Analysis shows collaboration scale affects breakthrough innovation, indicating knowledge recombination plays a crucial role.
In the knowledge economy era, optimizing R&D team size is crucial for breakthrough innovation. Breakthrough technologies rely more on knowledge restructuring and technological leaps than general technologies do. However, it remains unclear whether breakthrough technology formation follows a simple “more people, more power” logic within technological systems. This work examines 35,955 patents in recommendation system technology to propose a relationship model between collaboration scale and breakthrough technological innovation based on patent data from the recommendation system field. It aims to elucidate how collaboration scale influences breakthrough technological innovation through knowledge restructuring, thereby providing theoretical support and practical guidance for enterprises, institutions, and governments in innovation activities to advance technological innovation. The findings reveal three key points: (1) The relationship between collaboration scale and breakthrough innovation is not linear but follows an inverted U-shaped curve; (2) Knowledge recombination significantly mediates this relationship, also exhibiting an inverted U-shaped pattern with collaboration scale; (3) The inverted U-shaped effect of collaboration scale on breakthrough innovation varies by country. The optimal thresholds are 14.058 entities for China, 57.151 entities for the United States, and 4.801 entities for Russia. This work breaks through the limitations of the traditional theoretical framework and constructs a three-dimensional analysis framework of “collaboration scale → knowledge recombination → breakthrough technological innovation”. By introducing the mediating variable of knowledge recombination, this paper reveals the mechanism of R&D team size on radical innovation. It provides a theoretical basis for the construction of an innovation team and provides a theoretical basis for enterprises, governments, and institutions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Song et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: