Summary Tripsas, M. and G. Gavetti (2000). Capabilities, Cognition, and Inertia: Evidence from Digital Imaging. & O'Reilly C., Tushman M., (2008). Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator’s Dilemma.
Business Module Master NHTV 14.12.2012
Summaries:
Tripsas, M. and G. Gavetti (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging.
This paper investigates the case study of Polaroid Corporation. Examining the historical development of this firm, Tripsas and Gavetti are giving attention to the changing capabilities and beliefs in the evolution of Polaroid. This firm was once a very successful company, they owned a lot of patents and a strong market position, but with the radical technological change in the imaging industry, the invention and production of digital film, their business model of cheap hardware and expensive software - the razor/blade model - didn‘t work out anymore. Although they had the knowledge, organizational and learning capabilities to adapt this new trend, the senior management did not invest in the production and hold on to the old path. This became an popular example for the innovation success trap referred to Levinthal and March(1993) and another paper of March(1991), However, Polaroid is back to business, thanks to trend changes in consumers interest and their development in technology and product change. Another example, similar to the Polaroid case could be Xerox. They invented the graphical user interface, but did not use it, so Apple did. References:
Levinthal, D. A. & March, J. G. (1993). ‘The myopia of lear ning’. Strategic Management Journal , 14, 95–112. March, J. G. (1991). ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. Van Oorschot, K.E., Romme, A.G.L. & Walrave, B. (2011). Getting Trapped in the Suppression of Exploration: A Simulation Model. Journal of management studies : JMS. - Oxford : Blackwell, ISSN 0022-2380, ZDB-ID 2424976. - Vol. 48.2011, 8, p. 1727-1752.
---> marked with 10 Points
O 'Reilly C., Tushman M., (2008). Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator’s Dilemma.
This paper is about facing changes and how companies
Summaries:
Tripsas, M. and G. Gavetti (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: evidence from digital imaging.
This paper investigates the case study of Polaroid Corporation. Examining the historical development of this firm, Tripsas and Gavetti are giving attention to the changing capabilities and beliefs in the evolution of Polaroid. This firm was once a very successful company, they owned a lot of patents and a strong market position, but with the radical technological change in the imaging industry, the invention and production of digital film, their business model of cheap hardware and expensive software - the razor/blade model - didn‘t work out anymore. Although they had the knowledge, organizational and learning capabilities to adapt this new trend, the senior management did not invest in the production and hold on to the old path. This became an popular example for the innovation success trap referred to Levinthal and March(1993) and another paper of March(1991), However, Polaroid is back to business, thanks to trend changes in consumers interest and their development in technology and product change. Another example, similar to the Polaroid case could be Xerox. They invented the graphical user interface, but did not use it, so Apple did. References:
Levinthal, D. A. & March, J. G. (1993). ‘The myopia of lear ning’. Strategic Management Journal , 14, 95–112. March, J. G. (1991). ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. Van Oorschot, K.E., Romme, A.G.L. & Walrave, B. (2011). Getting Trapped in the Suppression of Exploration: A Simulation Model. Journal of management studies : JMS. - Oxford : Blackwell, ISSN 0022-2380, ZDB-ID 2424976. - Vol. 48.2011, 8, p. 1727-1752.
---> marked with 10 Points
O 'Reilly C., Tushman M., (2008). Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator’s Dilemma.
This paper is about facing changes and how companies
References: Levinthal, D. A. & March, J. G. (1993). ‘The myopia of lear ning’. Strategic Management Journal , 14, 95–112. March, J. G. (1991). ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’. Organization Science, 2, 71–87. Van Oorschot, K.E., Romme, A.G.L. & Walrave, B. (2011). Getting Trapped in the Suppression of Exploration: A Simulation Model. Journal of management studies : JMS. - Oxford : Blackwell, ISSN 0022-2380, ZDB-ID 2424976. - Vol. 48.2011, 8, p. 1727-1752. ---> marked with 10 Points O 'Reilly C., Tushman M., (2008). Ambidexterity as a Dynamic Capability: Resolving the Innovator’s Dilemma. This paper is about facing changes and how companies survive in this continuing process of innovation.There is one definition in the focus of this article: Ambidexterity. This is the capability of an enterprise to explore and exploit at the same time. There are two sides of argumentation in the research on organizational change. One that discusses adaptation and another arguing that if the competitive landscape changes, inactive organizational structures are replaced by new ones that suits more to the changes in the environment. Companies should think about to explore new strategies and sections, while they are also exploiting their own actual capabilities. As seen in the case study of Polaroid, strategic contradictions could have been resolved by the senior managers, but they just sticked to exploitation of their original products and did not support the exploration of new technologies in a time of environmental change. Leadership and management are directing a company and their decisions are of most importance for a company‘s success. Efficiency and innovation don‘t need to be strategic tradeoffs, but they can complement each other. --> marked with 7,5 points