Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge management initiatives

Current debates on organizational learning distinguish two distinct and mutually exclusive learning modes: exploration and exploitation. The paper deals with the concept of ambidextrous routines in knowledge management (KM) initiatives. The case study-based findings put this understanding into perspective, as the authors have identified KM initiatives that concurrently facilitate exploration and exploitation. The paper elaborates the characteristics of ambidextrous KM initiatives at micro-level; firms use ambidextrous KM practices to create a learning context, defined rather by guidelines and methods than by a definite purpose. The clear separation of KM initiatives' purpose (aim) and their embedded learning routines and methods enables them to be used ambidextrously. Furthermore, this analysis indicates that ambidextrous KM initiatives follow a path characterized by an increasing variety of purposes but a decreasing variety of underlying structures. Consequently, firms create a learning context that can be activated when necessary in ways required either in an exploratory and/or in an exploitative mode.

[1]  Ulf R. Andersson,et al.  Moving or doing? Knowledge flow, problem solving, and change in industrial networks , 2007 .

[2]  Zeki Simsek.  Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Understanding , 2009 .

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

[4]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Temporarily Divide to Conquer: Centralized, Decentralized, and Reintegrated Organizational Approaches to Exploration and Adaptation , 2003 .

[5]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  International Encyclopaedia of Organization Studies , 2008 .

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

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

[8]  H. Volberda,et al.  Exploring Exploration Orientation and its Determinants: Some Empirical Evidence , 2004 .

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

[10]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[11]  Cengiz Yilmaz,et al.  Learning Process in New Product Development Teams and Effects on Product Success: A Socio-Cognitive Perspective , 2006 .

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

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

[14]  C. Gibson,et al.  THE ANTECEDENTS , CONSEQUENCES , AND MEDIATING ROLE OF ORGANIZATIONAL AMBIDEXTERITY , 2004 .

[15]  Kathleen M. Eisenhardt,et al.  Theory Building From Cases: Opportunities And Challenges , 2007 .

[16]  E. Wenger.  Communities of Practice and Social Learning Systems , 2000 .

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

[18]  Ming-Tien Tsai,et al.  Knowledge creation process in new venture strategy and performance , 2007 .

[19]  Pierpaolo Andriani,et al.  Managing knowledge associated with innovation , 2003 .

[20]  Zeki Simsek,et al.  A Typology for Aligning Organizational Ambidexterity's Conceptualizations, Antecedents, and Outcomes , 2009 .

[21]  Lori Rosenkopf,et al.  Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Alliance Formation , 2006 .

[22]  Gianmario Verona,et al.  Unbundling Dynamic Capabilities: an Exploratory Study of Continuous Product Innovation , 2003 .

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

[24]  L. Lindkvist.  Knowledge Communities and Knowledge Collectivities: A Typology of Knowledge Work in Groups , 2005 .

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

[26]  Dusya Vera,et al.  Dynamic capabilities and operational capabilities: A knowledge management perspective , 2007 .

[27]  G. McLean,et al.  Linking organizational culture, structure, strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge management , 2010 .

[28]  Wolfgang H. Güttel,et al.  Continuously Hanging by a Thread: Managing Contextually Ambidextrous Organizations , 2009 .

[29]  Morten T. Hansen,et al.  What's your strategy for managing knowledge? , 1999, Harvard business review.

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

[31]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  The Art of Continuous Change : Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations , 1997 .

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

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

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

[35]  S. Snell,et al.  Intellectual Capital Architectures and Ambidextrous Learning: A Framework for Human Resource Management , 2009 .

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

[37]  Alexander Styhre,et al.  Kaizen, Ethics, and Care of the Operations: Management After Empowerment , 2001 .