IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v17y2006i2p230-238.html

Organization Design and Effectiveness over the Innovation Life Cycle

Author

Listed:
  • George Westerman

    (MIT Sloan School of Management, 3 Cambridge Center NE20-336, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142)

  • F. Warren McFarlan

    (Harvard Business School, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

  • Marco Iansiti

    (Harvard Business School, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, Massachusetts 02163)

Abstract

Differing bases of competition in early and later stages of an innovation’s life cycle call for differing organization designs. Designs that fit early strategic contingencies tend to misfit later ones. Over time, innovating units must either minimize the negative effects of misfit, or make difficult changes in design. Using four paired case studies, we examine how firms address conflicts in strategic contingencies, how managers adjust to misfits, and how organizations adapt their designs. We find that firms use one of three adaptation modes, none of which is fully autonomous nor fully integrated, and all of which change over time. Each mode optimizes for one contingency while suboptimally attempting to address the other. The study suggests practical insights for researchers and managers.

Suggested Citation

  • George Westerman & F. Warren McFarlan & Marco Iansiti, 2006. "Organization Design and Effectiveness over the Innovation Life Cycle," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 230-238, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:17:y:2006:i:2:p:230-238
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0170
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0170
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.1050.0170?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mary Tripsas & Giovanni Gavetti, 2000. "Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 1147-1161, October.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2002. "Misperceiving Interactions Among Complements and Substitutes: Organizational Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(7), pages 900-916, July.
    4. Nicolaj Siggelkow & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2003. "Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(6), pages 650-669, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    2. Ranjay Gulati & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 422-440, April.
    3. Andrew D. Henderson & Melissa E. Graebner, 2020. "Entering a Golden Age of Sustained Superiority: Entrepreneurial Creation or Discovery?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(6), pages 1432-1451, November.
    4. John Joseph & Luke Rhee & Alex James Wilson, 2023. "Corporate Hierarchy and Organizational Learning: Member Turnover, Code Change, and Innovation in the Multiunit Firm," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(3), pages 1332-1352, May.
    5. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann, 2019. "Polytope Conditioning and Linear Convergence of the Frank–Wolfe Algorithm," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 1319-1348, February.
    6. Sunkee Lee, 2019. "Learning-by-Moving: Can Reconfiguring Spatial Proximity Between Organizational Members Promote Individual-level Exploration?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 467-488, May.
    7. Anindya Ghosh & Xavier Martin & Johannes M. Pennings & Filippo Carlo Wezel, 2014. "Ambition Is Nothing Without Focus: Compensating for Negative Transfer of Experience in R&D," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 572-590, April.
    8. Michael G. Jacobides, 2007. "The Inherent Limits of Organizational Structure and the Unfulfilled Role of Hierarchy: Lessons from a Near-War," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(3), pages 455-477, June.
    9. Aija Leiponen, 2005. "Core complementarities of the corporation: organization of an innovating firm," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(6), pages 351-365.
    10. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    11. Daniella Laureiro-Martínez & Stefano Brusoni & Nicola Canessa & Maurizio Zollo, 2015. "Understanding the exploration–exploitation dilemma: An fMRI study of attention control and decision-making performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 319-338, March.
    12. François Constant & Richard Calvi & Thomas Johnsen, 2020. "Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing function ambidexterity Managing tensions between exploitative and exploratory innovation through purchasing function ambidexterity," Post-Print hal-02891790, HAL.
    13. Jan W. Rivkin & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2003. "Balancing Search and Stability: Interdependencies Among Elements of Organizational Design," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 290-311, March.
    14. Friederike Wall, 2016. "Agent-based modeling in managerial science: an illustrative survey and study," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 135-193, January.
    15. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael, 2007. "Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma," Research Papers 1963, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    16. Wendy K. Smith & Michael L. Tushman, 2005. "Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 16(5), pages 522-536, October.
    17. Sadek, Biland, 2024. "Components and Strategic Routes of Corporate Transformations," MPRA Paper 120332, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 26 Feb 2024.
    18. Giovanni Dosi & Marco Faillo & Virginia Cecchini Manara & Luigi Marengo & Daniele Moschella, 2017. "The formalization of organizational capabilities and learning: results and challenges," LEM Papers Series 2017/08, Laboratory of Economics and Management (LEM), Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Italy.
    19. Friederike Wall, 2019. "Emergence of Coordination in Growing Decision-Making Organizations: The Role of Complexity, Search Strategy, and Cost of Effort," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-26, December.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:inm:ororsc:v:17:y:2006:i:2:p:230-238. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.