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

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Authors

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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalR&D Management
Volume49
Issue number4
Pages (from-to)484-508
Number of pages25
ISSN0033-6807
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 09.2019

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Authors R&D Management published by RADMA and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Documents

DOI

Recently viewed

Researchers

  1. Isabelle Fincke

Publications

  1. How to assess transformative performance towards sustainable development in higher education institutions
  2. Learning linear classifiers sensitive to example dependent and noisy costs
  3. Not only biocidal products
  4. The role of the situation model in mathematical modelling
  5. Effects of grassland management, endophytic fungi and predators on aphid abundance in two distinct regions
  6. Microeconometric Studies on Firm Behavior and Performance
  7. Generalizing Trust
  8. Iconography on Scientific Instruments. Introduction
  9. Technology Implementation in Pre-Service Science Teacher Education Based on the Transformative View of TPACK: Effects on Pre-Service Teachers' TPACK, Behavioral Orientations and Actions in Practice
  10. Algorithmic Catastrophe - the Revenge of Contingency
  11. A duty-block network approach for an integrated driver rostering problem in public bus transport
  12. Towards a New Aesthetic
  13. The social dynamics of knowledge hiding
  14. Export entry, export exit, and productivity in German manufacturing industries
  15. A panel cointegrating rank test with structural breaks and cross-sectional dependence
  16. Creating a space for cooperation
  17. Active First Movers vs. Late Free-Riders? An Empirical Analysis of UN PRI Signatories' Commitment
  18. "It´s All in the Game"
  19. Usage pattern-based exposure screening as a simple tool for the regional priority-setting in environmental risk assessment of veterinary antibiotics
  20. Identifying core habitat before it's too late
  21. Creating Value from in-Vehicle Data
  22. Activity-based working
  23. Adjust for windows
  24. 'KNOW WHY' thinking as a new approach to systems thinking
  25. The Role of Network Size for the Robustness of Centrality Measures
  26. The case survey method and applications in political science
  27. Guest editorial
  28. Managing Global Production Networks
  29. Complexity Measures of Traffic Scenarios
  30. How problem-based or direct instructional case-based learning environments influence pre-service teachers’ cognitive load, motivation and emotions
  31. Does symbolic representation through class signalling appeal to voters? Evidence from a conjoint experiment
  32. Conditions of One-Way and Two-Way Approaches in Strategic Start-Up Communication
  33. Comparative study of resonant circuit for power transmission via inductive link
  34. Applying Necessity and Proportionality to Anti-Terrorist Self-Defence
  35. A Bayesian EAP-Based Nonlinear Extension of Croon and Van Veldhoven’s Model for Analyzing Data from Micro–Macro Multilevel Designs