IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i21p14237-d959365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organizational Ambidexterity as an Outcome of Quality Dimensions and Triple Helix: The Role of Technology Readiness and User Satisfaction

Author

Listed:
  • Agung Budi Prasetio

    (Faculty Computer Science, Institut Teknologi Tangerang Selatan, Komplek Komersial BSD Kav 9, Jl. Raya Serpong, Lengkong Karya, Serpong Utara, Kota Tangerang Selatan 12246, Indonesia)

  • Burhanuddin bin Mohd Aboobaider

    (Faculty of Information & Communication Technology, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Hang Tuah Jaya, Durian Tunggal 76100, Melaka, Malaysia)

  • Asmala bin Ahmad

    (Faculty of Information & Communication Technology, Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka, Hang Tuah Jaya, Durian Tunggal 76100, Melaka, Malaysia)

Abstract

Advancing times and rapidly developing technology put pressure and responsibility on the management of organizations. Organizational ambidexterity is a concept for an organization that can balance profitability with innovation and development. This study examined the relationship between the triple helix and quality dimensions on organizational ambidexterity mediated by technology readiness and user satisfaction to give management an advantage in addressing this problem. Quantitative analysis methods using PLS-SEM (Partial Least Square-Structural Equation Modeling) were employed in this study. This study was conducted in Indonesia with 425 respondents participating in the data collection, 411 of which were declared valid after filtering. The results of this study demonstrate that the role of the triple helix in developing organizational ambidexterity is very significant and that other variables, such as quality dimensions and technology readiness, also play an essential role. The framework for organizational ambidexterity presented in this study may be helpful for future research in this field. This study can be further developed for future research, especially by adding new external variables that change over time and focusing more on a specific organization. At the very least, this study is relevant for researchers and practitioners to improve business quality using the concept of the triple helix, quality dimensions, and technology readiness.

Suggested Citation

  • Agung Budi Prasetio & Burhanuddin bin Mohd Aboobaider & Asmala bin Ahmad, 2022. "Organizational Ambidexterity as an Outcome of Quality Dimensions and Triple Helix: The Role of Technology Readiness and User Satisfaction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-23, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:14237-:d:959365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14237/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/21/14237/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miklós Pakurár & Hossam Haddad & János Nagy & József Popp & Judit Oláh, 2019. "The Service Quality Dimensions that Affect Customer Satisfaction in the Jordanian Banking Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-24, February.
    2. YoungKi Park & Paul A. Pavlou & Nilesh Saraf, 2020. "Configurations for Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity with Digitization," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(4), pages 1376-1397, December.
    3. Henry Etzkowitz, 1998. "Triple Helix of innovation: introduction," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(6), pages 358-364, December.
    4. Henry Etzkowitz & Chunyan Zhou, 2006. "Triple Helix twins: innovation and sustainability," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 77-83, February.
    5. Hassan Damerji & Anwar Salimi, 2021. "Mediating effect of use perceptions on technology readiness and adoption of artificial intelligence in accounting," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 107-130, March.
    6. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    7. Jafari-Sadeghi, Vahid & Garcia-Perez, Alexeis & Candelo, Elena & Couturier, Jerome, 2021. "Exploring the impact of digital transformation on technology entrepreneurship and technological market expansion: The role of technology readiness, exploration and exploitation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 100-111.
    8. Loet Leydesdorff & Henry Etzkowitz, 1998. "The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 25(3), pages 195-203, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang, Yuandi & Sutherland, Dylan & Ning, Lutao & Pan, Xin, 2015. "The evolving nature of China's regional innovation systems: Insights from an exploration–exploitation approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 140-152.
    2. Lengwiler, Martin, 2005. "Probleme anwendungsorientierter Forschung in den Sozialwissenschaften am Beispiel der Ausgründung choice," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Innovation and Organization SP III 2005-101, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    3. Mohammad Taghi Taghavifard & Setareh Majidian, 2022. "Identifying Cloud Computing Risks based on Firm’s Ambidexterity Performance using Fuzzy VIKOR Technique," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 23(1), pages 113-133, March.
    4. Ardalan Haghighi Talab & Victor Scholten & Cees van Beers, 2020. "The Role of Universities in Inter-organizational Knowledge Collaborations," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 11(2), pages 458-478, June.
    5. Indre Kalinauskaite & Rens Brankaert & Yuan Lu & Tilde Bekker & Aarnout Brombacher & Steven Vos, 2021. "Facing Societal Challenges in Living Labs: Towards a Conceptual Framework to Facilitate Transdisciplinary Collaborations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, January.
    6. Martina Gaisch & Daniela Noemeyer & Regina Aichinger, 2019. "Third Mission Activities at Austrian Universities of Applied Sciences: Results from an Expert Survey," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-14, August.
    7. Tyurchev, Kirill, 2021. "Управление Инновационными Системами: От Национального До Локального Уровня [Management of Innovative Systems: From National to Local LeveL]," MPRA Paper 111908, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Kraus, Patrick & Stokes, Peter & Tarba, Shlomo Y. & Rodgers, Peter & Dekel-Dachs, Ofer & Britzelmaier, Bernd & Moore, Neil, 2022. "The ambidextrous interaction of RBV-KBV and regional social capital and their impact on SME management," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 762-774.
    9. Alessandra Colombelli & Antonio De Marco & Emilio Paolucci & Riccardo Ricci & Giuseppe Scellato, 2021. "University technology transfer and the evolution of regional specialization: the case of Turin," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 933-960, August.
    10. Mauro ROMANELLI, 2017. "Towards Sustainable Cities," Management Dynamics in the Knowledge Economy, College of Management, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, vol. 5(1), pages 119-135, March.
    11. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    12. Kibaek Lee & Jaeheung Yoo & Munkee Choi & Hangjung Zo & Andrew P Ciganek, 2016. "Does External Knowledge Sourcing Enhance Market Performance? Evidence from the Korean Manufacturing Industry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-19, December.
    13. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    14. Erik G. Hansen & Stefan Schaltegger, 2018. "Sustainability Balanced Scorecards and their Architectures: Irrelevant or Misunderstood?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 150(4), pages 937-952, July.
    15. Michele O’Dwyer & Raffaele Filieri & Lisa O’Malley, 2023. "Establishing successful university–industry collaborations: barriers and enablers deconstructed," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 900-931, June.
    16. Ali, Abdul & Mancha, Ruben & Pachamanova, Dessislava, 2018. "Correcting analytics maturity myopia," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 211-219.
    17. Durán-Romero, Gemma & López, Ana M. & Beliaeva, Tatiana & Ferasso, Marcos & Garonne, Christophe & Jones, Paul, 2020. "Bridging the gap between circular economy and climate change mitigation policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    18. Jong-Hyun Kim & Yong-Gil Lee, 2021. "Factors of Collaboration Affecting the Performance of Alternative Energy Patents in South Korea from 2010 to 2017," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-25, September.
    19. Kirsti Iivonen, 2018. "Defensive Responses to Strategic Sustainability Paradoxes: Have Your Coke and Drink It Too!," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 309-327, March.
    20. Yuhan Ge & Qing Yuan & Yaxi Wang & Keunsoo Park, 2021. "The Structural Relationship among Perceived Service Quality, Perceived Value, and Customer Satisfaction-Focused on Starbucks Reserve Coffee Shops in Shanghai, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-19, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:21:p:14237-:d:959365. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.