Exploration, exploitation and adaptive rationality: the neo-Schumpeterian perspective

Abstract Resource allocation between exploration of emerging technological possibilities and exploitation of known technological possibilities involves a delicate trade-off. We develop a model to represent this trade-off under the time-pressing situation where the firm’s existing basis of survival is constantly challenged by competitors’ innovation and imitation. We examine how the employment of an adaptive rule improves a balance between the exploration and the exploitation. Simulation experiments show that an adaptively rational decision rule, or a step-by-step exploration of unknown opportunities based on feedback on returns, is more likely to increase firm survival under diverse conditions than an all-or-nothing approach regarding the unknown opportunities. Furthermore, our study suggests that the adaptively rational rule is self-protected from too much loss, while its potential pay-off can be unbounded above.

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

[2]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms in Search Optimization and Machine Learning , 1988 .

[3]  Melanie Mitchell,et al.  The royal road for genetic algorithms: Fitness landscapes and GA performance , 1991 .

[4]  J. March,et al.  A Behavioral Theory of the Firm , 1964 .

[5]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation , 1996 .

[6]  Constance E. Helfat,et al.  Evolutionary trajectories in petroleum firm R&D , 1994 .

[7]  S. Kauffman.  At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity , 1995 .

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

[9]  F. Varela,et al.  Toward a Practice of Autonomous Systems: Proceedings of the First European Conference on Artificial Life , 1992 .

[10]  J. Schumpeter,et al.  The Theory of Economic Development , 2017 .

[11]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  Innovation and Learning: The Two Faces of R&D , 1989 .

[12]  S. Mezias,et al.  MANAGING DISCONTINUOUS CHANGE: A SIMULATION STUDY OF ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP , 1990 .

[13]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Rigid Disk Drive Industry: A History of Commercial and Technological Turbulence , 1993, Business History Review.

[14]  S. Winter,et al.  An evolutionary theory of economic change , 1983 .

[15]  E. Johnsen.  Richard M. Cyert & James G. March, A Behavioral Theory of The Firm, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1963, 332 s. , 1964 .

[16]  Michael W. Mehaffy,et al.  At Home In The Universe The Search For The Laws Of Self Organization And Complexity , 1996 .

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

[18]  John J. Grefenstette,et al.  Genetic algorithms and their applications , 1987 .

[19]  David E. Goldberg,et al.  Genetic Algorithms with Sharing for Multimodalfunction Optimization , 1987, ICGA.

[20]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of , 1990 .

[21]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change , 1994 .

[22]  David J. Collis,et al.  Corporate Strategy : Resources and the Scope of the Firm , 1996 .

[23]  Samuel B. Graves,et al.  Innovative productivity and returns to scale in the pharmaceutical industry , 1993 .

[24]  T. Keelin,et al.  How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[25]  Henry G. Grabowski,et al.  Pioneers, Imitators, and Generics — a Simulation Model of Schumpeterian Competition , 1987 .

[26]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Organizational Environments , 1986 .

[27]  Sidney G. Winter,et al.  Satisficing, Selection, and the Innovating Remnant , 1971 .

[28]  M. Hannan,et al.  The Population Ecology of Organizations , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[29]  W. Arthur,et al.  Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy , 1996 .

[30]  D. Leonard-Barton.  CORE CAPABILITIES AND CORE RIGIDITIES: A PARADOX IN MANAGING NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT , 1992 .

[31]  Stefan H. Thomke,et al.  Eli Lilly and Company: Drug Development Strategy (A) and (B) TN , 1997 .

[32]  Wesley M. Cohen,et al.  Empirical studies of innovation and market structure , 1989 .

[33]  Robert A. Burgelman.  Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Business Exit in Dynamic Environments , 1994 .

[34]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[35]  E. Gordon,et al.  Combinatorial chemistry and molecular diversity in drug discovery , 1998 .

[36]  Meir Statman.  Competition in the Pharmaceutical Industry: The Declining Profitability of Drug Innovation , 1983 .

[37]  H. A. Simon,et al.  Skew Distributions and the Size of Business Firms , 1977 .

[38]  K. Arrow.  Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention , 1962 .

[39]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Simulation of Schumpeterian Competition , 1977 .

[40]  M. Eigen,et al.  The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Part A: Emergence of the hypercycle. , 1977, Die Naturwissenschaften.

[41]  J. Tirole.  The Theory of Industrial Organization , 1988 .