IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v22y2016i1d10.1007_s10588-015-9195-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An agent-based model of organizational ambidexterity decisions and strategies in new product development

Author

Listed:
  • Christine Chou

    (National Dong Hwa University)

  • Steven O. Kimbrough

    (University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

Organizational ambidexterity, defined as the pursuit of both exploitation and exploration, has become an important topic in the study of organizations, especially in innovation management theory. Previous literature has not focused on the strategic (game-theoretic) aspects of organizational ambidexterity or on its decision-making aspects. Little is known about how or even whether the decision to adopt ambidexterity is competitively advantageous in the presence of diverse strategies that competitors may adopt. This facet of the subject is inherently game-theoretic; the value of a decision by one firm depends in part on decisions made by other firms. This paper initiates systematic investigation of these strategic aspects, including the overall performance of available strategies. Specifically, this study examines questions of ambidexterity-related strategy performance in the context of new product development. The main contributions are (1) to introduce and make available to the research community an agent-based model and decision support system that captures many of the key aspects and tradeoffs, which have been identified in the literature, of the exploration–exploitation dilemma faced by firms in the new product development process, with a focus on organizations’ product investment decisions and (2) to report on results obtained from the model, calibrated with available data from the literature, augmented by new data collected from interviews with practitioners.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine Chou & Steven O. Kimbrough, 2016. "An agent-based model of organizational ambidexterity decisions and strategies in new product development," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 4-46, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:22:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s10588-015-9195-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-015-9195-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-015-9195-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10588-015-9195-8?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John R. Hauser & Steven M. Shugan, 2008. "Defensive Marketing Strategies," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(1), pages 88-110, 01-02.
    2. Justin J. P. Jansen & Frans A. J. Van Den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2006. "Exploratory Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and Environmental Moderators," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(11), pages 1661-1674, November.
    3. Alexei Sharpanskykh & Sybert H. Stroeve, 2011. "An agent-based approach for structured modeling, analysis and improvement of safety culture," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 77-117, March.
    4. Michael Lubatkin & Zeki Simsek & Yan Ling & John F. Veiga, 2006. "Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium-Sized Firms : The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration," Post-Print hal-02311781, HAL.
    5. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    6. Frank T. Rothaermel & David L. Deeds, 2004. "Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 201-221, March.
    7. Qing Cao & Eric Gedajlovic & Hongping Zhang, 2009. "Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 781-796, August.
    8. 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.
    9. O'Reilly, Charles & Harreld, J. Bruce & Tushman, Michael L., 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: IBM and Emerging Business Opportunities," Research Papers 2025, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    11. Steve Bankes, 1993. "Exploratory Modeling for Policy Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(3), pages 435-449, June.
    12. Justin J.P. Jansen & Zeki Simsek & Qing Cao, 2012. "Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross‐level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(11), pages 1286-1303, November.
    13. Justin J. P. Jansen & Michiel P. Tempelaar & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 797-811, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Paul S. Adler & Barbara Goldoftas & David I. Levine, 1999. "Flexibility Versus Efficiency? A Case Study of Model Changeovers in the Toyota Production System," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 10(1), pages 43-68, February.
    16. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    17. Tom J. M. Mom & Frans A. J. van den Bosch & Henk W. Volberda, 2009. "Understanding Variation in Managers' Ambidexterity: Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of Formal Structural and Personal Coordination Mechanisms," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 812-828, August.
    18. 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.
    19. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    20. Christina Fang & Jeho Lee & Melissa A. Schilling, 2010. "Balancing Exploration and Exploitation Through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 625-642, June.
    21. Minghao Wang & Xiaolin Hu, 2012. "Agent-based modeling and simulation of community collective efficacy," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 18(4), pages 463-487, December.
    22. Zhiang (John) Lin & Haibin Yang & Irem Demirkan, 2007. "The Performance Consequences of Ambidexterity in Strategic Alliance Formations: Empirical Investigation and Computational Theorizing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(10), pages 1645-1658, October.
    23. Geoffrey P. Morgan & Kathleen M. Carley, 2014. "Comparing hiring strategies in a committee with similarity biases," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-19, March.
    24. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mariani, Marcello M. & Machado, Isa & Magrelli, Vittoria & Dwivedi, Yogesh K., 2023. "Artificial intelligence in innovation research: A systematic review, conceptual framework, and future research directions," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 122(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. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    2. Olga Kassotaki, 2022. "Review of Organizational Ambidexterity Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(1), pages 21582440221, March.
    3. 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.
    4. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. 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.
    6. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    7. Partanen, Jukka & Kohtamäki, Marko & Patel, Pankaj C. & Parida, Vinit, 2020. "Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    8. 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.
    9. Alexander Zimmermann & Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw, 2015. "How Is Ambidexterity Initiated? The Emergent Charter Definition Process," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(4), pages 1119-1139, August.
    10. Sahi, Gurjeet Kaur & Gupta, Mahesh C. & Cheng, T.C.E., 2020. "The effects of strategic orientation on operational ambidexterity: A study of indian SMEs in the industry 4.0 era," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    11. Karl Aschenbrücker & Tobias Kretschmer, 2022. "Performance-based incentives and innovative activity in small firms: evidence from German manufacturing," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 11(2), pages 47-64, June.
    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 functio," Post-Print hal-02891790, HAL.
    13. Schnellbächer, Benedikt & Heidenreich, Sven & Wald, Andreas, 2019. "Antecedents and effects of individual ambidexterity – A cross-level investigation of exploration and exploitation activities at the employee level," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 442-454.
    14. Úbeda-García, Mercedes & Claver-Cortés, Enrique & Marco-Lajara, Bartolomé & Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio, 2020. "Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 363-372.
    15. Angeloantonio Russo & Rosamartina Schena, 2021. "Ambidexterity in the context of SME alliances: Does sustainability have a role?," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 606-615, March.
    16. Hu, Min & Dou, Junsheng & You, Xialei, 2023. "Is organizational ambidexterity always beneficial to family-managed SMEs? Evidence from China," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    17. David B. Audretsch & Maribel Guerrero, 2023. "Is ambidexterity the missing link between entrepreneurship, management, and innovation?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1891-1918, December.
    18. Lori Rosenkopf & Patia McGrath, 2011. "Advancing the Conceptualization and Operationalization of Novelty in Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1297-1311, October.
    19. Mohamed Mohiya & M. M. Sulphey, 2021. "Do Saudi Arabian Leaders Exhibit Ambidextrous Leadership: A Qualitative Examination," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, October.
    20. Andreea N. Kiss & Dirk Libaers & Pamela S. Barr & Tang Wang & Miles A. Zachary, 2020. "CEO cognitive flexibility, information search, and organizational ambidexterity," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(12), pages 2200-2233, December.

    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:spr:comaot:v:22:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s10588-015-9195-8. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.