Downloads

https://doi.org/10.58195/emi.v2i1.71
Okanga, B. (2023). Business Digitization’s Edifying Effects on a Firm’s Ambidexterity. Economics & Management Information, 2(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.58195/emi.v2i1.71
Volume 2, Issue 1, June 2023
Copyright (c) 2023 Okanga Boniface
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Business Digitization’s Edifying Effects on a Firm’s Ambidexterity

Improving a firm’s simultaneous capabilities to exploit the existing opportunities whilst also exploring future opportunities is critical for catalysing a firm’s ambidexterity and sustainability. In that context, this research evaluates how business digitisation edifies a firm’s ambidexterity in the increasingly more discontinuous modern business environment. Using a qualitative-Delphi Method, the study diagnoses the perceptions of about twenty expert panelists from a cross-section of twenty enterprises in Aberdeen-Scotland on how digitised enterprise systems are often utilised to discern how the existing as well as future trends can be maximised to leverage a firm’s ambidexterity and sustainability. Findings indicated some of the businesses to take the initiatives to leverage their exploitation and exploration capabilities. However, it was still highly evident from most of the narratives that as most of the businesses focused on leveraging their existing state of performance, cost savings or the use of rational plans that only aim to achieve short-term business quests, it tends to undermine data optimisation in the simultaneous improvement of a firm’s exploitation and exploration capabilities. This is because most quests for optimising the digitised business systems or to undertake the required changes to leverage ambidexterity are often constrained by a combination of different heterogeneous internal business conditions that either cause low investments in digitisation or inflexibility that constrains change. It is not only the level of digitisation’s optimisation which is low, but also most businesses’ greater preponderance to focus on exploitation at the expense of exploration. Such business approach was found to undermine most quests for bolstering a firm’s ambidexterity. Considering that this area had not been explored by most of the previous studies, the study concludes with certain propositions that can enrich the existing ambidexterity theories by offering new insights on how digitisation highlights a new paradigm that can be optimised to bolster a firm’s ambidexterity.

a firm’s ambidexterity business digitisation exploitation and exploration capabilities

References

  1. Prescott ME. Big Data: Innovation and Competitive Advantage in an Information Media Analytics Company. Journal of Innovation Management 2016; 4(1): 92–113.
  2. Gagliardi M. Next Generation Entrepreneur: Innovation Strategy Through Web 2.0 Technologies in Smes. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 2013; 25(8): 891–904.
  3. O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML. Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives 2013; 1(1): 1–30.
  4. Mithas S, Tafti A, Mitchell W. How a Firm's Competitive Environment and Digital Strategic Posture Influence Digital Business Strategy. MIS Quarterly 2013; 37(2): 511–536.
  5. Wolfgang B, Schmid O. The right digital strategy for your business: An empirical analysis of the design and implementation of digital strategies in SMEs and LSEs. Business Research 2020; 13(1): 985–1005.
  6. Nambisans S. Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 2017; 41(6): 1029–1055.
  7. Schumpeter JA. The Theory of Economic Development; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1934.
  8. Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW. Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation. Organization Science 2009; 20(4): 696–717.
  9. Grover V, Kohlir X. Revealing Your Hand: Caveats in Implementing Digital Business Strategy. MIS Quarterly 2013; 37(2): 655–662.
  10. Porter ME, Heppelmann JE. How Smart, Connected Products Are Transforming Competition. Harvard Business Review 2014; 92(11): 64–88.
  11. Nambisan S, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A, Song M. Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management Research in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly 2017; 41(1): 223–238.
  12. Iansiti M, Lakhani KR. Digital Ubiquity: How Connections, Sensors, and Data Are Revolutionizing Business. Harvard Business Review 2014; 92(11): 91–99.
  13. Wirtz BW, Schilke O, Ullrich S. Strategic Development of Business Models: Implications of the Web 2.0 for Creating Value on the Internet. Long Range Planning 2010; 43(2): 272–90.
  14. Barrett M, Davidson E, Prabhu J, Vargo SL. Service Innovation in the Digital Age: Key Contributions and Future Directions. MIS Quarterly 2015; 39(1): 135–154.
  15. Kalyanam K, Lal R, Wolfram G. Future Store Technologies and Their Impact on Grocery Retailing in Retailing in the 21st Century: Current and Future Trends; Prentice-Hall: New York, NJ, USA, 2010.
  16. Lee C, Ho JC. A Framework for Analyzing Business Model Innovation in Mobile Commerce. Journal of International Technology and Information Management 2010; 19(4): 37–II.
  17. Bharadwaj A, El Sawy OA, Pavlou PA. Digital Business Strategy: Toward A Next Generation of Insights. MIS Quarterly 2013; 37(2): 471–482.
  18. Bharadwaj AS, Pavlou PA. Visions and Voices on Emerging Challenges in Digital Business Strategy. MIS Quarterly 2013; 37(2): 633–661.
  19. Bharadway N, Noble CH. Finding Innovation in Data Rich Environments. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2016; 34(5): 560–564.
  20. Lyytinen K, Yoo Y, Boland RJ. Digital Product Innovation Within Four Classes of Innovation Networks. Information Systems Journal 2016; 26(1): 47–75.
  21. Hui G. How the Internet of Things Changes Business Models; Harvard Business Review: Boston, MA, USA, 2014.
  22. Marion TJ, Meyer MH, Barczak G. The Influence of Digital Design and IT on Modular Product Architecture. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2015; 32(1): 98–110.
  23. March JG. Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization Science 1991; 2(1): 71–87.
  24. Kock A, Gemunden HG. Antecedents to Decision-Making Quality and Agility in Innovation Portfolio Management. Journal of Product Innovation Management 2016; 33(6): 670–686.
  25. Lubatkin MH, Simsek Z, Ling Y, Veiga JF. Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioural Integration. Journal of Management 2006; 32(1): 646–672.
  26. Mintzberg H, Quinn JB. Five Ps for Strategy in the Strategy Process. Prentice-Hall: Englewood, NJ, USA, 1992.
  27. Burns T, Stalker GM. The Management of Innovation; Tavistock: London, UK, 1961.
  28. O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML. Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovators Dilemma. Research in Organizational Behaviour 2008; 28(2): 185–206.
  29. Choi YC. Achieving Temporal Ambidexterity: CEO Turnover and Firm’S Shift Between Exploration and Exploitation. Academy of Management Proceedings 2014; 4(1): 127–257.
  30. Martin N, Deimlers K. Adaptive Leadership Theory; Harvard Business Review: Boston, MA, USA, 2011.
  31. Sacramento C, Fay D, West M. Workplace Duties or Opportunities? Challenge Stressors, Regulatory Focus, and Creativity. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 2013; 12(1): 141–157.
  32. Teece DJ. Explicating Dynamic Capabilities: The Nature and Micro-Foundations of (Sustainable) Enterprise Performance. Strategic Management Journal 2007; 28(2): 1319–1350.
  33. Heifetz R, Linsky M. Becoming an Adaptive Leader. Lifelong Faith 2011; 2(1): 26–33.
  34. O’Connell D, Mcneeley E, Hall D. Unpacking Personal Adaptability at Work. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 2008; 14(3): 248–259.
  35. Heifetz R, Linsky M, Groshow A. The Practice of Adaptive Leadership; Harvard Business School: Boston, MA, USA, 2009.
  36. Lahcen F, Yachou AY. Suggested Adaptive Leadership Principles in Marketing Environment. European Journal of Business and Management 2012; 4(9): 71–74.
  37. Eaterby-Smith M, Prieto I. Dynamic Capabilities and Knowledge Management: An Interactive Role for Learning. British Journal of Management 2008; 19(2): 235–549.
  38. Yoo Y, Boland RJ, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A. Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World. Organization Science 2012; 23(5): 1398–1408.
  39. Sekayi D, Kennedy A. Qualitative Delphi Method: a Four Round Process with a Worked Example. the Qualitative Report 2017; 22(10): 2755–2763.
  40. Christensen L, Johnson R, Turner L. Research Methods, Design and Analysis; Pearson Education: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2013.
  41. Avella JR. Delphi Panels: Research Design, Procedures, Advantages, and Challenges. International Journal of Doctoral Studies 2016; 11: 305–321.
  42. Gill J, Johnson P, Clark M. Research methods for managers. New York: SAGE, 2016.
  43. Vernon W. A Delphi Technique: A Review. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation 2009; 16(2): 69–76.
  44. Creswell J. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014.
  45. Simmons G, Palmer M, Yann T. Inscribing Value on Business Model Innovations: Insights from Industrial Projects Commercializing Disruptive Digital Innovations. Industrial Marketing Management 2013; 42(5): 744–754.
  46. Smith WK, Binns A, Tushma ML. Complex Business Models: Managing Strategic Paradoxes Simultaneously. Long Range Planning 2010; 43(2): 448–461.
  47. Raisch S, Birkinshaw J. Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents, Outcomes, and Moderators. Journal of Management 2008; 34(2): 375–409.

Supporting Agencies

  1. Funding: N/A