Achieving alliance ambidexterity through managing paradoxes of cooperation: A new theoretical framework. Issue 2 (6th May 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sun, Biao; Lo, Yi-Ju
• Is Part Of: European journal of innovation management. Volume 17:Issue 2(2014)
• Page Start: 144
• Page End: 165
• Publication Date: 2014-05-06
• Subjects: Ambidexterity -- Co-exploitation -- Co-exploration -- Interorganizational learning -- R&D alliances; Technological innovations -- Periodicals; Technological innovations -- Europe -- Periodicals; Diffusion of innovations -- Periodicals; Research, Industrial -- Periodicals; 658.4062
• DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-01-2013-0011
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1460-1060

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: – The purpose of this paper is to define co-exploitation, co-exploration, and alliance ambidexterity from the perspective of organizational learning; to analyze how knowledge bases, structural arrangements, and control mechanisms of R&D alliances influence co-exploitation and co-exploration; and to discuss how to achieve alliance ambidexterity by managing paradoxes around knowledge bases, structural arrangements, and control mechanisms. Design/methodology/approach: – This is a conceptual paper focussing on how to balance exploitation and exploration at the alliance level through managing three paradoxes of cooperation: similarity vs complementarity, integration vs modularity, and contracts vs trust. Findings: – While technological similarity, structural integration, and contracts are more likely to promote co-exploitation, technological complementarity, structural modularity, and trust are more likely to facilitate co-exploration. Alliance ambidexterity, which is beneficial for alliance performance, derives from either the combination of technological complementarity, structural integration, and contracts, or the combination of technological similarity, structural modularity, and trust temporally. Research limitations/implications: – Researchers should analyze the possibility of building alliance ambidexterity in other types of interorganizational relationships, and find other possible antecedents of interorganizational learning. Practical implications: – Managers should not simply treat R&D alliances as one of exploratory interorganizational relationships, but pay equal attention to co-exploitation and co-exploration. To achieve this balance, practitioners should combine technological complementarity with structural integration and contracts, or integrate technological similarity with structural modularity and trust. Originality/value: – This paper is one of the first contributions that analyze how an R&D alliance could gain its ambidexterity through the management of nested cooperation paradoxes.