The Locus of Innovation: The Effect of a Separate Innovation Unit on Exploration,Exploitation, and Ambidexterity in Manufacturing and Service Firms

This paper investigates the effects of having a separate innovation unit on exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity in manufacturing and service firms according to traditional paradigms of the innovation management discipline that innovation units should be organized in a separate department. Many manufacturing firms have such a unit while few service firms do. This paper sets out to investigate the advantages of having such a unit for exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity, and whether there are differences between manufacturing and service firms that could help explain why such units are present or absent. The literature suggests that a separate innovation unit has a positive effect on exploration and ambidexterity in manufacturing firms. However, the effect on improving operational activities, that is, exploitation, is unclear. If exploration and exploitation are two ends of a continuum, as the literature suggests, more exploration comes at the cost of exploitation. On the other hand, others have suggested the possibility of an orthogonal relationship, where a separate unit can simultaneously enhance exploration and exploitation. In this paper, the Dutch Community Innovation Survey (CIS) is used to investigate these relationships for manufacturing and service firms, with a question added to the survey regarding the locus of innovation within each firm, that is, mostly within a dedicated innovation unit or dispersed throughout the firm. Our findings show that a separate innovation unit increases exploration, exploitation, and ambidexterity in both manufacturing and service firms. It thereby provides support for the orthogonal view of ambidexterity. A separate unit enhances the ability to exploit and be ambidextrous equally in service and manufacturing firms, but has a weaker positive effect on exploration, and exploratory and ambidextrous performance in service firms. This finding implies that both manufacturing and service firms benefit from having a separate innovation unit, with the advantages being greatest for manufacturing firms. In service firms, such an innovation unit alone may not be sufficient, as such units are expensive to maintain, while they contribute less to ambidextrous performance than in manufacturing firms. Based on the latter finding, future studies should make a distinction between the ability to be ambidextrous in creating exploratory and exploitative innovations, and ambidextrous performance, the ability to gain financially from engaging in both types of activities simultaneously.     

Cognitive Frames,Learning Mechanisms,and Innovation Ambidexterity

While there is general agreement about the need for firms to both exploit and explore, there has been little empirical research that has focused on understanding how firms can manage the tension that arises from engaging in these two activities. Some writers have theorized that the cognitive frames that individuals, teams, and organizations possess may play an important role in managing these tensions and fostering ambidextrous outcomes. However, a review of the extant literature on cognition and cognitive frames reveals that their role in managing this tension has not been examined at any level, including the strategic business unit (SBU) level. This paper has taken a first step in providing empirical validation for the notion that ambidextrous cognitive frames play an important role in generating innovation ambidexterity. To test the hypotheses, primary data were gathered from 178 Taiwanese companies (190 SBUs) operating in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, financial management, mechanical engineering, and electronic engineering sectors. Questionnaires were administered to senior level managers and middle‐level managers in each SBU. Because the theory and hypotheses of this study require an SBU level of analysis, respondents' individual scores on each variable were aggregated, and the SBU mean responses for each question were computed. Multiple regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses. Different cognitive styles were found to impact different types of learning. An independent cognitive style was found to have a positive impact on intra‐SBU learning, while a reflection cognitive style had a positive impact on inter‐SBU learning. More importantly, ambidextrous cognitive frames, i.e., the combination of these two styles, were found to indirectly foster innovation ambidexterity by facilitating intra‐SBU learning and inter‐SBU learning simultaneously. These results suggest that managing the tension that arises from exploiting and exploring begins with the presence of dual cognitive styles. Ambidextrous cognitive frames enable SBUs to cognitively juxtapose contradictions and tensions in ways that allow them to “embrace” rather than avoid or deny these tensions. These findings provide validation for viewing SBUs as separate, holistic entities that collaboratively shape their cognitive frames. And it is these cognitive frames that enable their information processing which in turn causes the SBU to act or perform in a distinctive or characteristic manner. Additionally, these findings suggest that management teams may need to adopt ambidextrous cognitive frames that broaden the “problem space” to include multiple sources of learning that emanate from inside, as well as outside of the SBU or organization.     

Managing Innovation Champions: The Impact of Project Characteristics on the Direct Manager Role*

A key challenge for organizations seeking to improve the management of innovation lies in determining when to lend direct managerial support, and how much support, to those championing such projects. This research provides insights into the connection between project characteristics and the type and frequency of direct manager involvement. As such, it addresses the following research question: how does the level of project innovativeness, strategic relatedness, and resource requirements impact the level of empowerment of innovation champions and the sponsor or supervisor role played by managers? The research method involves a survey of 89 project champions from four divisions of large, multinational Korean companies. The results show that when innovativeness was high but projects were strategically related, there was greater project champion empowerment but also a more frequent managerial sponsor role. This suggests it may be best to allow innovators, who are close to the project's markets, technologies, and industry conditions, to have greater freedom over objectives and decisions. Yet they may also need the advice and support of their managers to function optimally under the highly uncertain conditions that characterize innovative projects. This combination of empowerment and a sponsor role, though appropriate for highly innovative projects, may also require high strategic relatedness, however. On the other hand, when projects are less strategically related and when resource requirements are high, the analysis suggests managers are more likely to exert control. Managers may therefore need to become more closely involved in decision making for costly ventures representing new strategic directions for their organizations. Overall, this research suggests that both empowerment and manager roles are relevant to the management of innovation. These results offer academic value in recognizing the nature of the direct manager role under different innovation project conditions. It further reveals a need for academics to recognize both the supervisor and sponsor roles in the management of innovation. For managers, the findings suggest that for organizations to effectively develop and commercialize innovations managers need to recognize when certain projects call for different levels and types of involvement.     

In Search of Innovation and Customer‐related Performance Superiority: The Role of Market Orientation,Marketing Capability,and Innovation Capability Interactions

Understanding the mechanisms through which firms realize the value of their market‐based knowledge resources such as market orientation is a central interest of innovation scholars and practitioners. The current study contends that realizing the performance impact of market orientation depends on know‐how deployment processes and their complementarities in functional areas such as marketing and innovation that co‐align with market orientation. More specifically, this study addresses two research questions: (1) to what extent can market orientation be transformed into customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes via marketing and innovation capabilities; and (2) does the complementarity between marketing capability and innovation capability enhance customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes? Drawing upon the resource‐based view and capability theory of the firm, a model is developed that integrates market orientation, marketing capability, innovation capability, and customer‐ and innovation‐related performance. The validity of the model is tested based on a sample of 163 manufacturing and services firms. In answer to the first research question, the findings show that market orientation significantly contributes to customer‐ and innovation‐related performance outcomes via marketing and innovation capabilities. This finding is important in that market‐based knowledge resources should be configured with the deployment of marketing and innovation capabilities to ensure better performance. In answer to the second research question, the findings indicate that market orientation works through the complementarity between marketing and innovation capabilities to influence customer‐related performance but not innovation‐related performance. Managers are advised to have a balanced approach to managing the deployment of capabilities. If they seek to achieve superiority in customer‐related performance, marketing capability, innovation capability, and their complementarity are essential for attracting, satisfying, building relationships with, and retaining customers. On the other hand, this complementarity would be considerably less important if firms placed greater emphasis on achieving superiority in innovation‐related performance. In contrast to many existing studies, this study is the first to model the roles of both innovation capability and marketing capability in mediating the relationship between market orientation and specific performance outcomes (i.e., innovation‐ and customer‐related outcomes).     

东风风神：创新是一种能力

2009年7月22日上市。2009年10月底全国销量即达12000辆;2009年12月。首次参加“爱我中国车“评选即一举夺得技术创新大奖,东风风神S30的表现,让人们对这辆定价才七万多的A级车刮目相看。     

Customer and Supplier Involvement in Design: The Moderating Role of Incremental and Radical Innovation Capability

More and more firms are leveraging design as a resource to gain the upper hand in today's competitive business market. To this end, this study draws on the resource‐based view (RBV) of the firm to examine the relationship between customer and supplier involvement in the design process and new product performance. The research also extends the RBV to a contingency lens by introducing product innovation capability (incremental and radical) as a moderator to draw the boundary conditions of the impact of customer/supplier involvement in design on new product performance. Using data collected from Canadian high‐tech companies, the findings provide strong support for the hypotheses in that customer involvement in design helps new product performance under high incremental innovation capability but harms new product performance under high radical innovation capability. In contrast, supplier involvement in design was beneficial to new product performance under both high incremental and radical innovation capability. The managerial implications for the role of design under different innovation capabilities are discussed.     

Aligning Knowledge Assets for Exploitation,Exploration, and Ambidexterity: A Study of Companies in High‐Tech Parks in China

There is little research that has explored the effects of how knowledge assets are aligned with each other in exploitation and exploration innovation strategies. This study uses alignment theory to explore the effects of aligning knowledge assets on facilitating a firm's ability to pursue ambidexterity, which is defined as the simultaneous pursuit of explorative and exploitative innovation strategies. We also explore the relative influence of organizational and human capital in fostering an exploitation innovation strategy on the one hand, and an exploration innovation strategy on the other. Using a primary survey sample of 127 companies in two high‐tech parks in China, we found that greater reliance on relatively more organizational capital versus human capital has a significantly positive impact on the success of an exploitative innovation strategy. The amount of organizational capital relative to the amount of human capital has a stronger positive association with exploratory innovation strategy when social capital is greater. We also found that the combination of organizational, human, and social capital fosters ambidexterity, i.e., the simultaneous pursuit of exploration and exploitation. This study extends alignment theory and examines the effects of aligning these knowledge assets on a firm's ability to foster organizational ambidexterity.     

Learning Capability,Technological Parity,and Innovation Mode Use*

The purpose of this research was to examine whether a firm's learning capability interacts with industry technological parity to predict innovation mode use. Learning capability is conceptualized in the current research as a firm's ability to develop or acquire the new knowledge‐based resources and skills needed to offer new products. Industry technological parity is conceptualized as the extent to which similarity and equality exist among the technological competencies of the firms in an industry. Three generic modes of innovation are considered: internal, cooperative, and external innovation. These modes reflect the development of new products based solely on internal resources, the collaborative development of new products (i.e., with one or more development partners), and the acquisition of fully developed products from external sources, respectively. The premises of this research are that (1) technological parity can create incentives or disincentives for innovating in a particular mode, depending upon the value of external innovative resources relative to the value of internal innovative resources and (2) firms will choose innovation modes that reflect a combination of their abilities and incentives to innovate alone, with others, or through others. Survey research and secondary sources were used to collect data from 119 high‐technology firms. Results indicate that firms exhibit greater use of internal and external innovation when high levels of industry technological parity are matched by high levels of firm learning capability. By contrast, a negative relationship between learning capability and industry technological parity is associated with greater use of the cooperative mode of innovation. Thus, a single, common internal capability—learning capability—interacts with the level of technological parity in the environment to significantly predict three distinct innovation modes—modes that are not inherently dependent upon one another. As such, a firm's internal ability to innovate, as reflected in learning capability, has relevance well beyond that firm's likely internal innovation output. It also predicts the firm's likely use of cooperative and external innovation when considered in light of the level of industry technological parity. A practical implication of these findings is that companies with modest learning capabilities are not inherently precluded from innovating. Rather, they can innovate through modes for which conditions in their current environments do not constitute significant obstacles to innovation output. In particular, modest learning capabilities are associated with higher innovative output in the internal, cooperative, and external modes when industry technological parity levels are low, high, and low, respectively. Conversely, strong learning capabilities tend to be associated with higher innovative output in the internal, cooperative, and external modes when industry technological parity levels are high, low, and high, respectively.     

The Ability and Willingness Paradox in Family Firm Innovation

We present a framework of how family involvement influences innovation management based on ability (discretion to act) and willingness (disposition to act), two drivers that distinguish family firms from nonfamily firms and lead to heterogeneity among family firms. Paradoxically, family firms have superior ability yet lower willingness to engage in technological innovation. Resolving this paradox should yield new insights about innovation management in general. We summarize and position the papers in this special issue according to these drivers and set out an agenda for further research that will contribute to a better understanding of family firms' heterogeneous and paradoxical behaviors.     

How Information Technology Assimilation Promotes Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation in the Small‐ and Medium‐Sized Firm Context: The Role of Contextual Ambidexterity and Knowledge Base

This research sheds new light on how information technology (IT) assimilation affects exploratory and exploitative innovation in the context of small‐ and medium‐sized firms (SMEs). This contextualization is important in establishing the boundary conditions for the theory, as well as generating specific managerial insights for SME managers. A sample of 248 U.K.‐based SMEs in the manufacturing industry demonstrates contextual ambidexterity (CA) mediates the relationship between IT assimilation and two types of innovation. This finding highlights that IT assimilation does not automatically promote innovation. Instead, IT assimilation represents a critical resource that enables the effective implementation of CA, which in turn affects innovation. This implies that SMEs cannot fully realize the potential of their IT assimilation and use it to enable innovation without implementing CA. Furthermore, this study differentiates between two different dimensions of knowledge base: knowledge breadth and knowledge depth. This study finds that knowledge breadth moderates the indirect IT assimilation–exploratory innovation relationship by influencing the effect of CA on exploratory innovation. Knowledge depth, on the other hand, moderates the indirect IT assimilation–exploitative innovation relationship by influencing the effect of CA on exploitative innovation. This finding implies that SMEs can benefit from their IT assimilation that enables them to engage in CA, which in turn allows them to perform innovation. However, it is apparent that the dimension of knowledge that SMEs hold internally can determine what types of innovation that they are able to perform.     

知识存量、双元学习与企业绩效关系研究

知识是企业的战略性资源,是企业竞争优势提升的重要源泉,但关于知识如何影响企业绩效的内在机理尚不明晰。本文引入企业双元学习中介,探索并检验知识存量对企业绩效的作用过程。采用回归方法分析了223家科研技术类企业数据后,本文得出结论：（1）企业知识存量对企业绩效有着促进作用;（2）知识存量是通过作用于双元学习而对企业绩效产生影响;（3）企业规模在此过程中有着显著调节作用。本文研究为企业有效开展知识积累及双元学习活动提供启示。     

Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization,alliances, and acquisitions

Prior research on ambidexterity has limited its concern to balancing exploration and exploitation via particular modes of operation. Acknowledging the interplay of tendencies to explore versus exploit via the internal organization, alliance, and acquisition modes, we claim that balancing these tendencies within each mode undermines firm performance because of conflicting routines, negative transfer, and limited specialization. Nevertheless, by exploring in one mode and exploiting in another, i.e., balancing across modes, a firm can avoid some of these impediments. Thus, we advance ambidexterity research by asserting that balance across modes enhances performance more than balance within modes. Our analysis of 190 U.S.‐based software firms further reveals that exploring via externally oriented modes such as acquisitions or alliances, while exploiting via internal organization, enhances these firms' performance. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Spirituality of Innovation: Learning from Stories

Sooner or later, most established companies face a mid-life crisis. Just like many people, these companies somehow lose the drive, the excitement, and the enthusiasm of their youth. Rather than continue to push the envelope, these companies focus on their core competencies and try to maintain order through a proliferation of policies and procedures. On the other hand, some companies (and some people) manage to sustain their innovative, entrepreneurial spirit. A handful of mature companies somehow maintain an environment in which employees continually generate added value for customers and the company alike. How do they do it? How do these mature companies continue to foster invention and innovation? Recognizing that stagnation and decline are not faits accomplis for all companies, Karen Anne Zien and a cross-functional team conducted in-depth interviews at several highly innovative firms. The interviewees provided insight into the culture, the characteristics, and the principles that set these companies apart from the competition. Perhaps the greatest insight comes from the stories these people tell. These war stories—the corporate myths and legends—provide a simple means for communicating and reinforcing the shared values that distinguish these companies. For example, a manager's recollection of Hewlett-Packard's effort to develop a pen plotter (and in particular, Bill Hewlett's role in this development) demonstrates that innovation is a companywide activity that requires the active, ongoing involvement of leaders at the highest levels of the organization. Senior people in these innovative companies foster a sense of community and common purpose and thus create an environment that encourages employees to explore new ideas and, if necessary, break the old rules. Through both formal and informal means, these companies also encourage frequent interaction between technical and marketing people. Corporate leaders energize these mature, but still innovative, companies, by providing context and communicating a dynamic vision. Storytelling offers a particularly evocative medium for articulating this vision. Rather than bore newcomers with hoary tales of the good old days, however, the most effective leaders continually reshape these stories to offer fresh insights, uncover new challenges, and reinforce the notion that every employee can and should contribute their full potential.     

The Mediating Role of Strategic Orientations on the Relationship between Ambidexterity‐Oriented Decisions and Innovative Ambidexterity

Building on upper echelon theory and strategic process theory, this article analyzes the relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions embrace the capability of top management teams to manage contradictory strategic directions, namely adaptability and alignment, innovative ambidexterity captures the ability of firms to simultaneously develop discontinuous and incremental innovations. In addition to the direct relationship between ambidexterity‐oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity, it is argued that innovation orientation and cost orientation denote two cultural implementation mechanisms that mediate this effect. Using two top‐executive data sets collected in the United States (n = 83) and India (n = 78), the empirical analysis shows that innovation orientation and cost orientation partially mediate the direct influence of ambidexterity‐oriented decisions on innovative ambidexterity, thus further explaining how formulated decisions made by the top management team nurture ambidextrous innovation behavior. Hence, this article extends prior literature that emphasizes a positive influence of top managers on innovation through incorporating an organizational ambidexterity perspective. Second, this study contributes to ambidexterity literature through integrating strategic process theory. While ambidexterity‐oriented decisions primarily relate to strategy formulation, innovation orientation and cost orientation are associated with strategy implementation. The results show that both strategic subprocesses are vital in enabling ambidextrous innovation behavior. Third, an operationalization for the ability of top management to balance adaptability‐ and alignment‐oriented decisions is provided based on prior literature.     

Major Innovation as a Dynamic Capability: A Systems Approach*

Major innovation (MI), composed of both radical and really new innovation, is an important mechanism for enabling the growth and renewal of an enterprise. Yet it is poorly managed in most established firms, and success stories are rare. This conceptual article draws on systems theory, recent advances in dynamic capabilities theory, and the management of innovation literature to offer a framework for building an MI dynamic capability. The framework is composed of seven elements that together form a management system rather than a process‐based approach to nurturing radical innovation. These system elements are (1) an identifiable organization structure; (2) interface mechanisms with the mainstream organization, some of which are tightly coupled and others of which are loose; (3) exploratory processes; (4) requisite skills and talent development, given that entrepreneurial talent is not present in most organizations; (5) governance and decision‐making mechanisms at the project, MI portfolio, and MI system levels; (6) appropriate performance metrics; and (7) an appropriate culture and leadership context. It is argued that dynamic capabilities for phenomena as complex as MI must be considered in a systems fashion rather than as operating routines and repeatable processes as the literature currently suggests. A set of propositions is offered regarding how each element should play out in this parallel management system. Finally, each element's role in the major innovation system is justified in terms of four criteria required by systems theory: (1) The system is identifiable, and its elements are interdependent; (2) the effect of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts; (3) homeostasis is achieved through interaction and networking with the larger organization; and (4) there is a clear purpose in the larger system in which the MI management system is embedded. Examples are given to demonstrate these criteria. Systems theory offers a new way of thinking about dynamic capability development and management.     

Open Service Innovation: The Role of Intermediary Capabilities

This study examines how intermediaries, in general, and those with digital service platforms specifically, engage with clients to help them innovate their services within their service ecosystem. Based on an embedded, longitudinal case study, the results reveal the cumulative development and deployment of technological, marketing, and co‐creation capabilities by intermediaries, and how these capabilities allow intermediaries to engage with clients, so as to enable clients’ open service innovation despite their internal challenges. In turn, this article extends theory on service innovation by clarifying the role and function of intermediaries in service ecosystems in enabling clients to leverage open service innovation. Second, this study contributes to resource‐based scholarship by clarifying how these three sets of capabilities and their micro‐foundations relate to each other. Despite the obvious importance of technological capabilities, online intermediaries are more than just “virtual” service platform providers. The intermediary’s technological and marketing capabilities assist clients in dealing with project‐related and organizational challenges to open service innovation. Acting as a higher‐order capability, co‐creation capabilities—through shaping marketing and technological capabilities over time and also through conditioning their deployment—improve the proficiency of these capabilities. The findings advance insights on the agential role of the intermediary’s co‐creation capabilities, purposefully developed and deployed to foster client engagement, and thus support service organizations in leveraging open service innovation.     

井塔辉煌--中国石油勘探开发事业回顾及前景展望

我国原油产量从2002年1．689亿t增加到2003年1．69亿t，天然气产量从2002年326亿m^3增加到2003年340亿m^3。2004年力争国内原油生产稳中有升已成为我国石油工业可持续发展的固本之策。