Logical Mechanism for Allocating Resources to Exploitation and Exploration to Achieve Ambidexterity: Team Level Analysis

  • Kun Chang Lee
  • Do Young Choi
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6485)


Despite the rise of studies on knowledge creation in the perspective of exploitation and exploration in organizational learning, previous studies are rare which suggested a concrete mechanism regarding how to allocate limited resources to exploitation and exploration to remain ambidextrous. Main purposes of this paper are to make logical argument on how teams create creativity through knowledge creation by balancing exploitation and exploration, and to present a new logical mechanism by which teams allocate their limited resources to exploitation and exploration to achieve balance between them. Time-dependent simulations were conducted to prove the validity of the proposed logical mechanism for sustaining the balance between exploitation and exploration.


Team creativity Exploitation Exploration Ambidexterity Logical mechanism Knowledge creation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W.: Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science 20(4), 696–717 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Benner, M.J., Tushman, M.L.: Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review 28(2), 238–256 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burgelman, R.A.: Intra-organizational ecology of strategy-making and organizational adaptation. Organization Science 2, 239–262 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Burgelman, R.A.: Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in. Administrative Science Quarterly 47, 325–357 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cohen, W.M., Levinthal, D.A.: Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly 35, 128–152 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fang, C., Lee, J., Schilling, M.A.: Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organization learning. Organization Science 21(3), 625–642 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Feinberg, S.E., Gupta, A.K.: Knowledge spillovers and the assignment of R&D responsibilities to foreign subsidiaries. Strategic Management Journal 25, 823–845 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garcia, R., Calantone, R., Levine, R.: The role of knowledge in resource allocation to exploration versus exploitation in technologically oriented organizations. Decision Sciences 34(2), 323–349 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., Shalley, C.E.: The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal 49(4), 693–706 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    He, Z., Wong, P.: Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science 15(4), 481–494 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lazer, D., Friedman, A.: The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Administrative Science Quarterly 52, 667–694 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levinthal, D.A.: Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Management Science 43, 934–950 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liu, W.: Knowledge exploitation, knowledge exploration, and competency trap. Knowledge and Process Management 13(3), 144–161 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McNamara, P., Baden-Fuller, C.: Lessons from the Celltech case: Balancing knowledge exploration and exploitation in organizational renewal. British Journal of Management 10, 291–307 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    March, J.G.: Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science 2(1), 71–87 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., Tushman, M.L.: Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science 20(4), 685–695 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E.W.: Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science 12(4), 502–517 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teece, D.J., Pisano, G., Shuen, A.: Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal 18, 509–533 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kun Chang Lee
    • 1
    • 2
  • Do Young Choi
    • 3
  1. 1.SKK Business SchoolSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  2. 2.Department of Interaction ScienceSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulRepublic of Korea
  3. 3.LG CNSSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations