Gå til innholdScholarGate
BibliotekMitt bibliotekPultenReview StudioAssistent
Logg inn
Innovation Ambidexterity Scale/Bevis
Metodebevisregister

Innovation Ambidexterity Scale

Innovation Ambidexterity—the organizational capacity to simultaneously engage in exploration (pursuing radical, novel innovations) and exploitation (improving and extending existing products and processes)—is fundamental to sustained competitive advantage. March (1991) formalized this trade-off in Organization Science, arguing that organizations must balance the two to survive and thrive. Exploration alone leads to variety but insufficient returns; exploitation alone leads to competence traps and vulnerability to disruption. This scale, operationalized by He and Wong (2004) and extended by Jansen et al. (2006), measures organizational capability in both domains and the degree to which firms balance competing innovation imperatives.

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Kilderegister

Siteringer kopiert ordrett fra metodens kilderegister. Ingen påstandsnivåverifisering er underforstått fra dem.

Organizational Ambidexterity (Exploration-Exploitation) Scale
Taksonomisk metoderegister · process-pipeline / strategic-management
  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. · DOI 10.1287/orsc.2.1.71
  • He, Z. L., & Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494. · DOI 10.1287/orsc.1040.0078
  • Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674. · DOI 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0576
Åpne full metode

Kuraterte påstander

Påstander lagret i bevishovedboken, hver med sin egen vurdering.

Ingen kuraterte påstander ennå

Denne visningen finner ikke opp en påstandsvurdering når hovedboken ikke har noen.

Relaterte metoder

Generert fra metodegrafen og vist som maskinforslåtte relasjoner – ingen bevispåstand er underforstått.

Same method familyAbsorptive Capacity Scalemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyDynamic Capabilities Scalemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyEntrepreneurial Orientation Scalemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyMarket Sensing Capability Scalemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.Same method familyStrategic Orientation Scalemachine-suggested · Relational suggestion, not evidence.

Bevisstatus

Sources recorded, not reviewed

Bibliographic sources are present. Claim-level evidence review has not been performed.

Kilder

3 registrerte siteringer, kopiert fra metodens kilderegister.

Handlinger

Åpne metodeside
ScholarGate

Et innholdsfokusert oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder — hva hver metode er, hvordan den fungerer, og hvor den kommer fra.

Åpne data (CC-BY)

Oppdag

  • Bibliotek
  • Søk i metoder…
  • Bla etter fagfelt
  • Fagfelt
  • Reise
  • Sammenlign
  • Hvilken metode?

Referanse

  • Fagområder
  • Atlas
  • Ordliste
  • Metodikk
  • Filosofi

Arbeidsområde

  • Mitt bibliotek
  • Pulten
  • Chat

Selskap

  • Om
  • Priser
  • Kontakt
  • Foreslå en metode

Oppføringene er sammenstilt fra publiserte kilder til referansebruk. Å kontrollere at informasjonen er korrekt og egnet for ditt eget bruk, er fremdeles ditt eget ansvar.

© 2026 ScholarGate · Et oppslagsbibliotek for forskningsmetoder
  • Personvern
  • Informasjonskapsler
  • Vilkår
  • Slett konto