Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Innovation from Information Systems: An Ambidexterity Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovation from Information Systems

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Digital Spaces ((BRIEFSDIGIT))

  • 1010 Accesses

Abstract

The overall innovation process at Legrand can be described as a cycle involving the entire organization, with the cycle itself consisting of an upward stream and a downward stream.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency: A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ Sci 10:43–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner R, Levinthal DA (2004) What is not a real option: considering boundaries for the application of real options to business strategy. Acad Manag Rev 29(1):74–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja MJ, Carley KM (1999) Network structure in virtual organizations. Organ Sci 10(6):741–757

    Google Scholar 

  • Alavi M, Leidner DE (2001) Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25:107–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ Sci 20(4):696–717

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong CP, Sambamurthy V (1999) Information technology assimilation in firms: the influence of senior leadership and IT structures. Inform Syst Res 10(4):304–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett ML (2008) An attention-based view of real options reasoning. Acad Manag Rev 33(3):606–628

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett CA, Ghoshal S (1988) Organizing for worldwide effectiveness: the transnational solution. Calif Manag Rev 27(3):54–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Baum JAC, Calabrese T, Silverman BS (2000) Don’t go it alone: alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Manag J March Special Issue 21:267–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28(2):238–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouzdine-Chameeva T, Dupouët O (2008) Balancing exploration and exploitation: a formal comparison of punctuated equilibrium and ambidexterity, cahier CEREBEM, no 124–08

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower JL, Christensen CM (1995) Disruptive technologies: catching the wave. Harvard Business Rev 73(1):43–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman EH, Hurry D (1993) Strategy through the option lens: an integrated view of resource investments and the incremental choice process. Acad Manag Rev 18(4):760–782

    Google Scholar 

  • Brion S, Favre-Bonté V, Mothe C (2008) Quelles formes d’ambidextrie pour combiner innovations d’exploitation et d’exploration? Manag Intern 12(3): 29–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1997) The art of continuous change: linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Adm Sci Q 42:1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman RA (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: theory and field research. Organ Sci 2:239–262

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman RA (2002) Strategy as vector and the inertia of co-evolutionary lock-in. Admin Sci Quart 47:325–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns LR, Wholey DR (1993) Adoption and abandonment of matrix management programs: effects of organizational characteristics and interorganizational networks. Acad Manag J 36(1):106–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal LB (2001) Technological innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: the use of organizational control in research and development. Organ Sci 12:19–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Childs PD, Triantis AJ (1999) Dynamic R&D investment policies. Manage Sci 45(10):1359–1377

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen M, Knudsen T (2010) Design of decision-making organizations. Manage Sci 56(1):71–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan R, Jonard N, Zimmermann J-B (2007) Bilateral collaboration and the emergence of innovation networks. Manag Sci 53(7):1051–1067

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis SM, Lawrence PR (1977) Matrix. Reading, Mass, Wesley, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • De Sanctis G, Monge P (1999) Introduction to the special issue: communication processes for virtual organizations. Organ Sci 10(6):693–703

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton JE, Ashford SJ (1993) Selling issues to top management. Acad Manag Rev 18:397–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang C, Lee J, Schilling MA (2010) Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: the isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organ Sci 21(3):625–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Farjoun M (2010) Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Acad Manag Rev 35(2):202–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferris GR, Arthur M, Berkson HM, Kaplan DM, Harrell-Cook G, Frink DD (1998) Toward a social context theory of the human resource management–organizational effectiveness relationship. Hum Res Manag Rev 8:235–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford JD, Ford LW (1994) Logics of identity, contradiction, and attraction in change. Acad Manag Rev 19:756–785

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith JR (1973) Designing complex organizations. Reading, Wesley, Mass, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud R, Nayyar PR (1994) Transformative capacity: continual structuring by intertemporal technology transfer. Strateg Manag J 15:365–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Gavetti G, Levinthal D (2000) Looking forward and look backward: Cognitive and experiential search. Admin Sci Quart 45:113–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Gersick CG (1991) Revolutionary change theories: a multilevel exploration of the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Acad Manag Rev 16:10–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal S, Bartlett CA (1994) Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Manag J 15:91–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson C, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J 47:209–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert CG (2005) Change in the presence of residual fit: can competing frames co-exist? Organ Sci 17(1):150–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert CG (2006) Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Co-exist? Organ Sci 17:150–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 49(4):693–706

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK, Govindarajan V (2000) Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strateg Manag J 21:473–496

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK, Govindarajan V (1991) Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational corporations. Acad Manag Rev 16(4):768–792

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas M, Hansen M (2007) Different knowledge, different benefits: toward a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations. Strateg Manag J 28(11):p1133–p1153

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Admin Sci Quart 44:82–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen MT, Nohria N, Tierney T (1999) What’s your strategy for managing knowledge? Harv Bus Rev 77(2):106–115

    Google Scholar 

  • He ZL, Wong PK (2004) Exploration versus exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15:481–494

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill CWL, Rothaermel FT (2003) The performance of incumbent firms in the face of radical technological innovation. Acad Manag Rev 28(2):257–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Huselid MA (1995) The impact of human resource management practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate financial performance. Acad Manag J 38:635–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishida K, Ohta T (2001) On a mathematical comparison between hierarchy and network with a classification of coordination structures. Comput Math Org Theory 7:311–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Tempelaar MP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ Sci 20(4):797–811

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Manag Sci 52(11):1661–1674

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen KW, Håkonsson DD, Burton RM, Obel B (2009) Embedding virtuality into organization design theory: virtuality and its information processing consequences. In: Bøllingtoft A, Håkonsson DD, Nielsen JF, Snow CC, Ulhøi J (eds.) New approaches to organization design: theory and practice of adaptive enterprises information and organization design series, vol 8. Springer Publisher, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyce WF (1986) Matrix organization: a social experiment. Acad Manag J 29(3):536–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Kane GC, Alavi M (2007) Information technology and organizational learning: an investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organ Sci 18(5):796–812

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang S-C, Morris SS, Snell SA (2007) Relational archetypes, organizational learning, and value creation: extending the human resource architecture. Acad Manag Rev 32(1):236–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang S-C, Snell SA (2009) Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: a framework for human resource management. J Manag Studies 46(1):65–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Kang S-C, Snell SA (2010) Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: a framework for human resource management. J Manag Stud 46(1):65–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila R, Ahuja G (2002) Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Acad Manag J 45(6):1183–1194

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz R, Allen TJ (1985) Project performance and the locus of performance in the R&D matrix. Acad Manag J 28(1):67–87

    Google Scholar 

  • King WR, Sethi V (1999) An empirical assessment of the organization of transnational information systems. J Manag Inform Syst 15(4):7–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahiri N (2010) Geographic distribution of R&D activity: how does it affect innovation quality? Acad Manag J 53(5):1194–1209

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakshman C (2008) Knowledge leadership: tools for top executives. Sage Response Books, New Delhi, India

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakshman C, Parente R (2008) Supplier-focused knowledge management in the automobile industry and its implications for product performance. J Manage Stud 45:317–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane PJ, Koka BR, Pathak S (2006) The reification of absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the construct. Acad Manag Rev 31(4):833–863

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence P, Lorsch J (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Adm Sci Q 12:1–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Lepak DP, Snell SA (1999) The human resource architecture: toward a theory of human capital allocation and development. Acad Manag Rev 24:31–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Manag J 14:95–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Vanhaverbeke W, Schoenmakers W (2008) Exploration and exploitation in innovation: reframing the interpretation. Creativity Innov Manag 17(2):107–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindic J, Baloh P, Ribiere VM, Desouza KC (2011) Deploying information technologies for organizational innovation: Lessons from case studies. Intern J Information Manag 31:183–188

    Google Scholar 

  • MacDuffie JP (1995) Human resource bundles and manufacturing performance: organizational logic and flexible production systems in the world auto industry. Ind Labor Relat Rev 48:197–221

    Google Scholar 

  • McGrath RG (2001) Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Acad Manag J 44:118–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson MG (2004) Managing the knowledge landscape of an MNC: knowledge networking at Ericsson. Knowl Proc Manag 11(4):261–272

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1996) Continuity and change in theories of organizational action. Admin Sci Quart 41:278–287

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (2006) Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic Manag J 27:201–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Maritan CA (2001) Capital investment as investing in organizational capabilities: an empirically grounded process model. Acad Manag J 44:513–531

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin JA, Eisenhardt KM (2010) Rewiring: Cross-Business-Unit Collaborations in Multibusiness Organizations. Acad Manag J 53:265–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller KD, Zhao M, Calantone RJ (2006) Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March’s exploration-exploitation model. Acad Manag J 49:709–722

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (2003). Analyse des données qualitatives. 2nd ed. (trad. 1994). De Boeck

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirow C, Hoelzle K, Gemuenden HG (2007) The ambidextrous organization in practice: barriers to innovation within research and development. Academy of Management Proceedings

    Google Scholar 

  • Mom TJM, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2007) Investigating managers’ exploration and exploitation activities: the influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. J Manag Stud 44(6):910–931

    Google Scholar 

  • Mom TJM, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Understanding variation in manager’s ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organ Sci 20(4):812–828

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowery DC, Oxley JE, Silveran BS (1998) Technological overlap and interfirm cooperation: implications for the resource-based view of the firm. Res policy 27:507–523

    Google Scholar 

  • Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23(2):242–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Nerkar A (2003) Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge. Manag Sci 49:211–229

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson JA, Zenger TR (2002) Being efficiently fickle: a dynamic theory of organizational choice. Organ Sci 13(5):547–566

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge creating company. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom B (2000) Learning and innovation in organization and economics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2004) The ambidextrous organization. Harv Bus Rev 82(4):74–81

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2008) Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator’s Dilemma. Res Organ Behavior 28:185–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohja A, Brown JL, Phillips N (1997) Change and revolutionary change: formalizing and extending the punctuated equilibrium paradigm. Comput Math Org Theory 3(2):91–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Ouchi WG (1980) Markets, bureaucracies, and clans. Adm Sci Q 25:129–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Peretto P, Smulders S (2002) Technological distance, growth and social effects. Econ J 112:603–624

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J (1981) Power in organizations. Pitman Publishing, Mass, Marshfieid

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S (2008) Balanced structures: designing organizations for profitable growth. Long Range Plan 41:483–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators. J Manag 34:375–409

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Org Sci 20(4):685–695

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagans R, McEvily B (2003) Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Adm Sci Q 48(2):240–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers M (2003) It’s the apple of his eye, Newsweek, 1 Mar 2003

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenkopf L, Nerkar A (2001) Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Manag J 22:287–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabherwal R, Becerra-Fernandez I (2003) An empirical study of the effect of knowledge management processes at individual, group, and organizational levels. Decis Sci 34(2):225–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Sastry AM (1997) Problems and Paradoxes in a Model of Punctuated Organizational Change. Admin Sci Quart 42(2):237–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez R, Mahoney JT (1997) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. IEEE Eng Manage Rev 25(4):50–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreyögg G, Kliesch-Eberl M (2007) How dynamic can organizational capabilities be? Towards a dual process model of capability dynamisation. Strateg Manag J 28:913–933

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreyögg G, Sydow J (2010) Organizing for Fluidity? Dilemmas of New Organizational Forms. Organ Sci 21:1251–1262

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz M (2001) The uncertain relevance of newness: organizational learning and knowledge flows. Acad Manag J 44(4):661–681

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu JS, Commandeur HR, Volberda HW (2007) The Multifaceted Nature of Exploration and Exploitation: Value of Supply, Demand, and Spatial Search for Innovation. Organ Sci 18:20–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N (2002) Evolution toward Fit. Admin Sci Quart 47:125–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Org Sci 14(6):650–669

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N, Rivkin JW (2005) Speed and search: designing organizations for turbulence and complexity. Organ Sci 16:101–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N (2007) Persuasion with Case Studies. Acad Manag J 50:20–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Simsek Z, Heavey C, Veiga JF, Souder D (2009) A Typology for Aligning Organizational Ambidexterity’s Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes. J Manag Studies 46:865–894

    Google Scholar 

  • Stieglitz N, Heine K (2007) Innovations and the role of complementarities in a strategic theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 28(1):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton RS, Barto AG (1998) Reinforcement learning: an introduction. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor A, Greve H (2006) Superman or the fantastic four? knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Acad Manag J 49:723–740

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor A, Helfat CE (2009) Organizational linkages for surviving technological change. Organ Sci 20(4):718–739

    Google Scholar 

  • Teigland R, Wasko MM (2003) Integrating knowledge through information trading: examining the relationship between boundary spanning communication and individual performance. Decis Sci 34(2):261–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Tortoriello M (2008) Getting the most out of your network: social structure, formal boundaries and knowledge activation, Proceedings of the academy of management meetings, Anaheim

    Google Scholar 

  • Tran Y, Mahnke V, Ambos B (2010) The effect of quantity, quality and timing of headquarters-initiated knowledge flows on subsidiary performance. Mang Int Rev 50:493–511

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner KL, Makhija MV (2006) The role of organizational controls in managing knowledge. Acad Manag Rev 31(1):197–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Romanelli E (1985) Organizational revolution: a metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. Res Organ Behavior 7:171–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38(4):8–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Viitala R (2004) Towards Knowledge Leadership. Leadersh Org Dev J 25(5/6):528–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE, Quinn RE (1999) Organizational change and development. Ann Rev Psychology 50:361–386

    Google Scholar 

  • Westerman GF, McFarlan W, Iansiti M (2006) Organization design and effectiveness over the innovation life cycle. Organ Sci 17(2):230–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright PM, Snell SA, Dunford B (2001) Human resources and the resource based view of the firm. J Manag 27:701–721

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (1994) Case Study Research, Design and Methods, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Young GJ, Charns MP, Heeren TC (2004) Product-line management in professional organizations: an empirical test of competing theoretical perspectives. Acad Manag J 47(5):723–734

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra SA, George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manag Rev 27:185–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Zander U, Kogut B (1995) Knowledge and the speed of the transfer and imitation of organizational capabilities: an empirical test. Organ Sci 6(1):76–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellmer-Bruhn M, Gibson C (2006) Multinational organization context: implicaitons for team leanring and performance. Acad Manag J 49(3):501–518

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Operations Management, BEM, Cours de la Libération 680, Talence, 33450, France

    Olivier Dupouet & Tatiana Bouzdine-Chameeva

  2. Bordeaux School of Management, Cours de la Libération 680, Talence, 33405, France

    C. Lakshman

Authors
  1. Olivier Dupouet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tatiana Bouzdine-Chameeva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C. Lakshman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier Dupouet .

Appendices

Annexes

1.1 Annex 1: Interview guidelines

  1. 1.

    (Differentiation) Approach to Exploration/Exploitation? Both or one of the two at HQ? Both in some subsidiaries and one of the two in other subsidiaries? If both everywhere: Partitioning/sequential/contextual?

    1. a.

      How do you go about researching new products, new markets, new countries etc.?

    2. b.

      Do you locate such marketing research, business research, and R&D in separate units, different from those engaging in more ‘basic’ research?

    3. c.

      Do you have the same units working on ‘new’ research and ‘basic’ research at separate points in time?

    4. d.

      Do you have separate project groups for each purpose? (If project groups : stability, tenure and duration, composition etc.)?

    5. e.

      Do you attempt to create units with capabilities to do both types of research simultaneously? Does this play a role in the subsidiary location decision? If yes, how so?

    6. f.

      How do you go about allocating managerial responsibilities for exploration and exploitation? What control systems do you use?

    (based on Simsek et al. 2009 and Kang and Snell 2009).

  2. 2.

    Integration

    1. a.

      (Integration at the top management level) Leadership, top management capabilities, founder orientations (including geocentric, polycentric, and ethno centric for MNC org.)

      Shared vision and development, clear articulation, commitment to exploration AND exploitation, regular meetings with key execs, TMT behavioral integration (ability to manage and handle contradiction), significant common and diverse experience of TMT, transactive memory of TMT

      Financing of radical innovation/incremental innovation. How frequent? What magnitude?

    2. b.

      (Integration at operational/middle managers levels)

      Encourage improvisation within projects?

      Encourage communication among projects (tram level or project manager level)? At the subsidiary level? At the firm level?

      Seek unconventional linkages among ideas within and among projects?

      Projects are technology-driven or customers-driven?

      NB: integration at the individual level are addressed in the “human capital” section

      Based on Andriopoulos and Lewis 2009

  3. 3.

    Knowledge circulation

    1. a.

      Explorative knowledge

      How do innovative ideas circulate within the firm? Is it at the site/national/firm level?

      Do you know of the adoption/reuse of innovative ideas? According to you what are the success/failure factors?

      What are the means for innovative knowledge diffusion (meeting, IT, interpersonal networking, job rotation)?

    2. b.

      Exploitative knowledge

      How do best practices circulate within the firm?

      How is valuable technologies diffusion handled?

      Is it at the site/national/firm level?

  4. 4.

    Performance

    Can you assess the impact of your knowledge management in terms of innovation generation on the firm/subsidiary’s economic performance?

    • Number of successful innovative products put on the market

      Can you assess the impact of your knowledge management in terms of best practice circulation on the firm/subsidiary’s economic performance?

    • Time saving (time to market, project development length)

  5. 5.

    Human Capital

    Ethnocentric/Polycentric/Geocentric Selection Practices; Use of Specialists versus Generalists; Nature of Performance Management; Mkt-based versus equity based compensation schemes; mkt-based versus ILM based employee relations; specialist versus generalist managerial development practices.

    1. a.

      How do you approach staffing at HQ and in international locations? To what extent do you prefer French executives versus locals or third nationals in each of these locations?

    2. b.

      To what extent do you get involved in selection of executives and/or employees in subsidiary locations? To what extent is this responsibility delegated to each of the subsidiaries? Are there any exceptions to the general rule? What about R&D for example? Or Marketing?

    3. c.

      To what extent are HR practices centralized and/or standardized across subsidiary locations?

    4. d.

      In this country, compared to other players in your industry, do you have broader job definitions or narrower job definitions (more generalists or more specialists in jobs)? Could you highlight a few key examples?

    5. e.

      In this country, do you offer/support broader and multiple skills development for your executives and other employees or do you offer/support within-job or within-function skill development?

    6. f.

      In this country, what is your approach to job rotation? Do you use it? Within specialized areas or across functional or business units?

    7. g.

      In this country, what is your approach to hierarchical movement (internal promotion) of executives and employees, vis-à-vis external recruitment of people into these positions?

    8. h.

      In this country, on what basis do you make selection decisions? Based on cognitive ability and aptitude testing on the one hand or specific job competencies and job knowledge on the other hand? What other selection mechanisms do you use?

    9. i.

      In this country, do you utilize skill-based or knowledge-based pay as part of your overall compensation system? Do you for example pay for ideas or for reputation?

    10. j.

      In this country, to what extent is your pay system based on market factors?

    11. k.

      In this country, to what extent do you use performance based pay as part of your overall compensation system?

    12. l.

      In this country, to what extent is seniority a key factor in your compensation system?

    13. m.

      How woud you describe your performance appraisal and management system? Is it focused more on behaviors and observation and rating of these behaviors or on results and outcomes? Could you share with us a sample of your rating scales?

    (above based on Kang and Snell 2009).

  6. 6.

    New Product Development

    Organisation of the NPD; process versus product orientation; location of NPD or R&D (centralized, decentralized, distributed etc. in MNC operations); NPD links with IS; R&D cultures—convergent across subsidiaries or divergent.

    1. a.

      How do you handle demands for innovation that go beyond existing products and services?

    2. b.

      What is your intent and strategy for inventing new products and services?

    3. c.

      Do you experiment with new products and services in local and global markets? How? In what order/sequence?

    4. d.

      How do you go about commercializing products and services that are completely new to you?

    5. e.

      How do you take advantage of new opportunities in new markets?

    6. f.

      How do you handle the search for and adoption of new distribution channels?

    7. g.

      How do you handle the search for and acquisition of new clients in new markets?

    8. h.

      How do you handle entering new technology fields?

    9. a.

      How frequently do you refine the provision of existing products and services and how do you go about it?

    10. b.

      How do you go about small adaptations to existing products and services? With what frequency?

    11. c.

      How do you introduce improved but existing products? First in the local market and then in the global markets? Or the other way around? Similarly around the world? Or Differently?

    12. d.

      How do you improve the provision (mfg. & selling) efficiency of your products and services?

    13. e.

      Do you work on improving the economies of scale in existing markets? If so how?

    14. f.

      How do you go about expanding the product/service offering to existing clients?

    15. g.

      How do you value lowering of costs of internal processes? What do you actually do to attain this objective?

    16. h.

      What, if anything, do you do to improve existing product quality?

    17. i.

      What, if anything, do you do to improve production flexibility?

    18. j.

      How do you go about reducing material consumption of increasing yield?

    (Above based on He and Wong 2004; Jansen et al. 2006)

  7. 7.

    Organizational capital

    HQ/Subsidiary links and relationships; Formal and informal networks within and across subsidiaries and with external entities; Matrix versus product team structures, nature of differentiation and integration, tightly coupled subsidiaries with loosely coupled interrelationships (or loosely coupled subsidiaries with tightly coupled interrelationships). (Subs in EMs: co-orientation, co-competence, co-opetition, co-evolution), mechanistic/organic nature.

    1. a.

      How would you characterize your organizational structure across and including all international locations? Divisional, product-team, matrix?

    2. b.

      To what extent are some of the key operations centralized or located in a few countries or regions? R&D, manufacturing, marketing?

    3. c.

      What is your approach to integrating across subsidiaries? None (leave them alone and independent), moderate, or high (constant and frequent interaction among subs and with HQ)?

    4. d.

      How would you characterize the organizational culture that exists in your organization (here at HQ, here in India/Russia)? Would it be more along the lines of conformity to established rules, norms, and procedures or more along the lines of encouraging people to proactively create, shape and respond to established cultural values and norms?

    5. e.

      How would you describe the way your organization functions?

    6. f.

      In terms of standardization of procedures and structures?

    7. g.

      In terms of desired patterns of behaviors (establishing ingrained patterns or creating capability to enact and respond to challenges)?

    8. h.

      Centralization versus decentralization?

    9. i.

      Many rules or few rules?

    10. j.

      Many teams or few teams?

    11. k.

      With subsidiaries in Russia and India in particular, to what extent do these following factors play a role? What is your approach in each case?

    12. 1.

      Exploit existing assets for short term profits versus acquiring new assets for long term growth?

    13. 2.

      Deploy, exploit, and utilize transactional (mkt-based) capabilities versus relational (network-based) capabilities of the subsidiary and its key managers?

    14. 3.

      Does your subsidiary simultaneously compete and cooperate with local rivals, local partners, local suppliers, distributors, and governments? How so?

    15. 4.

      Does your subsidiary simultaneously engage in complying and responding to local rules, customs, and laws, while also attempting to influence and change them?

    (based on Simsek et al. 2009; Kang and Snell 2010)

  8. 8.

    Information systems

    IS architectural features, IS—OC links; IS/NPD links; IS/network links

    1. a.

      How do you approach linking the HQ with all the subsidiary operations? What IT tools are used to link them all? Or do you leave them all as standalone operations?

    2. b.

      Do you make available KRs and databases from HQ to all the subsidiaries, specific tools to specific subsidiaries, on a need to know basis, some other arrangement, etc.?

    3. c.

      Do you use different KRs at the HQ and each of the subsidiaries or one large KR with complete access/multi-level privileged access to different subsidiaries and units?

    4. d.

      For R&D, do you have an ECOP that is predominantly global or local, situated in each unit, with possible links to the other ECOPs in other locations?

    5. e.

      Global/local Intranets? Are ECOPs accessible through the intranet?

    6. f.

      Can all project teams access database/intranets/collaborative spaces in which innovative ideas/proposals are stored/worked on?

    7. g.

      Conversely, can teams working on breakthrough projects consult the different databases/use the different tools used in more routinized activities?

    8. h.

      What kinds of IT networks with customers do you use, if at all? What are the benefits derived?

    9. i.

      What kinds of IT networks with suppliers, distributors, and logistics partners, do you use, if at all? What are the benefits derived?

    10. j.

      Does your ERP system provide for connectivity to customers and suppliers and other partners? How so? What benefits, if any?

    11. k.

      How does your IT network coordinate with the new product development process?

    12. l.

      With the new business/market development process?

    13. m.

      Do you provide for the creation of IT based networks for evolving interest groups (formal or informal)?

Annex 2: Map of Our Key Findings

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dupouet, O., Bouzdine-Chameeva, T., Lakshman, C. (2013). Innovation from Information Systems: An Ambidexterity Approach. In: Innovation from Information Systems. SpringerBriefs in Digital Spaces. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32876-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation