Journal of Knowledge Management

Information technology, knowledge management and environmental dynamism as drivers of innovation

ambidexterity: a study in SMEs
Pedro Soto-Acosta, Simona Popa, Isabel Martinez-Conesa,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Pedro Soto-Acosta, Simona Popa, Isabel Martinez-Conesa, (2018) "Information technology, knowledge management and
environmental dynamism as drivers of innovation ambidexterity: a study in SMEs", Journal of Knowledge Management,
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0448
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0448
Downloaded on: 15 February 2018, At: 19:23 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 88 other documents.
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:514693 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 Information technology, knowledge
management and environmental
dynamism as drivers of innovation
ambidexterity: a study in SMEs
Pedro Soto-Acosta, Simona Popa, Isabel Martinez-Conesa
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

Abstract Pedro Soto-Acosta is

Purpose – The purpose of this study is to assess the effect of technological, organizational and Professor at the
environmental factors on innovation ambidexterity and its influence on the performance of manufacturing Department of
small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as the moderating effect environmental dynamism Management and Finance,
on this relationship. University of Murcia,
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on the Technology–Organization–Environment theory and Murcia, Spain.
the Knowledge-Based View, this paper develops an integrative research model, which analyzes the Simona Popa is based at
network of relations using covariance-based structural equation modeling on a data set of 429 Spanish the Department of Business
SMEs.
Administration, Universidad
Findings – The results show that information technology capability, knowledge management capability
Catolica San Antonio de
and environmental dynamism are positively associated with innovation ambidexterity. In addition,
Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
environmental dynamism is found to strengthen the positive effect of innovation ambidexterity on firm
performance. Isabel Martinez-Conesa is
Practical implications – The study findings support the idea that innovation can be developed in an Professor at the
ambidextrous manner within a single SME as long as the firm is capable of creating a suitable Department of Financial
organizational context and giving a prompt response to changes in the business environment. Economics and
Originality/value – Although many studies have highlighted that being ambidextrous is more Accounting, Universidad
challenging for SMEs than for their larger counterparts, the vast majority of studies has been conducted in de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
large companies. This paper extends prior literature by analyzing antecedents and outcomes of
innovation ambidexterity in manufacturing SMEs.
Keywords IT capability, Firm performance, Innovation ambidexterity, Environmental dynamism,
KM capability
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
In the current economic context, featured by the competitive intensity and the acceleration
of technological change, the innovative capacity of firms is considered to be crucial for
current and future competitiveness (Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2015; Soto-Acosta et al.,
2017). The most successful firms are believed to be those who can balance explorative and
exploitative innovation ambidextrously (Chang and Hughes, 2012). The notion of
ambidexterity has increasingly come to dominate theories on organizational adaptation,
organization design, organizational learning and technological innovation (Raisch and
Birkinshaw, 2008). Although it was first introduced by Duncan (1976), it is March’s (1991)
Received 1 October 2017
article that is frequently cited as the catalyst for the current interest in the concept. March Revised 30 December 2017
proposes that exploitation and exploration are two fundamentally different learning activities Accepted 7 January 2018

DOI 10.1108/JKM-10-2017-0448 © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j
 between which firms divide their attention and resources. Given the inherent challenges of
maintaining a balance between the two activities, March (1991) claims that firms run the risk
of being mediocre at both. However, despite the challenges involved, March (1991)
believes that firms should pursue both types of activities.
To solve the paradox of ambidexterity recent research has presented a range of
organizational alternatives, such as:
n structural separation (Benner and Tushman, 2003; Puranam et al., 2006; Tushman
et al., 2010), which involves creating exploration-oriented units to work alongside
exploitation-oriented units;
n temporal separation (Puranam et al., 2006; Siggelkow and Levinthal, 2003), which
involves an organization switching back and forth over time between exploration and
exploitation;
n inter-organizational specialization (Hill and Birkinshaw, 2014; Lavie et al., 2010),
through which organizations engage in joint ventures, alliances, acquisitions or
outsourcing to complement the (typically exploitative) dominant modality of their
activities; and
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

n shaping an organization context (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Gulati and Puranam,
2009) that supports individuals in making choices about dividing their time between
exploration and exploitation.

Structural, temporal and inter-organizational solutions are based on the assumption that
exploitative and explorative activities are absolutely incompatible (Chang and Hughes,
2012). However, the separation of conflicting innovation activities is not consistent with
recent research that suggests that both types of innovation can be developed
simultaneously within a single firm as long as firms are capable of creating a suitable
organizational context (O’Reilly and Tushman, 2008). Therefore, it is important to advance
the knowledge on the antecedents that motivate or prevent firms from establishing an
adequate organizational context for performing innovation in an ambidextrous fashion.
Although many studies have highlighted that being ambidextrous is more challenging for
small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) than for their larger counterparts, the vast
majority of studies has been conducted in large companies. Because of greater resource
constrains, smaller firms are substantially different from larger firms in perusing innovation
ambidexterity (Cao et al., 2009; Ebben and Johnson, 2005). Thus, prescriptions for
ambidexterity in large firms could result either inappropriate or inconvenient when applied
to SMEs (Chang and Hughes, 2012). In this sense, researchers acknowledge that there is a
need for further research on the antecedents of innovation ambidexterity in the specific
context of SMEs. In addition, prior research has mainly analyzed the direct relationship
between ambidexterity and firm performance, with very few studies (e.g. Chang and
Hughes, 2012; He and Wong, 2004; Patel et al., 2013) analyzing contingent factors.
Consistent with Technology–Organization–Environment (TOE) framework, the objective of
this study is to assess the effect of technological, organizational and enviromental factors on
innovation ambidexterity and its influence on the performance of manufacturing SMEs as
well as if that relationship might be contingent on the environmental dynamism.
To address these issues, this paper develops and tests a research model by considering
literature that covers TOE antecedents, environmental moderators and performance
outcomes of organizational and innovation ambidexterity. The remainder of the article is
organized as follows: The next section presents the theoretical background and
hypotheses. Following that, the research methods drawing from a large sample of
manufacturing SMEs are described. Then, data analysis and results are presented. Finally,
the paper ends with a discussion of research findings, limitations and concluding remarks.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 2. Theoretical framework and hypotheses
2.1 Innovation ambidexterity
Organization theory scholars refer broadly to organizational ambidexterity as an
organization’s ability to pursue two competing objectives at the same time, such as
manufacturing efficiency and flexibility (Adler et al., 1999) or differentiation and low-cost
strategic positioning (Porter, 1980; 1996). More recently, there is an emerging consensus
among organizational scholars to frame ambidexterity in terms of the competing demands
for exploration and exploitation (Chang et al., 2011; Chang and Hughes, 2012; Gupta et al.,
2006; Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008). Ambidextrous organizations excel at exploiting
existing competencies to enable incremental innovation and at exploring new opportunities
to foster radical innovation (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009). The former refers to relatively
minor adaptations of existing products and business concepts, whereas the latter
represents fundamental changes leading to a switch from existing products or concepts to
completely new ones (Dewar and Dutton, 1986). Explorative innovations encompass
activities that are oriented toward selection, improvement and efficiency, while exploratory
innovations build upon search, discovery and experimentation. Accordingly, exploration
involves “experimentation with new alternatives” with returns that are “uncertain, and
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

distant,” and exploitation is the “refinement and extension of existing competencies,

technologies and paradigms” with returns that are “proximate and predictable” (March,
1991: 85). Thus, an ambidextrous firm is one that is capable of both exploiting existing
competencies to take advantage of existing market opportunities and of exploring new
opportunities to meet the challenges of emerging markets (He and Wong, 2004; Lubatkin
et al., 2006; Smith and Tushman, 2005). However, although most research studies on the
topic decompose ambidexterity in terms of explorative and exploitative activities, there is
some disagreement and considerable ambiguity in the literature regarding the
operationalization of ambidexterity (Cao et al., 2009; Gupta et al., 2006).
When March (1991) introduced the concepts of exploration and exploitation in the
management literature, he argued that they should be viewed as two ends of a single
continuum. In March’s characterization, trade-offs between exploration and exploitation
are seen as unavoidable. Then, ambidexterity largely involves the management of these
trade-offs to find the appropriate balance between the two. In line with this view, to measure
ambidexterity, researchers subtract exploitation from exploration and use an absolute
difference score (Cao et al., 2009; Chang and Hughes, 2012; He and Wong, 2004; Patel
et al., 2013). Another approach, which is more dominant in ambidexterity literature, is to
conceptualize exploration and exploitation as distinct and separable modes of activity such
that firms can choose to engage in high levels of both activities at the same time (Gibson
and Birkinshaw, 2004). Proponents of this approach consider exploration and exploitation
as independent variables, orthogonal to each other, and measure ambidexterity by
multiplying exploration and exploitation (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Hill and Birkinshaw,
2014; Kang and Snell, 2009; Menguc and Auh, 2008; Nemanich and Vera, 2009).
Alternative, less frequently used conceptualizations of ambidexterity include:
n considering ambidexterity as a single factor with several exploration and exploitation
items (Lubatkin et al., 2006); or
n viewing ambidexterity as a higher-order factor consisting of exploration and exploitation
as single dimensions (Wang and Rafiq, 2014).
Beyond the broad consensus that ambidexterity results from engaging in both exploration
and exploitation, it is unclear whether it involves an effort to match the magnitude of
exploration and exploitation, the combined magnitude of the two types of activities (Cao
et al., 2009) or even if ambidexterity represents a single or higher-order construct (Lubatkin
et al., 2006; Wang and Rafiq, 2014). In line with recent research, this study intends to

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 measure innovation ambidexterity as a second-order construct consisting of two factors:
exploratory innovation and exploitative innovation.
Existing literature on innovation ambidexterity has focused mainly on large and multiunit
firms (Jansen et al., 2006; Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008; Raisch et al., 2009). However,
researchers acknowledge that empirical findings in large firms cannot be generalized to
small firms. SMEs are expected to face more problems in achieving ambidexterity, as they
have restricted managerial expertise, less structured procedures and fewer formal systems
to coordinate antithetical activities. In addition, there is a consensus about the fact that
SMEs differ from larger firms on the basis of having more stringent resource limitations than
their larger counterparts, which make it more challenging for SMEs to efficiently allocate
their scarce resources to competing objectives (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009).
Consequently, prior research found evidence that SMEs tend to achieve innovation
ambidexterity differently in comparison to their larger counterparts (Cao et al., 2009).
Although these are sufficient arguments that emphasize on the difficulties of smaller firms in
achieving innovation and/or organization ambidexterity, there are very few studies analyzing
this phenomenon in the specific context of SMEs (Cao et al., 2009; Chang and Hughes,
2012; Chang et al., 2011). Moreover, although there is abundant research on the
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

relationship between innovation and/or organization ambidexterity and firm performance

(Chang and Hughes, 2012; Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; He and Wong, 2004; Patel et al.,
2013), there is a need for further studies on the variables that moderate this relationship
(Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008). As a dynamic capacity, innovation ambidexterity cannot be,
however, explained as a limited set of direct relationships of some factors on an
organization’s performance.
Existing research offers extensive theoretical argumentation about the potential of firms’
information technology (IT) capability to drive significant innovations in business processes,
products and services of firms (Del Giudice and Della Peruta, 2016; Palacios-Marqués,
et al., 2015a; Soto-Acosta et al., 2016a, 2016b). Besides technological factors, knowledge
management (KM) has been defined in literature as a key determinant of innovation (Del
Giudice et al., 2015; Martinez-Conesa et al., 2017; Soto-Acosta and Cegarra-Navarro,
2016). In addition, environmental forces are considered to generate a great pressure in the
establishment and outcome of innovation strategies (Jansen et al., 2009). In the same
venue, firms’ ability to deploy exploratory and exploitative innovations in an ambidextrous
manner may depend on the development of diverse internal capabilities, such as IT and KM
capabilities, and, at the same time, on the quick response to external pressures such as
environmental dynamism. Building on the TOE framework and the resource-based view
(RBV), this study develops a research model to assess antecedents and outcomes of
innovation ambidexterity in SMEs. The network of relations is illustrated in Figure 1 and is
elaborated further in the following subsections.

2.2 Antecedents of innovation ambidexterity

The TOE framework conceives the context of adoption and implementation of technological
innovations as consisting of three factors: the technological context, the organizational
context and the environmental context. The technological context refers to the
characteristics of the technological innovation, the organizational context describes
characteristics of the organizations and the environmental context implies characteristics of
the environment in which the adopting organizations operate (Thong, 1999; Tornatzky and
Fleischer, 1990). The TOE framework has been extensively used as the theoretical
framework to analyze factors which affect the adoption and use of different technological
innovations (Chan et al., 2012; Hsu et al., 2014; Lian et al., 2014; Palacios-Marqués, et al.,
2015b; Soto-Acosta et al., 2016a, 2016b; Zhu et al., 2010).

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Figure 1 Research model

IT-supported
operaons

Environmental Dynamism
IT Capability

IT knowledge H1
and budget H5

H2
Innovaon Firm
KM Capability
Ambidexterity Performance
H4

H3
Explotave Exploratory Control Variables
• Firm age
Environmental innovaon innovaon
• Firm size
Dynamism • Industry

Previous literature suggests that achieving innovation ambidexterity in SMEs depends on

key resources and capabilities such as IT resources (Hadjimanolis, 2000). IT infrastructure
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

by itself is typically imitable and should not be considered by firms a source of competitive
advantage (Kmieciak et al., 2012; Popa et al., 2016; Soto-Acosta and Meroño-Cerdan,
2008; Yan Xin et al., 2014). However, the alignment of IT resources along with other critical
resources at the firms’ strategy could have positive outcomes (Chen et al., 2012;
Soto-Acosta and Meroño-Cerdan, 2008). For instance, some researchers argue that using
the proper IT solutions may enhance the speed of knowledge exploration and exploitation,
from individuals to organizational members (Chen et al., 2012; Sher and Lee, 2004). The
ability of firms to mobilize and deploy IT resources in combination with other resources and
capabilities is known as IT capability (Bharadwaj, 2000; Chen et al., 2012). IT capability is
expected to enhance data collection and processing to respond timely to market changes
and to identify new business opportunities (Chaudhuri et al., 2011). In the same vein, IT
capability may enhance the exploitation of capabilities for taking advantage of existing
market opportunities and exploration of new opportunities to meet the challenges of
emerging markets. Based on these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H1. IT capability is positively associated with innovation ambidexterity.
Besides technological factors, KM has been identified in literature as a key determinant of
innovation (Andreeva and Kianto, 2011; Marqués and Simo
n, 2006). The Knowledge-Based
View (KBV) considers knowledge as the most strategic resource of a firm with potential to
generate sustained competitive advantage and superior corporate performance because it
is socially complex and, usually, difficult to imitate (Nickerson and Zenger, 2004;
Soto-Acosta and Cegarra-Navarro, 2016). The KBV is in reality an extension of the RBV,
which claims that resources possessed by a firm may be a source of competitive
advantage when they are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate and not substitutable by other
resources (Barney, 1991). Organizational ambidexterity emerges from the contradictory
knowledge processes of exploitation and exploration. Ambidextrous organizations excel at
exploiting existing knowledge and experiences to enable incremental innovation and at
exploring new knowledge to foster radical innovation (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009).
Although knowledge is a key resource with high strategic potential, firm must possess KM
capabilities to asses and respond rapidly to competitors’ actions (Cegarra-Navarro et al.,
2016; Del Giudice and Maggioni, 2014; Liao et al., 2011). Thus, firms that possess a greater
KM capability are expected to be more efficient in balancing explorative and exploitative
innovations in an ambidextrous manner. Building on these arguments, the following
hypothesis is formulated:
H2. KM capability is positively associated with innovation ambidexterity.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Consistent with TOE framework and Contingency Theory, prior studies suggest that firms’
innovation strategies are contingent on both internal and external factors (Gibson and
Birkinshaw, 2004; Jansen et al., 2006; Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2007, 2009). Moreover, the
literature agrees on the fact that capabilities development and evolutionary processes are
dependent on the external business context (Teece, 2007; Messeni Petruzzelli et al., 2007,
2009). In this vein, firms’ ability to deploy exploratory and exploitative innovations in an
ambidextrous manner may depend not only on the development of diverse internal
capabilities, such as IT and KM capabilities, but also on the quick response to external
pressures such as the dynamism of the business environment. Environmental dynamism is
characterized by technological changes, variations in customer preferences, changes in
product demand and the unpredictability of change (Jansen et al., 2006). Dynamic
business environments may push firms to engage in both exploitative and exploratory
innovations simultaneously (Chang et al., 2011). As a consequence, to remain competitive
in dynamic environments, firms must pursue exploitation activities and develop new
products and services as the existing ones become rapidly obsolete (Jansen et al., 2006;
Teece, 2007). At the same time, firms could develop exploitative innovations to cope with
the threat of obsolescence and capitalize on previous exploratory efforts (Yang and Li,
2011). Building on these arguments, the following hypothesis is posited:
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

H3. Environmental dynamism is positively associated with innovation ambidexterity.

2.3 Innovation ambidexterity outcomes

Organization scholars have long argued that ambidexterity is a key driver of long-term firm
performance. They believe that firms capable of simultaneously pursuing exploitation and
exploration are more likely to achieve superior performance than firms emphasizing one at
the expense of the other (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Both activities are seen as critical to
a firm’s sustainable competitive advantage, as they enable it to enhance its performance
and competitiveness. Firms’ ability to compete successfully in the long run may thus be
rooted in an ability to jointly pursue short-term efficiency and long-term innovation (Gibson
and Birkinshaw, 2004; Smith and Tushman, 2005). In addition, successful exploration in one
product or technological domain can enhance exploitative efforts in a complementary
domain, which may result in an indirect effect of exploration on short-term performance
through exploitation. For instance, Apple Computer’s recent success with its iPad line of
products has revitalized the entire Apple brand and its traditional hardware and software
businesses (Cao et al., 2009). Conversely, proficiency in exploitative activities can enhance
exploratory efforts in a complementary way, which may contribute to performance in the
long run. For instance, Intel’s existing competencies and engineering knowledge related to
its memory chip business allow the company to recognize and assimilate new external
knowledge and resources, something which has supported the sustained growth of the firm
in the microprocessor industry. Thus, the general agreement in this literature is that an
ambidextrous firm is one that is capable of both exploiting existing competencies and
exploring new opportunities with equal dexterity (Lubatkin et al., 2006), and also that
achieving ambidexterity enables a firm to enhance its performance and competitiveness
(Cao et al., 2009). The following hypothesis incorporates our expectations:
H4. Innovation ambidexterity is positively associated with firm performance.
Furthermore, prior studies suggest that innovation effects are contingent on environmental
factors (Jansen et al., 2006, 2009; Popa et al., 2017). In dynamic environments, exploratory
innovation may generate a competitive advantage for firms that become first movers and
explore new opportunities in emerging markets (Zahra and Bogner, 1999). However,
exploration may improve a firm’s ability to renew its knowledge base but can undermine
current operations at the expense of future opportunities (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004).
Conversely, a one-sided focus on exploitation may enhance short-term performance, but it

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 can result in a competency trap because these firms may not be able to respond
adequately to market and technological changes (Ahuja and Lampert, 2001). Ambidexterity
is a dynamic capability that may place firms in a privileged position in terms of competitive
advantage. Although environmental dynamism might be seen like a threat, ambidextrous
firms can take advantage of it, as it continuously creates new business opportunities. Based
on these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H5. Environmental dynamism strengthens the positive effect of innovation ambidexterity
on firm performance.

3. Method
3.1 Data and sample
The target population of our study is formed by manufacturing SMEs from Spain. Selected
companies will meet the following criteria: 20  employees < 250, turnover  e50m; and a
Balance sheet total  e43m. Previous studies on the subject have used SMEs with at least
20 employees for their research to ensure a minimum firm complexity (e.g. Carmeli and
Shteigman, 2010; Lubatkin et al., 2006; Simsek et al., 2005). The study used a sample of
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

3,000 firms selected randomly from a list of 10,460 manufacturing SMEs with at least 20
employees included in the SABI (Sistema de Análisis de Balances Ibéricos) database. The
sample drawn was a random sample of companies from the respective sector population
with the objective of fulfilling strata with respect to business size and business subsectors.
In administering our survey, the questionnaire was assigned to senior and middle managers
whose primary responsibilities are related to strategic innovation activities of the firms.
Data were collected in two stages. First, a pilot study was performed and, following that, a
questionnaire was conducted. Fifteen SMEs were randomly selected from the SABI
database to perform the pilot study. Based on their responses and subsequent interviews
with participants in the pretest, minor modifications were made to the questionnaire.
Responses from the firms that participated in the pilot study were not included in the final
sample. The survey was administrated between May and June 2016 by using computer-
assisted telephone interviewing software. In total, a final data set of 429 valid cases was
obtained, yielding a response rate of 14.3 per cent, which was comparable to other studies
of similar scale. Data were examined for non-response bias by comparing the
characteristics of early and late participants in the study. The results of this comparison
revealed that non-response bias does not represent a threat for the results obtained and
their interpretation.

3.2 Measurement
Measurement items were selected on the basis of a careful literature review. The research
instrument was pretested with 15 different researchers and managers. Our primary
objective was to detect inadequate wording and facilitate the ease of administering the
instrument. The results from the pretest showed no particular bias. A description of the
constructs and the associated indicators is provided in the Appendix.
All the variables used in the study were operationalized using multi-item instruments
(seven-point Likert scales). Based on the scales developed by Tippins and Sohi (2003) and
Pérez-Lo
pez and Alegre (2012), a second-order construct was drew up to measure IT
Capability. Overall, ten items were adapted to measure the extent of use of IT to support
firm operations and the degree of IT expertise along two dimensions: IT-supported
operations; and IT knowledge and budget. KM capability was operationalized by using the
ten-item scale of Liao et al. (2011), which measured the extent of use of different KM
practices across functional boundaries. Based on previous work of Jansen et al. (2006), a
three-item scale was used to measure environmental dynamism. In measuring innovation

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 ambidexterity, the scales from Jansen et al. (2006) and Chang and Hughes (2012) were
adapted to develop a second-order construct including two dimensions: exploratory
innovation; exploitative innovation. Exploratory innovation dimension focuses on innovation
activities that are oriented toward selection, improvement and efficiency, while the exploratory
innovation dimension captures innovation activities that build upon search, discovery and
experimentation. Drawing on Martı́n-Rojas et al. (2011) and Murray and Kotabe (1999), five
items were used to evaluate firm performance relative to its main competitors along five key
areas: return on assets, return on equity, return on sales, market share and sales growth. In
addition, a number of control variables that may influence firm performance were included
(firm size, firm age and industry in which the firm operates). These variables are commonly
used as controls by authors studying innovation (Chang et al., 2011).

3.3 Instrument validation

The unidimensionality and reliability of the data set were assessed by different procedures,
using SPSS 23.0 and AMOS 23.0 software. First, an initial exploration of unidimensionality
was done using principal component factor analyses. In each analysis, the eigenvalues
were greater than 1 and all factor loadings greater than 0.50 (with no substantial
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

cross-loadings), lending preliminary support to a claim of unidimensionality in the

constructs. Then, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to establish
the required convergent validity, discriminant validity and reliability of the constructs. The
measurement model presented a good fit to the data ( x 2(445) = 909.988; RMSEA = 0.049;
CFI = 0.96; IFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95). All traditionally reported fit indexes were within the
acceptable range.
Construct reliability assesses the degree to which items are free from random error and,
therefore, yield consistent results. This study calculated reliability of measures using
Bagozzi and Yi’s (1998) composite reliability index and Fornell and Larcker’s (1981)
average variance extracted index. For all the measures, both indices were higher than the
evaluation criteria, namely, 0.6 for composite reliability and 0.5 for the average variance
extracted. Convergent validity assesses the consistency across multiple constructs. As
shown in Table I, after dropping insignificant items, all estimated standard loadings are
significant (p < 0.01) and of acceptable magnitude, suggesting good convergent validity
(Sethi and King, 1994).
To assess the discriminant validity – the extent to which different constructs diverge from one
another – Fornell and Larcker’s (1981) criterion, that the square root of average variance
extracted for each construct (diagonal elements of the correlation matrix in Table II) should
be greater than the absolute value of interconstruct correlations (off-diagonal elements), was
used. All constructs met this criterion, suggesting that the items share more variance with
their respective constructs than with other constructs. Table II also provides an overview of
the means, standard deviations and correlations of the constructs.
Most researchers agree that common method variance is a potentially serious bias threat in
behavioral research, especially with single informant surveys. Several steps to control for
common method bias were adopted before data collection, such as assuring the
participants that there were no right or wrong answers and that their responses would
remain anonymous (Podsakoff et al., 2003). In addition, the extent of common method bias
was assessed after data collection by using three distinct methods. First, the Harman’s
one-factor test was used by entering all the indicators into a Maximum Likelihood factor
analysis (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). Evidence for common method bias exists when a
general factor accounts for the majority of the covariance among all factors. With all
indicators entered, seven factors were extracted. The variance explained ranged from 26.1
to 2 per cent), indicating no substantial common method bias. Second, the “unmeasured
latent factor method” suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003) was used to extract the common
variance. This procedure requires the addition of an unmeasured latent factor to the

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Table I Measurement model: confirmatory analysis and scale reliability
1st-order 2nd-order
Construct Indicator Loading t-value 2nd-order construct Loading t-value Reliability

IT-supported operations ITO1 0.71 – IT capability 0.909 – CR = 0.83

ITO2 0.67 12.71 AVE = 0.70
ITO3 0.77 14.59
ITO4 0.70 13.24
ITO5 0.71 13.43
ITO6 0.70 13.22
IT knowledge and budget ITK1 0.89 – 0.768 11.71
ITK2 0.87 24.61
ITK3 0.87 24.82
ITK4 0.78 20.12
KM capability KM1 0.78 – n.a n.a CR = 0.96
KM2 0.82 28.207 AVE = 0.74
KM3 0.80 18.479
KM4 0.83 19.247
KM5 0.90 21.566
KM6 0.94 22.749
KM7 0.93 22.724
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

KM8 0.88 20.835

KM9 0.87 20.811
Environmental dynamism ED2 0.76 – n.a n.a CR = 0.81
ED3 0.89 11.07 AVE = 0.68
Exploratory innovation ER2 0.80 – Innovation ambidexterity 0.747 – CR = 0.75
ER3 0.89 20.05 AVE = 0.59
ER4 0.85 19.26
Exploitative innovation ET1 0.70 – 0.787 8.95
ET2 0.68 11.04
ET3 0.55 9.35
ET5 0.56 9.52
Firm performance FP1 0.94 – n.a n.a CR = 0.91
FP2 0.92 32.29 AVE = 0.72
FP3 0.79 23.01
FP5 0.71 18.65
Notes: Fit statistics for measurement model: x 2(445) = 909.988; RMSEA = 0.049; CFI = 0.96; IFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; Insignificant factors are
dropped (ED1, ER1, ER5, ER6, ET4 and FP4); (–): Fixed items; (n.a): no applicable; RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; CFI:
comparative fit index; IFI: incremental fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis index; CR: composite reliability; AVE: average variance extracted

Table II Descriptive statistics and discriminant validity

Constructs Av. SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

1. IT capability 4.09 1.31 0.84

2. KM capability 4.17 1.47 0.70** 0.86
3. Env. dynamism 4.11 1.72 0.29** 0.28** 0.83
4. Innov. ambidexterity 4.53 1.30 0.48** 0.50** 0.47** 0.84
5. Firm performance 4.52 1.20 0.36** 0.36** 0.21** 0.29** 0.85
Notes: Significance levels: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; na. Variance extracted is not applicable to the
single-item constructs; diagonal values in italics represent the square root of the AVE

measurement model during CFA. This latent factor includes all indicators from all other
latent factors. This approach detects the variance common among all observed indicators.
The indicator loadings on this common latent factor are constrained to be equal to each
other to ensure that the unstandardized loadings will be equal. Squaring the
unstandardized loading (which for all indicators will be the same value) then gives the
per cent of common variance across all indicators in the model. The results of this test
showed that 21 per cent of the variance could be because of common method bias,

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 showing no evidence of common method bias. Third, the correlation matrix (table II) did not
indicate any highly correlated variables, while evidence of common method bias usually
results in extremely high correlations (r > 0.90) (Bagozzi et al., 1991). In summary, these
tests suggest that common method bias is not a serious threat in our study.

4. Results
This paper performs structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses, using AMOS 23.0
and maximum likelihood estimation techniques to test the research model. The fit of the
model is satisfactory ( x 2(501) = 948.595; RMSEA = 0.046; CFI = 0.95; IFI = 0.95; TLI =
0.94), suggesting that the nomological network of relations fits the data and the validity of
the measurement scales (Churchill, 1979).
Figure 2 shows the standardized path coefficients with their respective significant levels.
Hypotheses 1, 2 and 3 were confirmed (H1: 0.41, p < 0.01; H2: 0.19, p < 0.05; H3: 0.48,
p < 0.01). These results show that IT capability, KM capability and environmental dynamism
have a positive and significant influence on innovation ambidexterity. In addition,
Hypotheses 4 and 5 found support (H4: 0.53, p < 0.01; H5: 0.12, p < 0.05), indicating a
positive and significant relationship between innovation ambidexterity and firm performance
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

and that environmental dynamism strengthens the positive effect of innovation

ambidexterity on firm performance (see Figure 3).

Figure 2 Results

Figure 3 Two-way interaction effect of environ. dynamism and innov. ambidexterity on firm
performance

4.5
Firm performance

3.5 Moderator

3 Low Edynamism

2.5
High Edynamism
2

1.5

Low Ambidex High Ambidex

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 5. Discussion and conclusions
This paper builds on the TOE framework and the RBV to shed light on the antecedents of
innovation ambidexterity and its influence on firm performance, considering the moderating
role of environmental dynamism. With regard to the technological context, the results
revealed that IT capability have a positive effect on innovation ambidexterity. Although IT
infrastructure by itself does not have potential to generate competitive advantage (Kmieciak
et al., 2012), IT capability may enhance both the exploitation of capabilities for taking
advantage of existing market opportunities and the exploration of new opportunities to meet
the challenges of emerging markets. These findings are consistent with previous studies,
suggesting that aligning IT resources along with other critical resources at the firm’s
strategy level may enhance firm innovativeness (Chen et al., 2012; Soto-Acosta and
Meroño-Cerdan, 2008). Within the organizational context, the results show that KM
capability have a positive influence on innovation ambidexterity. This finding is consistent
with existing studies analyzing the organizational antecedents of innovation, which identify
knowledge as the most strategic resource of companies with potential to improve
organizational innovation (Martinez-Conesa et al., 2017; Soto-Acosta et al., 2016b). In line
with previous literature, our results show that SMEs with strong KM capability are more
capable of pursuing exploitative innovation and exploratory innovation in an ambidextrous
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

manner. Regarding the environmental context, a positive relationship was found between
environmental dynamism and innovation ambidexterity, which was the strongest factor in
our model. These findings provide empirical support for studies suggesting that dynamic
environments may push enterprises to engage in both exploitative and exploratory
innovations (Chang et al., 2011).
With respect to the consequences of innovation ambidexterity, the results suggest that
innovation ambidexterity contributes positively to firm performance in SMEs. This finding
confirms prior research, suggesting that achieving ambidexterity enables a firm to enhance
its performance and competitiveness (Cao et al., 2009). Thus, firms that are capable of
simultaneously pursuing exploitation and exploration are more likely to achieve superior
performance, as both activities are seen as critical to a firm’s sustainable competitive
advantage. In addition, the moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the
relationship between innovation ambidexterity and firm performance was analyzed. The
results show that environmental dynamism strengthens the positive effect of innovation
ambidexterity on firm performance. These findings partially support recent research, which
suggests that:
n adopting an exploratory innovation perspective is more efficient in dynamic
environments; while
n following an exploitative innovation approach is more suitable in less dynamic but more
competitive environments (Chang et al., 2011; Jansen et al., 2006).

In dynamic environments, exploratory innovation may generate a competitive advantage for

firms that become first movers and explore new opportunities in emerging markets (Zahra
and Bogner, 1999). However, SMEs because of their resource constrains may also develop
exploitative innovations to capitalize on previous exploratory efforts and minimize the threat
of obsolescence that is characteristic of dynamic environments. In this sense, results show
that ambidextrous SMEs are more likely to outperform their competitors if they take
advantage of the opportunities generated by dynamic environments.
The present study provides several important implications for managers. First, the study
findings support the idea that innovation can be developed in an ambidextrous manner
within a single firm as long as the firm is capable of creating a suitable organizational
context. Firms should devote extra efforts to develop IT capabilities and KM capabilities
because these capabilities are crucial when pursuing competing demands for exploration
and exploitation. Second, our results show that firms’ ability to deploy exploratory and

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 exploitative innovations in an ambidextrous manner may depend not only on the
development of internal capabilities, but also on the quick response to external pressures
such as environmental dynamism. Thus, SMEs management should pay attention to both
the internal and the external business context when balancing exploratory and exploitative
innovations. Third, our findings also suggest that a dynamic environment creates
opportunities for ambidextrous firms to outperform their competitors. Accordingly,
ambidextrous SMEs should continuously scan and give a prompt response to changes in
the business environment to generate sustained competitive advantages.
While the contributions of the present study are significant, it has some aspects which can
be addressed in future research. First, the sample used was from Spain. It may be possible
that the findings could be extrapolated to other countries, as economic and technological
development in Spain is similar to other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) member countries. However, in future research, a sampling frame
that combines firms from different countries could be used to provide a more international
perspective on the subject. Second, the key informant method was used for data collection.
With this method, the data reflects the opinions of only one person. Future studies could
consider research designs that allow data collection from multiple respondents within an
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

organization. Third, while IT capability, KM capability and environmental dynamism are

found to be important drivers affecting innovation ambidexterity, future research could
consider other potential factors such as organizational culture, leadership and open
innovation. Fourth, firm performance measures are subjective in the sense that they were
based on seven-point Likert-scale responses provided by managers. Thus, it could also be
interesting to include objective indictors for measuring financial performance. Fifth, this
research takes a static, cross-sectional picture of factors affecting innovation ambidexterity,
which makes it difficult to address the issue of how these antecedents and their importance
may change over time. A longitudinal study could enrich the findings. These suggestions
should be taken into account in future studies to increase the validity of our findings.

References
Adler, P., Goldoftas, B. and Levine, D. (1999), “Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model
changeovers in the toyota production system”, Organization Science, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 43-68.
Ahuja, G. and Lampert, C. (2001), “Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: a longitudinal study of how
established firms create breakthrough inventions”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 Nos 6/7,
pp. 521-543.
Andreeva, T. and Kianto, A. (2011), “Knowledge processes, knowledge intensity and innovation: a
moderated mediation analysis”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 1016-1034.
Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M.W. (2009), “Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational
ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 696-717.
Bharadwaj, A.S. (2000), “A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm
performance: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 169-196.

Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1998), “On evaluation of structural equations models”, Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.
Bagozzi, R.P., Yi, Y. and Phillips, L.W. (1991), “Assessing construct validity in organizational research”,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 421-458.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L. (2003), “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the
productivity dilemma revisited”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 238-256.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. and Zhang, H. (2009), “Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions,
contingencies, and synergistic effects”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 781-796.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Carmeli, A. and Shteigman, A. (2010), “Top management team behavioral integration in small-sized
firms: a social identity perspective”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 318-331.
Cegarra-Navarro, J.-G., Soto-Acosta, P. and Wensley, A.K.P. (2016), “Structured knowledge processes
and firm performance: the role of organizational agility”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 69 No. 5,
pp. 1544-1549.
Chan, F.T.S., Chong, A.Y.-L. and Zhou, L. (2012), “An empirical investigation of factors affecting
e-collaboration diffusion in SMEs”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 138 No. 2, pp. 329-344.
Chang, Y.-Y. and Hughes, M. (2012), “Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small- to medium-sized
firms”, European Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Chang, Y.Y., Hughes, M. and Hotho, S. (2011), “Internal and external antecedents of SMEs’ innovation
ambidexterity outcomes”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 10, pp. 1658-1676.

Chaudhuri, S., Dayal, U. and Narasayya, V. (2011), “An overview of business intelligence technology”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 54 No. 8, pp. 88-98.
Chen, Y.Y., Yeh, S.P. and Huang, H.L. (2012), “Does knowledge management ‘fit’ matter to business
performance?”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 671-687.
Churchill, G.A. (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”, Journal of
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.

Del Giudice, M. and Della Peruta, M.R. (2016), “The impact of IT-based knowledge management systems
on internal venturing and innovation: a structural equation modeling approach to corporate
performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 484-498.
Del Giudice, M. and Maggioni, V. (2014), “Managerial practices and operative directions of knowledge
management within inter-firm networks: a global view”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 841-846.
Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M.R. and Maggioni, V. (2015), “A model for the diffusion of knowledge
sharing technologies inside private transport companies”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 19
No. 3, pp. 611-625.
Dewar, R.D. and Dutton, J.E. (1986), “The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: an empirical
analysis”, Management Science, Vol. 32 No. 11, pp. 1422-1433.
Duncan, R. (1976), “The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation”, in Killman,
R.H., Pondy, L.R. and Sleven, D. (Eds), The Management of Organization, Elsevier, North Holland,
New York, NY, pp. 167-188.
Ebben, J.J. and Johnson, A.C. (2005), “Efficiency, flexibility, or both? Evidence linking strategy to
performance in small firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 13, pp. 1249-1259.

Fornell, C. and Larcker, F.D. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004), “The antecedents, consequences and mediating role of
organizational ambidexterity”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209-226.
Gulati, R. and Puranam, P. (2009), “Renewal through reorganization: the value of inconsistencies
between formal and informal organization”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 422-440.
Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G. and Shalley, C.E. (2006), “The interplay between exploration and exploitation”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 693-706.
Hadjimanolis, A. (2000), “A resource-based view of innovativeness in small firms”, Technology Analysis
and Strategic Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 263-281.

He, Z.L. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity
hypothesis”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 481-494.
Hill, S.A. and Birkinshaw, J. (2014), “Ambidexterity and survival in corporate venture units”, Journal of
Management, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1899-1931.
Hsu, P.F., Ray, S. and Li-Hsieh, Y.Y. (2014), “Examining cloud computing adoption intention, pricing
mechanism, and deployment model”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 474-488.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. and Volberda, H.W. (2006), “Exploratory innovation, exploitative
innovation, and performance: effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators”,
Management Science, Vol. 52 No. 11, pp. 1661-1674.

Jansen, J.J.P., Vera, D. and Crossan, M. (2009), “Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation:
the moderating role of environmental dynamism”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Kang, S.C. and Snell, S.A. (2009), “Intellectual Capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: a
framework for human resource management”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 65-92.

Kmieciak, R., Michna, A. and Meczynska, A. (2012), “Inovativeness, empowerment and IT capability:
evidence from SMEs”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 112 No. 5, pp. 707-728.
Lavie, D., Stettner, U. and Tushman, M.L. (2010), “Exploration and exploitation within and across
organizations”, Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 109-155.

Lian, J., Yen, D. and Wang, Y. (2014), “An exploratory study to understand the critical factors affecting the
decision to adopt cloud computing in Taiwan hospital”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 28-36.
Liao, C., Chuang, S.H. and To, P.L. (2011), “How knowledge management mediates the relationship between
environment and organizational structure”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 64 No. 7, pp. 728-736.
Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. and Veiga, J.F. (2006), “Ambidexterity and performance in small- to
mediumsized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration”, Journal of
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 646-672.

March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization Science, Vol. 2
No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Marqués, D.P. and Simo
n, F.J.G. (2006), “The effect of knowledge management practices on firm
performance”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 143-156.

Martı́n-Rojas, R., Garcı́a-Morales, V.J. and Garcı́a-Sánchez, E. (2011), “The influence on corporate
entrepreneurship of technological variables”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 111 No. 7,
pp. 984-1005.
Martinez-Conesa, I., Soto-Acosta, P. and Carayannis, E.G. (2017), “On the path towards open innovation:
assessing the role of knowledge management capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs”, Journal
of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 553-570.
Menguc, B. and Auh, S. (2008), “The asymetric moderating role of market orientation on the
ambidexterity–firm performace relationship for prospectors and defenders”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 455-470.
Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Albino, V. and Carbonara, N. (2007), “Technology districts: proximity and
knowledge access”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 98-114.
Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Albino, V. and Carbonara, N. (2009), “External knowledge sources and
proximity”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 301-318.
Messeni Petruzzelli, A., Rotolo, R. and Albinoa, V. (2015), “Determinants of patent citations in
biotechnology: an analysis of patent influence across the industrial and organizational boundaries”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 208-221.
Murray, J.Y. and Kotabe, M. (1999), “Sourcing strategies of US service companies: a modified
transaction-cost analysis”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 9, pp. 791-809.
Nemanich, L.A. and Vera, D. (2009), “Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an
acquisition”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 19-33.
Nickerson, J. and Zenger, T. (2004), “A knowledge-based theory of the firm: the problem solving
perspective”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 617-632.
O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L. (2008), “Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the
innovator’s dilemma”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 185-206.
Palacios-Marqués, D., Merigo
, J.M. and Soto-Acosta, P. (2015a), “Online social networks as an enabler of
innovation in organizations”, Management Decision, Vol. 53 No. 9, pp. 1906-1920.

, J.M. (2015b), “Analyzing the effects of technological,
Palacios-Marqués, D., Soto-Acosta, P. and Merigo
organizational and competition factors on web knowledge exchange in SMEs”, Telematics and
Informatics, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 23-32.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Patel, P.C., Messersmith, J.G. and Lepak, D.P. (2013), “Walking the tightrope: an assessment of the
relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational ambidexterity”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 56 No. 5, pp. 1420-1442.

pez, S. and Alegre, J. (2012), “Information technology competency, knowledge processes and
Pérez-Lo
firm performance”, Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 112 No. 4, pp. 644-662.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.

Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P. and Loukis, E. (2016), “Analyzing the complementarity of web infrastructure
and eInnovation for business value generation”, Program, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 118-134.
Popa, S., Soto-Acosta, P. and Martinez-Conesa, I. (2017), “Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of
innovation climate and open innovation: an empirical study in SMEs”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 118 No. 1, pp. 134-142.

Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1996), “What is strategy?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 61-81.
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

Puranam, P., Singh, H. and Zollo, M. (2006), “Organizing for innovation: managing the coordination-
autonomy dilemma in technology acquisitions”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 49 No. 2,
pp. 263-280.
Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J. (2008), “Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and
moderators”, Journal of Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 375-409.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G. and Tushman, M.L. (2009), “Organizational ambidexterity:
balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 685-695.
Sethi, V. and King, W. (1994), “Development of measures to assess the extent to which an information
technology application provides competitive advantage”, Management Science, Vol. 40 No. 12,
pp. 1601-1627.
Sher, P.J. and Lee, V.C. (2004), “Information technology as a facilitator for enhancing dynamic
capabilities through knowledge management”, Information & Management, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 933-945.
Siggelkow, N. and Levinthal, D.A. (2003), “Temporarily divide to conquer: centralized, decentralized, and
reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adaptation”, Organization Science, Vol. 14
No. 6, pp. 650-669.
Simsek, Z., Veiga, J.F., Lubatkin, M. and Dino, R.N. (2005), “Modeling the multilevel determinants of top
management team behavioral integration”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 69-84.
Smith, W.K. and Tushman, M.L. (2005), “Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for
managing innovation streams”, Organization Science, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 522-536.
Soto-Acosta, P. and Cegarra-Navarro, J.G. (2016), “New ICTs for knowledge management in
organizations”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 417-422.
Soto-Acosta, P. and Meroño-Cerdan, A.L. (2008), “Analyzing e-business value creation from a resource-
based perspective”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 49-60.
Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S. and Perez-Gonzalez, D. (2016a), “An investigation of the effect of electronic
business on financial performance of Spanish manufacturing SMEs”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.012.

Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S. and Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016b), “E-business, organizational innovation and
firm performance in manufacturing SMEs: an empirical study in Spain”, Technological and Economic
Development of Economy, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 885-904.
Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S. and Palacios-Marqués, D. (2017), “Social web knowledge sharing and
innovation performance in knowledge-intensive manufacturing SMEs”, Journal of Technology Transfer,
Vol. 42 No. 2, pp. 425-440.
Teece, D.J. (2007), “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 13, pp. 1319-1350.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 Thong, J.Y.L. (1999), “An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses”, Journal
of Management Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 187-214.
Tippins, M.J. and Sohi, R.S. (2003), “IT competency and firm performance: is organizational learning a
missing link?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8, pp. 745-761.
Tornatzky, L.G. and Fleischer, M. (1990), The Process of Technological Innovation, Lexington Books,
Lexington.
Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1996), “Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and
revolutionary change”, California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 8-30.

Tushman, M.L., Smith, W.K., Wood, R.C., Westerman, G. and O’Reilly, C. (2010), “Organizational designs
and innovation streams”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 19 No. 5, pp. 1331-1366.
Wang, C.L. and Rafiq, M. (2014), “Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and
new product innovation: a comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms”, British Journal of
Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 58-76.

Yan Xin, J., Ramayah, T., Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S. and Ai Ping, T. (2014), “Analyzing the use of web 2.0
for Brand awareness and competitive advantage: an empirical study in the Malaysian hospitability
industry”, Information Systems Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 96-103.
Yang, T.T. and Li, C.R. (2011), “Competence exploration and exploitation in new product development:
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

the moderating effects of environmental dynamism and competitiveness”, Management Decision, Vol. 49
No. 9, pp. 1444-1470.
Zahra, S.A. and Bogner, W.C. (1999), “Technology strategy and software new venture’s performance:
exploring effect of the competitive environment”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-173.
Zhu, Y., Li, Y., Wang, W. and Chen, J. (2010), “What leads to the post-implementation success of ERP?
An empirical study of the Chinese retail industry”, International Journal of Information Management,
Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 265-276.

Further reading
Jansen, J.J.P., Van den Bosch, F.A.J. and Volberda, H.W. (2005), “Explorative innovation, exploitative
innovation, and ambidexterity: the impact of environmental and organizational antecedents”,
Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 351-363.

Lewis, M.W. (2000), “Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 760-777.

Appendix. Variable definitions

Independent variables

IT capability. In regard with ICT, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
(1-7).
IT knowledge and budget.

n ITK1. Our firm possesses a high degree of ICT expertise.

n ITK2. We are very knowledgeable about new ICT innovations.
n ITK3. Our firm possesses a high degree of expertise for the development and
maintenance of new IT (Web 2.9, wiki, extranets [. . .]).
n ITK4. We budget a significant amount of funds for new ICT implementation and
maintenance (technical staff, hardware, software [. . .]).
IT-supported operations.

n ITO1. Extent to which ICTs are used for procurement and inventory management
activities.
n ITO2. Extent to which ICTs are used for product design activities.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 n ITO3. Extent to which ICTs are used to support manufacturing activities.
n ITO4. Extent to which ICTs are used to support marketing activities.
n ITO5. Extent to which ICTs are used to support the distribution of products.
n ITO6. Extent to which ICTs are used to support human resources management.
KM capability. Regarding your firm, to what extent do you agree with the following statements?
(1-7).

n KM1. Our company creates new knowledge for application across functional
boundaries.
n KM2. Our company creates operation systems for application across functional
boundaries.
n KM3. Our company creates managerial policies and processes for application across
functional boundaries.
n KM4. Our company engages in the process of distributing knowledge among
departments.
n KM5. Our company designs activities to facilitate knowledge sharing across functional
boundaries.
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

n KM6. Our company engages in processes of integrating different sources of

knowledge across functional boundaries.
n KM7. Our company engages in processes of transferring knowledge to employees
across functional boundaries.
n KM8. Our company engages in processes which apply experiential knowledge across
functional boundaries.
n KM9. Our company engages in processes which apply knowledge to solve new
problems across functional boundaries.

Environmental dynamism. Regarding your firm, to what extent do you agree with the following
statements? (1-7).

n ED1. In a year, our market has changed a lot.

n ED2. Our clients regularly ask for new products and services.
n ED3. In our market, the volumes of products and services to be delivered change fast
and often.
Dependent variables

Innovation ambidexterity. \Regarding your firm, to what extent do you agree with the following
statements? (1-7).
Exploitative innovation.

n ET1. We regularly implement small adaptations to our existing products.

n ET2. We introduce improved, but existing, products in our market.
n ET3. We improve our provision’s efficiency of products and services.
n ET4. We increase economies of scales in existing markets.
n ET5. Our company expands services for existing clients.
Exploratory innovation.

n ER1. Our firm accepts demands that go beyond our existing products and services.
n ER2. We invent new products and services.
n ER3. We experiment with new products and services in our market.
n ER4. We commercialize products and services that are completely new to our
company.

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j

 n ER5. We frequently utilize new opportunities in new markets.
n ER6. Our firm regularly uses new distribution channels.
Firm performance (FP). Relative to your main competitors, what is your firm’s performance
in the past three years in the following areas? Likert 1 – much worse than my competitors to
7 – much better than my competitors.

n FP1. Organizational performance measured by return on assets.

n FP2. Organizational performance measured by return on equity.
n FP3. Organizational performance measured by return on sales.
n FP4. Organization’s market share in its main products and markets.
n FP5. Growth of sales in its main products and markets.

About the authors

Pedro Soto-Acosta is Professor of Management (with habilitation to Full Professor) at the
University of Murcia (Spain). He attended Postgraduate Courses in Management at Harvard
University (USA) and received his PhD in Business Economics from the University of
Murcia. He serves as Associate Editor for several mainstream journals including Decision
Sciences, and Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. His work has been
Downloaded by Goethe-Universität Frankfurt At 19:23 15 February 2018 (PT)

published in journals such as Computers in Human Behavior, Electronic Markets, European

Journal of Information Systems, European Management Journal, Journal of Business
Research, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Technology Transfer,
Management Decision and Technological Forecasting and Social Change, among others.
Simona Popa is Assistant Professor at the Catholic University of Murcia (Spain). She holds a
PhD in Business Economics from the University of Murcia, Spain. She received a BA in
Economics from the University Alexandru Ioan Cuza, a Master’s in Business Research and
a Master’s in Sociology Applied to Research from the University of Murcia. Her work has
been published in journals such as International Journal of Information Management,
Information Systems Management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Service Business,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change and Technological and Economic
Development of Economy, among others. Simona Popa is the corresponding author and
can be contacted at: sp.popa@gmail.com
Isabel Martinez-Conesa is Professor of Finance and Accounting (with habilitation to Full
Professor) at the University of Murcia (Spain). She holds a PhD in International Financial
Information. She was recipient of the Extraordinary Doctoral Award in Business Research.
She supervised seven dissertations about international financial analysis and accounting
information system. Her work has been published in journals such as European Accounting
Review, Journal of Cleaner Production, Journal of Knowledge Management, International
Journal of Accounting, Research in Accounting Regulation, Spanish Journal of Finance and
Accounting and European Business Review, among others.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

j JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT j