IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cri/cespri/wp231.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The neuro-scientific foundations of the exploration-exploitation dilemma

Author

Listed:
  • Daniella Laureiro-Martínez

    (KITeS, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy)

  • Stefano Brusoni

    (KITeS, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy)

  • Maurizio Zollo

    (KITeS, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy)

Abstract

This paper aims to leverage neuroscience and psychology to contribute to the development of a microfoundation for an important managerial dilemma: the organizational ability to continuously explore novel domains of activity and exploit the current knowledge base with increasing efficacy. The dilemma for firms is at how to search for sustained competitive advantage. The conflicting objectives of exploration and exploitation compete for scarce resources, among which managerial attention is possibly the most critical. We propose that some recent neuroscientific findings could help us uncover the individual-level foundations of the organizational ability to both explore and exploit. Critical to our analysis is an understanding of how individuals allocate their limited time to alternative uses and vary the scope of their attention. We build on recent evidence on the way that individual learning modes are altered, in order to extend the discussion on organizational exploration and exploitation.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniella Laureiro-Martínez & Stefano Brusoni & Maurizio Zollo, 2009. "The neuro-scientific foundations of the exploration-exploitation dilemma," KITeS Working Papers 004, KITeS, Centre for Knowledge, Internationalization and Technology Studies, Universita' Bocconi, Milano, Italy, revised Apr 2009.
  • Handle: RePEc:cri:cespri:wp231
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: ftp://ftp.unibocconi.it/pub/RePEc/cri/papers/KitesWP4.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rebecca Henderson & Iain Cockburn, 1996. "Scale, Scope, and Spillovers: The Determinants of Research Productivity in Drug Discovery," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(1), pages 32-59, Spring.
    2. Holmstrom, Bengt, 1989. "Agency costs and innovation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 305-327, December.
    3. Gambardella,Alfonso, 1995. "Science and Innovation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521451185, March.
    4. repec:rje:randje:v:37:y:2006:i:4:p:861-886 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Daron Acemoglu & Joshua Linn, 2004. "Market Size in Innovation: Theory and Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(3), pages 1049-1090.
    6. Danzon, Patricia M. & Nicholson, Sean & Pereira, Nuno Sousa, 2005. "Productivity in pharmaceutical-biotechnology R&D: the role of experience and alliances," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 317-339, March.
    7. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", pages 129-137.
    8. Cohen, Wesley M & Levinthal, Daniel A, 1989. "Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(397), pages 569-596, September.
    9. Grabowski, Henry & Vernon, John & DiMasi, Joseph, 2002. "Returns on R&D for 1990s New Drug Introductions," Working Papers 02-21, Duke University, Department of Economics.
    10. Ilan Guedj & David Scharfstein, 2004. "Organizational Scope and Investment: Evidence from the Drug Development Strategies and Performance of Biopharmaceutical Firms," NBER Working Papers 10933, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters,in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Giarratana, Marco S., 2004. "The birth of a new industry: entry by start-ups and the drivers of firm growth: The case of encryption software," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 787-806, July.
    13. Ely Dahan & Haim Mendelson, 2001. "An Extreme-Value Model of Concept Testing," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(1), pages 102-116, January.
    14. Stiglitz, Joseph E & Weiss, Andrew, 1981. "Credit Rationing in Markets with Imperfect Information," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 71(3), pages 393-410, June.
    15. Arora, Ashish & Gambardella, Alfonso, 1994. "Evaluating technological information and utilizing it : Scientific knowledge, technological capability, and external linkages in biotechnology," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 91-114, June.
    16. Nathan ROSENBERG, 2009. "Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)?," World Scientific Book Chapters,in: Studies On Science And The Innovation Process Selected Works of Nathan Rosenberg, chapter 11, pages 225-234 World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    17. J. Myles Shaver, 1998. "Accounting for Endogeneity When Assessing Strategy Performance: Does Entry Mode Choice Affect FDI Survival?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(4), pages 571-585, April.
    18. Higgins, Matthew J. & Rodriguez, Daniel, 2006. "The outsourcing of R&D through acquisitions in the pharmaceutical industry," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 351-383, May.
    19. Ashish Arora & Andrea Fosfuri & Alfonso Gambardella, 2004. "Markets for Technology: The Economics of Innovation and Corporate Strategy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511819, January.
    20. Holmström, Bengt, 1989. "Agency Costs and Innovation," Working Paper Series 214, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    21. DiMasi, Joseph A. & Hansen, Ronald W. & Grabowski, Henry G., 2003. "The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 151-185, March.
    22. Steven Klepper & Peter Thompson, 2006. "Submarkets and the evolution of market structure," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(4), pages 861-886, 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. Ljungquist, Urban, 2012. "New Dimensions Added for Enhanced Core Competence Application," Working Papers 2012/03, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Department of Industrial Economics.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cri:cespri:wp231. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Valerio Sterzi). General contact details of provider: http://www.kites.unibocconi.it/ .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.