World Scientific
  • Search
    Quick Search in Journals
    Access type:
    Quick Search anywhere
    Access type:
    Advanced Search
  • My Cart
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More
×
Our website is made possible by displaying certain online content using javascript.
In order to view the full content, please disable your ad blocker or whitelist our website www.worldscientific.com.

System Upgrade on Tue, Oct 25th, 2022 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.
No Access

Pathways for Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Innovations: A Review and Expansion of Ambidexterity Theory

    https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877019500329Cited by:5
    Previous
    Next

    Abstract

    Organizational research describes the inherent tension between innovation, as a means to adapt to environmental change, and continuing to do what one does well and what current customers appreciate. Managing this tension successfully leads to so-called ambidexterity. How to achieve it is still a matter of debate: proponents of structural approaches recommend a separation of exploration and exploitation, while proponents of so-called contextual ambidexterity suggest that contextual factors such as culture and process are equal if not more critical in leading the organization to ambidexterity. Based on the findings of empirical ambidexterity research, many more factors are suggested, though they are rarely researched in an ambidexterity context nor are the interdependencies between the factors and the known ambidexterity strategies described. To guide future research, this paper develops an expanded and system-focused framework for achieving ambidexterity. It is used to review and integrate findings from organizational theory and neighboring disciplines, including project management theories, knowledge management theories, human resource management theories, and open and distributed innovation theories. Managerial implications are discussed and illustrated with a case example. The resulting work provides the basis for explicitly modeling the drivers and inhibitors of exploration and exploitation and their interdependencies. In future research, this can be used to better understand and overcome conflicting objectives, devise new approaches for achieving ambidexterity, and ultimately design more successful organizations.

    References

    • Abebe, M. A. and Angriawan, A. [2014] Organizational and competitive influences of exploration and exploitation activities in small firms. Journal of Business Research, 67, 3: 339–345. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B. and Levine, D. I. [1999] Flexibility versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System. Organization Science 10 1: 43–68. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Altshuler, G. S. [1999] The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity. Technical Innovation Center, Inc., Worcester, MA. Google Scholar
    • Amabile, T. M. [1988] A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 10, 1: 123–167. Google Scholar
    • Amabile, T. M. [1997] Motivating creativity in organizations: On doing what you love and loving what you do. California Management Review, 40, 1: 39–58. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Anderson, J. V. [1992] Weirder than fiction: The reality and myths of creativity. The Executive, 6, 4: 40–47. Google Scholar
    • Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M. W. [2009] Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20, 4: 696–717. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Auh, S. and Menguc, B. [2005] Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58, 12: 1652–1661. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Baer, J. [2014] Creativity and Divergent Thinking: A Task-Specific Approach. Psychology Press, New York. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Bagno, R. B., Salerno, M. S. and Oliveira da Silva, D. [2017] Models with graphical representation for innovation management: A literature review. R&D Management, 47, 4: 637–653. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Barczak, G., Griffin, A. and Kahn, K. B. [2009] Perspective: Trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26, 1: 3–23. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Beck, K. et al. (2001). The Agile Manifesto. Presented at the Institute of Computer Science, University of Tartu, Course Lecture MTAT.03.094, Software Engineering. Google Scholar
    • Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C. [2004] Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45: 47–55. Google Scholar
    • Birkinshaw, J. and Gupta, K. [2013] Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 4: 287–298. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Booz, Allen and Hamilton [1968] Management of New Products. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., New York. Google Scholar
    • Busarovs, A. [2013] Open innovation: Current trends and future perspective. Humanities and Social Sciences Latvia, 21, 2: 103–119. Google Scholar
    • Chang, Y.-Y. and Hughes, M. [2012] Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30, 1: 1–17. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Chesbrough, H. [2006] Open innovation: A new paradigm for understanding industrial innovation. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm, eds. H. ChesbroughW. VanhaverbekeJ. West. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1–12. Google Scholar
    • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Harvard Business Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=4hTRWStFhVgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=open+innovation&ots=XsSBYNr4yI&sig=s_1aWMBkiJyKfYcW5GiAcFw6gT0. Google Scholar
    • Chesbrough, H. and Crowther, A. K. [2006] Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. R&D Management, 36, 3: 229–236. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Choi, D. Y. and Lee, K. C. [2015] Dynamic resource allocation for exploitation and exploration with ambidexterity: Logical mechanism and simulations. Computers in Human Behavior, 42: 120–126. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Christensen, C. M. [2003] The Innovator’s Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book That Will Change the Way You Do Business. Harper Business Essentials, New York, NY. Google Scholar
    • Christensen, C. M. and Overdorf, M. [2000] Meeting the challenge of disruptive change. Harvard Business Review, 78, 2: 66–77. Google Scholar
    • Christensen, J. F. [1994] Analyzing the technology base of the firm: A multi-dimensional resource and capability perspective. In Proceedings of the EUNET/IC Conference on Evolutionary Economics of Technological Change: Assessment of Results and New Frontiers, Vol. 3. Université Louis Pasteur, Strasbourg, pp. 1717–1740. Google Scholar
    • Collins, C. J. and Smith, K. G. [2006] Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 3: 544–560. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Colombo, M. G., Doganova, L., Piva, E., D’Adda, D. and Mustar, P. [2015] Hybrid alliances and radical innovation: The performance implications of integrating exploration and exploitation. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40, 4: 696–722. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Conboy, K. and Fitzgerald, B. [2004] Toward a conceptual framework of agile methods: A study of agility in different disciplines. In Proceedings of the 2004 ACM Workshop on Interdisciplinary Software Engineering Research. ACM, New York, pp. 37–44. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Conner, K. R. and Prahalad, C. K. [1996] A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7, 5: 477–501. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Cooper, R. G. [1990] Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33, 3: 44–54. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Cooper, R. G. [2000] Doing it right. Ivey Business Journal, 64, 6: 54–60. Google Scholar
    • Cooper, R. G. [2008] Perspective: The Stage-Gate® idea-to-launch process: Update, what’s new, and NexGen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25, 3: 213–232. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Cooper, R. G. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. [1993] Stage gate systems for new product success. Marketing Management, 1, 4: 20–29. Google Scholar
    • Cooper, R. G. and Kleinschmidt, E. J. [2001] Stage-gate process for new product success. Innovation Management U3, 2001: 1–9. Google Scholar
    • Cottrell, T. and Nault, B. R. [2004] Product variety and firm survival in the microcomputer software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 10: 1005–1025. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • De Clercq, D., Thongpapanl, N. and Dimov, D. [2014] Contextual ambidexterity in SMEs: The roles of internal and external rivalry. Small Business Economics, 42, 1: 191–205. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Duncan, R. B. [1976] The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1: 167–188. Google Scholar
    • Erden, Z., Klang, D., Sydler, R. and von Krogh, G. [2014] Knowledge-flows and firm performance. Journal of Business Research, 67, 1: 2777–2785. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Eriksson, P. E. [2013] Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations: Development and diffusion of knowledge at different organizational levels in construction companies. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 3: 333–341. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Erno-Kjolhede, E. (2000). Project management theory and the management of research projects. Working Paper 3/2000, Department of Management, Politics and Philosophy, Copenhagen Business School. Google Scholar
    • Faraj, S. and Xiao, Y. [2006] Coordination in fast-response organizations. Management Science, 52, 8: 1155–1169. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Fatehi, K. and Englis, P. D. [2012] Exploitation, exploration, and how learning affects strategic intent in multinational enterprises’ foreign direct investment decisions: A commentary essay. Journal of Business Research, 65, 9: 1295–1297. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Fayol, H. [1949] Industrial and General Management. Pitman, London. Google Scholar
    • Fleming, L., Mingo, S. and Chen, D. [2007] Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 3: 443–475. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Ford, S., Garnsey, E. and Probert, D. [2010] Evolving corporate entrepreneurship strategy: Technology incubation at Philips. R&D Management, 40, 1: 81–90. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Geerts, A., Blindenbach-Driessen, F. and Gemmel, P. [2010] Achieving a balance between exploration and exploitation in service firms: A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2010, 1: 1–6. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Gibson, C. B. and Birkinshaw, J. [2004] The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 2: 209–226. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Govindarajan, V. [2010] Innovation is not creativity. Harvard Business Review. 2010. https://hbr.org/2010/08/innovation-is-not-creativity.html. Access Date: 2018-09-11T13:30:00Z. Google Scholar
    • Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. [2005] Building breakthrough businesses within established organizations. Harvard Business Review, 83, 5: 58–68. Google Scholar
    • Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. [2010a] Stop the innovation wars. Harvard Business Review, 6: 77–83. Google Scholar
    • Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. [2010b] The Other Side of Innovation: Solving the Execution Challenge. Harvard Business School Press, Harvard. Google Scholar
    • Grant, R. M. [1996] Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: Organizational capability as knowledge integration. Organization Science, 7, 4: 375–387. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Gray, C. F. [2014] Project Management: The Managerial Process, 6th edn., Irwin/McGraw-Hill Series on Operations and Decision Sciences. McGraw-Hill Education, New York. Google Scholar
    • Griffin, A. [1997] PDMA research on new product development practices: Updating trends and benchmarking best practices. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14, 6: 429–458. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G. and Shalley, C. E. [2006] The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 4: 693–706. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Han, M. and Celly, N. [2008] Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences de l’Administration, 25, 4: 335–349. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Hansen, M. T. [1999] The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 1: 82–111. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • He, Z.-L. and Wong, P.-K. [2004] Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 4: 481–494. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Hiam, A. and Chalkley, T. [1998] 9 obstacles to creativity and how you can remove them. Futurist, 32, 7: 30. Google Scholar
    • Higuchi, T., Miyata, K. and Yuizono, T. [2012] Creativity improvement by idea-marathon training, measured by Torrance tests of creative thinking (TTCT) and its applications to laboratories. In Proceedings of the 2012 Seventh International Conference on Knowledge, Information and Creativity Support Systems (KICSS). IEEE, Piscataway, pp. 66–72. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Hill, S. A. and Birkinshaw, J. [2014] Ambidexterity and survival in corporate venture units. Journal of Management, 40, 7: 1899–1931. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Holmqvist, M. [2004] Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15, 1: 70–81. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Huizingh, E. K. R. E. [2011] Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation, 31, 1: 2–9. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Huy, Q. and Vuori, T. (2014). What Could Have Saved Nokia, and What Can Other Companies Learn? INSEAD Knowledge. Google Scholar
    • Isobe, T., Makino, S. and Montgomery, D. B. (2004). Exploitation, exploration, and firm performance: The case of small manufacturing firms in Japan. Working Paper No. 2342, Research Collection, Lee Kong Chian School of Business, Singapore Management University. Google Scholar
    • Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J. and Volberda, H. W. [2009] Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20, 4: 797–811. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Jansen, J. J. P., van Den Bosch, F. A. J. and Volberda, H. W. [2006] Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52, 11: 1661–1674. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Jetter, A. [2016a] The practice of project management in product development. In Proceedings of the PICMET Conference. Google Scholar
    • Jetter, A. (2016b). The practice of project management in product development: Insights from the literature and cases in high-tech. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/learning/academic-research/the-practice-of-project-management-in-product-development [accessed on 11 September 2018]. Google Scholar
    • Kanematsu, H. and Barry, D. M. [2016] Theory of creativity. STEM and ICT Education in Intelligent Environments, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland, pp. 9–13. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Karakas, F. and Kavas, M. [2008] Creative brainstorming and integrative thinking: Skills for twenty-first century managers. Development and Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 22, 2: 8–11. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Keegan, A. and Turner, J. R. [2002] The management of innovation in project-based firms. Long Range Planning, 35, 4: 367–388. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Kim, C., Song, J. and Nerkar, A. [2012] Learning and innovation: Exploitation and exploration trade-offs. Journal of Business Research, 65, 8: 1189–1194. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Koch, M. J. and McGrath, R. G. [1996] Improving labor productivity: Human resource management policies do matter. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 5: 335–354. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Koen, P. A., Ajamian, G. M., Boyce, S., Clamen, A., Fisher, E., Fountoulakis, S., Johnson, A., Puri, P. and Seibert, R. [2002] Fuzzy Front End: Effective Methods, Tools, and Techniques. Wiley, New York. Google Scholar
    • Koskela, L. J. and Howell, G. [2002] The underlying theory of project management is obsolete. In Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference. PMI, Newtown Square, pp. 293–302. Google Scholar
    • Lakhani, K. and Panetta, J. A. (2007). The principles of distributed innovation. Research paper No. 2007-7, The Berkman Center for Internet and Society, Cambridge. Google Scholar
    • Lakhani, K. R. and von Hippel, E. [2003] How open source software works: ‘Free’ user-to-user assistance. Research Policy, 32, 6: 923–943. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Lee, J., Lee, J. and Lee, H. [2003] Exploration and exploitation in the presence of network externalities. Management Science, 49, 4: 553–570. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. [1993] The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, S2: 95–112. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Li, Y.-H. and Huang, J.-W. [2013] Exploitative and exploratory learning in transactive memory systems and project performance. Information & Management, 50, 6: 304–313. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J. F. [2006] Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration.” Journal of Management, 32, 5: 646–672. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Lucas, H. C. and Goh, J. M. [2009] Disruptive technology: How kodak missed the digital photography revolution. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18, 1: 46–55. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Macgregor, G. and McCulloch, E. [2006] Collaborative tagging as a knowledge organisation and resource discovery tool. Library Review, 55, 5: 291–300. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Madsen, T. L., Mosakowski, E. and Zaheer, S. [2003] Knowledge retention and personnel mobility: The nondisruptive effects of inflows of experience. Organization Science, 14, 2: 173–191. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • March, J. G. [1991] Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 1: 71–87. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Markovitch, D. G., O’Connor, G. C. and Harper, P. J. [2017] Beyond invention: The additive impact of incubation capabilities to firm value. R&D Management, 47, 3: 352–367. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • McNamara, D. E. [2011] From Fayol’s mechanistic to todays organic functions of management. American Journal of Business Education, 2, 1: 63–78. Google Scholar
    • Menguc, B. and Auh, S. [2008] The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the ambidexterity–firm performance relationship for prospectors and defenders. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 4: 455–470. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Miron-Spektor, E. and Beenen, G. [2015] Motivating creativity: The effects of sequential and simultaneous learning and performance achievement goals on product novelty and usefulness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 127: 53–65. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Mitchell, W. and Singh, K. [1993] Death of the lethargic: Effects of expansion into new technical subfields on performance in a firm’s base business. Organization Science, 4, 2: 152–180. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Mom, T. J. M., van Den Bosch, F. A. J. and Volberda, H. W. [2007] Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44, 6: 910–931. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Nolan, H. (2010). The Decline and Fall of Barnes and Noble. Gawker. 2010. http://gawker.com/5604269/the-decline-and-fall-of-barnes-and-noble. Google Scholar
    • Nonaka, I. [1994] A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5, 1: 14–37. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Nonaka, I. [1991] The knowledge-creating company. Harvard Business Review, 69, 6: 96–104. Google Scholar
    • Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. [1995] The Knowledge Creation Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, New York. Google Scholar
    • Nonaka, I. and Toyama, R. [2003] The knowledge-creating theory revisited: Knowledge creation as a synthesizing process. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 1, 1: 2–10. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • O’Connor, G. C. [2008] Grabbing Lightning: Building a Capability for Breakthrough Innovation. John Wiley & Sons, San Francisco. Google Scholar
    • Okhuysen, G. A. and Bechky, B. A. [2009] 10 Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 3, 1: 463–502. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • O’Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. [2004] The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 4: 74–83. Google Scholar
    • O’Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. [2013] Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 4: 324–338. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • O’Reilly, C. A. and Tushman, M. L. [2013] Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 4: 324–338. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • O’Reilly, C. and Tushman, M. [2008] Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 185–206. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Parjanen, S. [2012] Experiencing creativity in the organization: From individual creativity to collective creativity. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management, 7: 109–128. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G. and Lepak, D. P. [2013] Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 5: 1420–1442. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Piao, M. [2010] Thriving in the new: Implication of exploration on organizational longevity. Journal of Management, 36, 6: 1529–1554. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Pich, M. T., Loch, C. H. and De Meyer, A. [2002] On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management. Management Science, 48, 8: 1008–1023. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Polanyi, M. [1967] The Tacit Dimension. Routledge & K. Paul, London. Google Scholar
    • Pope, R. [2005] Creativity: Theory, History, Practice. Psychology Press, New York. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. [2008] Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 3: 375–409. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. and Tushman, M. L. [2009] Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 4: 685–695. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Raisch, S. and von Krogh, G. [2007] Navigating a path to smart growth. MIT Sloan Management Review, 48, 3: 65–72. Google Scholar
    • Remer, D. S. and Nieto, A. P. [1995] A compendium and comparison of 25 project evaluation techniques: Part 1: Net present value and rate of return methods. International Journal of Production Economics, 42, 1: 79–96. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Rose, K. H. [2013] A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide): Fifth edition. Project Management Journal, 44, 3: e1. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Runco, M. A. [1993] Divergent thinking, creativity, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 1: 16–22. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Savransky, S. D. [2000] Engineering of Creativity: Introduction to TRIZ Methodology of Inventive Problem Solving. CRC Press, Boca Raton. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Schein, E. H. [1984] Coming to a new awareness of organizational culture. Sloan Management Review, 25, 2: 3–16. Google Scholar
    • Schein, E. H. [1996] Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 2: 229–240. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Schultz, C., Schreyoegg, J. and von Reitzenstein, C. [2013] The moderating role of internal and external resources on the performance effect of multitasking: Evidence from the R&D performance of surgeons. Research Policy, 42, 8: 1356–1365. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Shafritz, J. M. and Whitbeck, P. H. [1978] Classics of Organization Theory, 1st edn. Moore, Oak Park, Il. Google Scholar
    • Shang, S. S. C., Yao, C.-Y. and Liou, D.-M. [2017] The effects of knowledge interaction for business innovation. R&D Management, 47, 3: 337–351. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Shenhar, A. J. and Dvir, D. [1996] Toward a typological theory of project management. Research Policy, 25, 4: 607–632. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Shenhar, A. J. and Dvir, D. [2007] Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Harvard Business Review Press, Harvard. Google Scholar
    • Smith, W. K. and Tushman, M. L. [2005] Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16, 5: 522–536. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Sperry, R. and Jetter, A. [2009] Theoretical framework for managing the front end of innovation under uncertainty. In Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology. IEEE, Piscataway, pp. 2021–2028. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Surowiecki, J. (2013). Where Nokia Went Wrong. The New Yorker. 2013. http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/where-nokia-went-wrong. Google Scholar
    • Tamayo-Torres, J., Gutierrez-Gutierrez, L. and Ruiz-Moreno, A. [2014] The relationship between exploration and exploitation strategies, manufacturing flexibility and organizational learning: An empirical comparison between non-ISO and ISO certified firms. European Journal of Operational Research, 232, 1: 72–86. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Tushman, M. L. [2004] From engineering management/R&D management, to the management of innovation, to exploiting and exploring over value nets: 50 years of research initiated by the IEEE-TEM. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51, 4: 409–411. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Tushman, M. L. and O’Reilly III, C. A. [1996] Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 4: 8–28. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T. and Zahra, S. A. [2009] Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 2: 221–231. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Veryzer, R. W. [1998] Discontinuous innovation and the new product development process. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 4: 304–321. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • von Hippel, E. [1986] Lead users: A source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 7: 791–805. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • von Hippel, E. [2005] Democratizing innovation: The evolving phenomenon of user innovation. Journal für Betriebswirtschaft, 55, 1: 63–78. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • von Krogh, G., Nonaka, I. and Rechsteiner, L. [2012] Leadership in organizational knowledge creation: A review and framework. Journal of Management Studies, 49, 1: 240–277. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Wang, H. and Li, J. [2008] Untangling the effects of overexploration and overexploitation on organizational performance: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. Journal of Management. Google Scholar
    • Wang, C. L. and Rafiq, M. [2014] Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: A comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms. British Journal of Management, 25, 1: 58–76. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Wang, C.-H. and Hsu, L.-C. [2014] Building exploration and exploitation in the high-tech industry: The role of relationship learning. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81: 331–340. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • West, J. and Bogers, M. [2011] Profiting from external innovation: A review of research on open innovation. In Proceedings of the 9th International Open and User Innovation Workshop, Vienna, Austria. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Yamakawa, Y., Yang, H. and Lin, Z. J. [2011] Exploration versus Exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit. Research Policy, 40, 2: 287–296. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Yang, H., Zheng, Y. and Zhao, X. [2014] Exploration or exploitation? Small firms’ alliance strategies with large firms. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1: 146–157. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Ylinen, M. and Gullkvist, B. [2014] The effects of organic and mechanistic control in exploratory and exploitative innovations. Management Accounting Research, 25, 1: 93–112. Crossref, Google Scholar
    • Yu, G. J. and Khessina, O. (2012). The role of exploration in firm survival in the worldwide optical library market, 1990–1998. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the Academy of Management, Boston. Google Scholar
    • Zhang, L.-F. and Sternberg, R. J. [2011] Revisiting the investment theory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 3: 229–238. Crossref, Google Scholar