Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An agent-based model of organizational ambidexterity decisions and strategies in new product development

  • Manuscript
  • Published:
Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Organizational ambidexterity, defined as the pursuit of both exploitation and exploration, has become an important topic in the study of organizations, especially in innovation management theory. Previous literature has not focused on the strategic (game-theoretic) aspects of organizational ambidexterity or on its decision-making aspects. Little is known about how or even whether the decision to adopt ambidexterity is competitively advantageous in the presence of diverse strategies that competitors may adopt. This facet of the subject is inherently game-theoretic; the value of a decision by one firm depends in part on decisions made by other firms. This paper initiates systematic investigation of these strategic aspects, including the overall performance of available strategies. Specifically, this study examines questions of ambidexterity-related strategy performance in the context of new product development. The main contributions are (1) to introduce and make available to the research community an agent-based model and decision support system that captures many of the key aspects and tradeoffs, which have been identified in the literature, of the exploration–exploitation dilemma faced by firms in the new product development process, with a focus on organizations’ product investment decisions and (2) to report on results obtained from the model, calibrated with available data from the literature, augmented by new data collected from interviews with practitioners.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility versus efficiency: a case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ Sci 10:43–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ancona DG, Goodman PS, Lawrence BS, Tushman ML (2001) Time: a new research lens. Acad Manag Rev 26:645–663

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ Sci 20:696–717

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2010) Managing innovation paradoxes: ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Plan 43:104–122. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2009.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima K (1995) An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new product performance: a contingency approach. J Prod Innov Manag 12:275–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima K (2005) Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation. J Mark 69:61–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (1984) The evolution of cooperation. Basic Books Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R, Hamilton WD (1981) The evolution of cooperation. Science 211:1390–1396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bankes S (1993) Exploratory modeling for policy analysis. Oper Res 41:435–449. doi:10.1287/opre.41.3.435

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bankes S, Lempert R, Popper S (2002) Making computational social science effective. Soc Sci Comput Rev 20:377–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barczak G, Griffin A, Kahn KB (2009) Perspective: trends and drivers of success in NPD practices: results of the PDMA best practices study. J Prod Innov Manag 26:3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Acad Manag Rev 28:238–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinshaw J, Gupta K (2013) Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Acad Manag Perspect 27:287–298. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calantone R, Rubera G (2012) When should RD&E and marketing collaborate? The moderating role of exploration-exploitation and environmental uncertainty. J Prod Innov Manag 29:144–157. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00884.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calantone RJ, Schmidt JB, Di Benedetto CA (1997) New product activities and performance: the moderating role of environmental hostility. J Prod Innov Manag 14:179–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cangelosi A, Parisi D (2002) Computer simulation: a new scientific approach to the study of language evolution. Springer Verlag, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao Q, Gedajlovic E, Zhang H (2009) Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ Sci 20:781–796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen E, Katila R (2008) Rival interpretations of balancing exploration and exploitation: simultaneous or sequential? In Shane S (ed) The handbook on technology and innovation management. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, pp 197–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Chou C, Kimbrough SO, Murphy FH, Sullivan-Fedock J, Woodard CJ (2014) On empirical validation of compactness measures for electoral redistricting and its significance for application of models in the social sciences. Soc Sci Comput Rev 32:534–543. doi:10.1177/0894439313484262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis JP, Eisenhardt KM, Bingham CB (2007) Developing theory through simulation methods. Acad Manag Rev 32:480–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess GG, Beard DW (1984) Dimensions of organizational task environments. Adm Sci Q 29:52–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Droge C, Calantone R, Harmancioglu N (2008) New product success: is it really controllable by managers in highly turbulent environments? J Prod Innov Manag 25:272–286. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00300.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan RB (1976) The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In: Kilmann RH, Pondy LR, Slevin DP (eds) The management of organization design: strategies and implementation, vol I. North Holland, New York, pp 167–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang C, Lee J, Schilling MA (2010) Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: the isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organ Sci 21:625–642. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia R (2005) Uses of agent-based modeling in innovation/new product development research. J Prod Innov Manage 22:380–398. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00136.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia R, Calantone R, Levine R (2003) The role of knowledge in resource allocation to exploration versus exploitation in technologically oriented organizations. Decis Sci 34:323–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J 47:209–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 49:693–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han JK, Kim N, Srivastava RK (1998) Market orientation and organizational performance: is innovation a missing link? J Mark 62:30–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harreld JB, OŔeilly CA, Tushman ML (2007) Dynamic capabilities at IBM: driving strategy into action California management review. CMR 49:21–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser JR, Shugan SM (1983) Defensive marketing strategies. Mark Sci 2:319–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He ZL, Wong PK (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ Sci 15:481–494. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IRC (2013) International technology roadmap for semiconductor (ITRS). http://www.itrs.net/Links/2013ITRS/Home2013.htm

  • Jansen JJP, Van Den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Manag Sci 52:1661–1674

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Tempelaar MP, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ Sci 20:797–811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JJP, Simsek Z, Cao Q (2012) Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strateg Manag J 33:1286–1303. doi:10.1002/smj.1977

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK (1993) Market orientation: antecedents and consequences. J Mark 57:53–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Z-S, Hao Y-H (2012) Game analysis of technology innovation alliance stability based on knowledge transfer. Comput Math Organ Theory. doi:10.1007/s10588-011-9096-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Junni P, Sarala RM, Taras V, Tarba SY (2013) Organizational ambidexterity and performance: a meta-analysis. Acad Manag Perspect 27:299–312. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim N, Atuahene-Gima K (2010) Using exploratory and exploitative market learning for new product development. J Prod Innov Manag 27:519–536. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2010.00733.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli AK, Jaworski BJ (1990) Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. J Mark 54:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lempert P (2008) New products may be plentiful, but success remains fleeting. http://app.subscribermail.com/dspcd.cfm?c=c1e545a420754899b69af53c33025f7a&email=58c6042b1a6448cabd21b19ce2d9ad9c. Accessed July 19 2012

  • Lin Z, Yang H, Demirkan I (2007) The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Manag Sci 53:1645–1658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubatkin MH, Simsek Z, Ling Y, Veiga JF (2006) Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. J Manag 32:646–672

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2:71–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller KD, Zhao M, Calantone R (2006) Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March’s exploration-exploitation model. Acad Manag J 49:709–722

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mom TJM, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organ Sci 20:812–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan G, Carley K (2014) Comparing hiring strategies in a committee with similarity biases. Comput Math Organ Theory 20:1–19. doi:10.1007/s10588-012-9130-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi R, Swift T (2011) Proactive R&D management and firm growth: a punctuated equilibrium model. Res Policy 40:429–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudambi R, Swift T (2014) Knowing when to leap: transitioning between exploitative and explorative R&D. Strateg Manag J 35:126–145. doi:10.1002/smj.2097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nixon S (2012) The theory on Italy and Germany’s endgame for the Euro. Wall Str J

  • North MJ, Macal CM (2007) Managing business complexity: discovering strategic solutions with agent-based modeling and simulation. University of Oxford Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA III, Tushman M (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Res Organ Behav 28:185–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and future. Acad Manag Perspect 27:324–338. doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly CA III, Harreld JB, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: iBM and emerging business opportunities. Calif Manag Rev 51:75–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patel PC, Messersmith JG, Lepak DP (2013) Walking the tightrope: an assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Acad Manag J 56:1420–1442. doi:10.5465/amj.2011.0255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (1980) Competitive strategy: techniques for analyzing industries and competitors. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Railsback SF, Grimm V (2011) Agent-based and individual-based modeling: a practical introduction. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S (2008) Balanced structures: designing organizations for profitable growth. Long Range Plan 41:483–508. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2008.06.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J Manag 34:375–409. doi:10.1177/0149206308316058

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ Sci 20:685–695. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strateg Manag J 25:201–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott ME (2000) Sensitivity analysis, probability and statistics series. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F, Ratto M (2004) Sensitivity analysis in practice. a guide to assessing scientific models. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli A et al (2008) Global sensitivity analysis: the primer. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharpanskykh A, Stroeve SH (2011) An agent-based approach for structured modeling, analysis and improvement of safety culture. Comput Math Organ Theory 17:77–117. doi:10.1007/s10588-011-9083-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu JS, Commandeur HR, Volberda HW (2007) The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: value of supply. Demand Spat Search Innov Organ Sci 18:20–38. doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0212

    Google Scholar 

  • Siggelkow N, Levinthal DA (2003) Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation. Organ Sci 14:650–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tay NSP, Lusch RF (2007) Agent-based modeling of ambidextrous organizations: virtualizing competitive strategy. IEEE Intell Syst 22:50–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor P, Jonker L (1978) Evolutionarily stable strategies and game dynamics. Math Biosci 40:145–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1997) Winning through innovation: a practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 38(3):103

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA III (1996) Ambidextrous organization: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. Calif Manag Rev 38:8–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman N, Lee CH, Iyer B (2007) Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: a longitudinal test in the software sector. Unpublished Manuscript (Earlier version presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, 2005)

  • Voss GB, Sirdeshmukh D, Voss ZG (2008) The effects of slack resources and environmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Acad Manag J 51:147–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang M, Hu X (2012) Agent-based modeling and simulation of community collective efficacy. Comput Math Organ Theory 18:463–487. doi:10.1007/s10588-012-9107-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt B, Montgomery CA (1988) Tobin’s q and the importance of focus in firm performance. Am Econ Rev 78:246–250. http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/

  • Wilensky U, Rand W (2015) An introduction to agent-based modeling: modeling natural, social, and engineered complex systems with NetLogo. The MIT Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of International Business, National Dong Hwa University, No. 1, Sec. 2, Da Hsueh Rd., Shoufeng, Hualien, 97401, Taiwan

    Christine Chou

  2. The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 565 Jon M. Huntsman Hall, 3730 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6366, USA

    Steven O. Kimbrough

Authors
  1. Christine Chou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven O. Kimbrough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christine Chou.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 1139 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chou, C., Kimbrough, S.O. An agent-based model of organizational ambidexterity decisions and strategies in new product development. Comput Math Organ Theory 22, 4–46 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-015-9195-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-015-9195-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation