Introduction

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

Abstract

This chapter explains the problem statement, which concerns the balancing of exploitation and exploration and this in an environment or culture where innovation can be critical or event fatal. This usually goes along with employees that are trained not to be innovative at all where such implementation is especially challenging. Later the research questions and propositions are defined that aim at finding out how the interactions between key players from the explorative and exploitative side and how boundary activities can improve the implementation of innovations in such industries. Finally, the current gap in the theory is defined and explained how this dissertation is being structured.

References

Bibliographical References

  1. 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
  2. James K (2016a) What is the safest way to travel – by plane, car, train… space shuttle? Retrieved July 11, 2016, from http://961theeagle.com/what-is-the-safest-way-to-travel-by-plane-car-train-space-shuttle/
  3. Jansen JJP, George G, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2008) Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity : the moderating role of transformational leadership. J Manag Stud 45(July):983–1007Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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):910–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Nickerson JA, Zenger TR (2002) Being efficiently fickle: a dynamic theory of organizational choice. Organ Sci 13:547–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Raisch S (2008) Balanced structures: designing organizations for profitable growth. Long Range Plan 41(5):483–508.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2008.06.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J Manag 34(3):375–409.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058Google Scholar
  9. Raisch S, Tushman ML (2011) A dynamic perspective on ambidexterity : structural differentiation and boundary activitiesGoogle Scholar
  10. Raisch S, Tushman ML, Birkinshaw J, Probst G (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ Sci 20(4):685–695.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strateg Manag J 25(3):201–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Siggelkow N, Levinthal D (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ Sci 14(6):650–669.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.14.6.650.24870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Siggelkow N, Rivkin J (2006) When exploration backfires: unintended consequences of organizational search. Acad Manag J 49:779–796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. Tushman M, Smith WK, Wood RC, Westerman G, O’Reilly C (2010) Organizational designs and innovation streams. Ind Corp Chang 19(5):1331–1366.  https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/dtq040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar
  19. Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods, 5th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar

References from the Web

  1. James K (2016b) What is the safest way to travel – by plane, car, train… space shuttle? Retrieved July 11, 2016, from http://961theeagle.com/what-is-the-safest-way-to-travel-by-plane-car-train-space-shuttle/

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