Bob Walrave

Getting trapped in the suppression of exploration : a simulation model

The benefits of strategically balancing exploitation and exploration are well documented in the literature. However, many firms tend to overemphasize exploitation efforts, even in the face of the strong need to step up their exploration activities. We draw on system dynamics modeling and a case study to address this gap in the literature, and develop a theoretical framework of ambidexterity as a capacitated delay process. This framework describes how the interplay between cognitive processes and motivational factors at the top management level severely limits the formation of ambidextrous capability. As such, this paper provides a micro-level theory of how individual and interactional processes at the managerial level inhibit the development of ambidextrous capability.

How to counteract the suppression of exploration in publicly traded corporations

Top management teams frequently overemphasize efforts to exploit the current product portfolio, even in the face of the strong need to step up exploration activities. This mismanagement of the balance between explorative R&D activities and exploitation of the current product portfolio can result in the so‐called success trap, the situation where explorative activities are fully suppressed. The success trap constitutes a serious threat to the long‐term viability of a firm. Recent studies of publicly traded corporations suggest that the suppression of exploration arises from the interplay among the executive teams myopic forces, the board of directors as gatekeeper of the capital market, and the exploitation–exploration investments and their outcomes. In this paper, system dynamics modeling serves to identify and test ways in which top management teams can counteract this suppression process. For instance, we find that when the executive board is suppressing exploration, the board of directors can still prevent the success trap by actively intervening in the exploitation–exploration strategy.

The Application of Team Flow Theory

Despite the noted potential for ‘team flow’ to enhance a team’s effectiveness, productivity, performance, and capabilities, studies on the construct are scarce. Most research on flow has been conducted either at the individual level, which generally constitutes the experience of complete absorption while working on a task, or at the artistic ensemble level, which reflects a gestalt group experience. But, team flow in the work environment, where teams differ from performance groups, has not yet been studied or reported. One of the reasons for this is the difficulty applying theories of flow to the team level, because the research on flow, group flow, and team dynamics does not readily gel. In this chapter, however, we will briefly discuss the precursors and components of team flow and its consequences. We will also describe how these precursors and components work by giving some examples of team flow experiences in different environments. Our analysis provides both theoretical insights into the causes of the emergence of team flow and practical suggestions for work teams to foster team flow experiences.

Why, when, and how to combine system dynamics with other methods: Towards an evidence-based framework

Abstract Combining system dynamics (SD) modelling with other research methods serves to articulate complex problems and explore potential solutions and policies. A growing number of studies draw on SD in combination with at least one other method, but there is hardly any knowledge about why, when, and how to make such combinations. We address this gap by conducting a systematic literature review of studies that have combined SD with at least one other method. Our findings are synthesised in an evidence-based framework that demonstrates why, when, and how SD is combined with other methods. This framework provides a point of reference for those who want to go beyond stand-alone SD modelling. In addition, this paper contributes to the multi-methodology literature by consolidating an area in which substantial experience in combining methods has been gained.

Internal alignment and external viability of innovation ecosystems: A multi-level perspective

Path-breaking innovations are increasingly developed and commercialized by networks of co-creating actors, so-called innovation ecosystems. Previous work in this area has demonstrated that, to create and appropriate value, ecosystem actors should align their activities. The effort of a focal venture to bring its ecosystem actors to alignment can be coined the internal development of the ecosystem. However, literature has largely overlooked that the success of the innovation ecosystem also depends on its external viability in the socio- technical environment. Path-breaking innovations inherently challenge the prevailing socio-technical regime (e.g., established infrastructure, rules and artifacts) that is resistant to change. We develop a systemic multi- level perspective on how a focal venture develops an innovation ecosystem for path- breaking innovation so that it is both internally aligned and externally viable.