Conciliating Exploration and Exploitation at Middle-Manager Level: The Case Study of a European Bank Introducing Big Data

This manuscript examines, in a context of radical innovation, the effectiveness of cross functional teams mediating between exploration and exploitation and the knowledge processes that enable organizational ambidexterity. To do so, we conducted a 9 month case study at one of the biggest European banks which is introducing Big Data technologies to support the activity of its corporate relationship managers. The case study focuses on the relationship between the R&D Department and the ICT services provider of the bank and gives evidences that cross-functional teams involving directly these two poles are not, at the first step, the most effective solution at middle-manager level.

[1]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[2]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams , 2005 .

[3]  J. Brown,et al.  Organizational Learning and Communities-of-Practice: Toward a Unified View of Working, Learning, and Innovation , 1991 .

[4]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[5]  S. Ghoshal,et al.  Social Capital and Value Creation: The Role of Intrafirm Networks , 1998 .

[6]  D. Boyd,et al.  CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR BIG DATA , 2012 .

[7]  K. Cameron,et al.  Organizational paradox and transformation. , 1988 .

[8]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator's Dilemma , 2007 .

[9]  Jacky Swan,et al.  Organizational Routines, Situated Learning and Processes of Change in Project-Based Organizations , 2005 .

[10]  Zi-Lin He,et al.  Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis , 2004, Organ. Sci..

[11]  Mary J. Benner,et al.  Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited , 2003 .

[12]  Etienne Wenger,et al.  Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation , 1991 .

[13]  Davide Nicolini,et al.  Organizational Knowledge: The Texture of Workplace Learning , 2006 .

[14]  P. Lawrence,et al.  Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration , 1967 .

[15]  Kenwyn K. Smith,et al.  Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in group dynamics. , 1987 .

[16]  Marie-Elena Ellis.  Wellspring of knowledge , 2003 .

[17]  J. Hamel,et al.  Case Study Methods , 1993 .

[18]  Henk W. Volberda,et al.  Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[19]  Boris Durisin,et al.  A Study of the Performativity of the “Ambidextrous Organizations” Theory: Neither Lost in nor Lost before Translation , 2012 .

[20]  R. Greenwood,et al.  From Practice to Field: A Multilevel Model of Practice-Driven Institutional Change , 2012 .

[21]  J. Brown,et al.  Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing , 1999, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[22]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[23]  Thomas A. Schwandt.  Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. , 1994 .

[24]  D. Wellman,et al.  Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job. , 1997 .

[25]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  THE ANTECEDENTS, CONSEQUENCES AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY , 2004 .

[26]  Isabel M. Prieto,et al.  Dynamic Capabilities and Knowledge Management: An Integrative Role for Learning? , 2008 .

[27]  S. H. Mansbridge.  ORGANIZATION THEORY AND PRACTICE , 1961 .

[28]  Clark G. Gilbert,et al.  Change in the Presence of Residual Fit: Can Competing Frames Coexist? , 2006, Organ. Sci..

[29]  Sylwia Męcfal.  Recenzja książki. Robert K. yin, Case Study Research. Design and Methods (fourth Edition), thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009 , 2012 .

[30]  A. Pentland,et al.  Computational Social Science , 2009, Science.

[31]  R. Grant.  Toward a Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm,” Strategic Management Journal (17), pp. , 1996 .

[32]  Davide Nicolini,et al.  Practice as the Site of Knowing: Insights from the Field of Telemedicine , 2011, Organ. Sci..

[33]  Christina Fang,et al.  Balancing Exploration and Exploitation through Structural Design: The Isolation of Subgroups and Organization Learning , 2008 .

[34]  M. Tushman,et al.  The ambidextrous organization. , 2004, Harvard business review.

[35]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[36]  Anil K. Gupta,et al.  Knowledge flows within multinational corporations , 2000 .

[37]  Olli-Pekka Kauppila,et al.  Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships , 2010 .

[38]  Justin J. P. Jansen,et al.  Senior Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating Role of Transformational Leadership , 2008 .

[39]  Richard L. Daft,et al.  Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design , 1986 .

[40]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpretive case studies in IS research: nature and method , 1995 .

[41]  Ken G. Smith,et al.  The interplay between exploration and exploitation. , 2006 .

[42]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[43]  M. Tushman,et al.  Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change , 1996 .

[44]  Julian Birkinshaw,et al.  Ambidexterity and Survival in Corporate Venture Units , 2014 .

[45]  M. Lubatkin,et al.  Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral Integration , 2006 .