The perilous leap between exploration and exploitation

Research summary : R&D‐based exploration and exploitation are necessary in order for firms to have sustainable competitive advantage. Yet, transitioning between these orthogonal types of R&D is considered profound organizational change. Building on recent research showing that compact, significant changes in R&D expenditure is an antecedent to the transition between explorative and exploitative R&D, I show that this leap between exploration and exploitation is quite hazardous. The magnitude of changes in R&D expenditure, whether increases or decreases, is positively associated with organizational failure. Firms maintaining higher levels of absorptive capacity are more capable of surviving the leap from R&D‐based exploitation to exploration, and firms that do not use reductions in R&D expenditure to manipulate short‐term earnings performance are more likely to survive the leap from exploration to exploitation. Managerial summary : In order to survive and thrive, innovative companies must be able to exploit their existing competencies, and to explore for new ones once those current competencies decline in value. However, transiting from one form of innovation to the other is difficult because the skills required to explore are fundamentally opposed to those required to exploit. In this article, I describe how difficult this leap between exploration and exploitation can be. I show that the move between R&D‐based exploration and exploitation is related to organizational failure. In addition, firms that are superior learners are more likely to survive the leap from exploitation to exploration, and firms that are not cutting R&D expenditure to manipulate earnings are more likely to survive the leap from exploration to exploitation. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How exploitation impedes and impels exploration: Theory and evidence

Research summary : This study suggests that strategy and organizational scholars seeking to analyze the impact of exploitation on exploration would benefit by moving away from the generally assumed unitary perspective on exploitation. Specifically, we propose a multifaceted perspective on exploitation by theoretically and empirically distinguishing between repetitive exploitation versus incremental exploitation. We argue that repetitive exploitation can impede exploration and delay firms' responses to environmental changes, while incremental exploitation can impel exploration and accelerate firms' responses to environmental changes. We test our arguments using extensive longitudinal data from the hard disk drive (HDD) industry, and our supportive empirical findings highlight the relevance of our distinction between the two types of exploitation and their very different effects on exploration. Managerial summary : This study offers a solution to the puzzle of why many believe firms cannot excel at advancing existing practices and developing new initiatives, typically described as the trade‐off between exploitation and exploration. We introduce the distinction between repetitive and incremental exploitation and show that only the former type of innovation generates rigidity toward exploration, whereas the latter actually promotes exploration. More specifically, our evidence from the hard disk drive industry shows that those firms emphasizing incremental innovation (as opposed to repetition of their existing practices) were most likely to remain explorative over time, whereas firms emphasizing more repetitive innovation proved less open to changes. We discuss the implications of our findings as suggesting that firms seeking to optimize their innovativeness over the long term should strive to remain active in incrementally innovating their existing practices. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Networking as a Means to Strategy Change: The Case of Open Innovation in Mobile Telephony

The purpose of this article is to investigate how innovation networks can be used to deal with a changing technological environment. This study combines different concepts related to research and development (R&D) collaboration strategies of large firms and applies these concepts to R&D alliance projects undertaken by Nokia Corporation in the period 1985–2002. The research methodology is a combination of in‐depth semistructured interviews and a large‐scale quantitative analysis of alliance agreements. For the empirical analysis a distinction is made between exploration and exploitation in innovation networks in terms of three different measures. As a first measure, the difference between exploration and exploitation strategies by means of the observed capabilities of the partners of the contracting firms is investigated. The second measure is related to partner turnover. The present article argues that in exploration networks partner turnover will be higher than in exploitation networks. As a third measure, the type of alliance contract will be taken; exploration networks will make use of flexible legal organizational structures, whereas exploitation alliances are associated with legal structures that enable long‐term collaboration. The case of Nokia has illustrated the importance of strategic technology networks for strategic repositioning under conditions of change. Nokia followed an exploitation strategy in the development of the first two generations of mobile telephony and an exploration strategy in the development of technologies for the third generation. Such interfirm networks seem to offer flexibility, speed, innovation, and the ability to adjust smoothly to changing market conditions and new strategic opportunities. These two different strategies have led to distinctly different international innovation networks, have helped the company in becoming a world leader in the mobile phone industry, and have enabled it to sustain that position in a radically changed technological environment. This study also illustrates that Nokia effectively uses an open innovation strategy in the development of new products and services and in setting technology standards for current and future use of mobile communication applications. This article presents one of the first longitudinal studies, which describes the use of innovation networks as a means to adapt swiftly to changing market conditions and strategic change. This study contributes to the emerging, but still inconsistent, literature on explorative and exploitative learning by means of strategic technology networks.     

Configurations of Innovations across Domains: An Organizational Ambidexterity View

How do firms balance explorative and exploitative innovation for superior firm performance? While most prior studies have approached this issue by focusing on technology‐related innovation, the role of balancing exploration and exploitation in other important organizational domains, i.e., marketing, and the interaction effect of ambidexterity across different domains have been overlooked. This study contributes to this line of research by investigating how firms simultaneously balance exploration and exploitation across two critical domains, namely technology innovation and market innovation. The study distinguishes four types of configurations: market leveraging (technology exploration and market exploitation), technology leveraging (technology exploitation and market exploration), pure exploitation (technology exploitation and market exploitation), and pure exploration (technology exploration and market exploration). From an organizational ambidexterity perspective, the current work investigates whether and how these different combinations exert distinctive effects on firm performance. Specifically, the article posits that (a) technology exploration and market exploitation complement each other, and (b) technology exploitation and market exploration also complement each other, such that both market leveraging and technology leveraging strategies have positive effects on firm performance. The article also maintains that such positive relationships are fully mediated by differentiation and low cost advantages. Conversely, it is argued that (c) technology exploration and market exploration conflict with each other, and (d) so do technology exploitation and market exploitation, such that both pure exploration and pure exploitation have negative effects on firm performance. Hypotheses were tested using survey data collected from 292 manufacturing and service firms in China. The results supported most of the hypotheses, except that pure exploration demonstrated no significant relationship with firm performance.     

Repeating a familiar pattern in a new way: The effect of exploitation and exploration on knowledge leverage behaviors in technology acquisitions

Research Summary: We identify two types of knowledge leverage behaviors undertaken by acquiring firms: integrated and independent knowledge leverage. We address how the prior exploitation or exploration orientation of acquirers influence these two modes of knowledge leverage behaviors. The degree of exploitation of acquirers promotes integrating their existing knowledge with acquired knowledge in innovative actions. In contrast, the degree of exploration of acquirers increases the likelihood that new innovations will use acquired knowledge without integrating it with their prior knowledge. In addition, the firm's prior acquisition rate moderates the relationship between the acquiring firms’ previous exploitation or exploration orientation and their knowledge leverage mode. The findings of this article suggest that pre‐acquisition innovation capabilities are distinct from but influence the post‐acquisition innovation actions. Managerial Summary: Firms often undertake acquisitions to gain access to new knowledge, but they can differ dramatically in how they leverage acquired knowledge. We show that the firm's prior innovation patterns drive this choice. Firms that have previously focused on incremental innovations in their internal innovation efforts tend to integrate acquired knowledge with their own prior knowledge. In contrast, firms that have previously pursued bold innovations tend to leverage acquired knowledge alone in new innovations. Thus, we show that firms use acquisitions as a means to extend their internal innovation patterns—firms that have focused on incremental innovations extend that with acquisitions by linking new innovations to their prior knowledge while firms that have pursued bold initiatives use acquired knowledge to move in new technology directions.     

Innovation Management Practices Compared: The Example of Project‐Based Firms*

The importance of project‐based firms is increasing, as they fulfill the growing demands for complex integrated systems and knowledge‐intensive services. While project‐based firms are generally strong in innovating their clients' systems and processes, they seem to be less successful in innovating their own products or services. The reasons behind this are the focus of this paper. The characteristics of project‐based firms are investigated, how these affect management practices for innovation projects, and the influence of these practices on project performance. Using survey data of 203 Dutch firms in the construction, engineering, information technology, and related industries, differences in characteristics between project‐based and nonproject‐based firms are identified. Project‐based firms are distinguished from nonproject‐based firms on the basis of organizational configuration, the complexity of the operational process, and the project management capabilities of the firm. Project‐based firms also differ with regard to their level of collaboration and their innovation strategy, but not in the level of autonomy. A comparison of 135 innovation projects in 96 of the firms shows that project‐based firms do not manage their innovation projects different from other firms. However, the effects of specific management practices on project performance are different, particularly the effects of planning, multidisciplinary teams and heavyweight project leaders. Differences in firm characteristics provide an explanation for the findings. The implication for the innovation management literature is that “best” practices for innovation management are firm dependent.     

Making Up Is Hard to Do: Knowledge Acquisition Strategies and the Nature of New Product Innovation

Innovation creates significant challenges for firms in high‐technology industries. This article examines how the use of external knowledge acquired from mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and joint ventures (JVs) influence the nature of innovative competence in the global pharmaceutical industry. We create a unique database on never‐before approved products that measure the scientific merit of new, exploratory product innovations, ranging from radical to incremental. We then follow their market success by recording the number of new exploitative product innovations that stem from these product innovations and that are later approved and subsequently marketed. Using a large data set spanning a 15‐year period, we find that firms were able to “make up” for their lack of exploitation or exploration innovative capabilities through the use of M&As and JVs. These external knowledge acquisition strategies were found to overcome internal processes that otherwise could cause firms to overemphasize exploitation over exploration and vice versa. Our findings suggest that acquiring external knowledge via M&As is associated with diminished exploratory product innovation, while assimilating external knowledge sourced from JVs is associated with a reduction in new exploitative product innovation.     

Opening up the innovation process: the role of technology aggressiveness

Besides acquiring external knowledge, many firms have begun to actively commercialize technology, for example, by means of out-licensing. This increase in inward and outward technology transactions reflects the new paradigm of open innovation. Most prior research into open innovation is limited to theoretical considerations and case studies, whereas other lines of research have focused either on external technology acquisition or exploitation. In an integrative view, we consider inward and outward technology transactions as the main directions of open innovation. Moreover, technology aggressiveness, which constitutes an important dimension of technology strategy, is identified as a major determinant of open innovation. Data from a survey of 154 industrial firms are used to test three hypotheses relating technology aggressiveness, external technology acquisition, and external technology exploitation. In addition, clusters of firms with homogeneous strategies regarding technology aggressiveness and open innovation are identified.     

The Interplay of Customer and Product Innovation Dynamics: An Exploratory Study

The challenges of successfully developing radical or really new products have received considerable attention from a variety of marketing, strategic, and organizational perspectives. Previous research has stressed the importance of a market‐driven customer orientation, the resolution of market and technological uncertainty, and organizational processes such as cross‐functional teams and organizational learning. However, several fundamental issues have not been addressed. From a customer's perspective, a more innovative product tends to have uncertain benefits and requires customers to learn new behaviors. Customer preferences can, therefore, change as product experience and learning increase. From a firm's perspective, it is unclear how to be customer‐oriented under such dynamic preferences, and product strategies using evolving technologies will tend to interact with how customers learn about an innovation. This research focuses on identifying unresolved issues about these customer and product innovation dynamics. A conceptual framework and series of propositions are presented that relate both changing technology and customer learning to a firm's strategic decisions in developing and launching really new products. The framework is based on in‐depth interviews with high‐tech product managers across several sectors, focusing on the business‐to‐business context. The propositions resulting from the framework highlight the need to consider relevant customer dynamics as integral to a firm's product innovation process. Successful innovation strategies and future research challenges are discussed, and applications to better understanding customer needs and theories of disruptive innovation are examined. Several key insights for innovation success hinge on a broad, downstream orientation to customer needs and product innovation dynamics. To be effective innovators, firms must know their customers' customers and competitors as well as or better than their immediate customers do. Market research must extend downstream for a comprehensive understanding of customer needs dynamics. In the context of disruptive innovation, new dimensions of customer needs may become more valuable based on perceived downstream customer trends. Firms may also innovate on secondary needs because mainstream customers do not always give firms the design freedom to radically innovate on primary features. Understanding customer commitments and how they develop under evolving needs can help firms focus resources on innovative efforts more likely to be accepted by customers.     

An empirical examination of vacillation theory

Research summary : Since Nickerson and Zenger (2002) proposed how vacillation may lead to organizational ambidexterity, large‐sample empirical tests of their theory have been missing. In this paper, we empirically examine the performance implications of vacillation. Building upon vacillation theory, we predict that the frequency and scale of vacillation will have inverted U‐shaped relationships with firm performance. We test our hypotheses using patent‐based measures of exploration and exploitation in the context of technological innovation and knowledge search. Managerial summary : Firms often shift their focus on technological innovation and knowledge search from seeking new and novel knowledge (i.e., exploration) to extending and refining existing knowledge (i.e., exploitation) or vice versa. We examine how the frequency and scale of firms vacillating between exploration and exploitation may affect their performance. We find that both too infrequent or too frequent changes and a too small or too large scale of changes are not desirable. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Who Knows What in NPD Teams: Communication Context,Mode, and Task Contingencies

The use of cross‐functional teams in new product development (NPD) benefits firms in many ways. One benefit is the diverse knowledge team members bring to the project, but that benefit can only be appreciated if team members fully utilize and integrate the differentiated expertise of members. As reliance on cross‐functional NPD teams grows, however, firms struggle to exploit the full potential of functionally diverse groups, the biggest obstacle being integrating team members' varied knowledge, expertise, and abilities. Therefore, understanding how information is integrated and used is a primary concern for both practitioners and researchers. Databases and other forms of hard data are methods team members can use to effectively share and integrate knowledge; another method based on social cognition is transactive memory systems (TMS). TMS indicates who will learn what and from whom. The notion is that knowledge is distributed among people in the group, and to make effective use of it, individuals need to know who knows what and who knows who knows what. Grounded in the knowledge‐based theory of the firm, this study investigates the influence of different communication contexts and modes on TMS under different NPD task environments (i.e., exploitation and exploration) in cross‐functional NPD teams. A theoretical model is developed and empirically tested using data collected from 272 ongoing NPD teams of 128 Chinese high‐tech companies. Findings suggest that when teams face tasks defined by exploration, informal communication and face‐to‐face communication are positively associated with TMS, whereas for tasks defined by exploitation, formal communication and computer‐mediated communication are positively related with TMS. Additionally, this study found that TMS is positively related to NPD performance both in terms of project performance and in terms of market performance. Based on these findings, theoretical and managerial implications are drawn regarding resource deployment that encourages the development of effective TMS leading to successful NPD projects.     

Ordered to Innovate: A Longitudinal Examination of the Early Periods of a New Product Development Process Implementation in a Manufacturing Firm

Firms can generate rather long‐lasting growth spurts through continuous innovation. Moreover, literature suggests that, when growing organically, firm performance is enhanced through a revenue expansion emphasis encompassing new‐to‐the‐world or new‐to‐the‐firm physical goods or service augmentations. This organic approach usually outperforms cost‐reduction programs, which often yield minor improvements to existing products; or an emphasis on simultaneous revenue expansion and cost reduction. While this finding has the major implication that firms should focus and generate more radical new products for long‐term success, there is need for research that investigates how firms should implement the strategy change to organic growth via innovation. The authors present a case study, which suggests that in the short run, it might be better to commence a revenue expansion strategy by focusing on incremental new product development (NPD) efforts, rather than focusing too much on new‐to‐the‐world or new‐to‐the‐firm products. Moreover, analyses of the rich, multimethod data, collected over a two‐and‐a‐half‐year interaction with the focal firm, illustrates that to increase success prospects of an organic innovation strategy, managers should not only engage incrementally innovative new product projects initially, but also ensure proficiency in commercializing the new product with cross‐functional NPD teams. Thus, in early stages of organization transformation, the merits of the organic growth strategy will be swiftly demonstrated, the cross‐functional teaming skills are learned and tested, and the new strategy becomes institutionalized. While somewhat contradictory to other studies on this topic, this more evolutionary exploration provides a new perspective for organizational change, especially when a firm is ordered to innovate. In conclusion, the insights gleaned in this study shed light on the journey from stagnating firm to a successful serial innovator via formalized NPD process implementation.     

New Product Development Practices and Early‐Stage Firms: Two In‐Depth Case Studies

New product development practices (NPD) have been well studied for decades in large, established companies. Implementation of best practices such as predevelopment market planning and cross‐functional teams have been positively correlated with product and project success over a variety of measures. However, for small new ventures, field research into ground‐level adoption of NPD practices is lacking. Because of the risks associated with missteps in new product development and the potential for firm failure, understanding NPD within the new venture context is critical. Through in‐depth case research, this paper investigates two successful physical product‐based early‐stage firms' development processes versus large established firm norms. The research focuses on the start‐up adoption of commonly prescribed management processes to improve NPD, such as cross‐functional teams, use of market planning during innovation development, and the use of structured processes to guide the development team. This research has several theoretical implications. The first finding is that in comparing the innovation processes of these firms to large, established firms, the study found several key differences from the large firm paradigm. These differences in development approach from what is prescribed for large, established firms are driven by necessity from a scarcity of resources. These new firms simply did not have the resources (financial or human) to create multi‐ or cross‐functional teams or organizations in the traditional sense for their first product. Use of virtual resources was pervasive. Founders also played multiple roles concurrently in the organization, as opposed to relying on functional departments so common in large firms. The NPD process used by both firms was informal—much more skeletal than commonly recommended structured processes. The data indicated that these firms put less focus on managing the process and more emphasis on managing their goals (the main driver being getting the first product to market). In addition to little or no written procedures being used, development meetings did not run to specific paper‐based deliverables or defined steps. In terms of market and user insight, these activities were primarily performed inside the core team—using methods that again were distinctive in their approach. What drove a project to completion was relying on team experience or a “learn as you go approach.” Again, the driver for this type of truncated market research approach was a lack of resources and need to increase the project's speed‐to‐market. Both firms in our study were highly successful, from not only an NPD efficiency standpoint but also effectiveness. The second broad finding we draw from this work is that there are lessons to be learned from start‐ups for large, established firms seeking ever‐increasing efficiency. We have found that small empowered teams leading projects substantial in scope can be extremely effective when roles are expanded, decision power is ground‐level, and there is little emphasis on defined processes. This exploratory research highlights the unique aspects of NPD within small early‐stage firms, and highlights areas of further research and management implications for both small new ventures and large established firms seeking to increase NPD efficiency and effectiveness.     

Identifying Technology Commercialization Opportunities: The Importance of Integrating Product Development Knowledge

New product development (NPD) is a knowledge‐intensive activity, perhaps even more so in recent years given the shift toward more open innovation processes, which involve active inward and outward technology transfer. While the extant literature has established that knowledge is critical for NPD performance, knowledge generated through NPD can have an additional impact on external technology exploitation—as when firms go beyond pure internal application of knowledge to commercialize their technologies, for example, by means of technology outlicensing. Grounded in the knowledge‐based view of the firm, this paper examines how the integration of domain‐specific knowledge, procedural knowledge, and general knowledge generated through NPD affects a firm's proficiency in identifying technology commercialization opportunities. Additionally, analysis of how technology opportunity identification relates to technology commercialization performance is provided. Empirically, the paper draws on survey data from 193 Swedish medium‐sized manufacturing firms in four industries active with NPD, and regression analyses and structural equation modeling were used to test the hypotheses. The results highlight the importance of integrating domain‐specific and general NPD knowledge to proficiently identify technology licensing opportunities. The empirical findings also provide strong support for a subsequent link between technology opportunity identification and technology commercialization performance. Altogether, these results point to strong and previously unexplored complementarities between inward and outward technology exploitation, that is, between NPD and technology licensing. As such, the results provide important theoretical implications for research into the fields of knowledge integration, technology exploitation, opportunity identification, and technology markets. Moreover, the results have significant managerial implications concerning how knowledge generated through NPD can help firms to achieve both strategic and monetary benefits when trying to profit from technology. In particular, to set up proficient technology commercialization processes, it appears beneficial for firms to integrate knowledge that is gained through the ordinary activities of developing and commercializing products. Specifically, the integration of domain‐specific knowledge and general knowledge helps firms to match their technologies with new applications and markets, which is often the critical barrier to successful technology commercialization activities. Managers are thus encouraged to integrate domain‐specific knowledge and general knowledge from NPD to reap additional benefits in profiting from investments in innovation and technology.     

The strategic dilemmas of innovative enterprises: proposals for high‐technology sectors

High levels of research and development (R&D) expenditure, pressure for innovation and the creation of new knowledge are features that distinguish high‐technology (high‐tech) enterprises from other, less technologically advanced, firms. Confronted with multiple contemporary approaches to strategy and turbulence in their environment, these enterprises make strategic choices continuously and dynamically. This paper proposes a model and matrix for the classification of high‐tech enterprises’ development strategies (with regard to their specific features), which are then verified. Qualitative research was conducted in 61 medium and large high‐tech companies based in Poland that operate either in Poland or in the global marketplace. The results show that high‐tech firms have the fundamental goal of developing R&D activity as a resource (and its redundancy) rather than product/market goals. The studied firms strive above all for leadership in innovation, creating new technologies based on their own R&D resources, while also using outside sources and mostly applying the personalisation approach in knowledge management. However, they choose different paths for product and market development, depending on the opportunities presented by the environment, and the firm's ability to identify and take advantage of these.     

Project Suspensions and Failures in New Product Development: Returns for Entrepreneurial Firms in Co‐Development Alliances

Entrepreneurial biotech and large pharmaceutical firms often form alliances to co‐develop new products. Yet, new product development (NPD) is fraught with challenges that often result in project suspensions and failures. Considering this, how can firms increase the chances that their co‐development alliances will create value? To answer this question, the authors build on insights from signaling theory to argue that prior project suspensions provide positive signals leading to an increase in value creation, while project failures have the opposite effect. In addition, drawing on insights from temporal construal theory, this research predicts that the strength of these effects is contingent on the stage along the exploration–exploitation continuum at which the alliance is formed. The authors undertook event study analyses of 248 alliances formed by 104 biotechnology firms from the United States and Europe listed on eight stock exchanges over an 8‐year period between 1996 and 2003. The results confirm that prior NPD project suspensions have a stronger value creation effect (or prior failures have a weaker value destruction effect) in the case of exploration alliances in the upstream of NPD processes than in the case of moderate‐scale exploitation alliances in the downstream of NPD. This study is among the first to examine how both prior NPD project suspensions and failures of firms affect the abnormal returns achieved from co‐development alliances. This research therefore contributes to the innovation literature by honing a better understanding of setbacks and failures in NPD. Moreover, the findings contribute to the literature on strategic alliances by identifying new conditions under which firms can create or preserve value. This research also contributes to signaling theory by providing evidence of the moderation effect caused by the signaling environment. Finally, this study contributes to the entrepreneurial literature on value creation for entrepreneurial firms in alliances following adverse events.     

Design,Meanings, and Radical Innovation: A Metamodel and a Research Agenda*

Recent studies on design management have helped us to better comprehend how companies can apply design to get closer to users and to better understand their needs; this is an approach usually referred to as user‐centered design. Yet analysis of design‐intensive manufacturers such as Alessi, Artemide, and other leading Italian firms shows that their innovation process hardly starts from a close observation of user needs and requirements. Rather, they follow a different strategy called design‐driven innovation in this paper. This strategy aims at radically change the emotional and symbolic content of products (i.e., their meanings and languages) through a deep understanding of broader changes in society, culture, and technology. Rather than being pulled by user requirements, design‐driven innovation is pushed by a firm's vision about possible new product meanings and languages that could diffuse in society. Design‐driven innovation, which plays such a crucial role in the innovation strategy of design intensive firms, has still remained largely unexplored. This paper aims at providing a possible direction to fill this empty spot in innovation management literature. In particular, first it proposes a metamodel for investigating design‐driven innovation in which a manufacturer's ability to understand, anticipate, and influence emergence of new product meanings is built by relying on external interpreters (e.g., designers, firms in other industries, suppliers, schools, artists, the media) that share its same problem: to understand the evolution of sociocultural models and to propose new visions and meanings. Managing design‐driven innovation therefore implies managing the interaction with these interpreters to access, share, and internalize knowledge on product languages and to influence shifts in sociocultural models. Second, the paper proposes a possible direction to scientifically investigate the management of this networked and collective research process. In particular, it shows that the process of creating breakthrough innovations of meanings partially mirrors the process of creating breakthrough technological innovations. Studies of design‐driven innovation may therefore benefit significantly from the existing body of theories in the field of technology management. The analysis of the analogies between these two types of radical innovations (i.e., meanings and technologies) allows a research agenda to be set for exploration of design‐driven innovation, a relevant as well as underinvestigated phenomenon.     

The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences

This study examines how product innovation contributes to the renewal of the firm through its dynamic and reciprocal relation with the firm's competences. Field research in five high‐tech firms of varying age, size, and level of diversification is combined with analysis of existing theory to develop the findings of the study. Based on the notion that new products are created by linking competences relating to technologies and customers, a typology is derived that classifies new product projects based on whether a new product can draw on existing competences, or whether it requires competences the firm does not yet have. Following organizational learning theory, these options are conceptualized as exploitation and exploration. These organizational learning concepts are used to gain a dynamic and path‐dependent view of product innovation and firm development, and to reveal the unique nature and challenges of different types of product innovation. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Examining cross-functional coopetition as a driver of organizational ambidexterity

Despite the growing number of articles on coopetition, research in the area still lacks insights into this phenomenon on an intraorganizational level. Therefore, this study examines the effect of cross-functional, firm-internal coopetition on organizational ambidexterity (i.e., exploitation and exploration) and the moderating role of social cohesion. Drawing on organizational learning theory and analyzing survey data obtained from 392 department heads and project leaders of new product development teams, we demonstrate that cross-functional coopetition has a significant positive effect on exploratory innovation. Moreover, we find support for the moderating influence of social cohesion on the relationship between coopetition and exploitative innovation. These results not only provide valuable insights for managers in the fields of new product development and innovation, they also highlight the need for further research on the dynamic interplay of competitive and cooperative elements within firms.     

Innovation orientations and their effects on business performance: contrasting small‐ and medium‐sized service firms

This study examines the relative performance of small‐ versus medium‐sized service firms with respect to innovation orientations and their effect on business performance. We examine the effect of innovation on business performance between the two groups of firms, exploring differences in innovation orientation on performance between the groups of small‐ and medium‐sized firms. We also examine differences within each group, exploring the extent to which innovation focus differs within each group. The empirical data were drawn from 180 managers in Australian service small and medium enterprises. The findings suggest that while there is no difference between small‐ and medium‐sized firms with respect to their innovation orientations, significant differences exist between the firm's size with respect to the effect of innovation orientations on business performance. Specifically, exploitation innovation has a stronger effect on business performance among small firms compared with medium‐sized firms, and exploration innovation shows a stronger effect on business performance among medium‐sized firms compared with small firms. Overall, the findings show important relative differences between innovation orientations and business performance across different sized firms.