly relevant for recombination. Using this procedure, 298 articles were identified.2 Finally,
after carefully examining each article for contributions to a knowledge recombination
approach, a total of 124 articles were selected for inclusion in this review, with selected
ones shown in the Appendix 1.3
In the following sections, we review the research relating to each cell in Figure 2 and offer
suggestions for future research to further enrich our understanding of recombination. We find
that, as the recombination process evolves from the individual to the group—going from more
visible to more opaque, from simpler to more complex—the available research becomes more
limited.4
Features of an Individual Knowledge Component

In this section, we consider several features of a knowledge component highlighted by
scholars: (a) existing, referring to an established or generally recognized component; (b)
newness, including whether it is new-to-firm or new-to-world (i.e., newly created); and (c)
context specificity, referring to the extent to which a component is tightly embedded in a par-
ticular context (or readily applicable across contexts). We discuss each in turn, followed by
our conclusions.
Component Feature: Existing

A knowledge component is characterized as existing when it is already known to and used
by firms in the industry (Fleming, 2001; Schumpeter, 1939). An existing component is thus
identified as having been previously used in one or more innovations by a firm or set of firms.
Researchers agree that the great majority of components used in recombination are those that
are preexisting (e.g., Clancy, 2018; Roper & Hewitt-Dundas, 2015; Schoenmakers &
Duysters, 2010; Schulze & Hoegl, 2006; Tschang, 2007; Wu, Hitt, & Lou, 2020).
An existing knowledge component has the advantage of at least some advanced
comprehension about what it means and how it works. Previous experience with the
component makes it more familiar (Tzabbar, Aharonson, & Amburgey, 2013) and provides
a sense for how it can be used (Smith, Collins, & Clark, 2005). Prior usage embeds the com-
ponent into the firm, making its subsequent use more established and understandable
(Karim, 2012; Schulz, 2001). For this reason, use of existing knowledge components is con-
sidered a primary or foundational activity in the innovation process (Levinthal & March,
1993). A key benefit in using existing knowledge components versus new ones in recombi-
nation is lower cost (Baker & Nelson, 2005; Benner & Tushman, 2002). Experience with the
knowledge reduces the likelihood of errors and increases speed of innovation. Haefliger,
Von Krogh, and Spaeth (2008) demonstrate that use of existing knowledge codes helps soft-
ware developers to lower search costs and integrate components quickly. Hargadon and
Sutton (1997) describe how past designs are recombined for subsequent new innovations.
Jung and Lee (2016) detail how the 2010 discovery of “graphene” in the field of nanotech-
nology was based on the combination of existing knowledge of electrons discovered by
J. J. Thomson in 1906 and the atomic characteristics of graphite by Benjamin Brodie in
1859. Similarly, Yang, Phelps, and Steensma (2010) suggest that a firm’s own innovation
efforts are enhanced when its knowledge spillovers become part of the industry’s larger
knowledge pool.
Since new ventures do not have significant levels of firm-specific knowledge (Katila &
Shane, 2005), entrepreneurs’ existing knowledge is consequential for their recombination
activities. Entrepreneurs possess idiosyncratic information about existing assets, which
facilitates their distinctive approaches to recombination (Dushnitsky & Shaver, 2009;
Shane, 2000, 2012; Shane & Venkatraman, 2000). This unique knowledge allows them to
engage in bricolage, deploying existing resources in new ways and for new purposes
(Baker & Nelson, 2005). As noted by Obstfeld, Ventresca, and Fisher (2020: 152), such a
firm “makes do with combinations of whatever resources are at hand.” Snihur and Zott
(2020) show how founders recombine existing templates to create novel new business
models, while Haefliger, Jäger, and Von Krogh (2010) describe how entrepreneurs in the
video game industry can put complementary assets from other firms to new uses. Eckhardt
(2016) shows how free or noncommercial technologies facilitate formation of entrepreneurial
opportunities, as in the case of cellular phone applications. Reypens, Bacq, and Milanov
(2021) find that founders operating in resource-scarce contexts opt in and out of bricolage
behaviors in dynamic and iterative ways.
To explain why entrepreneurs differ in their search strategies, scholars highlight the role
played by imagination and creativity (Gruber, MacMillan, & Thompson, 2013a; Kier &
McMullen, 2018; Laursen & Salter, 2006). Grégoire and Shepherd (2012) point out that
entrepreneurs are not uniform in their ability to observe connections between a technology
and a target market. The ability to imagine an opportunity for recombination plays a key
role in determining the nature of a venture (Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010; Shepherd,
McMullen, & Jennings, 2007), with divergent thinking assisting the generation of original
ideas (Gielnik, Frese, Graf, & Kampschulte, 2012). Muñoz-Bullón, Sanchez-Bueno, and
De Massis (2020) note that family firms possess a unique bundle of resources derived
from systematic interactions among family members.
Others stress that a firm’s existing knowledge resides in its organizational knowledge base
(Yayavaram & Ahuja, 2008). The structure of this knowledge base affects the way existing
knowledge is used to identify new opportunities (Patel & Fiet, 2011) and create new innova-
tions (Yayavaram & Chen, 2015). Henderson and Clark (1990) note that a firm’s knowledge
is engrained in its communication channels, information filters, and problem-solving
strategies. Such organizational features ensure that the firm directs and funnels knowledge
in ways considered most meaningful or fruitful for recombination. Fleming and Sorenson
(2001) stress that even a small knowledge base can have exponential relationships among
existing knowledge components, resulting in a large number of recombination possibilities
for innovations. Even so, existing knowledge components that are dispersed or isolated in dif-
ferent parts of the organization are not automatically available for recombination (Paruchuri
& Awate, 2017). Knowledge may be isolated within individuals, subunits, and divisions of
the firm (Cohen & Tripsas, 2018; Karim & Williams, 2012). Coordination problems create
barriers to the effective combination of tacit knowledge in large organizations such as mul-
tinational firms (Buckley & Carter, 2004; Morris, Zhong, & Makhija, 2015). For this
reason, some scholars stress social capital and trust to facilitate knowledge transfer and
enhance recombination efforts (Fleming, Mingo, & Chen, 2007; Giudici, Reinmoeller, &
Ravasi, 2018). Knowledge exchange among inventors with differing expertise can also
serve to enhance recombination outcomes (Carnabuci & Operti, 2013; Grigoriou &
Rothaermel, 2017). Likewise, interactions among team members from different parts of the
firm can result in unusual knowledge recombinations (Hoisl, Gruber, & Conti, 2017;
Taylor & Greve, 2006).
A firm’s ability to reuse its existing knowledge components for recombination is thought
to be a “first-order competence” (Rosenkopf & Nerkar, 2001) and can differ across firms.
While such competence will initially enhance innovation (Cirillo, 2019), knowledge use
that becomes highly routinized can also make it difficult for a firm to change the way it con-
ceptualizes relationships among components (Henderson & Clark, 1990; Katila, 2002). For
this reason, Danneels (2002) suggests that drawing upon existing technological and consumer
knowledge enhances a firm’s exploitative rather than exploratory innovation. Together, the
initial low costs of reusing existing components along with the increased costs from
exhaustion of useful recombination possibilities has led scholars to suggest that recombina-
tion utilizing only existing knowledge components will have a curvilinear (inverted U-shape)
relationship with firms’ new product introductions (Katila & Ahuja, 2002; Schillebeeckx,
Lin, George, & Alnuaimi, 2020).
Component Feature: Newness

Due to eventual exhaustion of recombination possibilities, a firm may not be able to
depend only upon its existing knowledge components for innovation. Acquiring new compo-
nents may be necessary to enlarge a firm’s knowledge base (Katila & Chen, 2008). Newness
is reflected in previously unidentified, uncommon, and original elements embedded within a
component (Arend et al., 2014). A key aspect of a new knowledge component is that it is used
for the first time (Jung & Lee, 2016). Unlike existing ones, new components provide
unknown—and therefore possibly very original—insights for reasoning, problem identifica-
tion, and solution (Barbieri, Marzucchi, & Rizzo, 2020). Such insights can open possibilities
for recombination that differ considerably from prior knowledge and revise a firm’s techno-
logical trajectory (Heeley & Jacobson, 2008).
New knowledge components can increase the amount of “fresh” knowledge available to
the firm for recombination. The unfamiliarity of such knowledge pushes the firm to come
up with alternative modes of reasoning to make sense of it and reexamine preconceived
notions of cause and effect (Basu, Sahaym, Howard, & Boeker, 2015). As such, new compo-
nents can encourage inventors to question previous assumptions, approaches, and success
metrics (Arts & Fleming, 2018; Awate & Makhija, 2021). A firm’s efforts to incorporate
such knowledge will therefore enhance its ability to learn new insights, incorporate new
perspectives for more effective solutions, and foster more valuable innovations (Katila &
Ahuja, 2002). In this way, new components not only allow a firm to expand its knowledge
set and increase potential recombinations (Fleming, 2001), they can also benefit the firm
by increasing variation in its problem-solving possibilities.
Despite these benefits, it can be difficult for a firm to fully comprehend the function of new
components or the nature of insights they elicit (McEvily & Chakravarthy, 2002). For
example, Theeke, Polidoro, and Fredrickson (2018) find that professional brokerage firms
have difficulty breaking away from their historical patterns of reasoning in the valuation of
companies that use new knowledge components. The causal relationships within recombina-
tions that incorporate new components are difficult to conceptualize (Arts & Fleming, 2018;
Simon, 1962). Indeed, in comparing the effects of completely new knowledge versus existing
knowledge in new technology ventures’ recombinations, Schoonhoven et al. (1990) find that
recombination of existing knowledge leads to development of faster revenue streams.
Researchers distinguish two different types of “newness” pertaining to knowledge compo-
nents—new-to-firm and new-to-world. We discuss each in turn.
New-to-firm. New-to-firm components are those used by a firm for the first time. These
components introduce a fresh perspective to the firm and assists in identifying new opportu-
nities for recombining its existing knowledge with the new knowledge (Fleming, 2001;
Karim & Mitchell, 2000). Note that this new-to-firm knowledge may already exist within
or outside the industry and previously used by others, but it is unexperienced by the focal
firm (Schulz, 2001). Scholars point out that small- and medium-sized firms often access
such knowledge from suppliers (Lipparini & Sobrero, 1994) as well as alliances and
acquisitions (Wiklund & Shepherd, 2009). Phene, Fladmoe-Lindquist, and Marsh (2006) note
that incorporating nonoverlapping and nonredundant knowledge from other firms can
enhance a focal firm’s technological landscape and create new ideas to use its existing knowl-
edge. Hargadon and Sutton (1997) show how knowledge about trackballs used in video game
machines served as a new-to-firm component in the original design of Apple’s computer
mouse, and knowledge of electromagnetic power that already existed in the telegraph industry
was newly utilized by Edison and colleagues in the lighting and telephone industries. As
noted by Chatterji and Fabrizio (2012), however, new knowledge brought in from external
sources is distinct from that which firms develop internally since organizational members
have not gone down the learning curve through sustained and intimate use of this knowledge.
There is a rich literature on new-to-firm external knowledge sources and their impact on a
firm’s innovation. Researchers have pointed to a number of ways in which new knowledge
can be brought into the firm and influence innovation outcomes. For example, employee
mobility and hiring of individuals previously employed at rival firms has been highlighted
as an important source of external knowledge for the firm (Bakir, Özdemir, & Karim,
2021; Corredoira & Rosenkopf, 2010; Wang & Zatzick, 2019). New knowledge obtained
through acquisitions can help firms update their knowledge maps and remain at a knowledge
frontier position (Makri, Hitt, & Lane, 2010; Sears & Hoetker, 2014). Technology licensing
and alliances can also be a means of obtaining new knowledge from external sources
(Moreira, Klueter, & Tasselli, 2020). For example, Ceccagnoli and Jiang (2013) consider
the benefits and difficulties of integrating external technology through licensing into a
firm’s preexisting knowledge base and processes, while Vasudeva and Anand (2011) find
that alliances are beneficial for accessing moderately distinct external knowledge compared
to internally developed knowledge. Savino et al. (2017) summarize that external knowledge
is more varied when sourced from partners in other geographical areas, while internal knowl-
edge is most effectively recombined through teams, social capital, and corporate reconfigu-
rations. Karim and Capron (2016) describe how knowledge sourcing and grafting, and
resource recombination are instrumental in firms’ reconfiguration processes.
New-to-world. New-to-world components are those that were previously unknown to any
firm in any industry. Instead of utilizing or modifying existing knowledge, in this case a firm
comes up with a new scientific or technological discovery. To create such knowledge, it likely
embarked on an uncertain journey to strive for a solution for a problem it faces. Even after the
new knowledge component has been discovered, it has never before been utilized in an inno-
vation. Since there is no existing blueprint or roadmap to guide its application toward a new
innovation, organizational members will likely follow a complex process to figure out how to
effectively recombine it with other components. Discovery of a new-to-world knowledge
component can add fundamental new insights to an industry and open up unforeseen paths
for technological change (Fleming, 2001). In general, innovations resulting from recombina-
tion of new-to-world components are thought to generate significant economic value
(Rosenkopf & Nerkar, 2001), often higher than new-to-firm components. Some researchers
point out that entrepreneurial firms have greater ease in using new-to-world knowledge
than established firms. For example, Soh and Subramanian (2014) demonstrate how,
through collaborations with university scientists, younger firms are better able to transform
new academic discoveries into viable commercial technologies. Katila and Shane (2005)
show that, due to their limited existing resources, new firms are more effective in radical inno-
vation in contexts where processes are still emergent. Chatterji and Fabrizio (2014) note how,
in the early stage of a product’s life cycle, new-to-world knowledge can come from users who
shed light on market demand and preferences. Nonetheless, Bhardwaj, Camillus, and
Hounshell (2006) highlight the greater uncertainty and causal ambiguity of search processes
for new-to-world knowledge, leading to long-term rather than short-run benefits.
The degree of newness or unfamiliarity of new-to-firm and new-to-world components
differs for a firm (Ahuja & Morris Lampert, 2001), resulting in different learning costs asso-
ciated with utilizing these two types of components in a recombination process. Since
new-to-firm components are not necessarily new to other firms in the industry, a focal
firm’s costs of incorporating such new components into innovations can be reduced by learn-
ing from others (Kogut & Zander, 1992; Makhija & Ganesh, 1997). For example, a firm can
learn how the new knowledge component has been previously used, including the type of
applications or problems for which they have been used, the other knowledge components
with which they have been recombined, and the quality of solutions generated by their use
(Levinthal & March, 1993). The ability to draw upon evidence on how this knowledge has
been previously used by other firms can help the focal firm develop a better roadmap for
its own subsequent search efforts to utilize this new knowledge and employ it successfully
in recombination (Wang, Rodan, Fruin, & Xu, 2014).
Since new-to-world knowledge components have never been previously used by any firm,
the use of such components in the innovation process will be characterized by greater
uncertainty for all firms compared to new-to-firm knowledge components. Lack of any
prior relevant experience with a new-to-world knowledge component may be akin to stepping
into the complete unknown in the search for a desirable recombination outcome. The inability
to learn from others’ successful efforts or one’s own prior experience will require the need to
start from scratch, with costly experimentation as part of the innovation process. The incapac-
ity to draw on prior experiences of the firm or other firms increases the cognitive burden asso-
ciated with understanding and using new-to-world knowledge components, resulting in errors
and misapplication of these components in recombination (Arend et al., 2014). While
new-to-firm components can be utilized by drawing upon some prior knowledge or expertise
from other firms in the industry (Bertrand & Mol, 2013) and subsequently reducing the risks
of recombination failure (Ahuja & Morris Lampert, 2001), recombining new-to-world com-
ponents cannot follow previously existing paths (Schumpeter, 1939) and thus exhibit higher
risks of failure (Fleming & Sorenson, 2004).
Component Feature: Context Specificity

Context specificity refers to “the extent to which knowledge is highly contextualized and
codependent on unidentified aspects of the local environment” (Galunic & Rodan, 1998:
1194). A knowledge component that is highly context specific can only be used in particular
circumstances, usually in conjunction with other specific components (Zander & Kogut,
1995). Due to this, it cannot be effectively transferred or used in other contexts. The
manner in which the knowledge component is productively leveraged is heavily customized
through recombination within the specific context. According to Zander and Kogut (1995),
such highly contextualized knowledge may be inimitable and therefore a reflection of a firm’s
unique competence.
In contrast, a knowledge component that is not tied to a particular context or combination of
other components can be easily extracted from this context and utilized in other settings without
effective loss in meaning. For example, Choudhury and Kim (2019) note how knowledge com-
ponents previously locked within the cultural context of a home region can be introduced by
ethnic migrants into new ones, while Vandor and Franke (2016) discuss how cross-cultural
experience increases the ability to identify new entrepreneurial opportunities. Pahnke, Katila,
and Eisenhardt (2015) show how funding partners’ institutional logics—the taken-for-granted
assumptions and structured beliefs about what is most meaningful or valuable—are transmitted
to entrepreneurial firms and influence their inventions. Knowledge that is more easily and effi-
ciently transferred across boundaries may not bestow significant uniqueness upon firms,
however. Such easily transferred knowledge among firms may reflect industry-specific
knowledge.
Galunic and Rodan (1998) argue that context specificity of knowledge components is
desirable since it reduces interfirm mobility of knowledge and lowers the chances of
imitation. However, specificity can also be detrimental for recombination, since components
outside their original context may make less sense without other related components.
Nickerson and Zenger (2004) argue that a benefit of firm-specific knowledge is that it
reduces communication costs among coworkers within an organization, but a downside is
that it can discourage workers from searching for knowledge outside the firm, limiting the
firm’s ability to use new ideas.
Karim (2006, 2009) examines how reconfiguration of organizational structure makes it
possible for a firm to use knowledge in new combinations. She points out that, due to the pur-
poseful contexts within which a firm creates and applies its internal knowledge, it may more
actively recombine or “mold” externally acquired sources as needed to serve context-specific
needs. Karim (2012) proposes that “contextual links,” or coordination mechanisms that
embed activities and their underlying resources within their business units, are important to
preserve when recombining knowledge from different parts of the firm. Knudsen and
Srikanth (2014) show, however, that sometimes even high levels of communication cannot
help in the combination of highly context-specific knowledge. Similarly, Morris et al.
(2015) demonstrate the difficulty of extracting tacit knowledge from distant corners of an
organization.
Researchers have also considered how the external environment of firms influences their
innovations. For example, Ansari, Garud, and Kumaraswamy (2016) show that when new
firms introduce disruptive innovations into an industry ecosystem, they need to adapt their
innovation in ways that accommodate existing arrangements among firms in the industry.
Their interdependence with other firms requires adjustment to prevailing industry structures
in order to jointly create value. Adner and Kapoor (2010) similarly highlight the structure of
interdependence among firms in an ecosystem, in which the success of a focal firm’s innova-
tion depends on accompanying innovations from other firms. Likewise, Garud and Karnøe
(2003) show how inputs to a particular technological path is enabled and constrained by
the activities of distributed actors. Howard, Boeker, and Andrus (2019) show the formation
of new biotech firms by former employees of successful incumbent firms gives rise to an eco-
system of shared knowledge among cohorts.
Conclusion
Our review indicates that three particular component features—pertaining to existing,
newness, and context specificity—have been given deep consideration in literature utilizing
a recombination logic. However, other features that may also play a role in recombination
have been less studied. For example, despite each component embodying a unique concept
or technology, little work has actually accounted for the content of the knowledge component
or differentiated the content of one component from another. Undue emphasis on whether a
component is existing or new may have also overshadowed scrutiny of the quality of a given
component and the caliber of knowledge it affords. Similarly, temporal features, such as com-
ponent age or functionality over time, have also been comparatively neglected.
Features Pertaining to a Set of Knowledge Components

While existing, newness, and context specificity reflect characteristics of a single knowledge
component, scholars also account for features of a set of components, including (a) breadth versus
depth, or the extent to which components are comprised of different or similar domains; (b) mod-
ularity versus nondecomposability, reflecting extent of interdependencies among components;
and (c) network-based components. Our conclusions of this work follow.
Set of Components Feature: Breadth Versus Depth

Knowledge components used in recombination may share the same overarching domain of
knowledge or involve diverse domains. For example, Kaplan and Vakili (2015) identify nano-
technology (fullerines) as a single technical knowledge domain, within which can exist different
knowledge components relating to functions (e.g., metal catalysts, chemical functionalization of
nanotubes), applications (e.g., golf balls, batteries, temperature-sensing devices, DNA detectors),
and tests of nanoscale matter. A set of knowledge components from a single knowledge domain
reflects use of deep knowledge and local search (Garriga, Von Krogh, & Spaeth, 2013), whereas
knowledge components from multiple domains reflect use of broad knowledge from more distant
search (Lopez-Vega, Tell, & Vanhaverbeke, 2016). Scholars refer to this feature using various
terms such as heterogeneity, diversity, breadth, and scope (Argyres & Silverman, 2004; Phene
et al., 2006). Individuals or organizations possessing diverse knowledge from multiple (related
or unrelated) knowledge domains are termed “generalists” (Melero & Palomeras, 2015),
whereas those with deep expertise in a narrowly defined domain of knowledge are “specialists”
(Schmickl & Kieser, 2008; Teodoridis, Bikard, & Vakili, 2019).
Breadth. Many scholars have suggested that the most novel innovations come from
recombination of broad knowledge components (Leiponen & Helfat, 2010) or those that
span several technological domains (Hoisl et al., 2017). This stream of research argues that
search using different kinds of knowledge can help avoid a singular approach or intellectual
lock-in (Schoenmakers & Duysters, 2010; Tang & Wezel, 2015). Even though diverse knowl-
edge often has inherently conflicting logics, their effective integration can lead to more valu-
able technical innovations (Gittelman & Kogut, 2003). Combinations of diverse knowledge
can generate fresh opportunities that depart from existing technological paradigms (Almeida
& Phene, 2004; Li, Maggitti, Smith, Tesluk, & Katila, 2013; Miller, Fern, & Cardinal, 2007;
Stanko & Henard, 2017). For this reason, recombination of diverse knowledge enhances
innovation impact (Damanpour, Walker, & Avellaneda, 2009; Ferguson & Carnabuci,
2017; Kauppila, Bizzi, & Obstfeld, 2018; Tzabbar, 2009) and breakthrough innovations
(Kneeland, Schilling, & Aharonson, 2020).
Scholars provide a number of ways in which diverse knowledge can be leveraged for
recombination. For example, Shan, Walker, and Kogut (1994) suggest that biopharmaceutical
startups able to leverage knowledge across biotechnology subfields will have greater innova-
tion output. Gruber, Harhoff, and Hoisl (2013b) note that, since scientific education provides
more abstract understanding and greater ability to learn distant knowledge, inventors with
science degrees will search for broader knowledge than those with engineering degrees.
Similarly, unique human capital enhances component heterogeneity within a firm
(Chadwick & Dabu, 2009). Through use of teams, individuals’ heterogeneous knowledge
can be recombined to generate more radical ideas (Bakir, Özdemir, & Karim, 2021;
Deichmann & Jensen, 2018). Structural recombination of organizational units also creates
unusual new opportunities for recombining knowledge by disrupting existing conceptualiza-
tions (Karim & Kaul, 2015), whereas more flexible organizational coordination mechanisms
can motivate novel recombinations of knowledge that individually appear to be unrelated
(Turner & Makhija, 2006). Through these means, diverse knowledge can alter the belief
framework that otherwise constrains innovative activities (Carnabuci & Operti, 2013; Furr,
2019; Turner & Makhija, 2012).
While knowledge breadth can increase the probability of highly novel outcomes, seen in
the upper tail of the distribution of innovations (Ahuja & Morris Lampert, 2001), it can also
create greater variance in innovation outcomes (Rosenkopf & Almeida, 2003), including wild
and unexpected effects that increase hazard rates seen in the lower tail of the distribution
(Fleming, 2001; Van de Vrande, 2013). To search across different knowledge domains, orga-
nizational members need to “invest considerable time, effort and resources, not only to famil-
iarize themselves with those different approaches but also to build a social network spanning
those distinct communities. Those efforts … often lead to dead ends” (Teodoridis et al.,
2019). Gruber (2013b: 290) find that founders “tend to exhaust the local solution space
before identifying more distant opportunities,” reinforcing the difficulty of identifying such
opportunities. Scholars thus note that ongoing knowledge brokering across technological
domains has an inverted U-shaped relationship with firms’ innovation performance—too
little may not create adequate insights, whereas too much can exhaust the search space and
result to inappropriate recombinations (Dahlander, O’Mahony, & Gann, 2016; Hsu & Lim,
2014; Keijl, Gilsing, Knoben, & Duysters, 2016; Wuyts & Dutta, 2014).
Depth. Other scholars suggest that knowledge from a single domain of knowledge leads
to better outcomes, due to deeper understanding of the knowledge components and superior
insights into how the components can be used for an innovation (Kaplan & Vakili, 2015). In
contrast to knowledge gathered from diverse domains, knowledge from a single domain
allows organizational members to more easily identify and appreciate underlying relation-
ships. Overlap among knowledge components can make their interconnections more
obvious and deeply understood, giving rise to new ideas for their use (Gavetti &
Levinthal, 2000). Deep understanding of the knowledge provides sophisticated
comprehension of not only the common principles by which components in a given knowl-
edge domain work but also a keen grasp of the unique and nonredundant elements of each
component (Teodoridis et al., 2019). Costly mistakes in the innovation process such as
going down blind alleys or wrong paths are therefore less likely (Terjesen & Patel, 2017).
This argument suggests that a profound grasp of the tenets of the knowledge, along with asso-
ciated assumptions and shortcomings, can help to better identify “what rules to break” (Taylor
& Greve, 2006), resulting in more novel innovations.
Nevertheless, as noted earlier, continually reusing overlapping knowledge components
can cause recombination exhaustion and impede innovation success (Ahuja & Katila,
2004; Singh & Fleming, 2010). For this reason, some scholars suggest that firms will
benefit from employing a combination of components characterized by both breadth and
depth. For example, Davis and Eisenhardt (2011) note that rotating and consensus leadership
facilitates integration of diverse and deep knowledge, enhancing innovation. Similarly, Zhou
and Li (2012) suggest that a firm’s integration mechanisms for knowledge acquisition and
internal sharing play a key role in its ability to create radical innovation. Mannucci and
Yong (2018) find that individuals at early stages of their career utilize deep knowledge in
their knowledge structures, but over time, increases in knowledge breadth improve their
ability to overcome rigidity. Teodoridis et al. (2019) suggest that deep knowledge leads to
better performance in fast-paced contexts whereas broad knowledge is more appropriate in
slow-paced contexts. Nagle and Teodoridis (2020) find that organizational members with
more diversified knowledge tend to utilize more new knowledge in recombination compared
to those with less diversified knowledge. They argue that skill in using heterogeneous knowl-
edge allows individuals to appreciate new knowledge from other domains. Consistent with
this, Awate and Makhija (2021) show how more heterogeneous knowledge spillovers
during patent litigation facilitate defendant firms’ learning, improving their subsequent
novel innovation output.
Set of Components Feature: Modularity Versus Nondecomposability

Modularity. Modularity reflects the self-standing nature of a set of knowledge
components. Highly modular components are those that are able to function independently
of others. Baldwin and Clark (2002) define a module as “a unit whose structural elements
are powerfully connected among themselves and relatively weakly connected to elements
in other units.” Modularity allows a set of components to be partitioned into discrete
groups that can work and recombine with others without disturbing their original meaning
and function (Ethiraj, Levinthal, & Roy, 2008; Pil & Cohen, 2006); Karim (2006, 2012) high-
lights how firms can achieve this by grouping knowledge into business units within an orga-
nization structure.
The benefit of modularity for innovation comes from ease in understanding components’
overall meaning, which will remain the same in different recombinations. Modularity can
reduce the time it takes to come up with innovations due to the ability to design and test
multiple modules of components at the same time. Greater flexibility is bestowed on a
system that allows modules to be recombined in different ways for different functions
(Sinha & Van de Ven, 2005) but also helps to manage complex relationships among compo-
nents in the process of creating innovations. For example, Schmickl and Kieser (2008)
suggest that modularity facilitates the ability of specialists with deep knowledge in different
domains to work together on product innovation without having to learn what the others
know. At the same time, modularity of components can decrease barriers for copying the
innovation by other firms. As a result, Ethiraj, Levinthal, and Roy (2008) argue that
“nearly modular” structure of components—somewhere in the middle of the two extremes
of completely modular and nonmodular—may provide a more reasonable tradeoff between
ease of innovation design and imitation deterrence.
Nondecomposability. Nondecomposability indicates tight linkages or high interdepen-

dence among knowledge components (Simon, 1962). Nondecomposable components
possess highly intertwined or coupled relationships that are “pervasive and indiscriminately
distributed” (Yayavaram & Ahuja, 2008: 334). Because of their extensive interdependence,
nondecomposability makes it difficult to figure out alternative recombinations for knowledge
components (Fleming, 2001; Fleming & Sorenson, 2004). The greater the nondecomposabil-
ity of components, the more challenging it becomes to extract any given component from the
rest of the group and use it fruitfully elsewhere. At the same time, nondecomposability and the
underlying interdependence of components generates a richer overall meaning and helps
create a causally ambiguous innovation that other firms are unable to imitate (Ganco,
Kapoor, & Lee, 2020).
Researchers have highlighted nondecomposability as an important explanation for why
firms possessing a similar set of knowledge components differ in their ability to recombine
them for innovation. Greater nondecomposability may reflect a firm’s understanding of
how components work together (Yayavaram, Srivastava, & Sarkar, 2018). A firm may
operate on the assumption that particular interactions among components are key to their
functioning and therefore should not be changed. Another firm may feel more comfortable
experimenting with and deconstructing these components. In this way, variation in the non-
decomposability of knowledge components can influence firms’ ability to create innovations
(Siggelkow & Rivkin, 2006).
Set of Components’ Feature: Network-Based

Recombination scholars also point to a firm’s network structure, including features such as
direct and indirect ties, centrality, density, clustering, and structural holes, to understand the
choices it makes for recombining a set of knowledge components (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006;
Obstfeld et al., 2020; Rhee & Leonardi, 2018; Turkina & Van Assche, 2018). The firm’s
network serves as an information gathering mechanism (Funk, 2014; Rodan & Galunic, 2004),
allowing it to access and utilize other firms’ know-how (Balachandran & Hernandez, 2018;
Brennecke & Rank, 2017; Lorenzoni & Lipparini, 1999; Nambisan, 2002). The nodes of a
network indicate the number of parties from which knowledge can potentially be sourced. As
Ahuja (2000: 430) argues, “each additional node that a firm has access to can serve as an
information-processing mechanism, absorbing, sifting and classifying new technical develop-
ments in a manner that goes well beyond the information-processing capabilities of a single
firm.” Depending on the position of knowledge components—where they reside within the
network—they can contribute to new combinative insights for the firm that are distinct,
complementary, or even closely related to what it already knows (Moreira, Markus, & Laursen,
2018; Sammarra & Biggiero, 2008; Tsai, 2001).
Direct ties. The direct ties of a network reflect immediate connections to collaborative
partners and their knowledge. A firm’s suppliers and consumers may serve as direct ties
that provide important complementary knowledge (Chatterji & Fabrizio, 2012). Smith,
Collins, and Clark (2005) suggest that the direct ties in the networks of firms’ top manage-
ment teams and knowledge workers enable them to obtain information faster, access richer
sets of data, and draw from broader sets of referrals, facilitating knowledge recombination.
On the other hand, Lee, Lee, and Pennings (2001) find that direct ties in the form of alliance
partners, banks, and government are less important for high-tech start-ups than their internal
capabilities. Guan and Liu (2016) suggest an inverted U-shaped relationship between the
number of direct ties in a firm’s knowledge network and its exploitative or exploratory inno-
vation, since too few direct ties can reduce the likelihood of successful recombination but too
many can mask combinatorial opportunities.
Indirect ties. A firm’s indirect ties represent more informal and secondhand relationships
with collaborative partners. Existence of such ties reflects the ability to combine knowledge
directly from its immediate partners as well as from its partners’ partners. In this way, indirect
ties serve as a knowledge route for more comprehensive information exchange, with each
connected firm able to send and receive valuable insights (Singh, Kryscynski, Li, & Gopal,
2016). A firm’s indirect ties draw attention to other firms’ expertise, providing distinctive
insights for its own recombination. Firms with more indirect ties potentially have greater
insights to such information than those without such ties and, in turn, greater potential for
enhancing innovation outcomes.
The strength or position of ties has also been highlighted as relevant for knowledge recom-
bination. Strong ties are able to increase trust, reciprocity, and proximity of interaction among
partners in a network (Demirkan & Demirkan, 2012), facilitating knowledge recombination,
whereas bridging ties provide nonredundant expertise and perspectives (Tiwana, 2008).
Zhang and Li (2010) find that ties with intermediaries such as accounting and financial ser-
vices, law, and talent search firms provide different information that in turn helps a firm
enhance its product innovation. According to Mahmood, Zhu, and Zajac (2011), a firm’s cen-
trality in its buyer-supplier network can help to gain information about techniques and
product quality, improving its R&D capability. Castellacci, Gulbrandsen, Hildrum, and
Martinkenaite (2018) note that the centrality of a functional department in a firm’s internal
network can help access and utilize a variety of knowledge assets and have better opportuni-
ties for creative recombination but can also distract employees’ attention to different tasks and
increase coordination costs associated with recombination. Schillebeeckx et al. (2020) point
out that inventors embedded in multiple internal and external networks characterized with
high network centrality can draw upon boundary-spanning ties to enable recombination of
diverse knowledge.
Density and structural holes. Density reflects how a firm’s position in a network relates to
others in the network (Owen-Smith & Powell, 2004; Schilling & Phelps, 2007; Tortoriello &
Krackhardt, 2010). Higher density indicates highly distributed knowledge flows across
network members, while lower density reflects the existence of structural holes, with fewer
network partners possessing particular knowledge components. Competing views have
been forwarded about network density. Some suggest that many intimate connections
provide multiple paths for information flows, enhancing efficiency and speed of knowledge
transfer, and in turn innovation speed (Obstfeld, 2005). While few connections make it diffi-
cult to obtain fresh information due to dispersed or distant parties in the network, a densely
embedded network may reflect relationship-specific investments that encourage cooperation,
reciprocity, trust, and sharing of valuable knowledge (Phelps, 2010; Rank & Strenge, 2018;
Tortoriello, McEvily, & Krackhardt, 2015).
On the other hand, densely connected knowledge networks can also produce redundant knowl-
edge or combinatorial exhaustion, limiting access to new knowledge and inhibiting recombination
(Mahmood, Chung, & Mitchell, 2013). Instead, structural holes, or gaps in the information flows
among network partners, reduce the likelihood of redundant information within a network and
give rise to more unique knowledge flows that assist in recombination (Wang et al., 2014).
Researchers suggest that a firm occupying a structural hole in its network can benefit by
reaping fresh knowledge and distinctive opportunities for ideas, thus enhancing innovation.
Structural holes in a firm’s network allow for autonomy and flexibility in the search process,
helping to identify meaningful new connections among external and internal knowledge
(Tortoriello, 2015; Wang et al., 2014). However, McFadyen, Semadeni, and Cannella (2009)
point out that in a sparser network with structural holes, strong ties play an important role in com-
bining others’ diverse knowledge. Deeper relationships among network partners facilitate greater
appreciation for such knowledge. Even so, Obstfeld (2005) argues that neither structural holes nor
network density explain how networks influence innovation and suggests that it is the ability to
make new connections among disconnected parties and new types of coordination among con-
nected parties that is the key to innovation.
Clustering. Another feature of networks considered to be relevant for recombination is

clustering or extent of locally intertwined cliques. Within a cluster, knowledge components
are highly linked; between clusters, components are much less linked. Firms will interact
closely and frequently with other firms that share some type of proximity or similarity,
such as technology or geography (Rosenkopf & Almeida, 2003). Knowledge within a
cluster will be shared and discussed more intensely than outside the cluster, allowing firms
to compare information and accuracy of insights (Schilling & Phelps, 2007). Clustering
can increase alternative interpretations of information and solutions to problems, advancing
collective understanding (Powell, Koput, & Smith-Doerr, 1996). This common understand-
ing can deepen the willingness of members to share other valuable knowledge, creating addi-
tional learning and communication opportunities.
Other network features. Jandhyala and Phene (2015) find that a focal party’s connected-
ness in a network facilitates information exchange and knowledge flow from other parties,
giving rise to innovations. Firms operating as hubs in R&D networks can foster distant
knowledge flow between academia and industry (Bikard & Marx, 2020) and offer valuable
knowledge at different points in networks (Dhanaraj & Parkhe, 2006), enhancing innovation.
Argyres, Rios, and Silverman (2020) suggest that the connectedness of a firm’s intrafirm
inventor network is directly associated with the breadth of its knowledge domain, helping
to combine previously dispersed or distant components. Balachandran and Hernandez (2018)

argue that triads in networks—foreign, domestic, and mixed—across or within institutional
boundaries can serve as the locus of recombination, with foreign triads providing novel
knowledge components, domestic triads facilitating efficient knowledge recombination,
and mixed triads integrating the two.
Conclusion
While recombination scholars have spent much time and effort to distinguish features of
knowledge components pertaining to breadth versus depth, nondecomposability versus
modularity, and networks, our review indicates relatively little deliberation on how a mean-
ingful set of components is identified in the first place. Research has focused attention on
components already in place rather than the means by which this combination is selected.
It is also interesting to note that the work on individual component features has remained
largely separate from that pertaining to a set of components. With only a few exceptions,
scholars have not considered how attributes of individual components affect those pertaining
to a set of components. We have little insight into, say, how use of a new component affects
nondecomposability or how network sourcing affects utilization of context-specific compo-
nents. Given the limited insights on the relationship between the two types of features,
Figure 2 depicts it with a broken line as Path A.
Architecture of Knowledge Components

In this section, we examine articles that consider the architecture of knowledge compo-
nents, defined as “the [way] in which components are integrated and linked together as a
coherent whole” (Henderson & Clark, 1990: 11). Architecture refers to the connections
among knowledge components that create a larger meaning than their simple aggregation
(Henderson & Clark, 1990). According to Carnabuci and Operti (2013), the connections asso-
ciated with an innovation’s architecture is neither a matter of chance nor mindless bricolage,
and it is instead the result of carefully vetted and crafted relationships among components.
Recombination scholars note that without implementing an architecture, knowledge compo-
nents are isolated, dispersed, and unable to function as a coherent whole (Galunic & Rodan,
1998; Simon, 1962). Even so, Baker and Nelson (2005: 335–336) point out that “although
much of the literature . . . has long assigned the recombination of existing elements a prom-
inent role in economic growth and innovation . . . most of it, including Penrose’s work, says
little about how this recombination actually comes about.”
It is for this reason that Henderson and Clark (1990) deserve much credit for putting a
spotlight on innovation architecture. These authors demonstrate how changing only the
architecture of a set of components can result in a novel new innovation. Where do firms
get their ideas for innovation architecture? Henderson and Clark (1990) point out that
firms develop their own insights through experience about the best or most appropriate
ways to combine knowledge, which eventually becomes embedded in organizational routines
such as information filters, communication channels, and problem-solving strategies. Because
these insights are encoded in firm-specific routines, architectural knowledge is difficult for
other firms to copy.
Much of subsequent research on innovation architecture conceptualizes modules or orga-

nizational units as an established set of relationships among knowledge components that can
be compartmentalized and plugged into innovations. For example, Kapoor (2013) shows how
vertically integrated firms in the semiconductor industry are able to create systemic innova-
tions rather than specialized innovations that relate only to a single part of the value chain.
Kapoor and Adner (2012) demonstrate how organizationally integrated firms in the RAM
industry benefit more from new generation innovations enabled by architectural rather than
component changes. Similarly, Baldwin and Clark (2000) explore how modular design mech-
anisms (including how artifacts and design parameters are aggregated to task design) shape
outcomes. Grunwald and Kieser (2007) show how an architectural innovation can be decom-
posed into smaller and less complex modules, facilitating the scope and speed of innovation.
Modularization can increase specialization of those working on a subsequent new innovation,
allowing each specialized group to better conceptualize and identify architectural relation-
ships (i.e., interfaces) with other modules.
Still others attempt to better understand the determinants of architectural knowledge. For
example, Galunic and Eisenhardt (2001) highlight how dynamic capabilities increase the
ability to create innovations involving architectural changes. MacDuffie (2013) points out that,
in contexts such as the automotive industry, inertia and entrenchment of architectural knowledge
make it difficult to change. A study by Albert (2018) takes a deeper look at the architecture
“hiding” within organizational modules such as divisions. Girod and Karim (2017) find that
reconfigurations deliver better outcomes than restructuring when there are greater interdependen-
cies among the knowledge that resides within divisions of the organization.
Conclusion
Compared to other elements of recombination, there currently exists relatively little
research on innovation architecture. While scholars have fruitfully linked organizational
architecture with innovation architecture, there is limited work that sheds light on the
architecture of the particular knowledge components within an innovation, or its particular
attributes. For this reason, we depict the relationships associating both individual and a set
of component attributes to innovation architecture using broken rather than solid lines in
Figure 2 as Paths B-D.
Knowledge Recombination Outcomes

The outcome of a recombination process is reflected in the nature or character of a resulting
innovation. In particular, the types of components utilized and the manner in which they are
combined are expected to have systematic effects on the quality of the innovation that comes
about. Two innovation-related outcomes dominate the recombination literature—novelty and
usefulness. We discuss these and related outcome measures below, followed by conclusions.
Recombination Outcome: Novelty

The innovation outcome considered by a preponderance of research is novelty
(Cornelissen & Clarke, 2010; Eckhardt, 2016; Fleming, 2001). Novelty reflects the originality
or path-breaking nature of an innovation (Karim & Mitchell, 2000), often conceptualized as

the result of a particularly difficult or unusual process (Garud & Karnøe, 2003; Tzabbar &
Vestal, 2015). Greater novelty creates monopolistic advantages that not only have higher
profit potential for the innovating firm but also generate important efficiencies through
better use of resources (Schoonhoven et al., 1990). Novel innovations are nonetheless rare;
the exclusivity they confer within an industry associates them with higher value (Guilford,
1967; Katila & Shane, 2005; Shane, 2000). Some scholars thus distinguish breakthrough,
radical, or pioneering innovations from others (Ahuja & Morris Lampert, 2001; Eggers &
Kaul, 2018; Jung & Lee, 2016; Kaplan & Vakili, 2015). Still others highlight the creative
aspects of novelty (Amabile, 1983; Fleming, Mingo, & Chen, 2007; Zhou & Shalley,
2011). For example, Teodoridis, Bikard, and Vakili (2019) argue that creativity is about pro-
ducing novel knowledge combinations. Audia and Goncalo (2007) suggest the two dimen-
sions of divergent and incremental creativity. Fleming et al. (2007) assess creativity by the
extent to which others use an inventor’s new subclass (knowledge component) combination.
Researchers highlight several important implications of novel innovations. Novel innova-
tions can drastically change industries by altering their technological trajectory (Garud &
Karnøe, 2003; Grégoire & Shepherd, 2012) and making prior know-how obsolete
(Balachandran & Hernandez, 2018). Radical (and therefore more novel) technologies intro-
duced by other firms—often new entrants—can be competence destroying for incumbent
firms (Chesbrough, 2001; Henderson & Clark, 1990; Kaplan & Henderson, 2005;
Tushman & Anderson, 1986) and constrain their adaptation to new industry conditions
(Davis & Eisenhardt, 2011). On the other hand, those developed by incumbent firms can
be competence enhancing (Anderson & Tushman, 1990; Tushman & Anderson, 1986), trans-
forming their existing capabilities (Lavie, 2006).
Recombination Outcome: Usefulness

An alternate measure of innovation outcome utilized by recombination scholars is innova-
tion usefulness or influence, indicating the importance, impact, value, or quality of the inno-
vation, both for its consumers and as a base for future innovations (Yayavaram & Ahuja,
2008; Yayavaram & Chen, 2015). Fleming and Sorensen (2001, 2004) suggest that useful-
ness reflects economic welfare generated by an innovation, seen in the frequency of usage
in subsequent problem solving. More useful innovations offer significant new insights that
can influence the direction of an industry (Hall, Jaffe, & Trajtenberg, 2001). The future
impact of an innovation is also referred to by some scholars as quality (Karim & Kaul,
2015), measured as the number of forward citations received per patent (Fleming, 2001;
Rosenkopf & Nerkar, 2001). Corredoira and Banerjee (2015) present a particularly holistic
measure of an invention’s technological influence, capturing not only immediate effects
but also those on subsequent generations of inventions.
In the literature, the distinction between novelty and usefulness remains unclear as they are
sometimes referred to interchangeably and measured in similar ways. For example, empirical
studies have used number of patents or forward citations to reflect novelty as well as useful-
ness (Griliches, 1991; Kamien & Schwartz, 1982). Scholars have identified unusually highly
cited patents—called “breakthroughs”—as containing both usefulness and novelty character-
istics of recombination outcomes (Jung & Lee, 2016). This latter description suggests that
these two constructs overlap (e.g., a breakthrough innovation is one that is both novel and
useful) but may also be distinct. That is, some novel innovation outcomes may not be
useful (e.g., a squishy spider toy that once thrown on a wall can “walk” down the wall on
its own), and some useful innovations may not be very novel (e.g., sticky PostIt notes
created by the firm 3M through its existing knowledge about commercial adhesives).
These two forms of innovation outcome may also influence one another. Kaplan and
Vakili (2015) point out that only when others understand and accept generated novel ideas
can their economic value (i.e., one measure of usefulness) be achieved. They show that inven-
tions that are both cognitively novel and economically valuable tend to have the most impact
on subsequent inventions (i.e., usefulness). However, Hoever, Zhou and van Knippenberg
(2018) argue that linkages between novelty and usefulness may lead to novel ideas being con-
sidered useful. Some scholars bypass the issue of novelty or usefulness altogether and simply
assess extent of innovations (Giudici et al., 2018; Kier & McMullen, 2018; Shan et al., 1994).
In the entrepreneurship literature, scholars also highlight venture riskiness through perfor-
mance or survival (Chadwick & Dabu, 2009; Dushnitsky & Shaver, 2009; Lee et al., 2001).
Conclusion
Scholars have provided many insights into the connections between knowledge features
and two important outcomes—novelty and usefulness—leading us to depict these relation-
ships with solid lines as Paths E and F in Figure 2. Even so, there remain other types of out-
comes stemming from a recombination process that have received limited attention. The
efficacy of an innovation, or how well it performs its designed function, has not been stressed
in this literature. In addition, while it is well accepted that highly novel innovations take time
to develop, the timeliness or speed through which they operate has not been addressed.
Accounting for the applicability of an innovation in the real world may be a better reflection
of the actual realized value of the innovation. Finally, the theoretical relationship between
architecture and recombination outcomes is currently underdeveloped, with limited work
considering how architectural features affect novelty or usefulness; this relationship is there-
fore indicated with a broken line in Figure 2 as Path G.
Future Research Directions

The goal of this review was to better appreciate innovation from a knowledge recombina-
tion perspective, an approach that has gained much traction with scholars over the past two
decades but received little formal synthesis. Our review of studies utilizing such an approach
highlights several key facets of the innovation process, including (1) the attributes of knowl-
edge components that, individually and together, are the building blocks of recombination;
(2) the interactions among a set of knowledge components that give rise to unique relation-
ships and meanings; (3) the purposeful design of recombination through a reasoned architec-
ture; and (4) the outcomes of the recombination process as reflected in the nature of the
innovation. This review also uncovers a number of directions for future research for each
of the constructs and their relationships, particularly those designated by broken lines in
Figure 2.
Future Research Directions Pertaining to Individual Knowledge

Components (Cell 1)
While this review identifies several features scholars have relied on to characterize an individual
knowledge component—existing, newness, and context-specificity—these may not adequately
capture their salience for recombination. Aside from these few features, components have been
treated as essentially similar entities. The quality of the knowledge embodied within components
is not equal, however; depending on the application, some components may offer more useful
insights than others for recombination. It is now time to undertake a deeper examination of the
content of components used in recombination rather than only their obvious characteristics. To
further our understanding of how knowledge components build up to an innovation, it is now crit-
ical to account for the more intrinsic attributes of each component, such as its technical or scientific
content. For example, whether new or existing, certain components may possess natural bridging
elements that facilitate recombination with other components, while others are more self-standing.
What might the bridging features of knowledge look like? Does the ability to recombine easily with
other components give rise to more novel innovations (due to the ability to bring about recombi-
nation) or less novel ones (since the ease of doing so may not confer an advantage)? Research has
also not provided much insight into how the age of a component impacts its functionality or use. For
example, functionality of some components may diminish over time due to technological evolu-
tion, whereas that of others grows as their understandability and applications increase. It would
be useful to better understand the reasons behind decay in usefulness of some components over
others. What are the attributes of components that tend not to decay rapidly? The attributes of
those that do? A closer consideration of attributes pertaining to components will expand our under-
standing of Paths A, E, and F in Figure 2.
Although new and existing knowledge component features are fairly well-studied, much
room currently exists for further exploration of the notion of context specificity. Despite
the fact that studies associate differing levels of context specificity to components, we
suggest that no component resides in a vacuum. Instead, like all resources, we expect a com-
ponent to be contextually linked to the organization within which it is used and leveraged
toward some purpose (Karim, 2012). The interpretation of a component may be strongly
tied to the context in which it is used, due to prior experience or firm-specific routines.
This suggests some important questions regarding context specificity for future study. Is
there path dependence in the application of a knowledge component that makes it more (or
less) context specific over time? Would context specificity of a component differ depending
on the organizational context in which it is leveraged, and if so, how? Is context specificity a
particular benefit for entrepreneurial ventures due to a unique interpretation given to a com-
ponent? If components actually vary in their context specificity, how should firms balance
their portfolio of components that are more or less context specific? Such insights into
context specificity can further our understanding of Paths A and E.
Future Research Directions Pertaining to a Set of

Knowledge Components (Cell 2)
Cell 2 in Figure 2 depicts the features of a set of knowledge components studied in the
context of recombination. Given that prior research has focused only on the set of components
that are successfully used in recombination, this literature could benefit from examining how
a meaningful set of components is identified in the first place. It is unclear, for example, what
recombination decisions were taken in the earliest parts of the innovation process? What role
does learning from successes and failures play in identifying a set of components? Is there
strong path dependency in the process followed? In the context of entrepreneurship, a
study that examines how the specific characteristics of knowledge available to a founder
(through his/her human and social capital) propel the decision to start a particular type of
venture can be particularly helpful in understanding some of these relationships and shed
further light into Path A.
Although the literature has tended to stress how knowledge breadth enhances novelty of
outcomes (building on Path F), this review provides convincing evidence that depth also
carries important benefits for recombination. It is unclear, then, why and when a firm
chooses depth over breadth for recombining components, or vice versa. It may be that,
similar to ambidexterity (Tushman & Nadler, 1978; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996), differing
benefits of breadth and depth lead firms to utilize both. If so, does it involve a balancing
act with both done simultaneously, or is it more effective to vacillate between the two
(Boumgarden, Nickerson, & Zenger, 2012)? Entrepreneurship studies that have stressed
the importance of founders’ complementary versus substitutive knowledge may help to
shed light on this issue (Deichmann & Jensen, 2018; Gruber et al., 2013a, 2013b; Singh &
Fleming, 2010). Future research might also consider how founding teams make choices
regarding knowledge breadth or depth. Do they add new members specifically for this
purpose? What are the contingencies that impact these decisions?
The modularity or nondecomposability of knowledge components also prompts several
new questions for Cell 2. For example, we currently have little idea about the types of com-
ponents that are more conducive to being decomposed or modular. Are there particular com-
ponent characteristics that make them one or the other? While modularity has been
highlighted as a useful mechanism for recombination, it may also create organizational inef-
ficiencies (i.e., create more work) or tunnel vision that can lead to potential mistakes in the
innovation process. Under what conditions might this happen? Does modularity or nonde-
composability of knowledge make entrepreneurship or entry into some markets more feasible
than others (e.g., the pharmaceutical industry, which may utilize a more modularized discov-
ery process, or a software application in which entrepreneurs can add modular components on
an established platform)?
There are several interactions that can also be examined to give us a more holistic under-
standing of recombination. While scholars have studied how clustering and density of firms’
networks (and their positions in these networks) affect use of external knowledge, future
research could investigate the interactions between these network attributes and those of com-
ponents within the firm. For example, when a firm gathers knowledge components from its
network, should it focus on more distant knowledge (which may be more unique from
what it already possesses) or something more closely linked (which may be better under-
stood)? How do entrepreneurs’ personal networks affect their choices to connect to new
versus existing, close versus distant, and similar versus unique knowledge from their net-
works? What are the implications of these decisions for firms’ innovation outcomes (i.e.,
Paths E and F)?
Future Research Directions Pertaining to Architecture (Cell 3)

Our synthesis of the literature showed that while scholars have noted the importance of
architecture or the design by which components are recombined, this is perhaps the area
least explored and where there is much room for future study. Thus, all paths leading to
and from architecture in Figure 2 are depicted with broken lines. The importance of architec-
ture can be seen from Henderson and Clark’s (1990) observation that, if components are held
constant (i.e., not changed), different designs for how they are recombined will result in dif-
ferent innovation outcomes. Since we currently possess little evidence on this issue, further
research should explore how different architectures of same components influence the
nature of the innovation. In what ways and to what degree can architecture among a
similar set of components be changed? What are the decisions that drive these changes? Is
architecture driven primarily by the objective attributes of the components used or the
outcome of a particular way of conceptualizing knowledge components? If architecture is
driven by differing beliefs about how components relate to one another, how do characteris-
tics of firms and their founders relate to these beliefs? Are conceptualizations of architecture
firm-specific, or are there commonalities in the architectures used for recombination across
firms? Similarly, we advise scholars to consider how architectures relate to the context or
industry in which they are applied (e.g., material science knowledge components applied
in the textiles industry versus the solar energy industry). Do applications of knowledge com-
ponents in different contexts have different optimal architectures? Greater insights on these
issues will help to strengthen Paths B, C, and D of Figure 2.
It is also important to consider how architectures of components influence knowledge
recombination outcomes. Studying knowledge modules may also help to clarify how
architecture affects recombination outcomes. Even though it has been largely assumed
by scholars that connections within well-established modules are not effectively
altered, we may find instead that changing the internal architecture of modules gives
rise to unexpected insights and, in turn, more value-creating outcomes. A study that
might help build our understanding of how architectural decisions are made is one that
examines trials and errors in the architecturing process. A fruitful context for this type
of study may be how scientists in the pharmaceutical industry choose to recombine
knowledge using different architectures after failures in clinical trials. We could learn
about the process of designing and redesigning architecture based on failure and
second attempts, by finding out why scientists pursued certain experiments (i.e., revealing
their expectations for how the structuring of certain knowledge would result in an
outcome), how the knowledge output of one is the knowledge input of another, and
more about the sequencing of these architectural activities. These questions about archi-
tecture—particularly, their applications and optimality—may help to explain particular
knowledge recombination outcomes (i.e., Path G).
Addressing these questions requires us to have the ability to measure the architecture of a
particular innovation and its related features. That no such measures currently exist may be
what explains the limited work on architecture. Capturing the existence of relationships
among components may be hampered by their opaque nature. We recommend consideration
of different approaches for overcoming this problem. For example, simulation studies that
simulate architectural ties among components may allow us to identify the effects of
manipulating different architectures on innovation outcomes. Network relationships among

components may also help to identify the strength and location of ties that operate among
them.
Future Research Directions Pertaining to Innovation Outcomes (Cell 4)

Our review showed that knowledge recombination studies most often characterize innovation
outcomes in terms of novelty and/or usefulness. We would benefit from better understanding
about when these outcomes are overlapping versus distinct. Under what circumstances is one
likely to be more appropriate than the other (such as uncertainty or competition)? It may be
that firms aspire to both but may need to make tradeoffs for one versus the other. What are
these tradeoffs, and how are decisions for pursuing novelty and usefulness made? This question
may be particularly relevant for entrepreneurs who need to identify the value proposition to con-
sumers before entering a market. Even though scholars have stressed novelty and usefulness, the
time is ripe for considering other possibly more multifaceted or complex innovation outcomes.
For example, the efficacy of an innovation in addressing or solving a problem might capture
how well the innovation performs its designed function, which is often the essence of an innova-
tion’s value. Efficacy may be particularly appropriate for assessing entrepreneurial venture out-
comes. Since such ventures are formed to address a particular market need, their outcomes
may be more multifaceted than simply novelty or usefulness. Another facet of outcomes is the
speed or timeliness by which an innovation delivers its outcome, a reflection of the efficiency
by which an innovation operates. Because some innovations involve more complex operations,
they may require more time to bring about the outcome, whereas others may be able to accom-
plish something similar using more parsimonious operations that reduce the time taken. This may
be particularly pertinent for service-related innovations for which timeliness plays a key role as
well as for improved functionality of products.
While we have seen numerous studies in which recombined knowledge components
produce some innovation outcome (i.e., Paths E and F), we currently have little insight
into the actual decision processes that ultimately lead to these outcomes. How priorities
are established, how decisions are made in relation to these priorities, who has decision
rights, and how resources are allocated are issues that can have important influences on
recombination outcomes. Most studies, however, examine only the successful and final
choices without consideration of the larger set of recombination attempts that may
have taken place, including those that were rejected. Thus, our understanding of how
recombination actually occurs may have only exposed the tip of the iceberg, so to
speak; we have been sampling mostly on successful outcomes and missed essential
pivot points in the innovation process. It is a good time to build on the significant
work that already exists on outcomes (Paths E and F) and consider in greater depth the
means by which successful outcomes are attained. Although trial and error are part of
any innovation process, we know little about how these contribute to successful innova-
tion outcomes. A qualitative approach may assist in making sense of procedures and deci-
sions that lead to a desired innovation. Experimental designs may also help to get a better
sense of such decision making. For example, utilizing a randomized control trial to assess
entrepreneurs’ decision making, Camuffo, Cordova, and Gambardella (2020) found that
those exposed to new frameworks were able to recombine this new knowledge with their
existing knowledge, unlike unexposed individuals. This research showcases how a scien-
tific approach to recombination reduces false positive pursuits by entrepreneurs, while
increasing false negative undertakings. Similar opportunities exist for exploring how
entrepreneurs and firms identify their set of potential recombinations and “weed out”
alternatives. Investigating the choices entrepreneurs and organizations make regarding
which components to try and recombine in the first place may require more qualitative
and deeper approaches than have currently been used but can shed important light on
all the paths of Figure 2.
Finally, this review also reveals that strategy and entrepreneurship scholars tend to use a
recombination lens quite differently when examining innovativeness. Most strategy-related
research tends to assume that recombination follows a rational and objective process, with the
implicit assumption that, once useful components are identified, organizational members will
(automatically) put them to their best use. In contrast, entrepreneurship scholars exhibit more
interest in explaining individual differences in how a problem is conceptualized, their search strat-
egies, and the specific components that are actually selected (Gruber et al., 2013a, 2013b; Kier &
McMullen, 2018; Laursen & Salter, 2006). Strategy scholars may benefit from considering the
unique perspectives and imagination of inventors in how they come up with recombinations as
a way to better understand innovation processes led by employees within firms. By the same
token, entrepreneurship scholars can benefit from a closer examination of the specific knowledge
attributes of innovations brought to bear on the market through ventures.
In closing, this review highlights the considerable but diverse strands of work that has uti-
lized a recombination approach in some way. To make sense of this work, we began by offer-
ing a framework for a knowledge recombination perspective that identifies key constructs and
relationships. We found that most studies, even while offering important insights, take a
piecemeal approach to recombination, emphasizing one or two constructs without acknowl-
edging their connections to others. Our review indicated that some relationships underlying
recombination are well considered, whereas others are quite underdeveloped. Thus, we offer a
number of directions for further study to help take the recombination literature to a new level
of theory development.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Number 71702004).
ORCID iD
Mona Makhija https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4125-1925
Notes
1. These are Academy of Management Journal, Academy of Management Review, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of Management, Management Science,
Organization Science, Research Policy, Journal of Business Venturing, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, Strategic Management Journal, Organization Studies, and Journal of
Management Studies. Journals oriented toward practitioners or managers (e.g., Harvard Business Review, Sloan
Management Review) are not included here.
2. We used short forms of keywords, such as *combin*, to identify articles that used (re)combination,
(re)combine, (re)combining, combinative, and innov* for innovation, innovative, innovativeness, innovator, and
innovate. The text of each identified article was then searched using additional terms specific to a recombination
logic (search, knowledge elements, knowledge components, and knowledge coupling).
3. No timeline was set for this review, allowing us to capture early relevant work. Articles and books not
covered in the main journals but frequently cited (e.g., work by Schumpeter and Simon) are also included in this
final set.
4. In this review, we use the broad term innovation to also include invention, discovery, and other related
concepts.
References
Acar, O. A., Tarakci, M., & van Knippenberg, D. 2019. Creativity and innovation under constraints: A cross-
disciplinary integrative review. Journal of Management, 45: 96–121.
Adner, R., & Kapoor, R. 2010. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological inter-
dependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strategic Management Journal, 31:
306–333.
Ahuja, G. 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: A longitudinal study. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 45: 425–455.
Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. 2001. Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A lon-
gitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 197–220.
Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. 2004. Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations. Strategic
Management Journal, 25: 887–907.
Ahuja, G., & Morris Lampert, C. 2001. Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how estab-
lished firms create breakthrough inventions. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 521–543.
Albert, D. 2018. Organizational module design and architectural inertia: Evidence from structural recombination of
business divisions. Organization Science, 29: 890–911.
Almeida, P., & Phene, A. 2004. Subsidiaries and knowledge creation: The influence of the MNC and host country on
innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 847–864.
Amabile, T. M. 1983. The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 45: 357.
Anderson, N., Potoč nik, K., & Zhou, J. 2014. Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science
review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management, 40: 1297–1333.
Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. 1990. Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of
technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 604–633.
Ansari, S., Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. 2016. The disruptor’s dilemma: TiVo and the US television ecosystem.
Strategic Management Journal, 37: 1829–1853.
Arend, R. J., Patel, P. C., & Park, H. D. 2014. Explaining post-IPO venture performance through a knowledge-based
view typology. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 376–397.
Argyres, N., Rios, L. A., & Silverman, B. S. 2020. Organizational change and the dynamics of innovation: Formal
R&D structure and intrafirm inventor networks. Strategic Management Journal, 41: 2015–2049.
Argyres, N. S., & Silverman, B. S. 2004. R&D, organization structure, and the development of corporate technolog-
ical knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 929–958.
Arts, S., & Fleming, L. 2018. Paradise of novelty—or loss of human capital? Exploring new fields and inventive
output. Organization Science, 29: 1074–1092.
Audia, P. G., & Goncalo, J. A. 2007. Past success and creativity over time: A study of inventors in the hard disk drive
industry. Management Science, 53: 1–15.
Awate, K., & Makhija, M. 2021. A Trojan horse inside the gates: Knowledge spillovers during patent litigation.
Academy of Management Journal, forthcoming.
Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial
bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50: 329–366.
Bakir, B., Özdemir, M., & Karim, S. 2021. Reconfiguration through acqui-hires: Redeployment and retention of
human capital post-acquisition. Strategic Management Journal.
Balachandran, S., & Hernandez, E. 2018. Networks and innovation: Accounting for structural and institutional
sources of recombination in brokerage triads. Organization Science, 29: 80–99.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. 2000. Design rules: Volume I: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. 2002. The option value of modularity in design. Harvard NOM Research Paper, 1:
1–14.
Barbieri, N., Marzucchi, A., & Rizzo, U. 2020. Knowledge sources and impacts on subsequent inventions: Do green
technologies differ from non-green ones? Research Policy, 49: 103901.
Basu, S., Sahaym, A., Howard, M. D., & Boeker, W. 2015. Parent inheritance, founder expertise, and venture strat-
egy: Determinants of new venture knowledge impact. Journal of Business Venturing, 30: 322–337.
Baysinger, B., & Hoskisson, R. E. 1990. The composition of boards of directors and strategic control: Effects on cor-
porate strategy. Academy of Management Review, 15: 72–87.
Baysinger, B. D., Kosnik, R. D., & Turk, T. A. 1991. Effects of board and ownership structure on corporate R&D
strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 205–214.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. 2002. Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the
photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 676–707.
Bertrand, O., & Mol, M. J. 2013. The antecedents and innovation effects of domestic and offshore R&D outsourcing:
The contingent impact of cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Strategic Management Journal, 34:
751–760.
Bhardwaj, G., Camillus, J. C., & Hounshell, D. A. 2006. Continual corporate entrepreneurial search for long-term
growth. Management Science, 52: 248–261.
Bikard, M., & Marx, M. 2020. Bridging academia and industry: How geographic hubs connect university science and
corporate technology. Management Science, 66: 3425–3443.
Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. R. 2012. Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambi-
dexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 587–610.
Brennecke, J., & Rank, O. 2017. The firm’s knowledge network and the transfer of advice among corporate
inventors—A multilevel network study. Research Policy, 46: 768–783.
Buckley, P. J., & Carter, M. J. 2004. A formal analysis of knowledge combination in multinational enterprises.
Journal of International Business Studies, 35: 371–384.
Camuffo, A., Cordova, A., Gambardella, A., & Spina, C. 2020. A scientific approach to entrepreneurial decision
making: Evidence from a randomized control trial. Management Science, 66(2): 564–586.
Carnabuci, G., & Operti, E. 2013. Where do firms’ recombinant capabilities come from? Intraorganizational networks,
knowledge, and firms’ ability to innovate through technological recombination. Strategic Management Journal,
34: 1591–1613.
Castellacci, F., Gulbrandsen, M., Hildrum, J., Martinkenaite, I., & Simensen, E. 2018. Functional centrality and inno-
vation intensity: Employee-level analysis of the Telenor group. Research Policy, 47: 1674–1687.
Ceccagnoli, M., & Jiang, L. 2013. The cost of integrating external technologies: Supply and demand drivers of value
creation in the markets for technology. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 404–425.
Chadwick, C., & Dabu, A. 2009. Human resources, human resource management, and the competitive advantage of
firms: Toward a more comprehensive model of causal linkages. Organization Science, 20: 253–272.
Chatterji, A. K., & Fabrizio, K. 2012. How do product users influence corporate invention? Organization Science, 23:
971–987.
Chatterji, A. K., & Fabrizio, K. R. 2014. Using users: When does external knowledge enhance corporate product
innovation? Strategic Management Journal, 35: 1427–1445.
Chesbrough, H. 2001. Assembling the elephant: A review of empirical studies on the impact of technical change upon
incumbent firms. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Choudhury, P., & Kim, D. Y. 2019. The ethnic migrant inventor effect: Codification and recombination of knowledge
across borders. Strategic Management Journal, 40: 203–229.
Cirillo, B. 2019. External learning strategies and technological search output: Spinout strategy and corporate
invention quality. Organization Science, 30: 361–382.
Clancy, M. S. 2018. Inventing by combining pre-existing technologies: Patent evidence on learning and fishing out.
Research Policy, 47: 252–265.
Cohen, S. L., & Tripsas, M. 2018. Managing technological transitions by building bridges. Academy of Management
Journal, 61: 2319–2342.
Cornelissen, J. P., & Clarke, J. S. 2010. Imagining and rationalizing opportunities: Inductive reasoning and the
creation and justification of new ventures. Academy of Management Review, 35: 539–557.
Corredoira, R. A., & Banerjee, P. M. 2015. Measuring patent’s influence on technological evolution: A study of
knowledge spanning and subsequent inventive activity. Research Policy, 44: 508–521.
Corredoira, R. A., & Rosenkopf, L. 2010. Should auld acquaintance be forgot? The reverse transfer of knowledge
through mobility ties. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 159–181.
Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. 2010. A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic
review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 47: 1154–1191.
Dahlander, L., O’Mahony, S., & Gann, D. M. 2016. One foot in, one foot out: How does individuals’ external search
breadth affect innovation outcomes? Strategic Management Journal, 37: 280–302.
Damanpour, F., Walker, R. M., & Avellaneda, C. N. 2009. Combinative effects of innovation types and organiza-
tional performance: A longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 46:
650–675.
Danneels, E. 2002. The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal,
23: 1095–1121.
Davis, J. P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2011. Rotating leadership and collaborative innovation: Recombination processes in
symbiotic relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56: 159–201.
Deichmann, D., & Jensen, M. 2018. I can do that alone … or not? How idea generators juggle between the pros and
cons of teamwork. Strategic Management Journal, 39: 458–475.
Demirkan, I., & Demirkan, S. 2012. Network characteristics and patenting in biotechnology, 1990–2006. Journal of
Management, 38: 1892–1927.
Dhanaraj, C., & Parkhe, A. 2006. Orchestrating innovation networks. Academy of Management Review, 31: 659–669.
Dushnitsky, G., & Shaver, J. M. 2009. Limitations to interorganizational knowledge acquisition: The paradox of cor-
porate venture capital. Strategic Management Journal, 30: 1045–1064.
Eckhardt, J. T. 2016. Welcome contributor or no price competitor? The competitive interaction of free and priced
technologies. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 742–762.
Eggers, J. P. 2012. All experience is not created equal: Learning, adapting, and focusing in product portfolio man-
agement. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 315–335.
Eggers, J. P., & Kaul, A. 2018. Motivation and ability? A behavioral perspective on the pursuit of radical innovation
in multi-technology incumbents. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 67–93.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal,
21: 1105–1121.
Ellwood, P., Grimshaw, P., & Pandza, K. 2017. Accelerating the innovation process: A systematic review and realist
synthesis of the research literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19: 510–530.
Ethiraj, S. K., & Levinthal, D. 2004. Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Science, 50: 159–173.
Ethiraj, S. K., Levinthal, D., & Roy, R. R. 2008. The dual role of modularity: Innovation and imitation. Management
Science, 54: 939–955.
Ferguson, J.-P., & Carnabuci, G. 2017. Risky recombinations: Institutional gatekeeping in the innovation process.
Organization Science, 28: 133–151.
Fleming, L. 2001. Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47: 117–132.
Fleming, L., Mingo, S., & Chen, D. 2007. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 52: 443–475.
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. 2001. Technology as a complex adaptive system: Evidence from patent data. Research
Policy, 30: 1019–1039.
Fleming, L., & Sorenson, O. 2004. Science as a map in technological search. Strategic Management Journal, 25:
909–928.
Funk, R. J. 2014. Making the most of where you are: Geography, networks, and innovation in organizations.
Academy of Management Journal, 57: 193–222.
Furr, N. R. 2019. Product adaptation during new industry emergence: The role of start-up team preentry experience.
Galunic, D. C., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2001. Architectural innovation and modular corporate forms. Academy of
Galunic, D. C., & Rodan, S. 1998. Resource recombinations in the firm: Knowledge structures and the potential for
Schumpeterian innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 19: 1193–1201.
Ganco, M., Kapoor, R., & Lee, G. K. 2020. From rugged landscapes to rugged ecosystems: Structure of interdepen-
dencies and firms’ innovative search. Academy of Management Review, 45: 646–674.
Garriga, H., Von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. 2013. How constraints and knowledge impact open innovation. Strategic
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. 2003. Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology
entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32: 277–300.
Gavetti, G., & Levinthal, D. 2000. Looking forward and looking backward: Cognitive and experiential search.
Gielnik, M. M., Frese, M., Graf, J. M., & Kampschulte, A. 2012. Creativity in the opportunity identification process
and the moderating effect of diversity of information. Journal of Business Venturing, 27: 559–576.
Girod, S. J., & Karim, S. 2017. Restructure or reconfigure? Designing the reorg that works for you. Harvard Business
Review, 95: 128–132.
Gittelman, M., & Kogut, B. 2003. Does good science lead to valuable knowledge? Biotechnology firms and the
evolutionary logic of citation patterns. Management Science, 49: 366–382.
Giudici, A., Reinmoeller, P., & Ravasi, D. 2018. Open-system orchestration as a relational source of sensing
capabilities: Evidence from a venture association. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 1369–1402.
Grant, R. M. 1996. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17: 109–122.
Grégoire, D. A., & Shepherd, D. A. 2012. Technology-market combinations and the identification of entrepreneurial
opportunities: An investigation of the opportunity-individual nexus. Academy of Management Journal, 55:
753–785.
Grigoriou, K., & Rothaermel, F. T. 2017. Organizing for knowledge generation: Internal knowledge networks and the
contingent effect of external knowledge sourcing. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 395–414.
Griliches, Z. 1991. The search for R&D spillovers. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Gruber, M., Harhoff, D., & Hoisl, K. 2013a. Knowledge recombination across technological boundaries: Scientists
vs. engineers. Management Science, 59: 837–851.
Gruber, M., MacMillan, I. C., & Thompson, J. D. 2013b. Escaping the prior knowledge corridor: What shapes the
number and variety of market opportunities identified before market entry of technology start-ups? Organization
Science, 24: 280–300.
Grunwald, R., & Kieser, A. 2007. Learning to reduce interorganizational learning: An analysis of architectural
product innovation in strategic alliances. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24: 369–391.
Guan, J., & Liu, N. 2016. Exploitative and exploratory innovations in knowledge network and collaboration network:
A patent analysis in the technological field of nano-energy. Research Policy, 45: 97–112.
Guilford, J. P. 1967. Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1: 3–14.
Haefliger, S., Jäger, P., & Von Krogh, G. 2010. Under the radar: Industry entry by user entrepreneurs. Research
Policy, 39: 1198–1213.
Haefliger, S., Von Krogh, G., & Spaeth, S. 2008. Code reuse in open source software. Management Science, 54:
180–193.
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A. B., & Trajtenberg, M. 2001. The NBER Patent Citation Data File: Lessons, Insights and
Methodological Tools. National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. 1997. Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 716–749.
Heeley, M. B., & Jacobson, R. 2008. The recency of technological inputs and financial performance. Strategic
Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technol-
ogies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9–30.
Hoever, I. J., Zhou, J., & van Knippenberg, D. 2018. Different strokes for different teams: The contingent effects of
positive and negative feedback on the creativity of informationally homogeneous and diverse teams. Academy of
Hoisl, K., Gruber, M., & Conti, A. 2017. R&D team diversity and performance in hypercompetitive environments.
Howard, M. D., Boeker, W., & Andrus, J. L. 2019. The spawning of ecosystems: How cohort effects benefit new
ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 62: 1163–1193.
Hsu, D. H., & Lim, K. 2014. Knowledge brokering and organizational innovation: Founder imprinting effects.
Jandhyala, S., & Phene, A. 2015. The role of intergovernmental organizations in cross-border knowledge transfer and
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 712–743.
Jung, H. J., & Lee, J. J. 2016. The quest for originality: A new typology of knowledge search and breakthrough inven-
tions. Academy of Management Journal, 59: 1725–1753.
Kamien, M. I., & Schwartz, N. L. 1982. Market structure and innovation. Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S., & Henderson, R. 2005. Inertia and incentives: Bridging organizational economics and organizational
theory. Organization Science, 16: 509–521.
Kaplan, S., & Vakili, K. 2015. The double-edged sword of recombination in breakthrough innovation. Strategic
Kapoor, R. 2013. Persistence of integration in the face of specialization: How firms navigated the winds of disinte-
gration and shaped the architecture of the semiconductor industry. Organization Science, 24: 1195–1213.
Kapoor, R., & Adner, R. 2012. What firms make vs. What they know: How firms’ production and knowledge bound-
aries affect competitive advantage in the face of technological change. Organization Science, 23: 1227–1248.
Karim, S. 2006. Modularity in organizational structure: The reconfiguration of internally developed and acquired
business units. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 799–823.
Karim, S. 2009. Business unit reorganization and innovation in new product markets. Management Science, 55:
1237–1254.
Karim, S. 2012. Exploring structural embeddedness of product market activities and resources within business units.
Strategic Organization, 10: 333–365.
Karim, S., & Capron, L. 2016. Reconfiguration: Adding, redeploying, recombining and divesting resources and busi-
ness units. Strategic Management Journal, 37: E54–E62.
Karim, S., & Kaul, A. 2015. Structural recombination and innovation: Unlocking intraorganizational knowledge
synergy through structural change. Organization Science, 26: 439–455.
Karim, S., & Mitchell, W. 2000. Path-dependent and path-breaking change: Reconfiguring business resources
following acquisitions in the US medical sector, 1978–1995. Strategic Management Journal, 21:
1061–1081.
Karim, S., & Williams, C. 2012. Structural knowledge: How executive experience with structural composition affects
intrafirm mobility and unit reconfiguration. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 681–709.
Katila, R. 2002. New product search over time: Past ideas in their prime? Academy of Management Journal, 45:
995–1010.
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. 2002. Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new
product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45: 1183–1194.
Katila, R., & Chen, E. L. 2008. Effects of search timing on innovation: The value of not being in sync with rivals.
Katila, R., & Shane, S. 2005. When does lack of resources make new firms innovative? Academy of Management
Journal, 48: 814–829.
Kauppila, O. P., Bizzi, L., & Obstfeld, D. 2018. Connecting and creating: Tertius iungens, individual creativity, and
strategic decision processes. Strategic Management Journal, 39: 697–719.
Keijl, S., Gilsing, V., Knoben, J., & Duysters, G. 2016. The two faces of inventions: The relationship between recom-
bination and impact in pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy, 45: 1061–1074.
Kier, A. S., & McMullen, J. S. 2018. Entrepreneurial imaginativeness in new venture ideation. Academy of
Kneeland, M. K., Schilling, M. A., & Aharonson, B. S. 2020. Exploring uncharted territory: Knowledge search
processes in the origination of outlier innovation. Organization Science, 31: 535–557.
Knudsen, T., & Srikanth, K. 2014. Coordinated exploration: Organizing joint search by multiple specialists to over-
come mutual confusion and joint myopia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59: 409–441.
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. 1992. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. 2006. Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance
among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 131–150.
Lavie, D. 2006. Capability reconfiguration: An analysis of incumbent responses to technological change. Academy of
Management Review, 31: 153–174.
Lee, C., Lee, K., & Pennings, J. M. 2001. Internal capabilities, external networks, and performance: A study on
technology-based ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 615–640.
Leiponen, A., & Helfat, C. E. 2010. Innovation objectives, knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic
Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95–112.
Li, Q., Maggitti, P. G., Smith, K. G., Tesluk, P. E., & Katila, R. 2013. Top management attention to innovation:
The role of search selection and intensity in new product introductions. Academy of Management Journal,
56: 893–916.
Lipparini, A., & Sobrero, M. 1994. The glue and the pieces: Entrepreneurship and innovation in small-firm networks.
Journal of Business Venturing, 9: 125–140.
Lopez-Vega, H., Tell, F., & Vanhaverbeke, W. 2016. Where and how to search? Search paths in open innovation.
Lorenzoni, G., & Lipparini, A. 1999. The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational
capability: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 20: 317–338.
MacDuffie, J. P. 2013. Modularity-as-property, modularization-as-process, and ‘modularity’-as-frame: Lessons from
product architecture initiatives in the global automotive industry. Global Strategy Journal, 3: 8–40.
Mahmood, I., Chung, C.- N., & Mitchell, W. 2013. The evolving impact of combinatorial opportunities and exhaus-
tion on innovation by business groups as market development increases: The case of Taiwan. Management
Science, 59: 1142–1161.
Mahmood, I. P., Zhu, H., & Zajac, E. J. 2011. Where can capabilities come from? Network ties and capability
acquisition in business groups. Strategic Management Journal, 32: 820–848.
Makhija, M. 2003. Comparing the resource-based and market-based views of the firm: Empirical evidence from
Czech privatization. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 433–451.
Makhija, M., & Ganesh, U. 1997. The relationship between control and partner learning in learning-related joint
ventures. Organization Science, 8(5): 508–527.
Makri, M., Hitt, M. A., & Lane, P. J. 2010. Complementary technologies, knowledge relatedness, and invention out-
comes in high technology mergers and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 602–628.
Mannucci, P. V., & Yong, K. 2018. The differential impact of knowledge depth and knowledge breadth on creativity
over individual careers. Academy of Management Journal, 61: 1741–1763.
McEvily, S. K., & Chakravarthy, B. 2002. The persistence of knowledge-based advantage: An empirical test for
product performance and technological knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 23: 285–305.
McFadyen, M. A., Semadeni, M., & Cannella, A. A., Jr. 2009. Value of strong ties to disconnected others: Examining
knowledge creation in biomedicine. Organization Science, 20: 552–564.
Melero, E., & Palomeras, N. 2015. The Renaissance Man is not dead! The role of generalists in teams of inventors.
Miller, D. J., Fern, M. J., & Cardinal, L. B. 2007. The use of knowledge for technological innovation within diver-
sified firms. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 307–325.
Moher, D., Stewart, L., & Shekelle, P. 2015. All in the Family: Systematic Reviews, Rapid Reviews, Scoping Reviews,
Realist Reviews, and More. BioMed Central.
Moreira, S., Klueter, T. M., & Tasselli, S. 2020. Competition, technology licensing-in, and innovation. Organization
Science.
Moreira, S., Markus, A., & Laursen, K. 2018. Knowledge diversity and coordination: The effect of intrafirm inventor
task networks on absorption speed. Strategic Management Journal, 39: 2517–2546.
Morris, S. S., Zhong, B., & Makhija, M. 2015. Going the distance: The pros and cons of expanding employees’ global
knowledge reach. Journal of International Business Studies, 46: 552–573.
Muñoz-Bullón, F., Sanchez-Bueno, M. J., & De Massis, A. 2020. Combining internal and external R&D: The effects
on innovation performance in family and nonfamily firms. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44:
996–1031.
Nagle, F., & Teodoridis, F. 2020. Jack of all trades and master of knowledge: The role of diversification in new distant
knowledge integration. Strategic Management Journal, 41: 55–85.
Nambisan, S. 2002. Designing virtual customer environments for new product development: Toward a theory.
Academy of Management Review, 27: 392–413.
Nerkar, A. 2003. Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Management
Science, 49: 211–229.
Nickerson, J. A., & Zenger, T. R. 2004. A knowledge-based theory of the firm—The problem-solving perspective.
Obstfeld, D. 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 50: 100–130.
Obstfeld, D., Ventresca, M. J., & Fisher, G. 2020. An assembly perspective of entrepreneurial projects: Social net-
works in action. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 14: 149–177.
Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. 2004. Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in
the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15: 5–21.
Pahnke, E. C., Katila, R., & Eisenhardt, K. M. 2015. Who takes you to the dance? How partners’ institutional logics
influence innovation in young firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 60: 596–633.
Paruchuri, S., & Awate, S. 2017. Organizational knowledge networks and local search: The role of intra-
organizational inventor networks. Strategic Management Journal, 38: 657–675.
Patel, P. C., & Fiet, J. O. 2011. Knowledge combination and the potential advantages of family firms in searching for
opportunities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35: 1179–1197.
Phelps, C. C. 2010. A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm
exploratory innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 890–913.
Phene, A., Fladmoe-Lindquist, K., & Marsh, L. 2006. Breakthrough innovations in the US biotechnology industry:
The effects of technological space and geographic origin. Strategic Management Journal, 27: 369–388.
Pil, F. K., & Cohen, S. K. 2006. Modularity: Implications for imitation, innovation, and sustained advantage.
Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. 1996. Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation:
Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 116–145.
Rank, O. N., & Strenge, M. 2018. Entrepreneurial orientation as a driver of brokerage in external networks:
Exploring the effects of risk taking, proactivity, and innovativeness. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal,
12: 482–503.
Reypens, L., Bacq, S., & Milanov, H. 2021. Beyond bricolage: Early-stage technology venture resource mobilization
in resource-scarce contexts. Journal of Business Venturing, 36: 106110.
Rhee, L., & Leonardi, P. M. 2018. Which pathway to good ideas? An attention-based view of innovation in social
networks. Strategic Management Journal, 39: 1188–1215.
Rodan, S., & Galunic, C. 2004. More than network structure: How knowledge heterogeneity influences managerial
performance and innovativeness. Strategic Management Journal, 25: 541–562.
Roper, S., & Hewitt-Dundas, N. 2015. Knowledge stocks, knowledge flows and innovation: Evidence from matched
patents and innovation panel data. Research Policy, 44: 1327–1340.
Rosenkopf, L., & Almeida, P. 2003. Overcoming local search through alliances and mobility. Management Science,
49: 751–766.
Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. 2001. Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical
disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22: 287–306.
Sammarra, A., & Biggiero, L. 2008. Heterogeneity and specificity of inter-firm knowledge flows in innovation net-
works. Journal of Management Studies, 45: 800–829.
Savino, T., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Albino, V. 2017. Search and recombination process to innovate: A review of
the empirical evidence and a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 19: 54–75.
Schillebeeckx, S. J., Lin, Y., George, G., & Alnuaimi, T. 2020. Knowledge recombination and inventor networks:
The asymmetric effects of embeddedness on knowledge reuse and impact. Journal of Management. doi:
doi:10.1177/0149206320906865
Schilling, M. A., & Phelps, C. C. 2007. Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale network structure
on firm innovation. Management Science, 53: 1113–1126.
Schmickl, C., & Kieser, A. 2008. How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop
radical product innovations? Research Policy, 37: 473–491.
Schoenmakers, W., & Duysters, G. 2010. The technological origins of radical inventions. Research Policy, 39:
1051–1059.
Schoonhoven, C. B., Eisenhardt, K. M., & Lyman, K. 1990. Speeding products to market: Waiting time to first
product introduction in new firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 177–207.
Schulz, M. 2001. The uncertain relevance of newness: Organizational learning and knowledge flows. Academy of
Schulze, A., & Hoegl, M. 2006. Knowledge creation in new product development projects. Journal of Management,
32: 210–236.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. (Reprinted in 1962) The theory of economic development: An inquiry into profits, capital,
credit, interest and the business cycle. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schumpeter, J. A. 1939. Business cycles. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sears, J., & Hoetker, G. 2014. Technological overlap, technological capabilities, and resource recombination in tech-
nological acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 35: 48–67.
Shan, W., Walker, G., & Kogut, B. 1994. Interfirm cooperation and startup innovation in the biotechnology industry.
Shane, S. 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science, 11:
448–469.
Shane, S. 2012. Reflections on the 2010 AMR Decade Award: Delivering on the promise of entrepreneurship as a
field of research. Academy of Management Review, 37: 10–20.
Shane, S., & Venkatraman, S. 2000. The promise of entrepreneurship and economic growth. Small Business
Economics, 13: 27–55.
Shepherd, D. A., McMullen, J. S., & Jennings, P. D. 2007. The formation of opportunity beliefs: Overcoming igno-
rance and reducing doubt. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1: 75–95.
Siggelkow, N., & Rivkin, J. W. 2006. When exploration backfires: Unintended consequences of multilevel organi-
zational search. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 779–795.
Simon, H. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106: 467–482.
Singh, J., & Fleming, L. 2010. Lone inventors as sources of breakthroughs: Myth or reality? Management Science,
56: 41–56.
Singh, H., Kryscynski, D., Li, X., & Gopal, R. 2016. Pipes, pools, and filters: How collaboration networks affect
innovative performance. Strategic Management Journal, 37: 1649–1666.
Sinha, K. K., & Van de Ven, A. H. 2005. Designing work within and between organizations. Organization Science,
16: 389–408.
Smith, K. G., Collins, C. J., & Clark, K. D. 2005. Existing knowledge, knowledge creation capability, and the rate of
new product introduction in high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 48: 346–357.
Snihur, Y., & Zott, C. 2020. The genesis and metamorphosis of novelty imprints: How business model innovation
emerges in young ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 63: 554–583.
Soh, P.- H., & Subramanian, A. M. 2014. When do firms benefit from university–industry R&D collaborations? The
implications of firm R&D focus on scientific research and technological recombination. Journal of Business
Venturing, 29: 807–821.
Stanko, M. A., & Henard, D. H. 2017. Toward a better understanding of crowdfunding, openness and the conse-
quences for innovation. Research Policy, 46: 784–798.
Tang, Y., & Wezel, F. C. 2015. Up to standard? Market positioning and performance of Hong Kong films, 1975–
1997. Journal of Business Venturing, 30: 452–466.
Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. 2006. Superman or the Fantastic Four? Knowledge combination and experience in
innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 723–740.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management
Journal, 18: 509–533.
Teodoridis, F., Bikard, M., & Vakili, K. 2019. Creativity at the knowledge frontier: The impact of specialization in
fast- and slow-paced domains. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64: 894–927.
Terjesen, S., & Patel, P. C. 2017. In search of process innovations: The role of search depth, search breadth, and the
industry environment. Journal of Management, 43: 1421–1446.
Terziovski, M. 2010. Innovation practice and its performance implications in small and medium enterprises (SMEs)
in the manufacturing sector: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 892–902.
Theeke, M., Polidoro, F. Jr.,, & Fredrickson, J. W. 2018. Path-dependent routines in the evaluation of novelty: The effects
of innovators’ new knowledge use on brokerage firms’ coverage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 910–942.
Tiwana, A. 2008. Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity.
Tortoriello, M. 2015. The social underpinnings of absorptive capacity: The moderating effects of structural holes on
innovation generation based on external knowledge. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 586–597.
Tortoriello, M., & Krackhardt, D. 2010. Activating cross-boundary knowledge: The role of Simmelian ties in the
generation of innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 167–181.
Tortoriello, M., McEvily, B., & Krackhardt, D. 2015. Being a catalyst of innovation: The role of knowledge diversity
and network closure. Organization Science, 26: 423–438.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. 2003. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management
knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14: 207–222.
Tsai, W. 2001. Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capac-
ity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 996–1004.
Tschang, F. T. 2007. Balancing the tensions between rationalization and creativity in the video games industry.
Turkina, E., & Van Assche, A. 2018. Global connectedness and local innovation in industrial clusters. Journal of
International Business Studies, 49: 706–728.
Turner, K. L., & Makhija, M. V. 2006. The role of organizational controls in managing knowledge. Academy of
Management Review, 31: 197–217.
Turner, K. L., & Makhija, M. V. 2012. The role of individuals in the information processing perspective. Strategic
Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. 1986. Technological discontinuities and organizational environments.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 439–465.
Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. 1978. Information processing as an integrating concept in organizational design.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolution-
ary change. California Management Review, 38: 8–29.
Tzabbar, D. 2009. When does scientist recruitment affect technological repositioning? Academy of Management
Journal, 52: 873–896.
Tzabbar, D., Aharonson, B. S., & Amburgey, T. L. 2013. When does tapping external sources of knowledge result in
knowledge integration? Research Policy, 42: 481–494.
Tzabbar, D., & Vestal, A. 2015. Bridging the social chasm in geographically distributed R&D teams: The moderating
effects of relational strength and status asymmetry on the novelty of team innovation. Organization Science, 26:
811–829.
Van de Vrande, V. 2013. Balancing your technology-sourcing portfolio: How sourcing mode diversity enhances
innovative performance. Strategic Management Journal, 34: 610–621.
Vandor, P., & Franke, N. 2016. See Paris and … found a business? The impact of cross-cultural experience on
opportunity recognition capabilities. Journal of Business Venturing, 31: 388–407.
Vasudeva, G., & Anand, J. 2011. Unpacking absorptive capacity: A study of knowledge utilization from alliance
portfolios. Academy of Management Journal, 54: 611–623.
Wang, C., Rodan, S., Fruin, M., & Xu, X. 2014. Knowledge networks, collaboration networks, and exploratory
innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 484–514.
Wang, T., & Zatzick, C. D. 2019. Human capital acquisition and organizational innovation: A temporal perspective.
Academy of Management Journal, 62: 99–116.
Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. 2009. The effectiveness of alliances and acquisitions: The role of resource
combination activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33: 193–212.
Winter, S. G. 1984. Schumpeterian competition in alternative technological regimes. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization, 5: 287–320.
Winter, S. G. 2003. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24: 991–995.
Wu, L., Hitt, L., & Lou, B. 2020. Data analytics, innovation, and firm productivity. Management Science, 66:
2017–2039.
Wuyts, S., & Dutta, S. 2014. Benefiting from alliance portfolio diversity: The role of past internal knowledge creation
strategy. Journal of Management, 40: 1653–1674.
Yang, H., Phelps, C., & Steensma, H. K. 2010. Learning from what others have learned from you: The effects of
knowledge spillovers on originating firms. Academy of Management Journal, 53: 371–389.
Yayavaram, S., & Ahuja, G. 2008. Decomposability in knowledge structures and its impact on the usefulness of
inventions and knowledge-base malleability. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 333–362.
Yayavaram, S., & Chen, W. R. 2015. Changes in firm knowledge couplings and firm innovation performance: The
moderating role of technological complexity. Strategic Management Journal, 36: 377–396.
Yayavaram, S., Srivastava, M. K., & Sarkar, M. 2018. Role of search for domain knowledge and architectural
knowledge in alliance partner selection. Strategic Management Journal, 39: 2277–2302.
Zander, U., & Kogut, B. 1995. Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities:
An empirical test. Organization Science, 6: 76–92.
Zhang, Y., & Li, H. 2010. Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: The role of ties with service
intermediaries. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 88–109.
Zhou, K. Z., & Li, C. B. 2012. How knowledge affects radical innovation: Knowledge base, market knowledge
acquisition, and internal knowledge sharing. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1090–1102.
Zhou, J., & Shalley, C. E. 2011. Deepening our understanding of creativity in the workplace: A review of different
approaches to creativity research. In APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol 1:
Building and Developing the Organization: 275–302. American Psychological Association.
Appendix: Selected Articles on Knowledge Recombination
Knowledge Components Features

Author(s), Year
Journal/Book Con. Breadth Modul. vs Key Knowledge Recombination Concepts
(Chronological Order) Existing Newness Spec. vs Depth Nondecom. Netwk. Architecture Outcomes and Relationships
Schumpeter (1934) ✓ ✓ • Introduces notion of innovation as

The Theory of involving new combinations of
Economic Development existing knowledge
Schumpeter (1939) ✓ ✓ • Innovation through recombination is
Business Cycles the driver of economic growth
Winter (1984) ✓ ✓ ✓ • New knowledge can be derived from
JEBA a firm’s external environment
Henderson and Clark ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Introduces notion of innovation
(1990) architecture
ASQ • Change in architecture alone can
create new innovation that is difficult
for others to copy
Schoonhoven, ✓ ✓ ✓ • Recombination drawing upon
Eisenhardt, and Lyman existing knowledge leads to faster
(1990) revenue streams
ASQ
Shan, Walker, and Kogut ✓ ✓ • Biopharmaceutical startups able to
(1994) leverage knowledge and techniques
SMJ across biotechnology subfields have
greater innovation output
Hargadon and Sutton ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Innovation combines existing
(1997) knowledge from disparate industries
ASQ • Structural holes in a firm’s network
can enhance its recombination
Galunic and Rodan ✓ ✓ ✓ • Recombination generated through
synthesis of existing competencies or
1761
(continued)
1762
Appendix (continued)
Author(s), Year
(1998) reconfiguring how competencies are

SMJ linked to each other
• Context specificity can impede
others’ recombination
Ahuja (2000) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Innovation recombines knowledge,
ASQ skills, and physical assets
• A firm’s network features can
influence its innovation outcomes
Karim and Mitchell ✓ ✓ ✓ • Firms most often acquire similar
(2000) resources (experiencing
SMJ path-dependent change) or very
distant resources (leading to
path-breaking change)
• Acquisition active firms create more
“new to the market” innovations than
nonacquisition active firms
Shane (2000) ✓ ✓ • Entrepreneurship ventures recombine
OS existing resources in ways not
previously considered
Shane and Venkatraman ✓ ✓ • Entrepreneurs possess idiosyncratic
(2000) information about existing assets,
AMR which allows for different approaches
to recombination
Ahuja and Katila (2001) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Knowledge from acquired targets
SMJ enrich existing knowledge for
recombination
• Moderate degrees of relatedness can
(continued)
Author(s), Year
achieve balance between variety of

possible combinations
Ahuja and Morris ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Knowledge breadth, learning cost,
Lampert (2001) and technology trajectory impact
SMJ firms’ recombination potential and
exploration of new knowledge
• Novel, emerging, and pioneering
technologies can reduce combination
exhaustion
Fleming (2001) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Invention comes from an uncertain
MS search process, with inventors more
likely to search locally and combine
familiar knowledge to reduce risk
• Combination of familiar knowledge
can lead to combination exhaustion,
and recombination of distant
knowledge can provides the source of
novelty
Lee, Lee, and Pennings ✓ ✓ • Direct ties in the form of alliance
(2001) partners, banks, and government are
SMJ less important for performance of
high-tech startups than firms’ internal
capabilities
Rosenkopf and Nerkar ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Recombining knowledge spanning
(2001) both organizational and technological
SMJ boundaries can enhance a firm’s
exploration most
Schulz (2001) ✓ ✓ ✓ • A firm can use existing knowledge
AMJ from other sources (e.g., suppliers
(continued)
1763
1764
Author(s), Year
and buyers) to identify new

knowledge
Tsai (2001) ✓ ✓ ✓ • A firm’s network positions can help
AMJ to access new knowledge to enhance
its innovation
Katila (2002) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Knowledge age can affect a firm’s
AMJ knowledge recombination
• While old intradindustry knowledge
hurts innovation, old extradindustry
knowledge promotes it
Katila and Ahuja (2002) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • A firm can recombine knowledge in a
AMJ spectrum from local to distant
• Search depth and scope has inverted
U-shaped relationship to firm’s new
products
Garud and Karnøe ✓ ✓ ✓ • Knowledge and resource components
(2003) are the fundamental building blocks
RP of an innovation undertaken by a firm
or entrepreneur
• Inputs to a particular technological
path are enabled and constrained by
the activities of distributed actors
Rosenkopf and Almeida ✓ ✓ ✓ • External diverse knowledge can
(2003) enlarge a firm’s existing knowledge
MS base
• Diverse knowledge from dissimilar
and distant context via alliances and
inventor mobility facilitate
recombination
Ethiraj and Levinthal ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Knowledge in narrow categories is
(continued)
Author(s), Year
(2004) easy to understand and thus can

MS facilitate potential valuable
recombinations
• Modularity of components can help a
firm to manage complex relationships
in recombination process
Nickerson and Zenger ✓ • Firm-specific language can be
(2004) considered as unique knowledge,
OS which can lower a firm’s internal
communication cost
Fleming and Sorenson ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Rugged technological landscapes
(2004) reflect uncertainty of combining
SMJ existing knowledge components
• Scientific knowledge can guide
coupling relationships under
uncertainty
Owen-Smith and Powell ✓ • A firm can consider its networks as
(2004) channels and conduits to access
OS external diverse knowledge to
enhance its innovation
Baker and Nelson (2005) ✓ ✓ • Different firms will discover and
ASQ elicit different services through
bricolage in the form of new
“services” from existing resources
Katila and Shane (2005) ✓ ✓ • New firms cannot use existing firm
AMJ knowledge
• Lack of resources enhances radical
innovation in contexts where
processes are still emergent
✓ ✓
1765
(continued)
1766
Author(s), Year
Obstfeld (2005) • Innovation activities embedded in

ASQ either sparse or dense networks
• A firm’s strategic behavioral
orientation, or tertius iungens,
connects people in these networks
Smith, Collins, and Clark ✓ ✓ ✓ • Number of direct ties between TMT
(2005) and knowledge workers help to
AMJ access knowledge and exchange
information
Bhardwaj, Camillus, and ✓ ✓ • Firms pursue search processes for
Hounshell (2006) new-to-world knowledge to gain
MS long-term competitive advantages
rather than short-run benefits
Karim (2006) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Firms recombine knowledge by
SMJ recombining modular business units
• Acquired resources are often
“molded” and recombined with
internal ones or with one another
Laursen and Salter ✓ ✓ • Knowledge scope and depth is
(2006) curvilinearly related to a firm’s
SMJ innovative performance
Phene, ✓ ✓ ✓ • Knowledge from different
Fladmoe-Lindquist, technological/national contexts
and Marsh (2006) increase opportunities for
SMJ recombination but involve higher
integration costs
Pil and Cohen (2006) ✓ ✓ • Modular design dividing components
AMR into discrete groups reduces
coordination costs in recombination
but increases imitation possibilities
(continued)
Author(s), Year
Taylor and Greve (2006) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Knowledge diversity can challenge

AMJ existing beliefs and identify new
ways to recombine knowledge
Audia and Goncalo ✓ ✓ ✓ • Exposure to distant ideas and
(2007) viewpoints from collaborators can
MS provide new knowledge for divergent
recombination, leading to greater
impact
Fleming, Mingo, and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • Diverse knowledge can come from a
Chen (2007) firm’s network and collaborators
ASQ • Cohesive collaborations facilitate
recombination. Collaborative
brokerage helps idea generation but
impedes use by others.
Schilling and Phelps ✓ ✓ • Firms embedded in high clustering
(2007) and reach networks can gain diverse
MS knowledge and routines from
partners, enhancing recombination
Shepherd, McMullen, ✓ ✓ • The ability to imagine an opportunity
and Jennings (2007) plays a key role in determining the
SEJ nature of the venture started by an
entrepreneur
Haefliger, Von Krogh, ✓ • Use of existing knowledge codes
and Spaeth (2008) helps software developers to lower
MS search costs and integrate
components quickly under limited
resources
Heeley and Jacobson ✓ ✓ • Recency of new knowledge matters
(2008) • Midrange technological new
SMJ
1767
(continued)
1768
Author(s), Year
knowledge has greater value than

nascent or mature new knowledge
Tiwana (2008) ✓ ✓ • While a firm’s bridging ties can help
SMJ to access nonredundant information,
strong ties can facilitate trust and
reciprocity, enhancing recombination
Yayavaram and Ahuja ✓ ✓ ✓ • In a firm’s knowledge base, moderate
(2008) nondecomposability is best for
ASQ balance between insightful
interactions and reduced complexity
for innovation
Adner and Kapoor ✓ ✓ • Structure of interdependence among
(2010) firms matters to recombination
SMJ • Success of a focal firm’s innovation
depends on accompanying
innovations from other firms
Chadwick and Dabu ✓ ✓ • Unique human capital enhances
(2009) component heterogeneity within a
OS firm
Dushnitsky and Shaver ✓ ✓ • Entrepreneurs have idiosyncratic
(2009) information and can use existing
SMJ assets via different approaches for
recombination
Karim (2009) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Structural recombination (and
MS ensuing knowledge recombination)
has an inverted U-shape relationship
with innovation
McFadyen, Semadeni, ✓ ✓ • Firm’s network structural holes and
tie strengths influence recombination
(continued)
Author(s), Year
and Cannella (2009) • Strong ties with structural holes help

OS access others’ diverse knowledge
Tzabbar (2009) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Beneficial interaction between
AMJ knowledge diversity and new
knowledge components for
recombination
Cornelissen and Clarke ✓ ✓ • Entrepreneurs can use imagination to
(2010) create opportunities for new ventures
AMR
Leiponen and Helfat ✓ ✓ • Knowledge from multiple sources
(2010) can increase knowledge diversity,
SMJ facilitating combining with
complementary knowledge for
innovation
Makri, Hitt, and Lane ✓ ✓ ✓ • Knowledge similarity between an
(2010) acquirer and its target can increase
SMJ recombination quality for useful
innovations but decrease novel ones
Phelps (2010) ✓ ✓ • Knowledge diversity from a firm’s
AMJ alliance network has an inverted
U-shaped relationship with its
exploratory innovation
Schoenmakers and ✓ ✓ ✓ • Radical innovations are more likely
Duysters (2010) to draw upon recombining existing
RP knowledge than nonradical ones
Tortoriello and ✓ ✓ • A firm’s network features such as
Krackhardt (2010) strong bridging and Simmelian ties
AMJ help combine heterogenous sources
of knowledge
(continued)
1769
1770
Author(s), Year
Zhang and Li (2010) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Linkages with service intermediaries

SMJ provide different expertise and
perspectives for potential
recombinations
Davis and Eisenhardt ✓ ✓ • Rotating and consensus leadership
(2011) facilitates integration of diverse and
ASQ deep knowledge, enhancing
innovation
Chatterji and Fabrizio ✓ ✓ ✓ • A firm drawing upon its transactional
(2012) network can learn complementary
OS knowledge such as unexplored
consumer needs
Eggers (2012) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Knowledge breadth and depth from
SMJ prior experience affects a firm’s
product development
Grégoire and Shepherd ✓ ✓ • Entrepreneurs are not uniform in their
(2012) ability to observe connections
AMJ between a new technology and a
target market
Karim and Williams ✓ ✓ • Executives will move between units
(2012) with similar “structural composition”
SMJ based on their knowledge
recombination from prior experiences
Kapoor and Adner ✓ ✓ • Vertically integrated firm better at
(2012) managing knowledge for new
OS product generation enabled by
architectural change
Shane (2012) ✓ ✓ • Entrepreneurs possess and utilize
AMR
(continued)
Author(s), Year
idiosyncratic information in unique

ways for knowledge recombination
Carnabuci and Operti ✓ ✓ ✓ • A firm’s innovation can come from
(2013) creating new component combination
SMJ or reconfiguring existing
combinations
Garriga, Von Krogh, and ✓ ✓ • A firm’s constraints on the
Spaeth (2013) application of its resources and the
SMJ abundance of external knowledge can
not only affect a firm’s innovation
performance but also its knowledge
search including search breadth and
depth
Gruber, Harhoff, and ✓ ✓ ✓ • Scientific-education inventors more
Hoisl (2013) likely creating recombinations
MS spanning technological boundaries
than engineering-education inventors
Gruber, MacMillan, and ✓ ✓ • Entrepreneurs differ in search
Thompson (2013) strategies due to imagination and
OS creativity
• Local solution space before
identifying more distant opportunities
Mahmood, Chung, and ✓ ✓ • Variation in the density of intragroup
Mitchell (2013) buyer-supplier ties can explain
MS heterogeneity of business groups’
recombinations and innovativeness
Chatterji and Fabrizio ✓ ✓ • Inventive collaborations with users
can enhance innovation in general, in
(continued)
1771
1772
Author(s), Year
(2014) new technology areas, and for radical

SMJ innovations
Hsu and Lim (2014) ✓ ✓ • Entrepreneurs ideate and
OS conceptualize their ventures
• Initial and ongoing knowledge
brokering has different effects on
firms’ recombination processes and
outcomes
Sears and Hoetker (2014) ✓ ✓ • Target overlap and acquirer overlap
SMJ are two distinct constructs and can
influence a firm’s knowledge
recombination and innovation
outcomes
Wang, Rodan, Fruin, and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • A firm’s collaboration and
Xu (2014) knowledge networks’ features,
AMJ including their structural holes and
degree centrality, jointly influence its
recombination and innovation
outcomes
Ansari, Garud, and ✓ • New firms adapt their innovation in
Kumaraswamy (2016) ways that accommodate existing
SMJ arrangements among firms in an
industry
Kaplan and Vakili (2015) ✓ ✓ • Narrow and diverse knowledge
SMJ recombination have different
mechanisms for influencing
innovation novelty and value
Karim and Kaul (2015) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Structural recombination can unlock
OS the potential for intraorganizational
knowledge recombination if
disruption is limited
• Innovation outcomes result from
(continued)
Author(s), Year
recombination where there are

knowledge synergies, low path
dependence, and high knowledge
quality
Pahnke, Katila, and ✓ ✓ • Funding partners’ institutional logics
Eisenhardt (2015) are transmitted to entrepreneurial
ASQ firms and influence their inventions
Terjesen and Patel (2017) ✓ ✓ • Industry environment has moderating
JOM effects on a firm’s search strategies
including search breadth and depth
Tortoriello (2015) ✓ ✓ • The leverage of external knowledge
SMJ to generation innovations depends
upon individuals’ position in the
internal social network
Tortoriello, McEvily, ✓ ✓ • A person’s network position and the
and Krackhardt (2015) type of knowledge available through
OS his network are key enabling
conditions for innovation
Yayavaram and Chen ✓ ✓ • Change in couplings among a firm’s
(2015) existing knowledge domains and new
SMJ domains affects its recombination
Eckhardt (2016) ✓ ✓ • Existing technologies that are free or
noncommercial facilitate the
formation of entrepreneurial
opportunities
Guan and Liu (2016) ✓ ✓ • A firm’s knowledge and
RP collaboration networks’ features
including direct, indirect, and
nonredundant ties can influence its
innovation
1773
(continued)
1774
Author(s), Year
Jung and Lee (2016) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Highlights two dimensions of a firm’s

AMJ knowledge recombination or search
—search boundary and search target
Singh, Kryscynski, Li, ✓ ✓ ✓ • A firm’s new or combinatory
and Gopal (2016) knowledge and its direct and indirect
SMJ ties can have joint effects on inventor
performance
Grigoriou and ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • A firm’s internal network features
Rothaermel (2017) moderate the effects of external
SMJ knowledge sourcing activities on its
knowledge generation
Hoisl, Gruber, and Conti ✓ ✓ ✓ • Organizational size and firm age
(2017) moderate the inverted U-shaped
SMJ relationship between experience
diversity in R&D teams and
performance
Paruchuri and Awate ✓ ✓ ✓ • Inventors’ reach and span of
(2017) structural holes have independent and
SMJ interactive effects on search breadth
and depth
Arts and Fleming (2018) ✓ ✓ • Exploring new areas can increase
OS innovation novelty but decrease value
• Collaboration with experts can
reduce negative effects of new
knowledge on innovation value
Balachandran and ✓ ✓ • A firm’s interorganizational network
Hernandez (2018) and its partners institutional features
OS jointly influence its innovation
volume and radicalness
(continued)
Author(s), Year
Castellacci, ✓ ✓ • Extent to which a functional

Gulbrandsen, Hildrum, department is central in the
and Martinkenaite intra-organizational network can
(2018) influence employees’ innovation
RP intensity
Choudhury and Kim ✓ ✓ • Ethnic migrant inventors more likely
(2019) engage in reuse of knowledge locked
SMJ within their home cultural context
Cohen and Tripsas ✓ ✓ ✓ • An incumbent’s intergenerational
(2018) knowledge bridges influence its
AMJ performance in the new domain
Deichmann and Jensen ✓ ✓ • Heterogeneous knowledge of
(2018) individuals can be recombined to
SMJ generate more radical entrepreneurial
ideas
Giudici, Reinmoeller, ✓ ✓ • Fostering of relationships, social
and Ravasi (2018) capital, and trust can facilitate
AMJ knowledge transfer and enhance
recombination efforts
Kier and McMullen ✓ ✓ • Entrepreneurs draw upon imagination
(2018) and creativity to figure out
AMJ possibilities for recombination to
solve observed problems
Mannucci and Yong ✓ ✓ ✓ • Positive effects of depth on creativity
(2018) enhanced in early career stage and
AMJ breadth on creativity enhanced at late
stage
Rhee and Leonardi ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ • People’s attention allocation logics
(continued)
1775
1776
Author(s), Year
(2018) and their network constraints can

SMJ jointly affect the quality of their ideas
Theeke, Polidoro, and ✓ ✓ ✓ • Professional brokerage firms unable
Fredrickson (2018) to change traditional reasoning for
ASQ valuation of companies using new
knowledge components
Yayavaram, Srivastava, ✓ ✓ ✓ • Firms seek partners that are similar in
and Sarkar (2018) domain knowledge to deepen their
SMJ knowledge and partners that are
dissimilar in architectural knowledge
to broaden their knowledge
Cirillo (2019) ✓ ✓ • Firms recombining unfamiliar
OS knowledge components through CV
spinouts have higher value than
comparable firms’ recombinations of
knowledge from corporate venture
capital, allies, or employee spinouts
Howard, Boeker, and ✓ ✓ • Formation of new biotech firms by
Andrus (2019) former employees of successful
AMJ incumbent firms gives rise to an
ecosystem of shared knowledge
among cohorts
Nagle and Teodoridis ✓ ✓ • Individual-level diversification serves
(2020) as a mechanism through which
SMJ researchers engage in exploration
Teodoridis, Bikard, and ✓ ✓ ✓ • The pace of change in a knowledge
Vakili (2019) domain shapes the relative return of
ASQ being a specialist or a generalist on
their creative performance
Argyres, Rios, and ✓ ✓ ✓ • A firm’s formal R&D structure and
(continued)
Author(s), Year
Silverman (2020) internal inventor networks influence

SMJ its innovative behavior and outcomes
Bikard and Marx (2020) ✓ ✓ • Hubs play the role of bridges between
MS academic science and corporate
technology and facilitate the flow of
academic science to innovations
Kneeland, Schilling, and ✓ ✓ ✓ • Long search paths, scientific reason,
Aharonson (2020) and distant recombination are three
OS processes for a firm to create outlier
innovations distant from existing
ones
Obstfeld, Ventresca, and ✓ ✓ • Entrepreneurial firms conduct
Fisher (2020) combinations of whatever resources
SEJ are at hand for recombination
Schillebeeckx, Lin, ✓ ✓ ✓ • Inventors are triply embedded in a
George, and Alnuaimi firm’s network of its own knowledge
(2020) components, the firm’s external
JOM network, and inventors’ own network
Snihur and Zott (2020) ✓ ✓ • Entrepreneurs recombine existing
AMJ templates to create novel business
models
1777

Xiao Et Al 2021 A Knowledge Recombination Perspective of Innovation Review and New Research Directions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Xiao Et Al 2021 A Knowledge Recombination Perspective of Innovation Review and New Research Directions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Xiao Et Al 2021 A Knowledge Recombination Perspective of Innovation Review and New Research Directions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Management

Vol. 48 No. 6, July 2022 1724-1777

A Knowledge Recombination Perspective of

Keywords: recombination; innovation; knowledge; entrepreneurship

A Knowledge Recombination Framework

Features of an Individual Knowledge Component

Component Feature: Existing

Component Feature: Newness

Component Feature: Context Speciﬁcity

Features Pertaining to a Set of Knowledge Components

Set of Components Feature: Breadth Versus Depth

Set of Components Feature: Modularity Versus Nondecomposability

Nondecomposability. Nondecomposability indicates tight linkages or high interdepen-

Set of Components’ Feature: Network-Based

Clustering. Another feature of networks considered to be relevant for recombination is

to combine previously dispersed or distant components. Balachandran and Hernandez (2018)

Architecture of Knowledge Components

Much of subsequent research on innovation architecture conceptualizes modules or orga-

Knowledge Recombination Outcomes

Recombination Outcome: Novelty

or path-breaking nature of an innovation (Karim & Mitchell, 2000), often conceptualized as

Recombination Outcome: Usefulness

Future Research Directions

Future Research Directions Pertaining to Individual Knowledge

Future Research Directions Pertaining to a Set of

Future Research Directions Pertaining to Architecture (Cell 3)

manipulating different architectures on innovation outcomes. Network relationships among

Future Research Directions Pertaining to Innovation Outcomes (Cell 4)

Declaration of Conﬂicting Interests

Knowledge Components Features

Schumpeter (1934) ✓ ✓ • Introduces notion of innovation as

(1998) reconﬁguring how competencies are

achieve balance between variety of

and buyers) to identify new

(2004) easy to understand and thus can

Obstfeld (2005) • Innovation activities embedded in

Taylor and Greve (2006) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Knowledge diversity can challenge

knowledge has greater value than

and Cannella (2009) • Strong ties with structural holes help

Zhang and Li (2010) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Linkages with service intermediaries

idiosyncratic information in unique

(2014) new technology areas, and for radical

recombination where there are

Jung and Lee (2016) ✓ ✓ ✓ • Highlights two dimensions of a ﬁrm’s

Castellacci, ✓ ✓ • Extent to which a functional

(2018) and their network constraints can

Silverman (2020) internal inventor networks inﬂuence

You might also like