Ambidextrous Idea Generation—Antecedents and Outcomes*

Ambidexterity, defined as the capability to develop both incremental and radical innovations, is an important driver of firm success. Idea generation is an essential starting point for both types of innovation. Therefore, this study investigates whether ambidextrous idea generation, defined as the capability to actively generate both incremental and radical ideas, affects new product development (NPD) success. Analyses on the Comparative Performance Assessment Study (CPAS) data, which includes data from 453 companies distributed over 24 countries, demonstrate that ambidextrous idea generation does indeed affect NPD program success. Consequently, this study also investigates which antecedents foster ambidextrous idea generation. The innovation paradox concept predicts that achieving ambidexterity requires overcoming paradoxical antecedents. Therefore, we tested whether combinations of financial and breakthrough orientations (the paradox of strategic emphasis), a formal innovation process and an innovation culture (the paradox of innovation drivers), tight and loose customer coupling (the paradox of customer orientation), and internal development and external collaboration (the paradox of openness) affects ambidextrous idea generation. The results show that only customer orientation and openness have the expected inverted u-shaped effect. These finding are in line with construal level theory, which predicts that the organizational characteristics that influence idea-generation activity must be at the same construal level to have the desired effect. The contribution of this study is twofold. First, the analyses indicate that ambidextrous idea generation has significant repercussions for the entire NPD program. Second, the results show that resolving innovation paradoxes only has an effect if the construal level of the paradox and the activity match. This finding indicates an important boundary condition for the innovation paradox concept.

[1]  Micael Dahlén,et al.  The Effect of New Product Preannouncements on the Evaluation of Other Brand Products , 2016 .

[2]  Sebastian Kortmann,et al.  The mediating role of strategic orientations on the relationship between ambidexterity-oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity , 2015 .

[3]  Hock-Hai Teo,et al.  Comparing Potential and Actual Innovators: An Empirical Study of Mobile Data Services Innovation , 2015, MIS Q..

[4]  H. Gemünden,et al.  How Ideation Portfolio Management Influences Front-End Success , 2015 .

[5]  Yair Berson,et al.  Leading from different psychological distances: A construal-level perspective on vision communication, goal setting, and follower motivation , 2015 .

[6]  L. Bengtsson,et al.  Open to a Select Few? Matching Partners and Knowledge Content for Open Innovation Performance , 2015 .

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

[8]  F. Blindenbach-Driessen,et al.  The Locus of Innovation: The Effect of a Separate Innovation Unit on Exploration, Exploitation, and Ambidexterity in Manufacturing and Service Firms , 2014 .

[9]  K. Atuahene–Gima,et al.  More Innovation with Less? A Strategic Contingency View of Slack Resources, Information Search, and Radical Innovation† , 2014 .

[10]  B. Menguc,et al.  Customer and Supplier Involvement in Design: The Moderating Role of Incremental and Radical Innovation Capability , 2014 .

[11]  S. Markham,et al.  Product Development as Core Competence: How Formal Product Development Practices Differ for Radical, More Innovative, and Incremental Product Innovations† , 2014 .

[12]  M. Tushman,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future , 2013 .

[13]  S. Markham The Impact of Front‐End Innovation Activities on Product Performance , 2013 .

[14]  S. Dopson,et al.  When Does Search Openness Really Matter? A Contingency Study of Health‐Care Innovation Projects , 2013 .

[15]  David B. Balkin,et al.  Organizational Culture and Innovation: A Meta‐Analytic Review , 2013 .

[16]  S. Markham,et al.  Product Development and Management Association's 2012 Comparative Performance Assessment Study , 2013 .

[17]  Mark Mortensen,et al.  Extending Construal-Level Theory to Distributed Groups: Understanding the Effects of Virtuality , 2013, Organ. Sci..

[18]  Luca Berchicci,et al.  Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance , 2013 .

[19]  A. Salter,et al.  Open for Ideation: Individual-level Openness and Idea Generation in R&D , 2012 .

[20]  Heiner Evanschitzky,et al.  Success Factors of Product Innovation: An Updated Meta‐Analysis , 2012 .

[21]  Laura J. Kornish,et al.  The Importance of the Raw Idea in Innovation: Testing the Sow's Ear Hypothesis , 2012 .

[22]  Erwin Danneels,et al.  The Effects of Mainstream and Emerging Customer Orientations on Radical and Disruptive Innovations , 2011 .

[23]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  Untangling dynamic and operational capabilities: strategy for the (n)ever-changing world , 2011 .

[24]  Alexander Kock,et al.  Top management team diversity and strategic innovation orientation: the relationship and consequences for innovativeness and performance , 2011 .

[25]  Roger J. Calantone,et al.  New product development processes and new product profitability: Exploring the mediating role of speed to market and product quality , 2011 .

[26]  Lisa M. Lindgren,et al.  The Role of Future-Market Focus in the Early Stages of NPD across Varying Levels of Innovativeness , 2011 .

[27]  Sebastian Gurtner,et al.  Enabling disruptive innovations through the use of customer analysis methods , 2011 .

[28]  Tammo H. A. Bijmolt,et al.  Generalizations on Consumer Innovation Adoption: A Meta-Analysis on Drivers of Intention and Behavior , 2011 .

[29]  Wendy K. Smith,et al.  Toward a Theory of Paradox: A Dynamic equilibrium Model of Organizing , 2011 .

[30]  K. Sivakumar,et al.  Innovation generation in upstream and downstream business relationships , 2010 .

[31]  Y. Trope,et al.  Construal-level theory of psychological distance. , 2010, Psychological review.

[32]  Martin Schreier,et al.  The Value of Crowdsourcing: Can Users Really Compete with Professionals in Generating New Product Ideas? , 2009 .

[33]  B. Verworn A structural equation model of the impact of the “fuzzy front end” on the success of new product development , 2009 .

[34]  Constantine Andriopoulos,et al.  Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[35]  Julian Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance , 2009, Organ. Sci..

[36]  Jelena Spanjol,et al.  How Many and What Kind? The Role of Strategic Orientation in New Product Ideation , 2009 .

[37]  Jason R. Fitzsimmons,et al.  Performance Configurations over Time: Implications for Growth– and Profit–Oriented Strategies , 2009 .

[38]  Kenneth B. Kahn,et al.  PERSPECTIVE: Trends and Drivers of Success in NPD Practices: Results of the 2003 PDMA Best Practices Study* , 2009 .

[39]  Gary R. Schirr,et al.  Growth and Development of a Body of Knowledge: 16 Years of New Product Development Research, 1989-2004 , 2008 .

[40]  Mary Tripsas,et al.  Thinking About Technology: Applying a Cognitive Lens to Technical Change , 2008 .

[41]  J. Birkinshaw,et al.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators , 2008 .

[42]  Michael E. Porter Las cinco fuerzas competitivas que le dan forma a la estrategia , 2008 .

[43]  Ramón Valle Cabrera,et al.  Managing Functional Diversity, Risk Taking and Incentives for Teams to Achieve Radical Innovations , 2007 .

[44]  Birgit Verworn,et al.  The Fuzzy Front End of Japanese New Product Development Projects: Impact on Success and Differences between Incremental and Radical Projects , 2007 .

[45]  Cheryl Tatano Beck,et al.  Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. , 2007, Research in nursing & health.

[46]  James M. Sinkula,et al.  Does Market Orientation Facilitate Balanced Innovation Programs? An Organizational Learning Perspective , 2007 .

[47]  J. D. Hess,et al.  Mean-Centering Does Not Alleviate Collinearity Problems in Moderated Multiple Regression Models , 2007 .

[48]  Y. Trope,et al.  Construal Levels and Psychological Distance: Effects on Representation, Prediction, Evaluation, and Behavior. , 2007, Journal of consumer psychology : the official journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology.

[49]  Y. Trope,et al.  Construal Level Theory and Consumer Behavior , 2007 .

[50]  Cheryl Tatano Beck,et al.  The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations. , 2006, Research in nursing & health.

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

[52]  R. Henson,et al.  Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Published Research , 2006 .

[53]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: power priming and abstract information processing. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[54]  A. Salter,et al.  Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms , 2006 .

[55]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Innovacion disruptiva para el cambio social , 2006 .

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

[57]  Thomas E. Becker Potential Problems in the Statistical Control of Variables in Organizational Research: A Qualitative Analysis With Recommendations , 2005 .

[58]  K. Zhou,et al.  The Effects of Strategic Orientations on Technology- and Market-Based Breakthrough Innovations , 2005 .

[59]  Hans van der Heijden,et al.  User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems , 2004, MIS Q..

[60]  John C. Narver,et al.  Responsive and proactive market orientation and new-product success. , 2004 .

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

[62]  Susan E. Reid,et al.  The Fuzzy Front End of New Product Development for Discontinuous Innovations: A Theoretical Model , 2004 .

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

[64]  R. Katila,et al.  SOMETHING OLD, SOMETHING NEW: A LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF SEARCH BEHAVIOR AND NEW PRODUCT INTRODUCTION , 2002 .

[65]  G. O'Connor,et al.  Managing radical innovation: an overview of emergent strategy issues , 2002 .

[66]  David Wilemon,et al.  Focusing the Fuzzy Front-End in New Product Development , 2002 .

[67]  Rosanna Garcia,et al.  A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review , 2002 .

[68]  J. Scott Armstrong,et al.  Hypotheses in Marketing Science: Literature Review and Publication Audit , 2005 .

[69]  Wenpin Tsai Knowledge Transfer in Intraorganizational Networks: Effects of Network Position and Absorptive Capacity on Business Unit Innovation and Performance , 2001 .

[70]  Qingyu Zhang,et al.  The fuzzy front end and success of new product development: a causal model , 2001 .

[71]  Jeffrey Davidson,et al.  Providing Clarity and A Common Language to the “Fuzzy Front End” , 2001 .

[72]  R. Chandy,et al.  The Incumbent's Curse? Incumbency, Size, and Radical Product Innovation , 2000 .

[73]  O. Ferrell,et al.  The effect of market orientation on product innovation , 2000 .

[74]  Abbie Griffin,et al.  Launch decisions and new product success: an empirical comparison of consumer and industrial products , 2000 .

[75]  R. Chandy,et al.  Organizing for Radical Product Innovation: The Overlooked Role of Willingness to Cannibalize , 1998 .

[76]  John C. Narver,et al.  Strategic Management Journal Research Notes and Communications Customer-led and Market-oriented: Let's Not Confuse the Two , 2022 .

[77]  Stephen R. Rosenthal,et al.  Towards holistic front ends in new product development , 1998 .

[78]  A. Griffin PDMA Research on New Product Development Practices: Updating Trends and Benchmarking Best Practices , 1997 .

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

[80]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  Firm Size and the Nature of Innovation within Industries: The Case of Process and Product R&D , 1996 .

[81]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  CUSTOMER POWER, STRATEGIC INVESTMENT, AND THE FAILURE OF LEADING FIRMS , 1996 .

[82]  D. Watson,et al.  Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development , 1995 .

[83]  R. Calantone,et al.  Determinants of New Product Performance: A Review and Meta-Analysis , 1994 .

[84]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  The myopia of learning , 1993 .

[85]  Charlotte H. Mason,et al.  Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. , 1991 .

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

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

[88]  John C. Narver,et al.  The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability , 1990 .

[89]  R. Cooper Predevelopment activities determine new product success , 1988 .

[90]  Donald W. Marquaridt Generalized Inverses, Ridge Regression, Biased Linear Estimation, and Nonlinear Estimation , 1970 .