Innovation Ambidexterity: A Study of Scale Adaptation

Year 2015, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 1 - 26, 01.12.2015

Atif Açıkgöz

Abstract

Developing new products and transforming them into innovatons by commercializing them, is the most important activity for today’s firms. The role of knowledge, along with all social systems, become crucial for economic and commercial relationships as well as this role puts forwards knowledge workers, economy, and society. The demands of knowledge society, by knowledge’s perpetual evolving nature, unceasingly change and transform. Such an environment,firms have to continously develop new products in order to appease the expectations of knowledge society. Moreover, firms should develop new products for satisfying existing and future demands. Accordingly, the conceptualization of ambidexterity comes to the forefront. By becoming ambidexterous, firms both improve existing products for current demands and create new knowledge/capabilities for future demands. This study adapts the scale of innovation ambidexteriy which is specific to Turkish firms, from the literature in the context of new product development teams. The results show that, from the 201 obtained data, new product development teams create innovation ambidexterity.

Keywords

New Product Development, Innovation Ambidexterity[PDF]

İnovasyon Çiftustalığı: Bir Ölçek Uyarlama Çalışması

Abstract

Yeni ürün mal ve/veya hizmet geliştirme ve bunları ticari bir sona ulaştırarak inovasyona dönüştürme günümüz girişimlerinin en önemli uğraşıdır. Bilginin tüm alanlarla birlikte iktisadi ve ticari ilişkilerdeki rolünün artması beraberinde bilgi işçilerini, bilgi ekonomisini ve bilgi toplumunu öne çıkarmıştır. Bilgi toplumunun beklentileri ise, bilginin sürekli evrimleşen doğası gereği, durmaksızın değişmekte ve dönüşmektedir. Böylesi bir ortamda girişimlerin bilgi toplumunun beklentilerini doyumlamaları ancak sürekli yeni ürünler geliştirme potansiyellerini açığa çıkarmakla mümkündür. Dahası, girişimler bir taraftan mevcut beklentileri karşılamalı diğer taraftan filizlenen beklentiler için alternatifler üretmelilerdir. Bu doğrultuda ilgili literatürde çiftustalık kavramsallaştırması sivrilmektedir. Zira girişimler çiftusta hale gelerek hem bugünün hem de yarının beklentilerini karşılayacak potansiyele gelebilmektedir. Bu çalışma yeni ürün geliştirme YÜG takımları bağlamında inovasyon çiftustalığı ölçeğini, Tükiye özelinde, teknoloji ve inovasyon literatürüne kazandırmıştır. 201 YÜG takımından elde edilen yığılmış veriler eşliğinde YÜG takımlarının çiftustalığı geliştirdikleri belirginleştirilmiştir

Keywords

Yeni ürün geliştirme, İnovasyon çiftustalığı

References

• Açıkgöz, A., ve Günsel, A., (2014). Yeni ürün geliştirme projelerinde yönlendirici yönetim anlayışı, motivasyon ve inovasyon becerisi. Girişimcilik ve İnovasyon Yönetimi Dergisi, 3: 33-60.
• Açıkgöz, A., Günsel, A., Kuzey, C., ve Zaim, H. 2015. Team foresight in new product development projects. Group Decision and Negotiation, InPress: DOI: 10.1007/s10726-015-9443-9.
• Aubry, M., ve Lièvre, P. 2010. Ambidexterity as a competence of project leaders: A case study from two polar expeditions. Project Management Journal, 41: 32-44.
• Atuahene-Gima, K., ve Murray, J. 2007. Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: A social capital perspective in new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Marketing, 15: 1-29.
• Barney J. B. 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 99-120.
• Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation. In Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations, (ed.) Klein, K. J., ve Kozlowski, S. W. J., 349-381. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Bodwell, W., ve Chermack, T. J. 2010. Organizational ambidexterity: Integrating deliberate and emergent strategy with scenario planning. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 77: 193-202.
• Brislin, R. W. 1986. The wording and translation of research instruments. In Field methods in cross-cultural research, (ed.) Lonner, W. J., ve Berry, J.W., 137-164. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Burns, T., ve Stalker, G. M. 1961. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
• Cantarello, S., Martini, A., ve Nosella, A. 2012. A multi-level model for organizational ambidexterity in the search phase of the innovation process. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21: 28-48.
• Chandrasekarana, A., Lindermanb, K., ve Schroeder, R. 2012. Antecedents to ambidexterity competency in high technology organizations. Journal of Operations Management, 30: 134-151.
• Chang, Y. Y., ve Hughes, M. 2012. Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in smallto medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30: 1-17.
• Daft, R. L. 2012. Understanding the theory and design of organizations. Cengage: South Western.
• D’aveni, R. A. 1994. Hypercompetition: Managing the dynamics of strategic maneuvering. with Gunther, R. New York: The Free Press.
• Duncan, R. 1976. The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In The Management of Organization, (ed.) Killman, R. H., Pondy, L. R., ve Sleven, D., 167-188. New York: North Holland.
• Eisenhardt, K. M., ve Martin, J. A. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21: 1105-1121.
• Filippini, R., Güttel, W. H., ve Nosella, A. 2012. Ambidexterity and the evolution of knowledge management initiatives. Journal of Business Research, 65: 317-324.
• Fredericks, E. 2005. Infusing flexibility into business-to-business firms: A contingency theory and resource-based view perspective and practical implications. Industrial Marketing Management, 34: 555-565.
• Ghoshal, S., ve Bartlett, C.A. 1994. Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15: 91-112.
• Gibson C. B., ve Birkinshaw, J. 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 209-26.
• Glick, W. H. 1985. Conceptualizing and measuring organizational and psychological climate: Pitfalls in multilevel research. Academy of Management Review, 10: 601-616.
• Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., ve Shalley, C. E. 2006. The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 693-706.
• Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., ve Black, W. C. 2010. Multivariate data analysis with readings. 7th Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• He, Z. L., ve Wong, P. K. 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15: 481-494.
• Huber, G. P., ve Power, D. J. 1985. Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: Guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strategic Management Journal, 6: 171-180.
• Hurley, R., ve Hult, G. T. M. 1998. Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62: 42-54.
• James, L. R. 1982. Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67: 219-229.
• James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., ve Wolf, G. 1993. rwg: An assessment of within group inter-rater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78: 306-339.
• Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., ve Volberda, H. W. 2006. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52: 1661-1674.
• Jansen, J. J. P., Simsek, Z., ve Cao, Q. 2012. Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit contexts: Cross-level moderating effects of structural and resource attributes. Strategic Management Journal, 33: 1286-1303.
• Kortmann, S. 2014. The mediating role of strategic orientations on the relationship between ambidexterity-oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, In Press: DOI: 10.1111/jpim.12151.
• Kozlowski, W. J., ve Hattrup, K. 1992. A disagreement about within group agreement: Disentangling issues of consistency versus consensus. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 161-167.
• Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., ve Anderson, J. C. 1993. Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36: 1633-1651.
• Levinthal, D. A., ve March, J. G. 1993. The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14: 95-112.
• Leonard-Barton, D. 1992. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 13: 111-125.
• Lin, H-E., McDonough III, E. F., Lin, S. J., ve 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, H. E., ve McDonough III, E. F. 2014. Cognitive frames, learning mechanisms, and innovation ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31: 170-188.
• March, J. G. 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2: 71-87.
• Moon, T. 2010. Organizational cultural intelligence: Dynamic capability perspective. Group & Organization Management, 35: 456-493.
• O’Reilly III, C. A., ve Tushman, M. L. 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28: 185-206.
• O’Reilly III, C. A., ve Tushman, M. L. 2004. Ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82: 71-81.
• Patel, P. C., Terjesen, S., ve Li, D. 2012. Enhancing effects of manufacturing flexibility through operational absorptive capacity and operational ambidexterity. Journal of Operations Management, 30: 201-220.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., ve Podsakoff, N. P. 2003. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 879-903.
• Porter, M. 1985. Competitive Advantage. New York: The Free Press. Simsek, Z. 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: Towards a multilevel understanding. Journal of Management Study, 46: 597-624.
• Schumpeter, J.A. (1947). The creative response in economic history. The Journal of Economic History, 7: 149-159.
• Slater, S. F., Mohr, J. J., ve Sengupta, S. 2014. Radical product innovation capability: Literature review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31: 552-566.
• Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., ve Shuen, A. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18: 509-533.
• Tushman, M. L., ve O’Reilly III. C. A. 1996. Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38: 8-30.
• Wang, C. L., ve Ahmed, P. K. 2007. Dynamic capabilities: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 9: 31-51.
• Zhou, K. Z., ve Wu, F. 2010. Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 31: 547-561.
• Aksiyon, 2014. URL: http://www.aksiyon.com.tr/dosyalar/aradiginiz-markayaulasilamiyor_538597. Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2015.
• Intel, 2015. URL: http://newsroom.intel.com/community/tr_tr/blog/2015/01/07/ intel-ceo-su-brian-krzanich-ces-te-2015-te-devrim-yaratan-teknoloji-vei%C5%9Fbirliklerini-tan%C4%B1tt%C4%B1. Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2015.
• Sabah, 2015. URL: http://www.sabah.com.tr/teknoloji/2015/06/02/intel-alterayisatin-aldi. Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2015.
• T24, 2014. URL: http://t24.com.tr/haber/finlandiya-basbakani-nokiayi-o-bitirdiulkemin-katili-steve-jobs,263729. Erişim Tarihi: 08.06.2015.