nach oben

International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal

Erschienen in:

26.10.2019

The role of exploration and exploitation for innovation success: effects of business models on organizational ambidexterity in the semiconductor industry

verfasst von: Armin Anzenbacher, Marcus Wagner

Erschienen in: International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal | Ausgabe 2/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Organizational ambidexterity is the ability of organizations to balance exploratory and exploitative activities, and is essential if firms are to survive in dynamic environments. Furthermore, the ambidexterity hypothesis states that firms that have this ability (i.e. are ambidextrous) are more successful. However, this opens a number of questions, namely how firms can balance both types of activities and if this ability is affected by other factors? The purpose of this paper is therefore to investigate the degree to which the need to balance exploration and exploitation for innovation depends on the business models pursued by firms in the global semiconductor industry. Furthermore, we integrate this with an assessment of the relative relevance of these internal knowledge sourcing mechanisms in comparison to mechanisms facilitating external knowledge spillovers, namely alliances and acquisitions. In summary, we find that mainly internal knowledge management supports innovation success but in a differentiated manner. The effect on innovation success is moderated by the business models firms adopt, which suggests the need for a more differentiated view of the ambidexterity hypothesis.

Vorheriger Artikel Exploring knowledge management in agile software development organizations

Nächster Artikel Knowledge and innovation management model. Its influence on technology transfer and performance in Spanish Defence industry

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

The multibillion-dollar costs of fabs are an especially challenging issue (Brown and Linden 2011).

The Electronic Business magazine (owned by Reed Business Information, a division of Reed-Elsevier, Inc.) publishes annually the “Electronic Business 300: Top companies ranked by electronics revenue”. The rankings are available at http://www.edn.com/.

Press releases by VLSI Research Inc. contain diverse company listings that are available at https://www.vlsiresearch.com/.

The Research Bulletin by IC Insights, Inc. contain diverse company listings that are available at http://www.icinsights.com/.

Rankings by iSuppli Corp. (owned by IHS Inc.) contain diverse company listings: http://www.isuppli.com/ or http://www.ihs.com/.

Global Semiconductor Alliance (GSA) formerly known as the Fabless Semiconductor Association (FSA) provides diverse company listings that are available at http://www.gsaglobal.org/.

For a detailed description see e.g. Schilling (2009).

Collected by the Dutch Centre for Global Corporate Positioning as an extension of the MERIT-CATI database.

The International Patent Classification (IPC), established by the Strasbourg Agreement concluded in 1971 and amended in 1979, provides a hierarchical system of symbols for the classification of patents according to the different areas of technology to which they pertain.

Although the Hausman specification test indicates that the results of fixed effects models are to be preferred over random effects, we also present the latter in Table 5. Furthermore, the relatively small number of years of observations in our panel data would additionally suggest that the fixed effects specification provides for more conservative estimation results. However, the findings from both specifications are essentially identical.

Detailed results for all sensitivity analyses are available on request.

Abraham, B. P., & Moitra, S. D. (2001). Innovation assessment through patent analysis. Technovation, 21, 245–252.

Abrams, D., & Wagner, R. P. (2013). Poisoning the next apple? The America invents act and individual inventors. Stanford Law Review, 65, 517–563.

Acs, Z. J., Anselin, L., & Varga, A. (2002). Patents and innovation counts as measures of regional production of new knowledge. Research Policy, 31, 1069–1085.

Agarwal, R., Audretsch, D., & Sarkar, M. B. (2010). Knowledge spillovers and strategic entrepreneurship. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 4, 271–283.

Ahuja, G., & Katila, R. (2001). Technological acquisitions and the innovation performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 197–220.

Allison, P. D., & Waterman, R. (2002). Fixed effects negative binomial regression models. In R. M. Stolzenberg (Ed.), Sociological methodology, 32 (pp. 247–265). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2001). Value creation in e-business. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 493–520.

Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: Ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43, 104–122.

Archibugi, D., & Planta, M. (1996). Measuring technological change through patents and innovation surveys. Technovation, 16, 451–468.

Ashton, W. B., & Sen, R. K. (1988). Using patent information in technology business planning—I. Research-Technology Management, 31, 42–46.

Ashton, W. B., & Sen, R. K. (1989). Using patent information in technology business planning—II. Research-Technology Management, 32, 36–42.

Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability—Rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69, 61–83.

Baden-Fuller, C., & Morgan, M. S. (2010). Business models as models. Long Range Planning, 43, 156–171.

Balconi, M., & Fontana, R. (2011). Entry and innovation: An analysis of the fabless semiconductor business. Small Business Economics, 37, 87–106.

Barney, J. B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 21, 1231–1241.

Basberg, B. L. (1987). Patents and the measurement of technological change: A survey of the literature. Research Policy, 16, 131–141.

Belderbos, R., Faems, D., Leten, B., & Looy, B. V. (2010). Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: Exploitation and exploration within and between firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27, 869–882.

Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28, 238–256.

Birkinshaw, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45, 47–55.

Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 287–298.

Bledow, R., Frese, M., Anderson, N., Erez, M., & Farr, J. (2009). A dialectic perspective on innovation: Conflicting demands, multiple pathways, and ambidexterity. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2, 305–337.

Bosworth, D. L. (1984). Foreign patent flows to and from the United Kingdom. Research Policy, 13, 115–124.

Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 587–610.

Brown, C., & Linden, G. (2011). Chips and change: How crisis reshapes the semiconductor industry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Burgelman, R. A. (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 325–357.

Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2010). Microeconometrics using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.

Coeurderoy, R., & Durand, R. (2004). Leveraging the advantage of early entry: Proprietary technologies versus cost leadership. Journal of Business Research, 57, 583–590.

Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002). R&D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States. Research Policy, 31, 1349–1367.

Cohen, W.M., Nelson, R.R., & Walsh, J.P. (2000). Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why US manufacturing firms patent (or not). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Killman, L. R. Pondy, & D. Sleven (Eds.), The Management of Organization (pp. 167–188). New York: North Holland.

Eisenhardt, K. M., Furr, N. R., & Bingham, C. B. (2010). Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organization Science, 21, 1263–1273.

Filippini, R., Güttel, W. H., & Nosella, A. (2012). Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge management initiatives. Journal of Business Research, 65, 317–324.

Gassler, H., Frohlich, J., & Kopcsa, A. (1996). Selective information on the national system of innovation as an important input for the technology management of firms. International Journal of Technology Management, 11, 329–342.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.

Gilsing, V., Nooteboom, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Duysters, G., & van den Oord, A. (2008). Network embeddedness and the exploration of novel technologies: Technological distance, betweenness centrality and density. Research Policy, 37, 1717–1731.

Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.

Greene, W. (2005). Functional form and heterogeneity in models for count data. Foundations and Trends in Econometrics, 1, 113–218.

Griliches, Z. (1990). Patent statistics as economic indicators. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 1661–1707.

Guellec, D., & Van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, B. (2002). The value of patents and patenting strategies: Countries and technology areas patterns. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 11, 133–148.

Guimarães, P. (2008). The fixed effects negative binomial model revisited. Economics Letters, 99, 63–66.

Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693–706.

Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance: Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy, 32, 1365–1379.

Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations. RAND Journal of Economics, 36, 16–38.

Hall, B. H., & Ziedonis, R. H. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: An empirical study of patenting in the US semiconductor industry, 1979-1995. RAND Journal of Economics, 32, 101–128.

Harhoff, D., Hoisl, K., Reichl, B., & de la Potterie, B. V. P. (2009). Patent validation at the country level—The role of fees and translation costs. Research Policy, 38, 1423–1437.

Haupt, R., Kloyer, M., & Lange, M. (2007). Patent indicators for the technology life cycle development. Research Policy, 36, 387–398.

Hausman, J. A. (1978). Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica, 46, 1251–1271.

Hausman, J. A., Hall, B. H., & Griliches, Z. (1984). Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship. Econometrica, 52, 909–938.

Hausman, J. A., & McFadden, D. L. (1984). Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica, 52, 1219–1240.

He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 481–494.

Henderson, R., & Cockburn, I. (1996). Scale, scope, and spillovers: The determinants of research productivity in drug discovery. RAND Journal of Economics, 32–59.

Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15, 70–81.

Hospers, G.-J., Desrochers, P., & Sautet, F. (2009). The next Silicon Valley? On the relationship between geographical clustering and public policy. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 5, 285–299.

Itami, H., & Nishino, K. (2010). Killing two birds with one stone: Profit for now and learning for the future. Long Range Planning, 43, 364–369.

Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299–312.

Kapoor, R. (2013). Persistence of integration in the face of specialization: How firms navigated the winds of disintegration and shaped the architecture of the semiconductor industry. Organization Science, 24, 1195–1213.

Kauppila, O. P. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8, 283–312.

Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1183–1194.

Kim, H., Hoskisson, R. E., & Wan, W. P. (2004). Power dependence, diversification strategy, and performance in keiretsu member firms. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 613–636.

Kotabe, M. (1992). A comparative study of US and Japanese patent systems. Journal of International Business Studies, 147–168.

Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3, 383–397.

Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C., & Neter, J. (2004). Applied linear regression models. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 797–818.

Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 109–155.

Levin, R.C., Klevorick, A.K., Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G., Gilbert, R., & Griliches, Z. (1987). Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 783–831.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.

Lin, H. E., McDonough, E. F., Lin, S. J., & Lin, C. Y. Y. (2013). Managing the exploitation/exploration paradox: The role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30, 262–278.

Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Demirkan, I. (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing. Management Science, 53, 1645–1658.

Liu, S. J., & Shyu, J. (1997). Strategic planning for technology development with patent analysis. International Journal of Technology Management, 13, 661–680.

Lou, C. C., Lee, T. P., Gong, S. C., & Lin, S. L. (2010). Effects of technical innovation on market value of the U.S. semiconductor industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 1322–1338.

Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32, 646–672.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.

March, J. G. (1995). The future, disposable organizations and the rigidities of imagination. Organization, 2, 427–440.

March, J. G. (2006). Rationality, foolishness, and adaptive intelligence. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 201–214.

Mogee, M. E. (1991). Using patent data for technology analysis and planning. Research-Technology Management, 34, 43–49.

Moore, G. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics, 38, 114–117.

Möllering, G., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2018). Direction, not destination: Institutional work practices in the face of field-level uncertainty. European Management Journal, 36, 28–37.

Müller-Seitz, G., & Sydow, J. (2012). Maneuvering between networks to lead – A longitudinal case study in the semiconductor industry. Long Range Planning, 45, 105–135.

Nooteboom, B., Van Haverbeke, W., Duysters, G., Gilsing, V., & Van den Oord, A. (2007). Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Research Policy, 36, 1016–1034.

O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity, 41, 673–690.

Paci, R., Sassu, A., & Usai, S. (1997). International patenting and national technological specialization. Technovation, 17, 25–38.

Pakes, A. (1985). On patents, R&D, and the stock market rate of return. Journal of Political Economy, 93, 390–409.

Patel, P. C., & Jayaram, J. (2014). The antecedents and consequences of product variety in new ventures: An empirical study. Journal of Operations Management, 32, 34–50.

Patel, P. C., Terjesen, S., & Li, D. (2012). Enhancing effects of manufacturing flexibility through operational absorptive capacity and operational ambidexterity. Journal of Operations Management, 30, 201–220.

Patel, P. C., Messersmith, J. G., & Lepak, D. P. (2013). Walking the tightrope: An assessment of the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 1420–1442.Pavitt, K. (1982). R&D, patenting and innovative activities: A statistical exploration. Research Policy, 11, 33–51.

Pénin, J. (2012). Strategic uses of patents in markets for technology: A story of fabless firms, brokers and trolls. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 84, 633–641.

Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34, 375–409.

Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20, 685–695.

Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1994). Organizational transformation as punctuated equilibrium: An empirical test. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 1141–1166.

Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201–221.

Schiffel, D., & Kitti, C. (1978). Rates of invention: International patent comparisons. Research Policy, 7, 324–330.

Schilling, M. A. (2009). Understanding the alliance data. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 233–260.

Simsek, Z. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 597–624.

Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J. F., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity's conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of Management Studies, 46, 864–894.

Silverman, B. S. (1999). Technological resources and the direction of corporate diversification: Toward an integration of the resource-based view and transaction cost economics. Management Science, 45, 1109–1124.

Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43, 448–461.

Sørensen, J. B., & Stuart, T. E. (2000). Aging, obsolescence, and organizational innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 81–112.

Stuart, T. E. (2000). Interorganizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high-technology industry. Strategic Management Journal, 21, 791–811.

Stettner, U., & Lavie, D. (2014). Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 1903–1929.

Tan, H., & Mathews, J. A. (2010). Cyclical industrial dynamics: The case of the global semiconductor industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 344–353.

Tavassoli, S., Bengtsson, L., & Karlsson, C. (2017). Strategic entrepreneurship and knowledge spillovers: spatial and aspatial perspectives. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 13, 233–249.

Teece, D. J. (2006). Reflections on “profiting from innovation”. Research Policy, 35, 1131–1146.

Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: Patent citations and the value of innovations. RAND Journal of Economics, 172–187.

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly III, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38, 8–30.

Tushman, M. L., & Romanelli, E. (1985). Organizational evolution: A metamorphosis model of convergence and reorientation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 171–222). Greenwich: JAI Press.

Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30, 221–231.

van Ophem, H., Brouwer, E., Kleinknecht, A., & Mohnen, P. (2002). The mutual relation between patents and R&D. In A. Kleinknecht & P. Mohnen (Eds.), Innovation and firm performance: Econometric exploration of survey data (pp. 56–70). New York: Palgrave.

Venkatraman, N., Lee, C.H., & Iyer, B. (2007). Strategic ambidexterity and sales growth: A longitudinal test in the software sector. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meetings, 2005.

Vermeulen, F., & Barkema, H. (2001). Learning through acquisitions. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 457–476.

Wagner, M. (2011). To explore or to exploit? An empirical investigation of acquisitions by large incumbents. Research Policy, 40, 1217–1225.

Wagner, M., Zidorn, W. (2017). Effects of extent and diversity of alliancing on innovation: the moderating role of firm newness. Small Business Economics, 49, (4):919–936

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171–180.

Wiklund, J., & Shepherd, D. A. (2009). The effectiveness of alliances and acquisitions: The role of resource combination activities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33, 193–212.

Williamson, O. E. (1975). Markets and hierarchies: Analysis and antitrust implications. New York, NY: Free Press.

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism: Firms, markets, relational contracting. New York, NY: Free Press.

WIPO (2016). Guide to the International Patent Classification, World Intellectual Property Organization.

Wooldridge, J. M. (1999). Distribution-free estimation of some nonlinear panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 90, 77–97.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2015). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Scarborough, ON: Nelson Education.

Yip, P. S., & Tsang, E. W. (2007). Interpreting dummy variables and their interaction effects in strategy research. Strategic Organization, 5, 13–30.

Zidorn, W. & Wagner, M. (2013). The Effect of Alliances on Innovation Patterns: An Analysis of the Biotechnology Industry. Industrial and Corporate Change, 22, 1497–1524.

Titel: The role of exploration and exploitation for innovation success: effects of business models on organizational ambidexterity in the semiconductor industry
verfasst von: Armin Anzenbacher
Marcus Wagner
Publikationsdatum: 26.10.2019
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal / Ausgabe 2/2020
Print ISSN: 1554-7191
Elektronische ISSN: 1555-1938
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-019-00604-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2020

Knowledge management and entrepreneurship

Fostering the creation of academic spinoffs: does the international mobility of the academic leader matter?

Can there only be one? – an empirical comparison of four models on social entrepreneurial intention formation

The psychological well-being of student entrepreneurs: a social identity perspective

Development of entrepreneurial orientation of export manufacturers from emerging economies

Organizational culture and entrepreneurial orientation: examination through a new conceptualization lens