Search results

Despite the theoretical assumption that balancing exploration and exploitation is important for long-term performance and survival, previous studies have provided few insights into these relationships because they have focused mainly on the short-term financial performance of organizations. In addition, balancing exploration and exploitation is a critical challenge for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that lack the resources, capabilities, and experience necessary to achieving ambidexterity. In this regards, this study empirically explores the relationship between the exploration–exploitation balance and SMEs’ longevity in order to address two important questions from the ambidexterity perspective: (1) How does the balance between exploration and exploitation influence organizational survival? (2) How is the appropriate balance between exploration and exploitation influenced by an organization’s internal and external contexts?

An analysis of 1981–2012 data from the Korean SMEs in IT industry reveals an inverted U-shaped curvilinear relationship between the extent of exploratory innovation and organizational longevity, providing support for the ambidexterity perspective. We further examine the moderating effects of financial slack and environmental dynamism on the relationship between exploratory innovation and organizational longevity. The results indicate that financial slack moderated the exploration–longevity relationship and call for a contingency approach for a better understanding of performance implications of the exploration–exploitation balance.

This paper aims to examine whether balancing exploration and exploitation rather than emphasizing one over the other leads to better performance. This study also examines the effects of different kinds of external collaboration on a firm’s performance in relation to the firm’s current innovative direction that shows firms’ internal weighting of exploration or exploitation.

Data on Korean manufacturing firms collected from the Korean Innovation Survey were used to test the hypotheses. This study suggested the concept of innovative direction (θ) to examine current innovation capabilities about how much the firms focused on exploration or exploitation. The directionality of exploration or exploitation has not been reflected in previous measures of ambidexterity. Factor analysis and hierarchical regression were used to test hypotheses.

The findings suggest that balancing exploration and exploitation is beneficial for a firm’s performance, and explorative collaboration is more beneficial for firms internally emphasizing exploitation. However, it showed that for exploration-oriented firms, exploitative collaboration does not supplement exploitative activities.

Inter-organizational collaboration helps to develop ambidexterity that leads to better performance. Because inter-organizational collaboration involves substantial costs and is time-consuming, selecting and maintaining partners has to be conducted carefully. Based on the currently pursuing innovative directions, firms can make more appropriate decision for finding external cooperative partners with much of efficiency. When firms find collaborative partners, it is the first thing to look inside themselves.

Previous studies mainly focused on the selection and balance of the partnership between exploration and exploitation without considering the role of an internal innovative strategy firms are currently pursuing. Identifying firms’ current states and finding partners that can supplement any deficiencies provides the most efficient option for the ambidextrous organization. Consideration of inter-organizational collaborations based on the analysis of internal conditions will be fruitful for the study of ambidexterity.

This article aims to explore how organizational architecture (OA) for an information technology organization can balance between exploring new information technologies (IT) that promise significant but uncertain growth opportunities, and exploiting already existing IT that guarantee immediate survival.

The literature on organizational architecture (OA) and the balance between the exploitation and exploration of knowledge is reviewed. Data collected from in-depth case study of a global IT consulting firm highlights the importance of OA in balancing exploitation and exploration.

Four elements of OA emerged as critical in balancing exploitation and exploration: embedding autonomous exploratory units within large exploitative sectors; creating organizational roles to integrate between exploration and exploitation; developing technology solutions that support the interplay between exploitation and exploration; and establishing a reward structure that fosters the cooperation between exploring and exploitative agents.

Results of the study suggest that the switch between exploration and exploitation is key to emerging dynamic capabilities in IT firms. It is important for organizations to define: strategic goals that highlight the importance of both exploration and exploitation for the organization; roles that specifically focus on exploration, exploitation and the coordination between the two capabilities, technologies that support both exploration and exploitation; and reward both capabilities. These four elements of the architecture interact together to support a structure of large exploitative units with embedded small explorative units to support recombination and innovation at the project, the department, and the organization levels.

There is limited research on the effect of organizational design on IT development capabilities. Organizational architecture that balances between exploiting stable domain knowledge and emerging new technologies is crucial in today's global and competitive environment. In this study, a new framework emerges that provides a starting point for future quantitative research on how OA can balance conflicting organizational capabilities for firms engaging in IT development. The paper provides a foundation for future studies to test five propositions on the effect of strategy, structure, roles, technology, and reward on the dynamic capabilities of exploitation and exploration.

Theory predicts that balancing exploratory and exploitative learning (i.e., ambidexterity) across alliance portfolio domains (e.g. value chain function, governance modes) increases firm performance, whereas balance within domains decreases performance. Prior empirical work, however, only assessed balance/imbalance within and across two domains. The purpose of this study is to determine if theory generalizes beyond specific domain combinations. The authors investigated across multiple domains to determine whether alliance portfolios should be imbalanced toward exploration or exploitation within domains or balanced across domains. The authors also extended prior research by exploring whether the direction of imbalance matters. Current theory only advises managers to accept imbalance without helping with the choice between exploration and exploitation.

Hypotheses are tested using fixed-effects generalized least squares (GLS) regression analysis of a large 13-year panel sample of Fortune 500 firms from 1996 to 2008.

With respect to the balance between exploration and exploitation within each of the five domains investigated, imbalanced alliance portfolios had higher firm performance. No evidence was found that balance across domains relates to performance. Instead, for four of the five domains, imbalance toward exploration related positively to firm performance.

An alliance portfolio that allows for exploration in some domains and exploitation in other domains appears more difficult to implement than prior theory suggests. Firms benefit mostly from using the alliance portfolio for exploratory learning.

The dynamic capabilities perspective focuses on the ability of an organization to develop its resource base in order to meet environmental expectations. Therefore, it is closely interrelated to the issue of managing the interaction of exploration and exploitation. The competence of continuously optimizing the interaction of exploration and exploitation has been referred to as organizational ambidexterity. Managing this interaction implies resolving a firm's permanent struggle to overcome the barriers related to the right configuration between exploration and exploitation.

By incorporating the concept of combinative capabilities as balancing routines into the conceptualization of ambidexterity we distinguish structural, interaction, and socialization capabilities that are deployed in overcoming these barriers to resource (re)configuration.

Drawing on knowledge management and barriers to resource configuration we expect that the way organizations deploy combinative capabilities to manage the interaction between exploration and exploitation depends on the observed barriers to resource (re)configuration. By combining the constructs of barriers to resource reconfiguration, ambidexterity, and combinative capabilities we intend to gain more insight in the way organizations manage the actual interaction between exploration and exploitation. Our paper will introduce a set of propositions indicating the relationship between ambidexterity, barriers to resource (re)configuration, and combinative capabilities as balancing routines.

We link the exploration–exploitation framework of organizational learning to small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in a developing economy. SMEs in a developing economy generally lack abundant resources and capabilities because of an evolving set of industrial and environmental regulations. Studying two SMEs in China, we argue that their approaches to balancing exploration and exploitation depend on the development stages of the SMEs and their industrial and environmental contexts. In particular, we propose a four-stage framework that unfolds via initiation, innovation, transformation, and expansion. In this framework, SMEs balance exploration and exploitation by adopting temporal separation and organizational separation sequentially. We also find that SMEs may benefit from exploring a narrow scope of products and exploiting them in a wide market scope.

Research on multinational corporations (MNCs) shows that they have tried various structural solutions to solve the dilemma of trying to “balance” global control and efficiency with local country-specific sensitivity, autonomy, and innovation, with the Transnational form preferred. Failings of the strategy-structure sequence lend credence to the emerging strategy-process perspective. To date, the best lesson for MNC strategy-process concerns pertaining to the global vs. country dilemma comes from March's classic paper on “balancing” exploitation vs. exploration. 21st century MNCs exist in a more rapidly changing world, however, where static “balance” solutions may be insufficient. The tradition of “circular organizing” is one alternative to the failing “balance” solution; it offers a dynamic strategy-process approach to MNC management. Another is Dupuy's concept of “tangled hierarchies” where top-down and bottom-up influence forces are interwoven such that global exploitation or country-specific exploration dominates in timely fashion. It calls for clearly defined control and autonomy regimes, with space given for emergent rules governing the rotation rate. Key questions are: What is the optimal rate at which they should rotate supremacy, and how to get this to happen and persist? Since normal quantitative methods can’t track complex, nonlinear, emergent phenomena, an in-depth longitudinal case analysis was conducted of a global MNC in the cosmetics industry, as it progressed through its early years of formation. Our case covers twelve years, during which the MNC goes through several kinds of tangled hierarchies. The dynamics in our case are rich enough to illustrate many aspects of the “tangled hierarchy” approach, while also offering new clues about oscillation rates. A number of implications for managers are discussed. Principal among these is the “edge of chaos” idea, in which managers have to avoid too-fast or too-slow oscillation rates. Very fast rates can degenerate into chaos and then collapse into the exploitation or exploration “traps.” Firms also fall into the traps simply because managers don’t understand or can’t tolerate the idea of oscillation dynamics.

Contemporary working life highlights the challenge between exploitation and exploration both on a general and a more individual level. Here, we focus on the latter, and connect the critical debate regarding self-management to March's exploitation/exploration trade-off, as this forms a useful theoretical frame to understand how employees make sense of their self-management efforts. The employee is subjected to an individual responsibility to understand and manage an exploration of the self while handling the norms of self-exploitation that a self-management culture creates. Through an empirical study of a large group of management consultants, we explore how they perform and make sense of self-exploitation and self-exploration through three specific discourses: the discourse of workload, the discourse of aspiration, and the discourse of fun. Through these, the consultants try to identify optimal amounts of work, play, and ambition, all while handling the trade-off between self-exploitation and self-exploration. We show how this keeps failing, but how it reappears as a necessary condition for avoiding future failures. In all three discourses, the trade-off therefore presents itself as the problem of as well as the solution to self-management.

This study aims to clarify how companies should manage exploration and exploitation in the long term, and particularly whether companies should dynamically change their resource allocation related to exploration and exploitation activities.

To demonstrate the effect of shifts in focus between exploration and exploitation on financial performance and market evaluation, an empirical examination was conducted using secondary panel data for Japanese manufacturers from 2000 to 2014, which was analyzed by fixed-effect estimation with a control function approach considering the problem of endogeneity.

The empirical results suggest that companies should change their resource allocation related to exploration and exploitation in the long term. Long-term focus shifts between exploration and exploitation activities enhance not only future financial performance (return on assets and return on sales), but also future market evaluations (Tobin’s Q).

This paper showed a pathway connecting technological knowledge searches to the company’s future performance. With reference to the discussion of existing research, it remains unclear what kind of management is required for company activities related to exploration and exploitation. This study showed that companies can improve their profitability and market evaluations by changing their resource allocation for exploration and exploitation activities over time.

While most research on exploration and exploitation is from a static perspective, this study simultaneously incorporated focus balance and focus shifts into the empirical model and thereby examined exploration and exploitation from a dynamic perspective. Even when considering the effects of balancing exploration and exploitation, this study confirmed that organizational vacillation will improve financial performance and market evaluation.

The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate on exploration–exploitation trade-off in the context of new ventures creation, where, particularly at the empirical level, there is a limited understanding of whether and how this trade-off is achieved and how start-ups performances are affected by the way in which they face the exploration–exploitation dilemma.

A qualitative case study approach has been adopted as a methodology to conduct the research. Six Italian innovative start-ups were selected and analyzed through in-depth interviews with founders and data collection to understand whether and how start-ups adopt exploration and exploitation solutions to face critical events in their business lives.

The most evident result of this study is that start-ups adopt more frequently a temporal separation of exploration and exploitation activities as the preferred mode for balancing learning and innovation tension. They do not seem to exhibit a defined or a common path in the way they realize the temporal separation between exploration and exploitation. Instead, they mostly oscillate. The ambidextrous solution is selected in only a few cases and not consecutively. The pre-entry knowledge profile seems to influence the choice of start-ups at the beginning of their lives.

This research has implications for the whole start-up’s ecosystem, comprising incubators/accelerators, advisors, intermediaries, venture capitalists, new venture founders and policymakers. For example, by knowing the typology of knowledge and competence gaps start-ups usually aim to fill when they face particular events, intermediaries (such as incubators) could better plan initiatives and strategies supporting new ventures in the process of growth and stabilization. Furthermore, the venture capitalists can benefit from this research, by planning specific interventions for each critical event based on specific resources and competencies gaps and guiding for more promising start-ups.

This paper presents a novel application of entrepreneurial learning approach in the context of new venture creation. To reach this aim, a classification of exploration/exploitation solutions has been developed.