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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Adams R, Bessant J, Phelps R (2006) Innovation management measurement: a review. Int J Manag Rev 8:21–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adler P, Heckscher C (2013) The collaborative, ambidextrous enterprise. Universia Business Review, Cuarto TriGoogle Scholar
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
Adler PS, Kwon SW (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept. Acad Manag Rev 27:17–40Google Scholar
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
Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28:238–256Google Scholar
Birken SA, Lee SY, Weiner BJ (2012) Uncovering middle managers’ role in healthcare innovation implementation. Implement Sci 7:28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkinshaw J, Gibson C (2004) Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Manag Rev (Summer):47–55Google Scholar
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
Tsai W, Ghoshal S (1998) Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Acad Manag J 41(4):464–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber M (1978) Economy and society. University of California Press, Berkeley, CAGoogle Scholar
Weick K (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
Weick KE (1990) In: Goodman PS, Sproull LS (eds) Technology as equivoque: sensemaking in new technologies. Jossey-Bass, OxfordGoogle Scholar
Westerman G, McFarlan WF, Iansiti M (2006) Organizational design and effectiveness over the innovation life cycle. Organ Sci 17:230–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin RK (2014) Case study research: design and methods, 5th edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CAGoogle Scholar