Abstract:

The paradigm of enterprise technological innovation is undergoing a significant transition from a traditional "value chain" framework to a more complex, multi-stakeholder "value network". This transition is driven by the rise of global trade protectionism, accelerated by the urgency for domestic technological self-sufficiency, particularly in critical sectors like the semiconductor industry, where "chokepoint" technologies pose severe national security and economic stability risks. The semiconductor industry’s innovation ecosystem is shifting toward dense regional networks, demanding collaborative and non-linear approaches to value creation, contrasting sharply with the sequential and linear nature of the traditional value chain model. This paradigm shift exposes enterprises to new challenges, including cognitive limitations, technological uncertainty, high coordination costs, and capability obsolescence, which exacerbate the risk of falling into the "valleys of death" across the innovation lifecycle. These valleys manifest as critical breaks in the network nodes from basic research through application development to industrialization and scaling.

This study systematically investigates how enterprises can effectively navigate these challenges, focusing on the six distinct types of innovation valleys of death that emerge within this value network context. Adopting the "Awareness-Motivation-Capability" (AMC) perspective, which is highly suited for analyzing enterprise responses to external changes and strategic challenges, we conduct a multi-case study on eight semiconductor subsidiaries of the Changguang Group, an enterprise group integral to China's high-tech development. We track their archival records, patent portfolios, and financial data between 2014 and 2024 to provide robust longitudinal evidence.

Our empirical findings reveal two distinct strategic paths for overcoming innovation valleys, contingent on the type of core technology being pursued.

First, for "chokepoint" technologies (those significantly lagging behind international leaders and facing external restrictions), the most effective strategy follows the path of "social-expectation-based awareness—developing intrinsic motivation—cultivating core capabilities". Social expectation awareness, driven by comparison to industry benchmarks, compels the enterprise to adopt a differentiation strategy to break free from "chain"-based path dependency. Intrinsic motivation, rooted in a sense of mission and long-term commitment, facilitates continuous learning and the tacit knowledge accumulation necessary to overcome network monopolies and master crucial know-how. Finally, cultivating core capabilities allows the firm to achieve rapid product transformation, scale production efficiently, and realize sufficient network benefits, thereby securing the autonomous control and industrialization of critical core technologies.

Second, for "game-changer" technologies (asymmetric technologies originating from internal, primary innovation that are difficult to imitate), the successful approach is "self-expectation-based awareness—developing extrinsic motivation—cultivating dynamic capabilities". Self-expectation awareness, based on the enterprise’s past performance, provides a stable internal anchor for sustained investment in basic research, mitigating the risk of divergent goals among multiple stakeholders (such as government, research institutes, and market-driven firms). Extrinsic motivation, often triggered by external pressures (e.g., policy support, competitive attacks), facilitates the coordination of diverse actors and the infusion of external resources, thereby resolving the challenges of adoption network delays in the transition from application to product. Crucially, dynamic capabilities (sensing, seizing, and reconfiguring) enable the enterprise to quickly adapt to market changes, integrate resources, and reconstruct business models, effectively addressing diffusion network delays and ensuring the rapid dissemination of asymmetric technologies and successful business model innovation.

This study contributes to the literature on innovation management by extending the AMC framework into the context of innovation valleys of death in value networks and providing a differentiated strategic response mechanism for "chokepoint" and "game-changer" technologies. Practically, the findings offer vital guidance for enterprises in critical industries to proactively respond to paradigm shifts, successfully commercialize R&D outcomes, and enhance national competitiveness.

Key words: sixth generation of innovation paradigm, value network, bottleneck technologies, killer technologies, semiconductor industry

摘要：

企业技术创新范式正在从基于“价值链”向基于“价值网络”过渡。面临范式变革,本文采用“意识-动机-能力”视角系统研究企业如何应对价值网络中出现的6类创新死亡谷。通过对长光集团的8家半导体子公司进行案例分析,辅以这些企业2014-2024年的档案、专利与财务数据追踪,本文发现:(1)对于“卡脖子”技术,遵循“基于社会期望意识-开发内在动机-培育核心能力”的路径,能够有效破解从基础研究到规模化过程中的“链”式路径依赖、网络垄断和网络效益不足等难题,有力推进关键核心技术的自主可控和产业化。(2)对于“杀手锏”技术,遵循“基于自我期望意识-开发外在动机-培育动态能力”的路径,能够有效破解从基础研究到规模化过程中的多元主体目标分歧、采纳网络延迟和扩散网络延迟等难题,有力推进非对称性技术的快速扩散和商业模式创新。在此基础上,结合三位中国半导体产业专家的访谈,本研究探讨范式变革下创新死亡谷的具体应对措施,为我国关键产业的技术创新、把握机会窗口提供理论依据和实践指导,推动科技创新与国家竞争力的提升。

关键词: 第六代创新范式, 价值网络, “卡脖子”技术, 杀手锏技术, 半导体产业