PRE-INICIO, ARRANQUE, CIERRE
CICLO DE EXCAVACIÓN Generalidades
In this section we address our third research question:
III. What are the gaps found in the literature of ambidexterity?
One hundred and twelve documents reported at least one gap (131 codes) (Table 2.5). Most suggestions on gaps were made 2012, coinciding with a peak on the number of publications on ambidexterity.
Table 2.5. Percentage of papers covering gaps and number of papers covering each gap per year
Gaps covering gap % of papers Total
Structural 46 51
Governance, leadership and inter-organisational relationships 34 38
Temporal 45 50
Contextual 45 50
Capabilities 14 16
Learning and Knowledge 29 33
Managerial roles 42 47
Performance 72 81
Multi-dimensional approach 8 9
ICTs 3 3
Empirical studies from other countries 13 14
Other suggested areas of research 19 21
2.5.1 Gaps on Structural, Temporal and Contextual Challenges
46 percent of the papers mentioned gaps on structural challenges (Table 2.5). In particular, Gupta et al. (2006) suggest examining the challenges for achieving a balance between exploration and exploitation, how exploration and exploitation interact at different levels, and how this process is managed across levels of analysis. The management of exploration and exploitation structural challenges is also a gap mentioned explicitly in 34 percent of the studies (Table 2.5) with Turner
et al. (2013 pg. 328) suggesting to “develop a generalizable theory on how ambidexterity can be a deliberate strategy within a complex organisational structure”.
Innovation networks are new ways of knowledge production for the exploration of synergies and the exploitation of complementarities (Pyka and Küppers, 2002), whose structural challenges relate to the access and management of resources, especially knowledge. These challenges have a great influence on learning and the development of capabilities in innovation networks. In the open innovation paradigm the management of structural challenges in innovation networks is even more important given the external and internal flow of resources, but this topic has not received sufficient attention. Faems et al. (2012) note that, while alliance scholars have
contributed insights on the structural dynamics of networks, there is still a gap in our knowledge on how “firms actually manage those networks” (Faems et al., 2012 pg. 262).
Gaps associated with managing temporal challenges were mentioned in 45 percent of the papers (Table 2.5). An overarching gap to be addressed is how organisations simultaneously attain exploration and exploitation (Simsek, 2009). In multi-level innovation networks, a key unanswered question is how the timing of exploration and exploitation is managed, and how those innovation networks evolve over time. Although timing of exploration and exploitation was mentioned in various studies, few actually look at stages of exploration and exploitation of an innovation process and the effect of timing on the performance of organisations. From the sample only seven empirical studies use a longitudinal approach to investigate how the timing of exploration and exploitation is managed. Various scholars have suggested conducting
longitudinal studies to explain the dynamic aspects of ambidexterity (O'Reilly and Tushman, 2008, Cantarello et al., 2012), and how it evolves over time (Turner et al., 2013, Chang et al., 2011). Alpkan et al. (2012) more explicitly recommend a period of ten years or more to collect
longitudinal data. Other scholars have suggested not just longitudinal studies but also observations from different cultural contexts (Lin et al., 2013). Schemeil (2013) suggests longitudinal research to compare international organisations (IOs) with other adaptive hybrids that span a diversity of organisations (universities, NGOs, etc.). Longitudinal research on timing would allow the investigation of whether exploration and exploitation should be managed orthogonally or as a continuity (Gupta et al., 2006), and as a dynamic capability (O'Reilly and Tushman, 2008).
Contextual challenges were mentioned as gaps in 45 percent of the papers (Table 2.5). In open innovation, the alignment of internal and external knowledge for achieving ambidexterity is an area for further research (Lichtenthaler and Lichtenthaler, 2009). Empirical evidence indicates that in open innovation processes in which multi-level and ever more international networks participate, there are multiple boundaries that might enable or limit the collaborative efforts for exploration and exploitation of those networks to achieve ambidexterity (e.g. geographical, institutional, cultural and so forth).
2.5.2 Gaps on the study of managerial roles to foster ambidexterity
Gaps in knowledge on managerial roles for fostering ambidexterity were mentioned in 42 percent of the papers (Table 2.5). We found that the roles are not limited to those of formal managers but also include those of other civil society actors from different productive sectors. An area for further research is how these roles maintain dynamism in the management of exploration and exploitation.
A specific gap in the literature is how the collective roles of stakeholders can manage transitions of organisational designs (Tushman et al., 2010) for supporting exploration and exploitation at different network levels and at different stages of the innovation process. Oborn et al. (2013) suggest further investigation on the effectiveness of different brokering roles, and the
implications of different forms of governance. de Visser et al. (2010a) recommend studying how structural design choices combined with the presence of specific roles affect different kinds of innovation outcomes.
2.5.3 Gaps on the study of performance, governance and capabilities in innovation processes
72 percent of papers reported gaps on performance (Table 2.5), which concerns not just product innovation, but also process innovation. Therefore, the performance in innovation processes should be assessed in a holistic way, assessing outcomes not limited to economic indicators but in combination with social dimensions of value addition and fostering of capabilities (Nosella et al., 2012, Durisin and Todorova, 2012). According to Nosella et al. (2012 pg. 460) “the fine grained, multi-layered nature of routines and capabilities has been almost entirely ignored”. Eight percent of papers reported on the gap of a multi-dimensional approach (Table 2.5), which is not only a theoretical but also a developmental gap.
Some authors suggest further research on the influence of governance on performance (Blome et al., 2013), or the influence of governance on knowledge translation (Oborn et al., 2013). Mueller et al. (2013 pg. 1631) also suggest viewing “networking as a mode of balancing within a network of organisations” and recommend observing how different institutional settings in which partners of the networks are located influence the outcomes of this balancing mode. Some specific areas of application are suggested. Three percent of papers requested further research of virtually mediated ambidexterity in the context of ICT enabled innovations. Koenig et al. (2013) suggest further research on the influence of family on firm innovation, and its effect on complex forms of organisational ambidexterity. Few empirical studies have been conducted in developing
countries, and this was an area of further research suggested by 12 percent of the papers, with Lin et al. (2013) requesting more studies from emergent economies.
Given that ambidexterity has been defined as a higher order and dynamic capability, there is a need to examine how different ways of orchestration of innovation networks through different network governance mechanisms influence the fostering (or hindering) of the capabilities of the innovation network.