IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/jas/jasssj/2010-29-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group-Level Exploration and Exploitation: A Computer Simulation-Based Analysis

Author

Abstract

Organisational research has studied the tension between exploration and exploitation for years. In essence, this body of research agrees on the necessity of a balance between explora-tive and exploitative processes to prevent an organisation from falling into a learning trap. Thus, to enhance the active management of this balance in organisations, a deeper theoretical understanding of the factors that influence the development of exploration and exploitation has to be gained. One of the recently discussed factors is the interplay between exploration and exploitation on different organisational levels. This paper picks up this discussion. It pro-vides an in-depth, computer simulation-based analysis of the performance of organisational types with varying degrees of within-group and between-group exploration and exploitation in situations of different degrees of task complexity. The findings indicate that a high share of between-group processes as compared to within-group processes positively influences the organisational performance level and that dependent on task complexity the optimal share of exploration and exploitation varies.

Suggested Citation

  • Jennifer Kunz, 2011. "Group-Level Exploration and Exploitation: A Computer Simulation-Based Analysis," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18.
  • Handle: RePEc:jas:jasssj:2010-29-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.jasss.org/14/4/18/18.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Edmund Chattoe-Brown, 1998. "Just How (Un)realistic Are Evolutionary Algorithms As Representations of Social Processes?," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 1(3), pages 1-2.
    3. Nigel Gilbert & Pietro Terna, 2000. "How to build and use agent-based models in social science," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 1(1), pages 57-72, March.
    4. Zi-Lin He & Poh-Kam Wong, 2004. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 481-494, August.
    5. Theresa K. Lant & Stephen J. Mezias, 1992. "An Organizational Learning Model of Convergence and Reorientation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 47-71, February.
    6. Daniel A. Levinthal & James G. March, 1993. "The myopia of learning," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(S2), pages 95-112, December.
    7. Michael D. Cohen & Paul Bacdayan, 1994. "Organizational Routines Are Stored as Procedural Memory: Evidence from a Laboratory Study," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(4), pages 554-568, November.
    8. Jatinder S. Sidhu & Henk W. Volberda & Harry R. Commandeur, 2004. "Exploring Exploration Orientation and its Determinants: Some Empirical Evidence," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(6), pages 913-932, September.
    9. Geoffrey M. Hodgson & Thorbjørn Knudsen, 2006. "Balancing Inertia, Innovation, and Imitation in Complex Environments," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 287-295, June.
    10. Mikael Holmqvist, 2004. "Experiential Learning Processes of Exploitation and Exploration Within and Between Organizations: An Empirical Study of Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(1), pages 70-81, February.
    11. Yuqing Ren & Kathleen M. Carley & Linda Argote, 2006. "The Contingent Effects of Transactive Memory: When Is It More Beneficial to Know What Others Know?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(5), pages 671-682, May.
    12. Henrich R. Greve, 2007. "‘Exploration and exploitation in product innovation’," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(5), pages 945-975, October.
    13. Jatinder S. Sidhu & Harry R. Commandeur & Henk W. Volberda, 2007. "The Multifaceted Nature of Exploration and Exploitation: Value of Supply, Demand, and Spatial Search for Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 20-38, February.
    14. John Seely Brown & Paul Duguid, 1991. "Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 40-57, February.
    15. Kathleen Carley, 1992. "Organizational Learning and Personnel Turnover," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 20-46, February.
    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. Kihoon Hong & Gun Jea Yu & Eunjung Hyun, 2018. "Understanding ambidexterity at the individual level: task assignment perspective," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 34-50, March.

    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. Jürgen Weibler & Tobias Keller, 2011. "Ambidextrie in Abhängigkeit von Führungsverantwortung und Marktwahrnehmung: Eine empirische Analyse des individuellen Arbeitsverhaltens in Unternehmen," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 155-188, March.
    2. Linda Argote & Ella Miron-Spektor, 2011. "Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1123-1137, October.
    3. Hyojung Kim & Namgyoo Park & Jeonghwan Lee, 2014. "How does the second-order learning process moderate the relationship between innovation inputs and outputs of large Korean firms?," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 69-103, March.
    4. Taehyon Choi, 2015. "Environmental turbulence, density, and learning strategies: when does organizational adaptation matter?," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 437-460, December.
    5. Jatinder S. Sidhu & Harry R. Commandeur & Henk W. Volberda, 2007. "The Multifaceted Nature of Exploration and Exploitation: Value of Supply, Demand, and Spatial Search for Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 20-38, February.
    6. Sung‐Choon Kang & Scott A. Snell, 2009. "Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A Framework for Human Resource Management," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 65-92, January.
    7. Ioniţă Cătălin Gabriel, 2022. "Exploration vs. Exploitation: How Innovation Strategies Impact Firm Performance and Competitive Advantage," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 16(1), pages 31-46, August.
    8. Alexander S. Alexiev & Justin J. P. Jansen & Frans A. J. Van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2010. "Top Management Team Advice Seeking and Exploratory Innovation: The Moderating Role of TMT Heterogeneity," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(7), pages 1343-1364, November.
    9. Paul E. Bierly & Fariborz Damanpour & Michael D. Santoro, 2009. "The Application of External Knowledge: Organizational Conditions for Exploration and Exploitation," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(3), pages 481-509, May.
    10. Juha Uotila, 2018. "Punctuated equilibrium or ambidexterity: dynamics of incremental and radical organizational change over time," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 27(1), pages 131-148.
    11. Avimanyu Datta, 2011. "Combining Networks, Ambidexterity and Absorptive Capacity to Explain Commercialization of Innovations: A Theoretical Model from Review and Extension," Journal of Management and Strategy, Journal of Management and Strategy, Sciedu Press, vol. 2(4), pages 2-25, December.
    12. Lennerts, Silke & Schulze, Anja & Tomczak, Torsten, 2020. "The asymmetric effects of exploitation and exploration on radical and incremental innovation performance: An uneven affair," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 121-134.
    13. 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.
    14. Edward G. Anderson & Kyle Lewis, 2014. "A Dynamic Model of Individual and Collective Learning Amid Disruption," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(2), pages 356-376, April.
    15. Manuel Guisado-González & Jennifer González-Blanco & José Luis Coca-Pérez, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(4), pages 387-406, December.
    16. Uriel Stettner & Dovev Lavie, 2014. "Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(13), pages 1903-1929, December.
    17. Lee, Kyootai & Kim, Youngkyun & Joshi, Kailash, 2017. "Organizational memory and new product development performance: Investigating the role of organizational ambidexterity," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 117-129.
    18. Guo, Jingjing & Guo, Bin & Zhou, Jianghua & Wu, Xiaobo, 2020. "How does the ambidexterity of technological learning routine affect firm innovation performance within industrial clusters? The moderating effects of knowledge attributes," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    19. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda & Sougata Ray, 2015. "Optimal exploration and exploitation: the managerial intentionality perspective," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 247-273, September.
    20. Mudambi, Ram & Swift, Tim, 2011. "Proactive R&D management and firm growth: A punctuated equilibrium model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 429-440, April.

    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:jas:jasssj:2010-29-3. 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: Francesco Renzini (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.