Configurations for Achieving Organizational Ambidexterity with Digitization

References

• Adler PS, Goldoftas B, Levine DI (1999) Flexibility vs. efficiency: A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organ. Sci. 10(1):4–68.Link, Google Scholar
• Andries P, Czarnitzki D (2014) Small firm innovation performance and employee involvement. Small Bus. Econom. 43(1):21–38.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Attewell P (1992) Technology diffusion and organizational learning: The case of business computing. Organ. Sci. 3(1):1–19.Link, Google Scholar
• Aubert BA, Kishore R, Iriyama A (2015) Exploring and managing the “innovation through outsourcing” paradox. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 24(4):255–269.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Auh S, Menguc B (2005) Balancing exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of competitive intensity. J. Bus. Res. 58(12):1652–1661.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barki H, Pinsonneault A (2005) A model of organizational integration, implementation effort, and performance. Organ. Sci. 16(2):165–179.Link, Google Scholar
• Baskerville R, Pawlowski S, McLean E (2000) Enterprise resource planning and organizational knowledge: Patterns of convergence and divergence. 21st Internat. Conf. Inform. Systems, Brisbane, Australia, 396–406.Google Scholar
• Benner MJ, Tushman ML (2003) Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisted. Acad. Management Rev. 28(2):238–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bensaou M, Venkatraman N (1995) Configurations of interorganizational relationships: A comparison between U.S. and Japanese automakers. Management Sci. 41(9):1471–1492.Link, Google Scholar
• Bharadwaj A, El Sawy OA, Pavlou PA, Venkatraman V (2013) Digital business strategy: Toward a next generation of insights. MIS Quart. 37(2):471–482.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Boumgarden P, Nickerson J, Zenger TR (2012) Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation and organizational performance. Strategic Management J. 33(6):587–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM (1997) The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Admin. Sci. Quart. 42(1):1–34.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burton-Jones A, Gallivan MJ (2007) Toward a deeper understanding of system usage in organizations: A multilevel perspective. MIS Quart. 31(4):657–680.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell JT, Sirmon DG, Schijven MPG (2016) Fuzzy logic and the market: A configurational approach to investor perceptions of acquisition announcements. Acad. Management J. 59(1):163–187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cao Q, Gedajlovic E, Zhang H (2009) Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organ. Sci. 20(4):781–796.Link, Google Scholar
• Cao L, Mohan K, Ramesh B, Sarkar S (2013) Evolution of governance: Achieving ambidexterity in IT outsourcing. J. Management Inform. Systems 30(3):115–140.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chakravarty A, Grewal R, Sambamurthy V (2013) Information technology competencies, organizational agility, and firm performance: Enabling and facilitating roles. Inform. Systems Res. 24(4):398–417.Link, Google Scholar
• Cooper R, Zmud R (1990) Information technology implementation research: A technological diffusion approach. Management Sci. 36(2):123–139.Link, Google Scholar
• Daft RL, Lengel RH (1986) Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design. Management Sci. 32(5):554–571.Link, Google Scholar
• Dawson GS, Denford JS, Williams CK, Preston D, Desouza KC (2016) An examination of effective IT governance in the public sector using the legal view of agency theory. J. Management Inform. Systems 33(4):1180–1208.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DeLone WH, McLean ER (1992) Information systems success: The quest for the dependent variable. Inform. Systems Res. 3(1):60–95.Link, Google Scholar
• Dos Santos BL, Zheng Z, Mookerjee VS, Chen H (2012) Are new IT-enabled investment opportunities diminishing for firms? Inform. Systems Res. 23(2):287–305.Link, Google Scholar
• Duncan R (1976) The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. Killman RH, Pondy LR, Sleven D, eds. The Management of Organization (North-Holland, New York), 167–188.Google Scholar
• Ebben JJ, Johnson AC (2005) Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to performance in small firms. Strategic Management J. 26(13):1249–1259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• El Sawy OA, Malhotra A, Park Y, Pavlou PA (2010) Seeking the configurations of digital ecodynamics: It takes three to tango. Inform. Systems Res. 21(4):835–848.Link, Google Scholar
• Fichman RG (2004) Going beyond the dominant paradigm for information technology innovation research: Emerging concepts and methods. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 5(8):314–355.Google Scholar
• Fiss P (2007) A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad. Management Rev. 32(4):1180–1198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiss P (2011) Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad. Management J. 54(2):393–420.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Frambach RT, Fiss PC, Ingenbleek PTM (2016) How important is customer orientation for firm performance? A fuzzy set analysis of orientations, strategies, and environments. J. Bus. Res. 69(4):1428–1436.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gaimon C, Özkan GF, Napoleon K (2011) Dynamic resource capabilities: Managing workforce knowledge with a technology upgrade. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1560–1578.Link, Google Scholar
• Galbraith J (1973) Designing Complex Organizations (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Management J. 47(2):209–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greckhamer T, Misangyi VF, Fiss PC (2013) The two QCAs: From a small-N to a large-N set theoretic approach. Fiss PC, Cambré B, Marx A, eds. Configurational Theory and Methods in Organizational Research (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 49–75.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregor S (2006) The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Quart. 30(3):611–642.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregory RW, Keil M, Muntermann J, Mahring M (2015) Paradoxes and the nature of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs. Inform. Systems Res. 26(1):57–80.Link, Google Scholar
• Gulati R (1998) Alliances and networks. Strategic Management J. 19(4):293–317.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gupta S, Bostrom R (2013) An investigation of the appropriation of technology-mediated training methods incorporating enactive and collaborative learning. Inform. Systems Res. 24(2):454–469.Link, Google Scholar
• Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE (2006) The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad. Management J. 49(4):693–706.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hansen MT, Mors ML, Lovas B (2005) Knowledge sharing in organizations: Multiple networks, multiple phases. Acad. Management J. 48(5):776–793.Crossref, Google Scholar
• He Z, Wong P (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organ. Sci. 15:481–494.Link, Google Scholar
• Henfridsson O, Bygstad B (2013) The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution. MIS Quart. 37(3):907–931.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hitt LM (1999) Information technology and firm boundaries: Evidence from panel data. Inform. Systems Res. 10(2):134–150.Link, Google Scholar
• Holmqvist M (2004) Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organ. Sci. 15(1):70–81.Link, Google Scholar
• Im G, Rai A (2008) Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Sci. 54(7):1281–1296.Link, Google Scholar
• Im G, Rai A (2014) IT-enabled coordination for ambidextrous interorganizational relationships. Inform. Systems Res. 25(1):72–92.Link, Google Scholar
• Jansen JJP, Tempelaar MP, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2009) Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organ. Sci. 20(4):797–811.Link, Google Scholar
• Jansen JJP, van den Bosch FAJ, Volberda HW (2006) Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Sci. 52(11):1661–1674.Link, Google Scholar
• Jasperson J, Carter PF, Zmud R (2005) A comprehensive conceptualization of the post-adoptive behaviors associated with IT-enabled work systems. MIS Quart. 29(3):525–558.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kane GC, Alavi M (2007) Information technology and organizational learning: An investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organ. Sci. 18(5):796–812.Link, Google Scholar
• Karim S, Kaul A (2015) Structural recombination and innovation: Unlocking intraorganizational knowledge synergy through structural change. Organ. Sci. 26(2):439–455.Link, Google Scholar
• Karim S, Somers TM, Bhattacherjee A (2007) The impact of ERP implementation on business process outcomes: A factor-based study. J. Management Inform. Systems 24(1):101–134.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kauppila OP (2010) Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organ. 8(4):283–312.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kogut B, Zander U (1992) Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organ. Sci. 3(2):383–397.Link, Google Scholar
• Lavie D, Kang J, Rosenkopf L (2011) Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organ. Sci. 22(6):1517–1538.Link, Google Scholar
• Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML (2010) Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. Acad. Management Ann. 4(1):109–155.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee C, Wu H, Liu C (2013) Contextual determinants of ambidextrous learning: Evidence from industrial firms in four industrialized countries. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 60(3):529–540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee J, Park Y, Straub D, Koo Y (2019) Holistic archetypes of IT outsourcing strategy: A contingency fit and configurational approach. MIS Quart. 43(4):1201–1225.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee OD, Sambamurthy V, Lim KH, Wei KK (2015) How does IT ambidexterity impact organizational agility. Inform. Systems Res. 26(2):398–417.Link, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. 14(S2):95–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Liang H, Xue Y, Wu L (2013) Ensuring employees’ IT compliance: Carrot or stick? Inform. Systems Res. 24(2):279–294.Link, Google Scholar
• Lyytinen K, Rose GM (2006) Information system development agility as organizational learning. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 15(2):183–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malhotra A, Gosain S, El Sawy OA (2007) Leveraging standard electronic business interfaces to enable adaptive supply chain partnerships. Inform. Systems Res. 18(3):1–20.Link, Google Scholar
• Majchrzak A, Markus ML (2013) Technology affordances and constraints theory (of MIS). Kessler EH, ed. Encyclopedia of Management Theory (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA), 832–836.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Meyer AD, Tsui AS, Hinings CR (1993) Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Acad. Management J. 36(6):1175–1195.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Misangyi VF, Acharya AG (2014) Substituting or complements? A configurational examination of corporate governance mechanisms. Acad. Management J. 57(6):1681–1705.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nambisan S (2003) Information systems as a reference discipline for mew product development. MIS Quart. 27(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2013) Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Acad. Management Perspect. 27(4):324–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park Y, Mithas M (2020) Organized complexity of digital business strategy: A configurational perspective. MIS Quart. 44(1):85–127.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Park Y, El Sawy OA, Fiss P (2017) The role of business intelligence and communication technologies in organizational agility: A configurational approach. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 18(9):648–686.Google Scholar
• Park Y, Fiss P, El Sawy OA (2020) Theorizing the multiplicity of digital phenomena: The ecology of configurations, causal recipes, and guidelines for applying QCA. MIS Quart. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pavlou PA, El Sawy OA (2006) From IT leveraging competence to competitive advantage in turbulent environments: The case of new product development. Inform. Systems Res. 17(3):198–227.Link, Google Scholar
• Ragin CC (1994) Constructing Social Research: The Unity and Diversity of Method (Pine Forge Press, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Ragin CC (2008) Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Set and Beyond (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raisch S, Birkinshaw J (2008) Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J. Management 34(3):375–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ramesh B, Mohan K, Cao L (2012) Ambidexterity in agile distributed development: An empirical investigation. Inform. Systems Res. 23(2):323–339.Link, Google Scholar
• Rihoux B, Ragin CC (2009) Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rivard S, Lapointe L (2012) Information technology implementers’ responses to user resistance: Nature and effects. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 36(3):897–920.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robey D, Ross JW, Boudreau M (2002) Learning to implement enterprise systems: An exploratory study of the dialectics of change. J. Management Inform. Systems 19(1):17–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL (2004) Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management J. 25(3):201–221.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sahaym A, Steensma HK, Schilling MA (2007) The influence of information technology on the use of loosely coupled organizational forms: An industry-level analysis. Organ. Sci. 18(5):865–880.Link, Google Scholar
• Sambamurthy V, Zmud RW (1999) Arrangements for information technology governance: A theory of multiple contingencies. MIS Quart. 23(2):261–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sambamurthy V, Zmud RW (2000) The organizing logic for an enterprise’s IT activities in the digital era—a prognosis of practice and a call for research. Inform. Systems Res. 11(2):105–114.Link, Google Scholar
• Sambamurthy V, Bharadwaj A, Grover V (2003) Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of IT in contemporary firms. MIS Quart. 27(2):237–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Santhanam R, Seligman L, Kang D (2007) Postimplementation knowledge transfers to users and information technology professionals. J. Management Inform. Systems 24(1):171–199.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Saraf N, Liang H, Xue Y, Hu Q (2013) How does organizational absorptive capacity matter during the assimilation of enterprise information systems? Inform. Systems J. 23(3):245–267.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott JE (2000) Facilitating interorganizational learning with information technology. J. Management Inform. Systems 17(2):81–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sharma R, Yetton P (2007) The contingent effects of training, technical complexity, and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS Quart. 31(2):219–238.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sykes TA, Venkatesh V, Gosain S (2009) Model of acceptance with peer support: A social network perspective to understand employees’ system use. MIS Quart. 33(2):371–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tallon PP, Pinsonneault A (2011) Competing perspectives on the link between strategic information technology alignment and organizational agility: Insights from a mediating model. MIS Quart. 35(2):463–486.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tilson D, Lyytinen K, Sorensen C (2010) Digital infrastructures: The missing IS research agenda. Inform. Systems Res. 21(4):748–759.Link, Google Scholar
• Tiwana A (2014) Platform Ecosystems: Aligning Architecture, Governance, and Strategy (Elsevier, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Rev. 38(4):8–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 27(3):425–478.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vessey I, Ward K (2013) The dynamics of sustainable IS alignment: The case for IS adaptivity. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 14(6):283–311.Google Scholar
• Yoo Y, Henfridsson O, Lyytinen K (2010) The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Inform. Systems Res. 21(4):724–735.Link, Google Scholar
• Yoo Y, Boland Jr J, Lyytinen K, Majchrzak A (2012) Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1398–1408.Link, Google Scholar
• Zammuto RF, Griffith TL, Majchrzak A, Dougherty DJ, Faraj S (2007) Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organ. Sci. 18(5):749–762.Link, Google Scholar
• Zatzick CD, Iverson RD (2006) High involvement management and workforce reduction: Competitive advantage or disadvantage? Acad. Management J. 49(5):999–1015.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zmud RW (1982) Diffusion of modern software practices: influence of centralization and formalization. Management Sci. 28(12):1421–1431.Link, Google Scholar