Discussion of the Results

  • Jan Kraner
Chapter
Part of the Contributions to Management Science book series (MANAGEMENT SC.)

Abstract

The previous chapter (Chap.  4) focused on presenting the best suitable and relevant findings from the case study database to explain the rationale behind the derived results. Furthermore, the displayed data also show the sometimes fine-grained, but in certain cases also relevant differences between the two case studies, mainly due to their different organizational setups.

In this chapter, the findings are first contrasted with related and, in some instances, also more remote literature in the relevant research streams of “innovation” and “ambidextrous organizations”, as well as other literature in Sect. 5.1. This is done to confirm the findings from other research projects, raise questions, and contradict some findings of other researchers. Other findings will also be taken up and discussed to further elicit and support these empirical results. In the same section of the findings, this also broaches some issue with surprising insights for the author and for the current body of knowledge about the subject being researched. Still, these surprising findings and their linkages are accepted as interesting and potentially important for other researchers, and they often give further reasons to support the propositions of this study. In Sect. 5.2, the findings are matched against the theoretical propositions stated initially, belonging to two different families of propositions. As a principal result of this thesis, the propositions are confirmed or negated, depending on the empirical results that were found. After that, in Sect. 5.3, the findings are contrasted with the main objectives of the research.

References

Bibliographical References

  1. Adams R, Bessant J, Phelps R (2006) Innovation management measurement: a review. Int J Manag Rev 8:21–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler P, Heckscher C (2013) The collaborative, ambidextrous enterprise. Universia Business Review, Cuarto TriGoogle Scholar
  3. Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota Production System. Organ Sci 10(1):43–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adler PS, Kwon SW (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manag Rev 27:17–40Google Scholar
  5. Allen TJ (1977) Managing the flow of technology: technology transfer and the dissemination of technological informations within the R&D organization. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28:238–256Google Scholar
  7. Birken SA, Lee SY, Weiner BJ (2012) Uncovering middle managers’ role in healthcare innovation implementation. Implement Sci 7:28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birkinshaw J, Gibson C (2004) Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Manag Rev (Summer):47–55Google Scholar
  9. Burgelman RA (1991) Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: theory and field research. Organ Sci 2(3):239–262.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.3.239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Daft RL (1978) Dual-core model of organizational innovation. Acad Manag J 21(2):193–210.  https://doi.org/10.2307/255754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Manag Sci 32:554–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dyer JH, Nobeoka K (2000) Creating and managing a high-performance knowledge-sharing network: the Toyota case. Strateg Manag J 21:345–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engle RL, Lopez ER, Chan JA, Charns MP (2017) What roles do middle managers play in implementation of innovative practices ? Health Care Manag Rev 42(1):14–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilbert CG (2006) Change in the presence of residual fit: can competing frames coexist? Organ Sci 17:150–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gulati R, Puranam P, Tushman M (2012) Meta-organization design: rethinking design in interoganizational and community contexts. Strateg Manag J 33:571–586.  https://doi.org/10.1002/smjCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gupta AK, Govindarajan V (2000) Knowledge flows within multinational corporations. Strateg Manag J 21(4):473–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hansen GS, Wernerfelt B (1989) Determinants of firm performance: the relative importance of economic and organizational factors. Strateg Manag J 10:399–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heckscher C, Adler P (2006) The firm as a collaborative community: reconstructing trust in the knowledge economy. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Jansen J (2005) Ambidextrous organizations. Erasmus Universiteit RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jehn KA, Northcraft MA, Neale MA (1999) Why do differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Adm Sci Q 44:741–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kelley T (2008) The ten faces of innovation: strategies for heigthening creativity. Profile Books, LondongGoogle Scholar
  24. Kidder T (1983) The soul of a new machine. Little, Brown and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Kimberly JR, Evanisko MJ (1981) Organizational innovation: the influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption and adminstrative innovations. Acad Manag J 24(4):689–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Koza MP, Lewin AY (2000) Managing partnerships and strategic alliances: raising the odds of success. Eur Manag J 18(2):146–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lavie D, Rosenkopf L (2006) Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Acad Manag J 49(4):797–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lukas CV, Charns MP, Cramer IE, Meterko M, Schwartz M, Cohen AB et al (2016a) Transformational change in health care: an organizational model. Health Care Manag Rev 32(4):309–320. Retrieved from http://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/omtch/overview.htmlCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinez JI, Jarillo JC (1991) Coordination demands of international strategies. J Int Bus Stud 22(3):429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCosh AM, Smart AU, Barrar P, Lloyd AD (1998) Proven methods for innovation management: an executive wish list. Creat Innov Manag 7(4):175–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J (2014) Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 275–322Google Scholar
  32. Mumford MD, Licuanan B (2004) Leading for innovation: conclusions, issues, and directions. Leadersh Q 15:163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nahapiet J, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23:242–266Google Scholar
  34. Ojasalo J (2008) Management of innovation networks: a case study of different approaches. Eur J Innov Manag 11(2):51–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peters T, Waterman RH (2004) In search of excellence: lessons from America’s best-run companies, 2nd Editio edn. Profile Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  36. Prahalad CK, Bettis RA (1986) The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and performance. Strateg Manag J 7:485–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raisch S, Tushman ML (2011) A dynamic perspective on ambidexterity : structural differentiation and boundary activitiesGoogle Scholar
  38. Rivkin JW, Siggelkow N (2003) Balancing search and stability: inderdependancies among elements of organizational design. Manag Sci 49(3):290–311.  https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenkranz NA (2012) Connecting the dots: studies on boundary-spanning ambidexterity at the individual, project, firm and alliance level, St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  40. Simsek Z (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: towards a multilevel understanding. J Manag Stud 46(4):597–624.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sorenson O, Rivkin JW, Fleming L (2006) Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Res Policy 35(7):994–1017.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor A, Helfat CE (2009) Organizational linkages for surviving technological change: complementary assets, middle management, and ambidexterity. Organ Sci 20(4):718–739.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tempelaar M (2010) Organizing for ambidexterity: studies on the pursuit of exploration and exploitation through differentiation, integration, contextual and individual attributs. Erasmus University RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  44. Tsai W, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Acad Manag J 41(4):464–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Weber M (1978) Economy and society. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
  46. Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Weick KE (1990) In: Goodman PS, Sproull LS (eds) Technology as equivoque: sensemaking in new technologies. Jossey-Bass, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  48. Westerman G, McFarlan WF, Iansiti M (2006) Organizational design and effectiveness over the innovation life cycle. Organ Sci 17:230–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods, 5th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Kraner
    • 1
  1. 1.Lucerne University of Applied SciencesLucerneSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations