IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/sjobre/v69y2017i1d10.1007_s41471-016-0021-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organisationsmodelle für Innovation
[Organizing for Innovation]

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Ebers

    (Universität zu Köln)

Abstract

Zusammenfassung Dieser Beitrag diskutiert verschiedene aufbauorganisatorische Gestaltungslösungen, die Unternehmen nutzen können, um Produkt- und Geschäftsmodellinnovationen erfolgreich zu entwickeln und umzusetzen. Er argumentiert, dass verschiedene Typen von Produkt- und Geschäftsmodellinnovationen durch unterschiedliche Organisationsformen unterstützt werden müssen, um erfolgreich zu sein. Der Beitrag analysiert drei in Forschung und Praxis als bedeutend identifizierte Organisationsmodelle – das integrierte, kooperative und autonome – in Hinblick auf ihre organisatorische, personelle und finanzwirtschaftliche Steuerung, ihre Anwendungsbedingungen sowie Wirkungen und illustriert sie anhand praktischer Beispiele.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Ebers, 2017. "Organisationsmodelle für Innovation [Organizing for Innovation]," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 69(1), pages 81-109, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:sjobre:v:69:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s41471-016-0021-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s41471-016-0021-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s41471-016-0021-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s41471-016-0021-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fagerberg, Jan & Verspagen, Bart, 2009. "Innovation studies--The emerging structure of a new scientific field," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 218-233, March.
    2. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    3. Carliss Baldwin & Eric von Hippel, 2011. "Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1399-1417, December.
    4. Zahra, Shaker A., 1995. "Corporate entrepreneurship and financial performance: The case of management leveraged buyouts," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 225-247, May.
    5. Todd Zenger, 2002. "Crafting Internal Hybrids: Complementarities, Common Change Initiatives, and the Team-Based Organization," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 79-95.
    6. Martin Hoegl & Hans Georg Gemuenden, 2001. "Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: A Theoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 12(4), pages 435-449, August.
    7. O'Reilly, Charles A., III & Tushman, Michael L., 2013. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future," Research Papers 2130, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    8. Robert A. Burgelman, 1985. "Managing the new venture division: Research findings and implications for strategic management," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 39-54, January.
    9. Thomas J. Chemmanur & Paolo Fulghieri, 2014. "Entrepreneurial Finance and Innovation: An Introduction and Agenda for Future Research," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 27(1), pages 1-19, January.
    10. Shrader, Rodney C. & Simon, Mark, 1997. "Corporate versus independent new ventures: Resource, strategy, and performance differences," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 47-66, January.
    11. Henry Chesbrough & Richard S. Rosenbloom, 2002. "The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation: evidence from Xerox Corporation's technology spin-off companies," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 11(3), pages 529-555, June.
    12. Margit Osterloh & Jetta Frost & Bruno Frey, 2002. "The Dynamics of Motivation in New Organizational Forms," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 61-77.
    13. Uriel Stettner & Dovev Lavie, 2014. "Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(13), pages 1903-1929, December.
    14. Dovev Lavie & Jingoo Kang & Lori Rosenkopf, 2011. "Balance Within and Across Domains: The Performance Implications of Exploration and Exploitation in Alliances," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1517-1538, December.
    15. Zahra, Shaker A., 1993. "Environment, corporate entrepreneurship, and financial performance: A taxonomic approach," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 319-340, July.
    16. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    17. Kyle J. Mayer & Nicholas S. Argyres, 2004. "Learning to Contract: Evidence from the Personal Computer Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 394-410, August.
    18. Michael D. Ryall & Rachelle C. Sampson, 2009. "Formal Contracts in the Presence of Relational Enforcement Mechanisms: Evidence from Technology Development Projects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 55(6), pages 906-925, June.
    19. Peter Boumgarden & Jackson Nickerson & Todd R. Zenger, 2012. "Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 587-610, June.
    20. Jeffrey G. Covin & Morgan P. Miles, 1999. "Corporate Entrepreneurship and the Pursuit of Competitive Advantage," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 23(3), pages 47-63, April.
    21. Robert A. Burgelman, 1983. "Corporate Entrepreneurship and Strategic Management: Insights from a Process Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(12), pages 1349-1364, December.
    22. Steven White, 2005. "Cooperation Costs, Governance Choice and Alliance Evolution," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(7), pages 1383-1412, November.
    23. Nicolai J. Foss, 2003. "Selective Intervention and Internal Hybrids: Interpreting and Learning from the Rise and Decline of the Oticon Spaghetti Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 331-349, June.
    24. O'Reilly, Charles & Harreld, J. Bruce & Tushman, Michael L., 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: IBM and Emerging Business Opportunities," Research Papers 2025, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    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. Úbeda-García, Mercedes & Claver-Cortés, Enrique & Marco-Lajara, Bartolomé & Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio, 2020. "Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 363-372.
    2. Fourné, Sebastian P.L. & Rosenbusch, Nina & Heyden, Mariano L.M. & Jansen, Justin J.P., 2019. "Structural and contextual approaches to ambidexterity: A meta-analysis of organizational and environmental contingencies," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 564-576.
    3. Lin, Liang-Hung & Ho, Yu-Ling, 2021. "Ambidextrous governance and alliance performance under dynamic environments: An empirical investigation of Taiwanese technology alliances," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    4. Solís-Molina, Miguel & Hernández-Espallardo, Miguel & Rodríguez-Orejuela, Augusto, 2018. "Performance implications of organizational ambidexterity versus specialization in exploitation or exploration: The role of absorptive capacity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 181-194.
    5. Sebastian Raisch & Michael L. Tushman, 2016. "Growing New Corporate Businesses: From Initiation to Graduation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(5), pages 1237-1257, October.
    6. Hughes, Paul & Hughes, Matthew & Stokes, Peter & Lee, Hanna & Rodgers, Peter & Degbey, William Y., 2020. "Micro-foundations of organizational ambidexterity in the context of cross-border mergers and acquisitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    7. Maria Glinyanova & Ricarda B. Bouncken & Victor Tiberius & Antonio C. Cuenca Ballester, 2021. "Five decades of corporate entrepreneurship research: measuring and mapping the field," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1731-1757, December.
    8. Katsuki Aoki & Miriam Wilhelm, 2017. "The Role of Ambidexterity in Managing Buyer–Supplier Relationships: The Toyota Case," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 1080-1097, December.
    9. Johannes Luger & Sebastian Raisch & Markus Schimmer, 2018. "Dynamic Balancing of Exploration and Exploitation: The Contingent Benefits of Ambidexterity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(3), pages 449-470, June.
    10. Katharina Stelzl & Maximilian Röglinger & Katrin Wyrtki, 2020. "Building an ambidextrous organization: a maturity model for organizational ambidexterity," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1203-1230, November.
    11. Martin Owusu Ansah & Nicholas Addai-Boamah & Abeeku Bylon Bamfo & Lucy Afeafa Ry-Kottoh, 2022. "Organizational ambidexterity and financial performance in the banking industry: evidence from a developing economy," Journal of Financial Services Marketing, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 27(3), pages 250-263, September.
    12. Mavroudi, Eva & Kesidou, Effie & Pandza, Krsto, 2020. "Shifting back and forth: How does the temporal cycling between exploratory and exploitative R&D influence firm performance?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 386-396.
    13. Telma Mendes & Vítor Braga & Carina Silva & Vanessa Ratten, 2023. "Taking a closer look at the regionally clustered firms: How can ambidexterity explain the link between management, entrepreneurship, and innovation in a post-industrialized world?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 2007-2053, December.
    14. 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.
    15. Stefano D’Angelo & Angelo Cavallo & Antonio Ghezzi & Francesco Di Lorenzo, 2024. "Understanding corporate entrepreneurship in the digital age: a review and research agenda," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 18(12), pages 3719-3774, December.
    16. Hu, Jing & Wang, Yilin & Liu, Shengnan & Song, Mingshun, 2023. "Mechanism of latecomer enterprises’ technological catch-up in technical standards alliances – An ambidextrous innovation perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    17. Partanen, Jukka & Kohtamäki, Marko & Patel, Pankaj C. & Parida, Vinit, 2020. "Supply chain ambidexterity and manufacturing SME performance: The moderating roles of network capability and strategic information flow," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    18. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    19. Manuel Guisado-González & Jennifer González-Blanco & José Luis Coca-Pérez, 2019. "Exploration, exploitation, and firm age in alliance portfolios," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 9(4), pages 387-406, December.
    20. Sasanka Sekhar Chanda & Bill McKelvey, 2020. "Back to the basics: reconciling the continuum and orthogonal conceptions of exploration and exploitation," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 175-206, June.

    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:spr:sjobre:v:69:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s41471-016-0021-x. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.