Conclusions and Implications

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


The previous chapter, Chap.  5, outlined all findings systematically in order to finally conclude whether or not certain theoretical propositions can be confirmed or not. First, the findings were compared to current literature and how it substantiates certain findings; second, the findings were linked to the propositions for a comprehensive discussion. Finally, the research objective was considered to answer whether the objective of the research project was achieved or not. This chapter will analyze how the results can contribute to the body of current literature and provide new insights for practitioners.

On the one side, the results obtained in this study can enrich research in the fields of innovation and organizational ambidexterity. On the other side, many of the empirical results are very valuable for the practitioners, especially for the two companies that were part of the case study, since the results can be generalized on this limited scale. The obtained results can help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of both companies in the future implementation of innovations. With this in mind, the findings are summarized in a draft code of practice or ‘cookbook’ taking the form of 16 precise suggestions.

Finally, the last section addresses the shortcomings and limitations of this dissertation and other avenues for research opened up by this study. As in any research project, the choice of focus and perspective implies that another perspectives are not considered. The perspective in this research focused on observing the phenomena of organizational ambidexterity from a point of view of technological innovation. This fact is explained further in Sect. 6.4. Moreover, lots of new insights have been gained, but these new insights also brought up many new questions that have not been answered yet, but are outlined in Sect. 6.3. This last section is followed by the bibliography that also contains the annotated bibliography from the case studies used to conduct the empirical survey. “Appendices” were added, which include the case study protocols, with analytical and practical interview guidelines and the guidelines for focus groups. The same guidelines were used for both companies.


Bibliographical References

  1. Capon N, Farley JU, Lehmann DR, Hulbert JM (1992) Profiles of product innovators among large U.S. manufacturers. Manag Sci 38(2):157–169. Scholar
  2. Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity : a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crossan MM, Apaydin M (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: a systematic review of the literature. J Manag Stud 47(6):1154–1191. Scholar
  4. Daft RL (1978) Dual-core model of organizational innovation. Acad Manag J 21(2):193–210. Scholar
  5. Gopalakrishnan S, Damanpour F (1997) A review of innovation research in economics, sociology and technology management. OMEGA Int J Manag Sci 25:15–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hansen MT (1999) The search-transfer problem: the role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Adm Sci Q 44:82–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural innovation : the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Adm Sci Q 35(1):9–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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. Scholar
  9. Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad Manag Ann 4(October 2012):37–41Google Scholar
  10. Lawrence PR, Lorsch JW (1967) Organization and environment, managing differentiation and integration. Division of Research, Grauduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, BostonGoogle Scholar
  11. Rosenkranz NA (2012) Connecting the dots: studies on boundary-spanning ambidexterity at the individual, project, firm and alliance level, St. GallenGoogle Scholar
  12. Tsai W, Ghoshal S (2007) Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Acad Manag J 41(4):464–476CrossRefGoogle 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