IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/igg/jisscm/v15y2022i1p1-19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ambidextrous Learning in Buyer-Supplier Relationships: The Role of Strategic and Operational Information Sharing

Author

Listed:
  • Ryan Atkins

    (Duquesne University, USA)

  • Yuliya Yurova

    (Nova Southeastern University, USA)

  • Arvind Gudi

    (Nova Southeastern University, USA)

  • Cynthia Ruppel

    (Nova Southeastern University, USA)

Abstract

Achieving competitive advantage in a dynamic environment requires firms to exploit their current capabilities and explore new opportunities through innovation. Organizational learning theory refers to these two types of focused learning activities as exploitation and exploration, and jointly as ambidextrous learning. Suppliers can play an important role in the learning process. This research focuses on the role of strategic and operational information sharing between buyers and suppliers in promoting ambidextrous learning. Based on a survey of supply chain managers in U.S. manufacturing firms, the findings indicate that sharing operational information promotes exploitative performance, while sharing strategic information promotes exploratory performance. Both exploitative and exploratory performance improvements positively relate to the buyer’s financial performance, but these relationships are moderated by the buyer’s product innovation strategy. Exploratory performance is particularly important for firms pursuing a high innovation strategy to maximize financial performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Ryan Atkins & Yuliya Yurova & Arvind Gudi & Cynthia Ruppel, 2022. "Ambidextrous Learning in Buyer-Supplier Relationships: The Role of Strategic and Operational Information Sharing," International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management (IJISSCM), IGI Global, vol. 15(1), pages 1-19, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:igg:jisscm:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:1-19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://services.igi-global.com/resolvedoi/resolve.aspx?doi=10.4018/IJISSCM.290355
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    2. Kasper Kiil & Hans-Henrik Hvolby & Jacques Trienekens & Behzad Behdani & Jan Ola Strandhagen, 2019. "From Information Sharing to Information Utilization in Food Supply Chains," International Journal of Information Systems and Supply Chain Management (IJISSCM), IGI Global, vol. 12(3), pages 85-109, July.
    3. Larry J. Menor & M. Murat Kristal & Eve D. Rosenzweig, 2007. "Examining the Influence of Operational Intellectual Capital on Capabilities and Performance," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 9(4), pages 559-578, May.
    4. Karl Jöreskog, 1994. "On the estimation of polychoric correlations and their asymptotic covariance matrix," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 59(3), pages 381-389, September.
    5. K. Jöreskog, 1971. "Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 36(4), pages 409-426, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tajeddini, Kayhan & Gamage, Thilini Chathurika & Tajdini, Javad & Qalati, Sikandar Ali & Siddiqui, Faiza, 2023. "Achieving sustained competitive advantage in retail and consumer service firms: The role of entrepreneurial orientation and entrepreneurial bricolage," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tahir Ahmad & Amy Van Looy, 2021. "Development and testing of an explorative BPM acceptance model: Insights from the COVID-19 pandemic," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(11), pages 1-26, November.
    2. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    3. Henri A. Schildt & Markku V.J. Maula & Thomas Keil, 2005. "Explorative and Exploitative Learning from External Corporate Ventures," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(4), pages 493-515, July.
    4. Giuliani, Elisa & Martinelli, Arianna & Rabellotti, Roberta, 2016. "Is Co-Invention Expediting Technological Catch Up? A Study of Collaboration between Emerging Country Firms and EU Inventors," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 192-205.
    5. Insoo Cho & Peter F. Orazem, 2021. "How endogenous risk preferences and sample selection affect analysis of firm survival," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1309-1332, April.
    6. Tomasz Helbin & Amy Van Looy, 2021. "Is Business Process Management (BPM) Ready for Ambidexterity? Conceptualization, Implementation Guidelines and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    7. Son K. Lam & Thomas E. DeCarlo & Ashish Sharma, 2019. "Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement: do customer base characteristics matter?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(4), pages 659-680, July.
    8. Jonathan H. Reed, 2022. "Operational and strategic change during temporary turbulence: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 589-608, June.
    9. Alan Hevner & Isabelle Comyn-Wattiau & Jacky Akoka & Nicolas Prat, 2018. "A pragmatic approach for identifying and managing design science research goals and evaluation criteria," Post-Print hal-02283783, HAL.
    10. Felipe A. Csaszar & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2010. "How Much to Copy? Determinants of Effective Imitation Breadth," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 661-676, June.
    11. Bruneel, Johan & Clarysse, Bart & Bobelyn, Annelies & Wright, Mike, 2020. "Liquidity events and VC-backed academic spin-offs: The role of search alliances," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(10).
    12. Sylvie Héroux & Mélanie Roussy, 2020. "Three cases of compliance with governance regulation: an organizational learning perspective," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 24(2), pages 449-479, June.
    13. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    14. Freeman, Steven F., 1997. "Good decisions : reconciling human rationality, evolution, and ethics," Working papers WP 3962-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    15. Zhang, Feng & Jiang, Guohua & Cantwell, John A., 2015. "Subsidiary exploration and the innovative performance of large multinational corporations," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 224-234.
    16. Avimanyu Datta, 2016. "Antecedents To Radical Innovations: A Longitudinal Look At Firms In The Information Technology Industry By Aggregation Of Patents," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(07), pages 1-31, October.
    17. Liu, Zhiqiang & Yan, Miao & Fan, Youqing & Chen, Liling, 2021. "Ascribed or achieved? The role of birth order on innovative behaviour in the workplace," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 480-492.
    18. Nicolai J. Foss, 1996. "Firms, Incomplete Contracts and Organizational Learning," DRUID Working Papers 96-2, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    19. Boeker, Warren & Howard, Michael D. & Basu, Sandip & Sahaym, Arvin, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships, digital technologies, and innovation in entrepreneurial ventures," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 495-507.
    20. Keegan, A. & Turner, J.R., 2000. "Quantity versus Quality in Project Based Learning Practices," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2000-55-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:igg:jisscm:v:15:y:2022:i:1:p:1-19. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journal Editor (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.igi-global.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.