TY - JOUR

T1 - Structural ambidexterity, transition processes, and integration trade‐offs: a longitudinal study of failed exploration

AU - Hansen, Erik Gunnar

AU - Wicki, Samuel

AU - Schaltegger, Stefan

N1 - Funding Information: This research was made possible through funding by EU FP7 People: Marie-Curie Initial Training Networks (FP7-People-2012-ITN), Project I4S (“Innovation for Sustainability”), Grant Agreement Number PITN-GA-2012-316604. From 2013 to 2015, this research was partially developed within the Visiting Professorship of Energy Transition Management of Leuphana University of Lüneburg’s Innovation Incubator, funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). Since October 2015, the contributions by Erik G. Hansen are funded by the Institute for Integrated Quality Design (IQD) at Johannes Kepler University (JKU) Linz, Austria, which is co-funded by Quality Austria – Trainings, Zertifizierungs und Begutachtungs GmbH, the State of Upper Austria, and the Johannes Kepler University Linz (JKU), Austria. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers of the journal, two reviewers from the International Society of Professional Innovation Management (ISPIM) Conference 2015 in Budapest, Hungary, and various critical commenters to our presentations for their valuable feedback. Most importantly, we thank the entire management team at TechLtd for their trust and precious time. Publisher Copyright: © 2018 The Authors R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

PY - 2019/9

Y1 - 2019/9

N2 - In order to overcome the exploration–exploitation paradox, structural ambidexterity literature suggests establishing differentiated units for exploitation and exploration with a carefully managed exploration–exploitation interface supporting cross‐fertilization without cross‐contamination. Recent research demonstrates the crucial role of integration mechanisms (i.e. how knowledge exchange between exploratory and exploitative units can be organized) and related transition modes (i.e. how exploratory innovations can ultimately be transferred back into the exploitative structures of core business) to deal with this challenge. However, a systematic account of the diverse tensions, risks, and trade‐offs associated with integration which may ultimately cause exploration failure is missing, so far. This paper presents a longitudinal process study uncovering the anatomy of an unsuccessful exploration of (green) technologies by a medium‐sized entrepreneurial firm. We investigated their transition processes to understand how the managers dynamically configured and reconfigured the exploration–exploitation interface over time. Our theoretical contribution lies in providing a framework of six integration trade‐offs (Exploratory‐complementary linking vs. contamination; Seeking legitimacy early on vs. frustration at discontinuation of innovation; Boundary spanning through job rotation vs. carrying over of old culture; Early vs. premature transfer; Reorganization vs. capability mutation; and Improved access to core business resources vs. resource starvation) linked to three phases in the transition process (before, at, and after transfer). We also highlight mechanism, pulling‐forward, and streamlining‐related failures linked to integration trade‐offs in resource‐constrained contexts. Our implication for R&D and top management is that the use of integration mechanisms for structural ambidexterity bears the risk of cross‐contamination between the exploitative and exploratory structures and are therefore inevitably linked to trade‐offs. To minimize negative side effects and prevent exploration failure, organizations have to consciously select, schedule, operationalize, and manage (re)integration mechanisms along the transition process. Our framework of integration trade‐offs systematically supports managers in their organizational design choices for integration mechanisms in the transition processes.

AB - In order to overcome the exploration–exploitation paradox, structural ambidexterity literature suggests establishing differentiated units for exploitation and exploration with a carefully managed exploration–exploitation interface supporting cross‐fertilization without cross‐contamination. Recent research demonstrates the crucial role of integration mechanisms (i.e. how knowledge exchange between exploratory and exploitative units can be organized) and related transition modes (i.e. how exploratory innovations can ultimately be transferred back into the exploitative structures of core business) to deal with this challenge. However, a systematic account of the diverse tensions, risks, and trade‐offs associated with integration which may ultimately cause exploration failure is missing, so far. This paper presents a longitudinal process study uncovering the anatomy of an unsuccessful exploration of (green) technologies by a medium‐sized entrepreneurial firm. We investigated their transition processes to understand how the managers dynamically configured and reconfigured the exploration–exploitation interface over time. Our theoretical contribution lies in providing a framework of six integration trade‐offs (Exploratory‐complementary linking vs. contamination; Seeking legitimacy early on vs. frustration at discontinuation of innovation; Boundary spanning through job rotation vs. carrying over of old culture; Early vs. premature transfer; Reorganization vs. capability mutation; and Improved access to core business resources vs. resource starvation) linked to three phases in the transition process (before, at, and after transfer). We also highlight mechanism, pulling‐forward, and streamlining‐related failures linked to integration trade‐offs in resource‐constrained contexts. Our implication for R&D and top management is that the use of integration mechanisms for structural ambidexterity bears the risk of cross‐contamination between the exploitative and exploratory structures and are therefore inevitably linked to trade‐offs. To minimize negative side effects and prevent exploration failure, organizations have to consciously select, schedule, operationalize, and manage (re)integration mechanisms along the transition process. Our framework of integration trade‐offs systematically supports managers in their organizational design choices for integration mechanisms in the transition processes.

KW - Sustainability sciences, Management & Economics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054547387&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/radm.12339

DO - 10.1111/radm.12339

M3 - Journal articles

VL - 49

SP - 484

EP - 508

JO - R and D Management

JF - R and D Management

SN - 0033-6807

IS - 4

ER -