Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms

  • Published:
The Journal of Technology Transfer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper investigates the relationship between organizational ambidexterity and firm performance in knowledge-intensive firms. In particular, using a quantitative methodology involving a structural equation model, the research investigates whether external knowledge sourcing enhances the impact of ambidexterity on firm performance. The results show that organizational ambidexterity in knowledge-intensive firms does not, in fact, have a significant impact on firm performance, but it does have a positive and significant mediating effect considering external knowledge sourcing. The findings are presented along with interesting and significant implications for both theory and practice, largely stemming from the still much neglected relationship between organizational ambidexterity and external knowledge sourcing in the open innovation context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn, J. M., Minshall, T., & Mortara, L. (2015). Open innovation: A new classification and its impact on firm performance in innovative SMEs. Journal of Innovation Management, 3(2), 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aloini, D., Pellegrini, L., Lazzarotti, V., & Manzini, R. (2015). Technological strategy, open innovation and innovation performance: Evidences on the basis of a structural-equation-model approach. Measuring Business Excellence, 19(3), 22–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alvesson, M. (2011). De-essentializing the knowledge intensive firm: Reflections on sceptical research going against the mainstream. Journal of Management Studies, 48(7), 1640–1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability—rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Audretsch, D. B., Kuratko, D. F., & Link, A. N. (2016). Dynamic entrepreneurship and technology-based innovation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 26(3), 603–620. doi:10.1007/s00191-016-0458-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J. A., Calabrese, T., & Silverman, B. S. (2000). Don’t go it alone: Alliance network composition and startups’ performance in Canadian biotechnology. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 267–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J., Crick, D., & Young, S. (2004). Small firm internationalization and business strategy an exploratory study of ‘knowledge-intensive’ and ‘traditional’ manufacturing firms in the UK. International Small Business Journal, 22(1), 23–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 676–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berchicci, L. (2013). Towards an open R&D system: Internal R&D investment, external knowledge acquisition and innovative performance. Research Policy, 42(1), 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blackler, F. (1995). Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: An overview and interpretation. Organization Studies, 16(6), 1021–1046.

  • Bontis, N. (1998). Intellectual capital: An exploratory study that develops measures and models. Management Decision, 36(2), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresciani, S. (2010). Innovation within firms: A survey in the Piedmont area. International Journal of Quality and Innovation, 1(2), 138–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresciani, S., & Ferraris, A. (2014). The localization choice of multinational firms’ R&D Centers: A survey in the Piedmont area. Journal of Promotion Management, 20(4), 481–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresciani, S., Thrassou, A., & Vrontis, D. (2015). Strategic R&D internationalisation in developing Asian countries—the Italian experience. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 11(2–3), 200–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., & Rakhmatullin, R. (2014). The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in Europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 212–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carayannis, E. G., Sindakis, S., & Walter, C. (2015). Business model innovation as lever of organizational sustainability. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2002). R&D cooperation and spillovers: Some empirical evidence from Belgium. The American Economic Review, 92(4), 1169–1184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassiman, B., & Veugelers, R. (2006). In search of complementarity in innovation strategy: Internal R&D and external knowledge acquisition. Management Science, 52(1), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chebbi, H., Yahiaoui, D., Thrassou, A., & Vrontis, D. (2013). The exploration activity’s added value into the innovation process. Global Business and Economics Review, 15(2–3), 265–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chebbi, H., Yahiaoui, D., Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (2015). Building multiunit ambidextrous organizations: A transformative framework. Human Resource Management, Special Issue on Ambidexterity of Human Resource Management. doi:10.1002/hrm.21662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). The logic of open innovation: Managing intellectual property. California Management Review, 45(3), 33–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). The era of open innovation. Managing Innovation and Change, 127(3), 34–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New Frontiers in open innovation (pp. 3–28).

  • Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford: OUP Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.

  • Cooper, R. G., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (1993). Major new products: What distinguishes the winners in the chemical industry? Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(2), 90–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coviello, N. E. (1994). Internationalizing the entrepreneurial high technology, knowledge-intensive firm, Ph.D. thesis, Department of Marketing, University of Auckland, New Zealand.

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M. R., & Maggioni, V. (2013). Collective knowledge and organizational routines within academic communities of practice: an empirical research on science–entrepreneurs. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(3), 260–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Giudice, M., & Maggioni, V. (2014). Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge management within inter-firm networks: A global view. Journal of Knowledge Management, 18(5), 841–846.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Del Giudice, M., & Straub, D. (2011). Editor’s comments: IT and entrepreneurism: An on-again, off-again love affair or a marriage? MIS Quarterly, 35(4), iii–viii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (2014). Innovation and entrepreneurship. Abingdon-on-Thames: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1, 167–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management, 39(4), 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferraris, A., & Santoro, G. (2014). Come dovrebbero essere sviluppati i progetti di social innovation nelle smart city? Un’analisi comparativa. Impresa Progetto-Electronic Journal of Management, 4, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, S. W., & Lane, P. J. (2000). Strategizing throughout the organization: Managing role conflict in strategic renewal. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 154–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gassmann, O., & Enkel, E. (2004). Towards a theory of open innovation: Three core process archetypes. In R&D management conference (Vol. 6, No. 0, pp. 1–18).

  • Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation. R&D Management, 40(3), 213–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25, 186–192.

  • Ghemawat, P., & Ricart Costa, J. E. (1993). The organizational tension between static and dynamic efficiency. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 59–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghoshal, S., & Bartlett, C. A. (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action: The dimensions of quality of management. Strategic Management Journal, 15(S2), 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, M. E. (2002). Types of knowledge and their roles in technology transfer. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 27(3), 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (1986). Resource sharing among SBUs: Strategic antecedents and administrative implications. Academy of Management Journal, 29(4), 695–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (2001). Análisis multivariante (5a ed.). Madrid: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harry, M., & Schroeder, R. (2000). Six sigma: The breakthrough management strategy revolutionizing the world’s top corporations. New York: Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration versus exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung, K. P., & Chou, C. (2013). The impact of open innovation on firm performance: The moderating effects of internal R&D and environmental turbulence. Technovation, 33(10), 368–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R., & Allen, T. J. (1982). Investigating the not invented here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D Project Groups. R&D Management, 12(1), 7–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, W. (2004). International technology diffusion. Journal of Economic Literature, 42(3), 752–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 646–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1983). Structures in fives. Engelwood-Cliffs, CA: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narula, R. (2001). Choosing between internal and non-internal R&D activities: Some technological and economic factors. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 13(3), 365–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). The schumpeterian tradeoff revisited. The American Economic Review, 72(1), 114–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.

  • Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenzweig, S. (2016). The effects of diversified technology and country knowledge on the impact of technological innovation. The Journal of Technology Transfer. doi:10.1007/s10961-016-9492-5.

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Alexandre, M. T. (2009). Ambidexterity in technology sourcing: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Organization Science, 20(4), 759–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santoro, G., Ferraris, A., Giacosa, E., & Giovando, G. (2016). How SMEs engage in open innovation: A survey. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. doi:10.1007/s13132-015-0350-8.

  • Shah, R., & Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: Looking back and forward. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), 148–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheremata, W. A. (2000). Centrifugal and centripetal forces in radical new product development under time pressure. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 389–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shortell, S. M., & Zajac, E. J. (1990). Perceptual and archival measures of Miles and Snow’s strategic types: A comprehensive assessment of reliability and validity. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 817–832.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidhu, J., Commandeur, H. R., & Volberda, H. W. (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Organization Science, 18, 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 864–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swart, J., & Kinnie, N. (2003). Knowledge-intensive firms: The influence of the client on HR systems. Human Resource Management Journal, 13(3), 37–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Terwiesch, C., & Xu, Y. (2008). Innovation contests, open innovation, and multiagent problem solving. Management Science, 54(9), 1529–1543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrassou, A. (2007). Doing business in the industrialised countries, Chapter 13. In M. Katsioloudes & S. Hadjidakis (Eds.), International business—a global perspective. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN 978-0-7506-7983-1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrassou, A., Vrontis, D., & Bresciani, S. (2014). Strategic reflexivity in the hotel industry—a value-based analysis. World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 10(1–2), 352–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tidd, J., Bessant, J., & Pavitt, K. L. R. (2000). Managing innovation: Integrating technological, market and organizational change (2nd ed.). Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). The ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Vrande, V., De Jong, J. P., Vanhaverbeke, W., & De Rochemont, M. (2009). Open innovation in SMEs: Trends, motives and management challenges. Technovation, 29(6), 423–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  • Volberda, H., Baden-Fuller, C., & Van den Bosch, F. A. J. (2001). Mastering strategic renewal: Mobilizing renewal journeys in multi-unit fi rms. Long Range Planning, 34, 159–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrontis, D., & Thrassou, A. (Eds.). (2013). Innovative business practices: Prevailing a Turbulent Era. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., Chebbi, H., & Yahiaoui, D. (2012). Transcending innovativeness towards strategic reflexivity. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 15(4), 420–437. doi:10.1108/13522751211257097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wadhwa, A., & Kotha, S. (2006). Knowledge creation through external venturing: Evidence from the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 819–835.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic intstitutions of capitalism. NewYork: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, University of Nicosia, 46 Makedonitissas Ave., P.O. Box 24005, 1700, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Demetris Vrontis & Alkis Thrassou

  2. Department of Management, University of Torino, Corso Unione Sovietica, 218 bis, 10134, Turin, Italy

    Gabriele Santoro

  3. University of Naples “Federico II”, Naples, Italy

    Armando Papa

Authors
  1. Demetris Vrontis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alkis Thrassou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gabriele Santoro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Armando Papa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alkis Thrassou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Research involving human participants

The authors declare that the surveyed have been correctly informed about the purpose of this study. The authors also declare that data have been collected in an anonymous way and in aggregated form.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vrontis, D., Thrassou, A., Santoro, G. et al. Ambidexterity, external knowledge and performance in knowledge-intensive firms. J Technol Transf 42, 374–388 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9502-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-016-9502-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation