, Volume 107, Issue 3, pp 1021–1040 | Cite as

Organizational ambidexterity: exploring the knowledge base

  • Francisco García-Lillo
  • Mercedes Úbeda-García
  • Bartolomé Marco-Lajara


The present research work shows the results of an analysis about the existing literature on one of the ‘topics’ which is currently raising greater interest among scholars and researchers in the fields of strategic management and organization science, namely: organizational ambidexterity. More precisely, and seeking to identify and visualize the intellectual structure or knowledge base of the research developed in relation to this construct, a decision was made to analyze a total of 283 research papers which appeared after the publication in the journal California Management Review in the summer of 1996 of the seminal work by Tushman and O’Reilly III entitled ‘Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change,’ where these authors suggested that organizations need to explore and exploit simultaneously if they want to be ambidextrous. As for the methodology applied, it was based on the utilization of bibliometric techniques—particularly citation analyses and author co-citation analyses and social networks analysis.


Organizational ambidexterity Organization theory Exploration Exploitation Bibliometrics Citation analysis Author co-citation analysis (ACA) 


  1. Abernathy, W., & Clark, K. (1985). Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, 14(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2003). Requirements for a cocitation similarity measure, with special reference to Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(6), 550–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahlgren, P., Jarneving, B., & Rousseau, R. (2004). Author cocitation analysis and Pearson’s r. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(9), 843. (letter to the editor).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahuja, G., & Lampert, C. M. (2001). Entrepreneurship in the large corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 22(6–7), 521–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  10. Armstrong, J. S., & Evertong, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2005). Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. Journal of Business Research, 58(12), 1652–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bagozzi, R., & Youjae, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equations models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Beckman, C. M. (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 741–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2002). Process management and technological innovation. A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.Google Scholar
  19. Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT. Sloan Management Review, 45(4), 47–55.Google Scholar
  20. Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, A. K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity of the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Burgelman, R. A. (1991). Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: Theory and field research. Organization Science, 2(3), 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Burns, T., & Stalker, M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  25. Callon, M., Courtial, J. P., & Penan, H. (1993) Cienciometría. La medición de la actividad científica: de la bibliometría a la vigilancia tecnológica [Scientometrics. The measurement of scientific activity: from bibliometrics to technological vigilance]. Gijón: Ediciones Trea, S.L.Google Scholar
  26. Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. R., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cawkell, A. E. (1976). Understanding science by analysing its literature. Essays of an Information Scientist, 2, 543–549.Google Scholar
  28. Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator’s Dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  30. Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Coulter, N., Monarch, I., & Konda, S. (1998). Software engineering as seen through its research literature: A study in co-word analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(13), 1206–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.Google Scholar
  33. Culnan, M. J. (1986). The intellectual development of management information systems, 1972–1982: A co-citation analysis. Management Science, 32(2), 156–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 555–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. De Solla Price, D. J. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149, 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. Kilmann, L. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization design (Vol. I, pp. 167–188). New York: North Holland.Google Scholar
  39. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.Google Scholar
  40. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamics capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177.Google Scholar
  42. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Garfield, E., Malin, M. V., & Small, H. (1978). Citation data as science indicators. In Y. Elkana, J. Lederberg, R. K. Merton, A. Thackray, & H. Zuckerman (Eds.), Toward a metric of science: The advent of science indicators (pp. 179–208). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Ghemawat, P., & Ricart, J. E. (1993). The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gilbert, C. (2005). Unbundling the structure of inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gmür, M. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109–122.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Greene, D., Freyne, J., Smyth, B., & Cunningham, P. (2008) An analysis of research themes in the CBR conference literature. In K. Althoff, R. Bergmann, M. Miner & A. Hanft (Eds.), Advances in case-based reasoning: 9th European conference, ECCBR 2008 proceedings, Trier, September 1–4, 2008 (pp. 18–43). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Griffiths, A., Robinson, L. A., & Willet, P. (1984). Hierarchic agglomerative clustering methods for automatic document classification. Journal of Documentation, 40(3), 175–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hair, J. F, Jr, Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  54. Hannan, M., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004a). Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review, 82(3), 68–81.Google Scholar
  59. Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004b). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  60. Im, G., & Rai, A. (2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Science, 54(7), 1281–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Boch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2005). Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: How do organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 999–1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Jansen, J. J. P., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Jaworski, B., & Kohli, A. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(July), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8(4), 283–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Kristal, M. M., Huang, X., & Roth, A. V. (2010). The effect of an ambidextrous supply chain strategy on combinative capabilities and business performance. Journal of Operations Management, 69(7), 415–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: The overlooker role of marketing orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lavie, D., Kang, J., & Rosenkopf, L. (2011). Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organization Science, 22(6), 1517–1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Organization and environment: Managing differentiation and integration. Boston, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  75. Leonard-Barton, D. (1992). Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13(S1), 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Lewis, M. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.Google Scholar
  79. Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Demirkan, I. (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Organization Science, 53(10), 1645–1658.Google Scholar
  80. 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(5), 646–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Marshakova, I. V. (1973). System of document connection based on references. Nauchno-Teknichescaya Informatisya Seriya, 2, 3–8.Google Scholar
  84. McCain, K. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 433–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. McGrath, R. G. (2001). Exploratory learning, innovative capacity, and managerial oversight. Academy of Management Journal, 44(1), 118–131.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  87. Mom, T. J. M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). Investigating manager’s exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows. Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mom, T. J. M., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.Google Scholar
  90. Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap: Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  91. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Nosella, A., Cantarello, S., & Filippini, R. (2012). The intellectual structure of organizational ambidexterity: A bibliographic investigation into the state of the art. Strategic Organization, 10(4), 450–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.Google Scholar
  94. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s Dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28(1), 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Peters, H. P. F., & Van Raan, A. F. J. (1993). Co-word-based science maps of chemical engineering. Part I: Representations by direct multidimensional scaling. Research Policy, 22(1), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  100. Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaboration and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), 116–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Rip, A., & Courtial, J. (1984). Co-word maps of biotechnology: An example of cognitive scientometrics. Scientometrics, 6(6), 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Rosenkopf, L., & Nerkar, A. (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Russo, A., & Vurro, C. (2010). Cross-boundary ambidexterity: Balancing exploration and exploitation in the Fuel Cell Industry. European Management Review, 7(1), 30–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Schäffer, U., Nevries, P., Fikus, C., & Meyer, M. (2011). Is finance research a “normal science”? A bibliometric study of the structure and development of finance research from 1988 to 2007. Schmalenbach Business Review, 63(4), 189–225.Google Scholar
  109. Schildt, H. A., Zahra, S. A., & Sillanpää, A. (2006). Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(3), 399–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Sheremata, W. A. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 389–408.Google Scholar
  111. Siggelkow, N., & Levinthal, D. A. (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organization Science, 14(6), 650–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46(4), 597–624.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 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(5), 864–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Small, H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relation between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Stettner, U., & Lavie, D. (2014). Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 35(13), 1903–1929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamics capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Thomas, L., Autio, E., & Gann, D. (2014). Architectural leverage: Putting platforms in context. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 198–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  121. Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1147–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Tushman, M. L., & Anderson, P. (1986). Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(3), 439–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  125. Van Eck, N. J., Waltman, L., Dekker. R., & Van den Berg, J. (2010). A comparison of two techniques for bibliometric mapping: Multidimensional scaling and VOS. CoRR, abs/1003.2551.Google Scholar
  126. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2008). Appropriate similarity measures for author co-citation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(10), 1653–1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2009). How to normalize co-occurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(8), 1635–1651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. White, H. D., & Griffith, B. C. (1981). Author cocitation: A literature measure of intellectual structure. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 32(3), 163–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Winter, S. G. (2003). Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 991–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Yin, R. K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  132. Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.Google Scholar
  133. Zitt, M., & Bassecoulard, E. (1996). Reassessment of co-citation methods for science indicators: Effect of methods improving recall rates. Scientometrics, 37(2), 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Zitt, M., Bassecoulard, E., & Okubo, Y. (2000). Shadows of the past in international cooperation: Collaboration profiles of the top five producers of science. Scientometrics, 47(3), 627–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Zollo, M., & Winter, S. G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamics capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3), 339–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco García-Lillo
    • 1
  • Mercedes Úbeda-García
    • 1
  • Bartolomé Marco-Lajara
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of ManagementUniversity of AlicanteAlicanteSpain

Personalised recommendations