Author
Abstract
Purpose: The research paper under consideration analyzes the relative effect of exploitative and explorative methods on business process redesign (BPR) results in terms of quantity of ideas, variety of ideas, suitability of idea, and effectiveness of idea. It aims at identifying how various redesign strategies strike the balance between creativity and operational efficiency in the organizations.Design/Methodology/Approach: A quantitative experimental study was adopted that involved 150 respondents, i.e. graduate students and BPM professionals assigned randomly to exploitative (Best Practices of Process Redesign) and explorative (Business Process Design Space) techniques groups. The participants were allowed to come up with redesign ideas of a standardized business process scenario, which were evaluated using the quantity, novelty, appropriateness, and impact.Findings: The results have shown that explorative techniques greatly produced a high number and variety of redesign ideas, which increased creativity and breadth of ideation, but exploitative techniques generated a slightly higher number of more appropriate ideas, but the disparity was not significant. There were no notable differences in the impactfulness of ideas of techniques. These results prove that explorative strategies can improve creative work, whereas exploitative strategies facilitate operational congruency.Implications/Originality/Value: This paper indicates the usefulness of an ambidextrous approach to BPR by suggesting that organizations should adopt an explorative and exploitative approach together in a strategic manner to realize the redesign results which are not only innovative but also implementable in a real organizational setting.
Suggested Citation
Muritala, Taiwo A., 2025.
"Balancing Creativity and Efficiency in Business Process Redesign: A Comparative Study of Explorative and Exploitative Techniques,"
Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies, CSRC Publishing, Center for Sustainability Research and Consultancy Pakistan, vol. 11(4), pages 513-522, December.
Handle:
RePEc:src:jbsree:v:11:y:2025:i:4:p:513-522
DOI: http://doi.org/10.26710/jbsee.v11i4.3615
Download full text from publisher
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:src:jbsree:v:11:y:2025:i:4:p:513-522. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Prof. Dr. Ghulam Shabir (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/csrcmpk.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.