Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The role of exploration and exploitation for innovation success: effects of business models on organizational ambidexterity in the semiconductor industry

  • Published:
International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Organizational ambidexterity is the ability of organizations to balance exploratory and exploitative activities, and is essential if firms are to survive in dynamic environments. Furthermore, the ambidexterity hypothesis states that firms that have this ability (i.e. are ambidextrous) are more successful. However, this opens a number of questions, namely how firms can balance both types of activities and if this ability is affected by other factors? The purpose of this paper is therefore to investigate the degree to which the need to balance exploration and exploitation for innovation depends on the business models pursued by firms in the global semiconductor industry. Furthermore, we integrate this with an assessment of the relative relevance of these internal knowledge sourcing mechanisms in comparison to mechanisms facilitating external knowledge spillovers, namely alliances and acquisitions. In summary, we find that mainly internal knowledge management supports innovation success but in a differentiated manner. The effect on innovation success is moderated by the business models firms adopt, which suggests the need for a more differentiated view of the ambidexterity hypothesis.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The multibillion-dollar costs of fabs are an especially challenging issue (Brown and Linden 2011).

  2. The Electronic Business magazine (owned by Reed Business Information, a division of Reed-Elsevier, Inc.) publishes annually the “Electronic Business 300: Top companies ranked by electronics revenue”. The rankings are available at http://www.edn.com/.

  3. Press releases by VLSI Research Inc. contain diverse company listings that are available at https://www.vlsiresearch.com/.

  4. The Research Bulletin by IC Insights, Inc. contain diverse company listings that are available at http://www.icinsights.com/.

  5. Rankings by iSuppli Corp. (owned by IHS Inc.) contain diverse company listings: http://www.isuppli.com/ or http://www.ihs.com/.

  6. Global Semiconductor Alliance (GSA) formerly known as the Fabless Semiconductor Association (FSA) provides diverse company listings that are available at http://www.gsaglobal.org/.

  7. For a detailed description see e.g. Schilling (2009).

  8. Collected by the Dutch Centre for Global Corporate Positioning as an extension of the MERIT-CATI database.

  9. The International Patent Classification (IPC), established by the Strasbourg Agreement concluded in 1971 and amended in 1979, provides a hierarchical system of symbols for the classification of patents according to the different areas of technology to which they pertain.

  10. Although the Hausman specification test indicates that the results of fixed effects models are to be preferred over random effects, we also present the latter in Table 5. Furthermore, the relatively small number of years of observations in our panel data would additionally suggest that the fixed effects specification provides for more conservative estimation results. However, the findings from both specifications are essentially identical.

  11. Detailed results for all sensitivity analyses are available on request.

References

  • Abraham, B. P., & Moitra, S. D. (2001). Innovation assessment through patent analysis. Technovation, 21, 245–252.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrams, D., & Wagner, R. P. (2013). Poisoning the next apple? The America invents act and individual inventors. Stanford Law Review, 65, 517–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31, 1069–1085.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2010). Knowledge spillovers and strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 271–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 197–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D., & Waterman, R. (2002). Fixed effects negative binomial regression models. In R. M. Stolzenberg (Ed.), Sociological methodology, 32 (pp. 247–265). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 493–520.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43, 104–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archibugi, D., & Planta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16, 451–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, W. B., & Sen, R. K. (1988). Using patent information in technology business planning—I. Research-Technology Management, 31, 42–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, W. B., & Sen, R. K. (1989). Using patent information in technology business planning—II. Research-Technology Management, 32, 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability—Rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69, 61–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, M. S. (2010). Business models as models. Long Range Planning, 43, 156–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balconi, M., & Fontana, R. (2011). Entry and innovation: An analysis of the fabless semiconductor business. Small Business Economics, 37, 87–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 21, 1231–1241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basberg, B. L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16, 131–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belderbos, R., Faems, D., Leten, B., & Looy, B. V. (2010). Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: Exploitation and exploration within and between firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 869–882.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45, 47–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 287–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 305–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosworth, D. L. (1984). Foreign patent flows to and from the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 13, 115–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 587–610.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C., & Linden, G. (2011). Chips and change: How crisis reshapes the semiconductor industry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 325–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coeurderoy, R., & Durand, R. (2004). Leveraging the advantage of early entry: Proprietary technologies versus cost leadership. Journal of Business Research, 57, 583–590.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy, 31, 1349–1367.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., & Walsh, J.P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Killman, L. R. Pondy, & D. Sleven (Eds.), The Management of Organization (pp. 167–188). New York: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21, 1263–1273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Filippini, R., Güttel, W. H., & Nosella, A. (2012). Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge management initiatives. Journal of Business Research, 65, 317–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassler, H., Frohlich, J., & Kopcsa, A. (1996). Selective information on the national system of innovation as an important input for the technology management of firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 11, 329–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & van den Oord, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37, 1717–1731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, W. (2005). Functional form and heterogeneity in models for count data. Foundations and Trends in Econometrics, 1, 113–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661–1707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2002). The value of patents and patenting strategies: Countries and technology areas patterns. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11, 133–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guimarães, P. (2008). The fixed effects negative binomial model revisited. Economics Letters, 99, 63–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32, 1365–1379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32, 101–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K., Reichl, B., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2009). Patent validation at the country level—The role of fees and translation costs. Research Policy, 38, 1423–1437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haupt, R., Kloyer, M., & Lange, M. (2007). Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development. Research Policy, 36, 387–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46, 1251–1271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A., Hall, B. H., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52, 909–938.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausman, J. A., & McFadden, D. L. (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica, 52, 1219–1240.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1996). Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND Journal of Economics, 32–59.

  • Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15, 70–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hospers, G.-J., Desrochers, P., & Sautet, F. (2009). The next Silicon Valley? On the relationship between geographical clustering and public policy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 285–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Itami, H., & Nishino, K. (2010). Killing two birds with one stone: Profit for now and learning for the future. Long Range Planning, 43, 364–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapoor, R. (2013). Persistence of integration in the face of specialization: How firms navigated the winds of disintegration and shaped the architecture of the semiconductor industry. Organization Science, 24, 1195–1213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8, 283–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H., Hoskisson, R. E., & Wan, W. P. (2004). Power dependence, diversification strategy, and performance in keiretsu member firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 613–636.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M. (1992). A comparative study of US and Japanese patent systems. Journal of International Business Studies, 147–168.

  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied linear regression models. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 797–818.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 109–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin, R.C., Klevorick, A.K., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., Gilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 783–831.

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H. E., McDonough, E. F., Lin, S. J., & Lin, C. Y. Y. (2013). Managing the exploitation/exploration paradox: The role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 262–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Demirkan, I. (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science, 53, 1645–1658.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, S. J., & Shyu, J. (1997). Strategic planning for technology development with patent analysis. International Journal of Technology Management, 13, 661–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lou, C. C., Lee, T. P., Gong, S. C., & Lin, S. L. (2010). Effects of technical innovation on market value of the U.S. semiconductor industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 1322–1338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & 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, 646–672.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1995). The future, disposable organizations and the rigidities of imagination. Organization, 2, 427–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (2006). Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 201–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mogee, M. E. (1991). Using patent data for technology analysis and planning. Research-Technology Management, 34, 43–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics, 38, 114–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllering, G., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2018). Direction, not destination: Institutional work practices in the face of field-level uncertainty. European Management Journal, 36, 28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Seitz, G., & Sydow, J. (2012). Maneuvering between networks to lead – A longitudinal case study in the semiconductor industry. Long Range Planning, 45, 105–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & Van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016–1034.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paci, R., Sassu, A., & Usai, S. (1997). International patenting and national technological specialization. Technovation, 17, 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pakes, A. (1985). On patents, R&D, and the stock market rate of return. Journal of Political Economy, 93, 390–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P. C., & Jayaram, J. (2014). The antecedents and consequences of product variety in new ventures: An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management, 32, 34–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P. C., Terjesen, S., & Li, D. (2012). Enhancing effects of manufacturing flexibility through operational absorptive capacity and operational ambidexterity. Journal of Operations Management, 30, 201–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & 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, 1420–1442.Pavitt, K. (1982). R&D, patenting and innovative activities: A statistical exploration. Research Policy, 11, 33–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pénin, J. (2012). Strategic uses of patents in markets for technology: A story of fabless firms, brokers and trolls. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84, 633–641.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1141–1166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiffel, D., & Kitti, C. (1978). Rates of invention: International patent comparisons. Research Policy, 7, 324–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M. A. (2009). Understanding the alliance data. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 233–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 597–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864–894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, B. S. (1999). Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Science, 45, 1109–1124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43, 448–461.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 81–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 791–811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stettner, U., & Lavie, D. (2014). Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1903–1929.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, H., & Mathews, J. A. (2010). Cyclical industrial dynamics: The case of the global semiconductor industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 344–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavassoli, S., Bengtsson, L., & Karlsson, C. (2017). Strategic entrepreneurship and knowledge spillovers: spatial and aspatial perspectives. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13, 233–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on “profiting from innovation”. Research Policy, 35, 1131–1146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 172–187.

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 171–222). Greenwich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 221–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ophem, H., Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A., & Mohnen, P. (2002). The mutual relation between patents and R&D. In A. Kleinknecht & P. Mohnen (Eds.), Innovation and firm performance: Econometric exploration of survey data (pp. 56–70). New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N., Lee, C.H., & Iyer, B. (2007). Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: A longitudinal test in the software sector. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, 2005.

  • Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 457–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M. (2011). To explore or to exploit? An empirical investigation of acquisitions by large incumbents. Research Policy, 40, 1217–1225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M., Zidorn, W. (2017). Effects of extent and diversity of alliancing on innovation: the moderating role of firm newness. Small Business Economics, 49, (4):919–936

  • Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). The effectiveness of alliances and acquisitions: The role of resource combination activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 193–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • WIPO (2016). Guide to the International Patent Classification, World Intellectual Property Organization.

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (1999). Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 90, 77–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wooldridge, J. M. (2015). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Scarborough, ON: Nelson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yip, P. S., & Tsang, E. W. (2007). Interpreting dummy variables and their interaction effects in strategy research. Strategic Organization, 5, 13–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zidorn, W. & Wagner, M. (2013). The Effect of Alliances on Innovation Patterns: An Analysis of the Biotechnology Industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22, 1497–1524.

Download references

Funding

This research did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Augsburg, Universitaetsstrasse 16, 86159, Augsburg, Germany

    Armin Anzenbacher & Marcus Wagner

  2. Bureau d’Economie Théorique et Appliquée, 61 avenue de la Foret Noire, 67085, Strasbourg, France

    Marcus Wagner

Authors
  1. Armin Anzenbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcus Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcus Wagner.

Ethics declarations

Declaration of interest

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Anzenbacher, A., Wagner, M. The role of exploration and exploitation for innovation success: effects of business models on organizational ambidexterity in the semiconductor industry. Int Entrep Manag J 16, 571–594 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00604-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00604-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation