Are James March's ‘exploration’ and ‘exploitation’ separable? Revisiting the dichotomy in the context of innovation management

The conceptual dichotomy between exploration and exploitation has gained much academic attention in innovation management studies ever since March (1991) identified and examined the importance of this distinction and its consequences for organisations. A systematic literature review surrounding this dichotomy, perusing its postulations, was conducted and our findings indicate that the rationale for separating exploration and exploitation is questionable and not really grounded in the extant empirical evidence. Exploration and exploitation, either as theoretical concepts or managerial activities, may, in fact, be inextricable from one another within the context of managing innovation related activities. This view challenges the status of the assumed dichotomy and suggests that this notional separation may be unhelpful in guiding practices and conceptualisation in innovation management. Accordingly, accepting exploration and exploitation to be essentially intertwined and inseparable can lead to the development of a more comprehensive and inclusive framework for understanding how processes of innovation may be better managed. Our intention is to spark the search for further empirical evidence on the actual practical implementation of exploration and exploitation, looking into alternative explanations, including the use of the dichotomy as end outcomes rather than formative activities, and what this means for reconceptualising innovation management processes.