Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available online
Procedia CIRP at www.sciencedirect.com
00 (2021) 000–000
Procedia CIRP 00 (2021) 000–000
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Procedia
CIRP 00 CIRP
(2017)107
000–000
(2022) 475–480
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

55th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems

55th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems
Concept for ambidextrous management of incremental and radical
Concept for ambidextrous management of incremental and radical
28th CIRP innovation
Design Conference, in manufacturing
May 2018, Nantes, France
innovation in manufacturing
A new methodology Quirinto Gärtner
analyze
a
*, Alexander
the Dorthaa, Gunther
functional and Reinhartaa architecture of
physical
Quirin Gärtner *, Alexander Dorth , Gunther Reinhart
a

* Corresponding author Tel.: +49 (89) 289for

existing products anFax:assembly oriented product family identification
Technical University of Munich, Boltzmannstr. 15, 85748 Garching, Germany
a

– 15517;
Technical
a +49 89of289
University - 15555.
Munich, E-mail address:
Boltzmannstr. quirin.gaertner@iwb.tum.de
15, 85748 Garching, Germany
* Corresponding author Tel.: +49 (89) 289 – 15517; Fax: +49 89 289 - 15555. E-mail address: quirin.gaertner@iwb.tum.de
Paul Stief *, Jean-Yves Dantan, Alain Etienne, Ali Siadat
Abstract École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers, Arts et Métiers ParisTech, LCFC EA 4495, 4 Rue Augustin Fresnel, Metz 57078, France
Abstract
Innovation managers constantly seek to improve manufacturing systems using continuous improvement as a core process. On the other hand,
*Innovation
Corresponding
significant author. Tel.:
technological
managers +33 3 87seek
advances
constantly 37 54
to30;
promise E-mail
improve address:
to improve paul.stief@ensam.eu
manufacturing
manufacturing systems systems' performanceimprovement
using continuous radically. Therefore,
as a coremanufacturing
process. On the units must
other be
hand,
able to dealtechnological
significant with complexadvances
and volatile environments
promise to improveand manufacturing
at the same timesystems'
act explorative and exploitative
performance to producemanufacturing
radically. Therefore, both incremental andmust
units radical
be
innovations.
able to deal withThecomplex
organizational abilityenvironments
and volatile to achieve this andbalanced
at the sametarget
timestate is called ambidexterity.
act explorative and exploitative Thetochallenge of continuously
produce both incremental andincreasing
radical
efficiency
innovations. while
Theatorganizational
the same timeability developing and integrating
to achieve radical
this balanced targetinnovation into the
state is called manufacturing
ambidexterity. Thesystem has grown
challenge enormouslyincreasing
of continuously in recent
Abstract
years. Consequently,
efficiency while at theasame severe timechallenge
developing is imposed on the radical
and integrating innovation management
innovation into theofmanufacturing
the manufacturingsystemunit. This implies
has grown ambidexterity
enormously in recent
management in manufacturing,
years. Consequently, encouraging
a severe challenge organizational
is imposed on theresearch
innovation to identify relevant
management of design dimensions and
the manufacturing unit.describe concrete
This implies managerial
ambidexterity
Inimplementation
today’s business
management environment,
in measures the trend towards
in a manufacturing
manufacturing, encouraging context.more product
organizational variety
research and customization
to identify is unbroken.
relevant design dimensions Dueand
to this development,
describe concrete the need of
managerial
agile and reconfigurable
Therefore,
implementation this paper
measures production
presents systems emerged
an approach
in a manufacturing to enabletoambidextrous
context. cope with various products
innovation and product
management in families. To design
manufacturing, and optimize
fostering production
radical innovation.
systems
Relevant
Therefore,as organizational
well
this as to choose
paper theanoptimal
dimensions
presents and product
approach their matches, product
interconnections
to enable ambidextrous areanalysis
identifiedmethods
innovation using are needed.
scientific
management Indeed, most
inliterature offostering
the interviews.
and expert
manufacturing, known methods
radical In aim to
addition,
innovation.
examples
Relevant
analyze of concrete
organizational
a product or onemanagerial
dimensions
product implications
family and
on the forinterconnections
implementing
theirphysical ambidexterity
level. Different product in
are identified manufacturing
using
families, however,are
scientific presented.
literature
may differand expert
largely interviews.
in terms In addition,
of the number and
examples
nature of concrete managerial
of components. implications
This fact impedes for implementing
an efficient comparison ambidexterity
and choice in of manufacturing are presented.
appropriate product family combinations for the production
©
© 2022
2022AThe
system. new
The Authors. Published
methodology
Authors. Published by Elsevier
ELSEVIER
is proposed
by B.V.B.V.existing products in view of their functional and physical architecture. The aim is to cluster
to analyze
This
©
these is
2022 an
The
productsopen inaccess
Authors.
new article
Published
assembly under
by the CC
ELSEVIER
oriented
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND BY-NC-ND
product B.V. license
families license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
for the (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
optimization of existing assembly lines and the creation of future reconfigurable
This
assemblyis ansystems.
Peer-review
Peer-review open
underaccess
- Peer-review
Based article
onunder
responsibility under
Datum theInternational
Flow
the CC
ofresponsibility BY-NC-ND
Chain, ofthe
the license
physical
Programme (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
International Programme
structure
committee of of
thethe committee
products of the 55th
is analyzed.
55th CIRP Conference CIRP
Functional
on Conference on Manufacturing
subassemblies
Manufacturing Systems are identified, and
aPeer-review
Systems - Peer-review
functional analysis under responsibility
is performed. Moreover, aofhybrid the International
functional Programme
and physicalcommittee
architectureof the 55th
graph CIRP Conference
(HyFPAG) on Manufacturing
is the output which depicts the
Systems between
Keywords:
similarity Manufacturing;
productInnovation
familiesManagement,
by providing Manufacturing Innovation
design support Management,
to both, productionAmbidexterity, Radicaland
system planners Innovation,
productIncremental
designers.Innovation,
An illustrative
Exploration,
Keywords:
example aExploitation
ofManufacturing;
nail-clipper Innovation
is used to Management, Manufacturing
explain the proposed Innovation Management,
methodology. An industrialAmbidexterity,
case study onRadical Innovation,
two product Incremental
families Innovation,
of steering columns of
Exploration, Exploitation
thyssenkrupp Presta France is then carried out to give a first industrial evaluation of the proposed approach.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
1. Introduction
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 28th CIRP Design Conference 2018.
The tension between incremental and radical innovations has
1. Introduction The tension
already between incremental
been described by Abernathy and[7]radical innovations
as the productivity has
Manufacturing companies face
Keywords: Assembly; Design method; Family identification an increasingly dynamic already
dilemma been described
followed by by Abernathy
Christensen's [8][7] as the
innovator's productivity
dilemma.
Manufacturing
environment companies
with partially face an increasingly
discontinuous changes caused dynamic by dilemma
Essentially, followed by Christensen's
the authors argue that the[8] innovator's behaviors
organizational dilemma.
environment with partially
three central elements discontinuous
in particular: changes caused
Unpredictability [1], global by Essentially,
to constantly theproduce
authors argue
more that the organizational
efficiently or integrate behaviors
radical
three central [2],
competition elements
and rapid in particular: Unpredictability
technological developments [1],[3].
global
As to constantly changes
technological produceseem moreincompatible.
efficiently or integratethere
Therefore, radical
is a
1.competition
Introduction
a result, [2], andprofitability
continuous rapid technological
and long-termdevelopments [3]. As of
competitiveness the product
technological
practical range and
and changes
scientific seem characteristics
need to elaboratemanufactured
incompatible. Therefore,
approachesthere and/or
for is
thea
aare
result, continuous
becoming moreprofitability
complex, as andcompetitive advantages are assembled
long-term competitiveness practical
simultaneous in this
and system.need
scientific
management In this
toofcontext,
elaborate
radical theapproaches
main
and challenge for the
incremental in
are Due
more to themore
becoming
temporary thanfastcomplex,
everdevelopment in the
as competitive
[4]. Consequently, domain
advantages
securing of
are
the long- modelling
innovationand
simultaneous analysis inis manufacturing.
management
activities nowofnotradical
only toThe cope
and with single
incremental
organizational
communication
more temporary and
term competitiveness than everan ongoing trendunits
[4]. Consequently,
of manufacturing of securing
digitization
dependsthe and
on long-
their products,
ability to asimultaneously
innovation limited product
activities range or
in manage
manufacturing.
bothexisting product
The
innovation families,
organizational
activities is
digitalization,
term manufacturing
abilitycompetitiveness
to implement enterprises
of manufacturing
radical innovation units are facing
projects [5],important
depends their but
on these
as alsoto
ability
referred totosimultaneously
beasable to analyze
ambidexterity and
[9]. to
manage compare
both products
innovation
Consequently, to define
it isactivities
necessary is
challenges
ability in today’s
promisetosignificant
implement market
radical
performance environments:
innovation
increases projects a [5],
regarding continuing
as these new
quality, product
referred
to strengthento asfamilies. It can be
ambidexterity
the innovation observed
[9]. ofthat
Consequently,
capacity classical existing
it is necessary
manufacturing units
tendency
cost, andtowards
promise significant
time [6]. reduction
performance
To meet of product
these development
increases thetimes
regarding
challenges, and
of product
quality,
focus to families
strengthen
transferring theareinnovation
the regrouped inoffunction
concept capacity of of clients orinto
manufacturing
ambidexterity features.
units
the
shortened
cost, andproduct
manufacturing timeunits lifecycles.
[6]. To no
can meet In these
addition,
longer there
on is
challenges,
be solely an
theincreasing
achieving focus of However,
short- transferring
manufacturing assembly
the oriented
concept
context. product
However, of the families
ambidexterityare hardly
scientific to find.
into
understanding the
demand of customization,
manufacturing
term operational units
goals canbut nobeing atbethe
longeralso
must besame
solely
on on time in astrategic
achieving
achieving global
short- of On the product
manufacturing
ambidexterity familyHowever,
context.
management level,(AM)
products differ mainly
thein scientific isin
understanding
manufacturing two
still in
competition
term operational
advantages. with competitors
goals
Therefore, but must
concepts allalso
overbe
are the
on world.
needed achieving Thisstrategic
to strengthen trend,
the main
of characteristics:
its ambidexterity
early (i) the
stages management
and lacksnumber
(AM) of
holisticincomponents
models andandis
manufacturing (ii)
stillthe
concrete in
which
strategicis innovation
advantages. inducing
Therefore, the development
concepts
capacity from macro
are needed
of manufacturing tounits. to micro
strengthen the type
its of components
early
implementation stages and (e.g.lacks
measuresmechanical,
holistic electrical,
to establish models electronical).
and concrete
ambidexterity.
markets,
strategic results
innovation in diminished lot sizes due units.
capacity of manufacturing to augmenting Classical methodologies
implementation measuresconsidering
to establishmainly single products
ambidexterity.
product varieties (high-volume to low-volume production) [1]. or solitary, already existing product families analyze the
2212-8271
To cope with © 2022 Theaugmenting
this Authors. Published
varietyby ELSEVIER
as well asB.V. to be able to product structure on a physical level (components level) which
This is an open
2212-8271
identify access
© 2022
possible Thearticle
Authors.under
optimization the CCpotentials
Published BY-NC-ND
by ELSEVIER license
the(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
in B.V. existing causes difficulties regarding an efficient definition and
Peer-review
This under
is an open responsibility
access article under of the scientific
CC BY-NC-NDcommittee of the
license 32nd CIRP Design Conference
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
production system, it is important to have a precise knowledge
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 32nd CIRP Design Conference
comparison of different product families. Addressing this
2212-8271 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
This is an©open
2212-8271 2017access article Published
The Authors. under theby CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0)
Peer-reviewunder
Peer-review under responsibility
responsibility of the
of the International
scientific Programme
committee of the 28thcommittee of the
CIRP Design 55th CIRP
Conference Conference on Manufacturing Systems
2018.
10.1016/j.procir.2022.05.011
476 Quirin Gärtner et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 475–480
2 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
Therefore, this paper aims to present a first approach to
establishing AM in manufacturing.
2. Objective and research methodology
The scientific process of the "Design Research
Methodology" (DRM), according to Blessing & Chakrabarti
[10], guides this paper. The DRM consists of four phases:
Research Clarification, Descriptive Study I, Prescriptive Study,
and Descriptive study II. This paper focuses on the first three
phases and deals with formulating the research objectives
based on a literature review. The literature analysis and semi-
structured expert interviews are utilized to generate findings
and design a conceptual approach for AM in manufacturing.
Concerning the fourth phase, an initial study is provided by
describing the consequences of the conducted research and
preparing the results for use by others. The following three
research questions guide this paper:
• RQ#1: How can ambidexterity management improve
innovation management in manufacturing?
• RQ#2: How should an approach for ambidexterity
management in manufacturing be conceptualized?
• RQ#3: What managerial measures enable a successful
implementation of ambidexterity management in
manufacturing?
The research builds upon a precise specification of the terms
innovation and ambidexterity management (section 3) using
literature-review methods. Subsequently, existing scientific
approaches and ten semi-structured interviews are examined to
tackle the research questions, which leads to a conceptual
framework for AM in manufacturing (section 4). Closing,
section 5 provides a critical discussion of the presented
approach followed by avenues for further research (section 6)
and a summary (section 7).
3. Terms and definitions
3.1. Manufacturing Innovation Management
Schumpeter [11] defines innovation in manufacturing as
recombining forces and objects to produce something different
or produce differently. Further, Porter adds that two central
elements are necessary to characterize an innovation. First, an
invention is needed that aims to distinguish an existing process
from its initial state. Second, this invention must be
successfully implemented and improve the initial state [12].
Innovations can be distinguished in various ways.
Regarding research on AM, the differentiation into incremental
and radical innovation is particularly relevant. Improvements
with a high affinity to the existing product or process, tapping
their underlying potential through minor changes, are referred
to as incremental innovation [13–15]. In contrast, radical
innovation describes a leap or fundamental change that leads to
a breakthrough towards a new product or process with
significantly better performance [13, 16, 15]. Thus, a process
improvement is also understood as a radical innovation if the
previously existing potential range is exceeded qualitatively or
quantitatively by redesigning relevant process components
[15]. Further, radical innovation is present if the process
complexity has increased significantly within the respective
company, even if the applied concept is already known within
other sectors or companies [17, 18].
To identify, develop and integrate radical and incremental
innovation in manufacturing processes and managerial
methods are necessary. Hence, Manufacturing Innovation
Management (MIM) is designing processes and methods to
identify, develop and integrate both types of innovation.
Further, MIM creates organizational environments, strategies,
and culture for innovation in manufacturing. To summarize,
MIM comprises all organizational and processual aspects to
fulfill the goals mentioned above [19]. In the following, the
manufacturing unit is understood as the entire production
network, including all direct and indirect value-adding sub-
units like manufacturing, assembly, logistics, planning, and
research and development for processes or maintenance.
3.2. Ambidexterity management
Organizational ambidexterity focuses on two fundamental
activities that are antagonistic to each other. Nevertheless, they
must be pursued simultaneously to ensure competitiveness in
the short and long term: exploitation and exploration. [4, 20]
Exploitation refers to applying existing knowledge, while
exploration describes the search for new knowledge. More
precisely, exploitation uses existing knowledge and skills to
generate stable and efficient systems, while exploration
generates knowledge that enables organizations to create
unique advantages and adapt to changing conditions [21–23].
Concerning the innovator's dilemma, both activities have
different understandings depending on the research discipline.
In the context of the present paper, the interpretation
concerning innovation management is deemed the most
relevant. As a result of this, exploitation refers to the creation
of incremental innovation, while exploration is understood as
the creation of radical innovation.
Maximum
Failure trap
Exploration
Success trap
None
None Exploitation Maximum
Fig. 1: Risks in the balance of exploration and exploitation
A one-sided focus on either of the two activities is not a
feasible option for most manufacturing companies, as this
inevitably leads to the so-called success or failure trap (see
Figure 1) [24, 16]. The success trap describes challenges
resulting from the exclusive focus on efficiency-enhancing
exploitation of existing processes. Although incremental
innovations based on established success patterns initially help
 Quirin Gärtner et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 475–480
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
to create a profitability-enhancing effect, this leads to the risk
of missing out on long-term transformations caused by radical
or disruptive technology changes in the long run. Moreover, an
exclusive focus on explorative activities can also have
challenging consequences. If disruptive innovations cannot be
industrialized profitably, the risk of failing to run an efficient
operational business is leading to economic challenges. This
effect is defined as the failure trap.
In this context, AM aims to create a balanced state providing
sufficient space for exploration and exploitation. Transferred to
manufacturing, we define ambidexterity as the ability to deal
with the dilemma between operational efficiency and radical or
disruptive changes in processes. AM enables manufacturing
units to act exploratively and exploitatively to simultaneously
produce incremental and radical process innovations for a
manufacturing system, ensuring short- and long-term
competitiveness [4, 25, 26].
Ambidexterity can be manifested in different ways within
the structures of an organization. Scientific literature focuses
mainly on three basic approaches [16, 26]: Structural,
sequential, and contextual ambidexterity. Structural
ambidexterity separates a company into separate units,
focusing on partial activities [20]. Exploration and exploitation
are thus simultaneously carried out within a dual structure by
different employees under specific circumstances adapted to
each activity. Sequential ambidexterity proposes an alternating
focus shift between the two activities [16]. Exploration and
exploitation thus do not take place simultaneously but
sequentially. The idea behind contextual ambidexterity is to
enable the individual to allocate resources among the different
objectives [16]. Thus, contextual ambidexterity is achieved by
aligning individuals on a meta-level, which affects all functions
and levels of an organization.
According to Raisch et al. [27], several core aspects of AM
across all research streams remain unclear or conceptually
vague concerning their implementation. In this regard, four
central tensions are named, where further research is necessary,
to successfully implement organizational ambidexterity:
Differentiation & Integration, Individual vs. Organization,
Static vs. Dynamic, and Internal vs. External.
The most frequently considered approach to promoting
ambidexterity in organizational science is the classification into
differentiation and integration. Here, differentiation refers to
the separation of exploitative and explorative activities, while
integration refers to mechanisms enabling organizations to
bring both activities together [27]. Subsequently, it stands out
that both are mutually complementary activities that must
always be carried out in combination. To summarize,
differentiation represents the separated generation of
knowledge, while integration ensures the utilization of new
knowledge [28, 16, 29].
4. Concept for ambidextrous innovation management in
manufacturing
The current approach primarily follows the concept that
manufacturing units can achieve ambidexterity using
differentiating and integrating organizational design measures.
477
3
Organizational design dimensions need to be derived to
enable a structured approach, supporting ambidexterity in
manufacturing. To do so, the selection in this paper is based on
the preliminary work of O'Reilly and Tushman [30], Raisch
and Birkinshaw [31], Simsek [32], Güttel & Konlechner [33],
Olivan [16], and Schneeberger & Habegger [34].
Commonalities can be identified within the different
approaches, and a model of relevant design dimensions for
organizational ambidexterity in manufacturing can be
aggregated (Research Clarification).
To increase the practical understanding and to identify
strategies for practical implementation, ten semi-structured
interviews were conducted with relevant experts in the field of
MIM (Descriptive Study I). All involved experts held a top or
middle management position with innovation-related
responsibilities within manufacturing units from globally
operating companies. The interview data was analyzed
manually based on transcripts. As a result, organizational
design dimensions and concrete implementation measures
could be identified. Based on these results, the previously
selected design dimensions have been adapted to create an
integrated concept for successful AM in manufacturing
(Prescriptive Study) displayed in Figure 2.
Objectives
Ambidexterity in Manufacturing
Differentiation Integration
Environment Interfaces & Knowledge Management
Organizational Design Dimensions
Goals Leadership KPIs Basic Management
Culture Processes … Information
Exchange of
Structure
Connection
Separation Experience
Structural Sequencial Contextual Routines Routines
Strategy Vision & Challenges
Justification Resource allocation Values & Identity Shared challenges
Prerequisites
Awareness & Attention
Communication & Change Management General Measures Human Resources Management
Fig. 2: Organizational design dimensions for ambidexterity management in
manufacturing
4.1. Organizational design dimensions and prerequisites
Awareness & Attention for ambidexterity are fundamental
prerequisites for successful implementation within
manufacturing. Hence, this prerequisite aims to create
awareness of ambidexterity's purpose, core principles,
contents, and implementation approaches (see Figure 3).
Comprehensive awareness includes two aspects. First,
awareness for the challenges and opportunities to overcome or
realize through AM must be created. Second, the fundamental
interrelationships, requirements, and effects of the different
types of innovation must be known.
Furthermore, the findings of the Descriptive Study I have
shown that awareness alone is not sufficient. Additionally,
corresponding attention for implementation needs to be
promoted among the management. Concerning this, four
specific points need to be considered. First, the fundamental
will for innovation is necessary. Second, a consensus among
managers on the goals of AM in manufacturing is required.
Third, it is considered helpful if the managers have previous
experience handling ambidextrousness. Lastly, identifying and
478 Quirin Gärtner et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 475–480
4 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
resolving barriers and conflicts within the organization is
decisive for successful implementation.
Manufacturing Unit Manufacturing Management
Awareness & Attention for Ambidexterity
Relevance Definition
Fig. 3: Design dimension “Awareness and Attention”
Differentiating Strategy forms the basis for all measures
that shall have a differentiating effect on the MIM and ensure
differentiation acceptance. The aim is to justify both necessary
activities and the subsequently implemented separation. In
concrete terms, this means that the innovation strategy should
contain two parts. The exploitative part focuses on automation
and productivity improvements of existing processes. In
contrast, the second part should be exploratory and focus on
new manufacturing processes and future technologies.
Therefore, it is a core component of the approach to state that
both parts must be elements of the innovation strategy.
Manufacturing Unit
Separate Exploration Separate Exploitation
Differentiating Separation
Structural Sequencial
Fig. 4: Design dimension “Differentiating Separation”
Differentiating Separation of explorative and exploitative
activities forms a central component, as conflicting goals and
mutual interference between the two approaches should be
avoided as far as possible (see Figure 4). Separation builds the
prerequisite for creating suitable conditions for explorative or
exploitative activities for the respective task fulfillment.
Furthermore, it ensures a transparent, comprehensible
allocation of resources.
The following design dimension aims at setting up the
appropriate Environment for the respective activity (see
Figure 5). These environments or their components should
always be coherent in themselves but only loosely coupled to
the individual other.
The previously described differentiation makes it possible
to meet the requirements of the different environments. In the
present approach, it is essential to underline that the appropriate
differentiating setting needs to be effectively implemented, as
this is decisive to realize the potential of the differentiation.
Manufacturing Unit
Separate Exploration Separate Exploitation
Environment (Exploration) Environment (Exploitation)
Environment
Goals Culture Processes
Fig. 5: Design dimension “Environment”
The Integrative Vision & Challenges aim to combine
exploration and exploitation into a meaningful long-term goal
through a basic set of values that are equally applicable to both
(see Figure 6). In addition to these values, shared challenges
are essential to achieving integration between exploitation and
exploration. Accordingly, the design dimension consists of
several components, which have to be designed by the
organization. These include common identities and values,
Manufacturing Unit Manufacturing Management Operator
Vision & Challenges
Values Identity Shared Challenges
Operator
Fig. 6: Design dimension “Integrative Vision and Challenges”
Will to change
common elements of the incentive system, mission statements,
and common challenges and objectives.
Integrative Interfaces & Knowledge are necessary as a
direct consequence of differentiating measures (see Figure 7).
The separated activities need to be reconnected by creating
interfaces and exchanging knowledge. As a result of this,
networking between the relevant employees via interfaces,
coordination between explorative and exploitative activities,
and an exchange of knowledge across all hierarchy levels
should be ensured. This design dimension focuses on providing
an integrative effect at low to medium management levels in
particular. In this context, it is crucial to ensure that integration
Information
Separate Exploration Separate Exploitation
Integrative Interfaces & Knowledge
Basic Information Experience Routines
Contextual Fig. 7: Design dimension “Integrative Interfaces and Knowledge”
at the employee level can take place directly between
employees through a bilateral knowledge flow.
An Integrative Management is responsible for
implementing integrating effects at higher organizational levels
(see Figure 8). Therefore, this dimension has a similar objective
as the Integrative Knowledge & Interfaces design dimension.
However, as the issues to be integrated at higher organizational
levels of the company are more complex, volatile, and less
delineated, informal instruments between different managers
are increasingly necessary.
Manufacturing Unit
Management Management Management
Integrative Management
Structures Connection Routines
Fig. 8: Design dimension “Integrative Management”
4.2. Managerial implementation measures
After introducing the respective organizational design
dimensions, the following section illustrates exemplary
manufacturing-specific managerial implementation measures.
These enable a targeted influence (differentiation or
… integration) within MIM and thereby facilitate the
implementation of the approach.
Attention & Awareness for AM can be achieved through
measures in human resource management, communication and
change management, and general measures. For example, an
active communication strategy can strengthen attention for
ambidexterity by highlighting its relevance in connection with
the KPIs of manufacturing (quality, cost, and time) or the
EBIT. Regarding human resource management, measures can
be taken through targeted competence development programs
focusing on innovation management. In addition, a diverse
workforce can help to increase awareness for innovation. As a
primary measure, companies need to define which innovation
 Quirin Gärtner et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 475–480
Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
activities are considered explorative or exploitative in the
manufacturing context to raise employee awareness for the
differentiation between the two activities.
To develop a Differentiating Strategy, three points have
been identified relevant in manufacturing. First, the innovation
strategy must show the need for exploitation and exploration
and define its contribution to the overall manufacturing
strategy. Furthermore, the innovation strategy needs to address
conflicting measures and activities to highlight potential
conflicts and describe boundaries for both activities. Lastly, a
strategy needs to include explorative topics as part of the
general objectives to justify the development of radical topics
in the manufacturing context.
The present approach uses the three primary alternatives for
separation within ambidexterity (structural, sequential,
contextual) to implement the Differentiating Separation.
Structural separation can be achieved in manufacturing by
clearly separating functional areas. For example, can
operational plants focus on incremental changes while central
MIM departments focus more on radical changes. Sequential
separation can be implemented through fixed periods for
testing activities within the existing manufacturing system.
Further, the temporary delegation of employees to the
respective other area can help to implement sequential
ambidexterity in manufacturing. Contextual separation can be
achieved in manufacturing through specific incentive and
reward systems, such as innovation awards, and creative
environments, such as learning and innovation labs.
The appropriate Environment can be attained by designing
characteristic elements, which differ depending on whether the
environment needs to support explorative or exploitative
activities. The following seven elements are relevant to
characterize differentiating environments: Strategic goals,
fields of action, performance indicators, culture, leadership
style, processes or organization, and technology management.
Figure 9 provides an overview of how the individual elements
can be designed in the manufacturing context
Differentiating Environments
Elements Exploitation
Strategic Goals
Deepen Knowledge
(Incremental Innovation)
Fields of activity Enhance Process efficiency
Performance indicators Productivity, Efficiency
Culture High Quality, Zero Defects
Leadership Authorities, Top-Down
Organization Formal, Routinization
Technology management Technology implementation
Fig. 9: Overview of elements to create differentiating environments in
manufacturing
Several factors can influence the design dimension
Integrative Vision & Challenges. To achieve a uniform
understanding of the shared vision in manufacturing, a shared
innovation identity must be developed that unites the
incrementally focused values of manufacturing with
explorative values. Furthermore, common innovation
roadmaps can address future challenges and highlight
479
5
sequences and interrelations between individual innovation
activities.
The design dimension Integrative Knowledge &
Interfaces measures can be divided into three groups of
integration mechanisms. The first group consists of basic
information, with a wide range of information but only a little
depth of information. The second group, exchange of
experience and coordination, tries to reach out to a medium
range of information recipients with a medium depth of
information. Routines form the last group of integrative
measures with a small information width but a high information
depth. To share basic information with many recipients,
manufacturing-wide-accessible information platforms such as
the intranet can be used.
Further, physical or virtual manufacturing-specific event
spaces can be utilized to display information. For the exchange
of knowledge between specific groups of recipients, realistic
manufacturing-specific qualification or simulation
environments can demonstrate particular use cases of
innovation projects. A routine exchange of information
between specific knowledge carriers can be implemented
within manufacturing through regular roundtables. These
should connect operational employees and specific knowledge
carriers from explorative areas to discuss problems and
explorative solution approaches.
Within the design dimension of Integrative Management,
methods can establish a connection between managers and
routinize communication within the manufacturing
management board. One way to achieve interconnection is to
have managers shift between different units with different
focus settings (explorative, exploitative). Further, joint
conferences on innovation-specific topics can strengthen the
interconnection. Routinization of communication can be
implemented within the manufacturing management board
with the help of regular roundtables on innovation in the
manufacturing context.
5. Discussion
Exploration Although manufacturing units are regarded as purely
Generate Knowledge exploitative within classical ambidexterity research, it has been
(Radical Innovation)
shown that this perspective is no longer sufficient for
New process development
manufacturing companies to stay competitive (#RQ1). This
Growth, Flexibility
paper presents an approach to strengthen AM within
Risk-friendly, Experimentation
manufacturing units through the continuous combination of
Visionary, involving differentiating and integrating organizational measures
Informal, Organic structure (#RQ2). To realize these differentiating or integrating effects,
Technology identification seven concrete design dimensions and managerial
/ development
implementation measures have been identified (RQ#3).
Significantly, it emerged that measures for the fundamental
awareness and attention for AM are necessary within
manufacturing to implement AM. An explanation for this is
that manufacturing units have been mainly focused on
exploitation, and only recent technological developments have
created a need for exploration.
In addition to existing approaches, the present approach
points out that integrating radical activities into the existing
manufacturing system imposes a significant challenge on
MIM. Therefore, it was emphasized that the differentiation of
480 Quirin Gärtner et al. / Procedia CIRP 107 (2022) 475–480
6 Author name / Procedia CIRP 00 (2019) 000–000
exploration and exploitation alone is not sufficient to establish
AM in manufacturing but that the integration of both activities
forms the crucial success factor.
6. Avenues for further research
Further research in the field of ambidexterity in MIM should
focus on three specific points. First, the measures to implement
the respective effect of the organizational design dimensions in
the manufacturing context should be further investigated. This
includes not only the completeness of the measures but also the
analysis of their respective organizational prerequisites as well
as their interdependencies. Second, further research is needed
on contextual ambidexterity within manufacturing. Further
detailing of the necessary incentive and target systems should
strengthen ambidexterity at the individual level within MIM.
Third, further research should focus on integrating innovation
environments into MIM to implement radical innovation
projects successfully and thus strengthen ambidexterity in
manufacturing.
7. Summary
This contribution serves as a first approach for AM in
manufacturing to cope with the fast development of
technologies and a highly complex and turbulent environment.
The elaborated approach follows the concept that
manufacturing units can achieve ambidexterity by
differentiating and integrating exploitative and explorative
activities using organizational design measures. Therefore, the
relevant organizational design dimensions have been
identified, described, and put in a manufacturing context.
Furthermore, an overall concept was developed, which
displays the intended effects (integration or differentiation) of
the individual dimensions putting them further into a
constructive connection. In addition, concrete managerial
implementation measures have been elaborated to support the
successful implementation of AM in MIM.
The approach is intended as a guidance that depicts what an
achievable situation for ambidexterity in manufacturing might
look like, revealing tasks that have to be tackled and prompting
starting points for further research.
Acknowledgments
The German Research Foundation (DFG) funds this
research and development project 431696521 "Bewertung des
Wettbewerbspotenzials von Produktionstechnologien". We
extend our sincere thanks to the DFG for the generous support.
References
[1] Dobbs, R., Manyika, J., Woetzel, J.R., 2015, No ordinary disruption: The four
global forces breaking all the trends, Public Affairs, New York.
[2] Abele, E., Reinhart, G., 2011, Zukunft der Produktion: Herausforderungen,
Forschungsfelder, Chancen, Hanser, München.
[3] Iansiti, M., Lakhani, K.R., 2014, Digital ubiquity: How connections, sensors, and
data are revolutionizing business, Harvard business review, 92/11:90–99.
[4] Fojcik, T.M., 2015, Ambidextrie und Unternehmenserfolg bei einem
diskontinuierlichen Wandel: Eine empirische Analyse unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Anpassung und Veränderung von Organisationsarchitekturen
im Zeitablauf. Dissertation, Duisburg.
[5] Gärtner, Q., Dorth, A., 2022, Ambidexterity Management in Manufacturing, ZWF
Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftlichen Fabrikbetrieb, 117/1:51–55.
[6] Hofer, A., Brandl, F., Bauer, H., Haghi, S., Reinhart, G., 2019, A Framework for
Managing Innovation Cycles in Manufacturing Systems, Procedia CIRP,
93/1:771–776.
[7] Abernathy, W.J., 1978, The productivity dilemma: Roadblock to innovation in the
automobile industry, Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
[8] Christensen, C.M., 2015, The innovator's dilemma: Warum etablierte
Unternehmen den Wettbewerb um bahnbrechende Innovationen verlieren, Vahlen,
München.
[9] Duncan, R.B., 1976, The ambidextrous organization, designing dual structures for
innovation, in: Kilmann, R.H., Pondy, L.R., Slevin, D.P. (Eds.), The management
of organization design. North-Holland Publication, New York, pp. 167–188.
[10] Blessing, L.T., Chakrabarti, A., 2009, DRM, a Design Research Methodology,
Springer, London.
[11] Schumpeter, J.A., 1961, Konjunkturzyklen: Eine theoretische, historische und
statistische Analyse des kapitalistischen Prozesses, Vandenhoek & Ruprecht,
Göttingen.
[12] Porter, M.E., 1990, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Harvard business
review, 68/1:73–91.
[13] Gassmann, O., 1997, Internationales F&E-Management: Potentiale und
Gestaltungskonzepte transnationaler F&E-Projekte, Oldenbourg, München.
[14] Henderson, R.M., Clark, K.B., 1990, Architectural Innovation: The
Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established
Firms, Administrative Science Quarterly, 35/1:9.
[15] Schallmo, D., Brecht, L., 2017, Prozessinnovation erfolgreich anwenden:
Grundlagen und methodisches Vorgehen: ein Management- und Lehrbuch mit
Aufgaben und Fragen, Springer Gabler, Berlin.
[16] Olivan, P., 2019, Methode zur organisatorischen Gestaltung radikaler
Technologieentwicklungen unter Berücksichtigung der Ambidextrie. Dissertation,
Stuttgart.
[17] Kaschny, M., Nolden, M., Schreuder, S., 2015, Innovationsmanagement im
Mittelstand, Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden.
[18] Vahs, D., Brem, A., 2015, Innovationsmanagement: Von der Idee zur
erfolgreichen Vermarktung, Schäffer-Poeschel Verlag, Stuttgart.
[19] Brandl, F., Kagerer, M., Reinhart, G., 2018, A Hybrid Innovation Management
Framework for Manufacturing: Enablers for more Agility in Plants, Procedia
CIRP, 72/1:1154–1159.
[20] Tushman, M.L., O'Reilly, C.A., 1996, Ambidextrous organizations. Managing
evolutionary and revolutionary change, California Management Review, 38/4:8–
30.
[21] Adler, P.S., Benner, M.J., Brunner, D.J., MacDuffie, J.P., Osono, E., Staats, B.R.,
Takeuchi, H., Tushman, M.L., Winter, S.G., 2009, Perspectives on the
Productivity Dilemma, Journal of Operations Management, 27/2:99–113.
[22] March, J.G., 1991, Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning,
Organization Science, 2/1:71–78.
[23] March, J.G., Simon, H.A., 1993, Organizations, MA: Blackwell, Cambridge.
[24] Lackner, H., Güttel, W.H., Garaus, C., Konlechner, S., Müller, B., 2011, Different
ambidextrous learning architectures and the role of HRM systems, Aalborg.
[25] He, Z.-L., Wong, P.-K., 2004, Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of
the ambidexterity hypothesis, Organizational Science, 15/4.
[26] O'Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L., 2013, Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present,
and future, The Academy of Management perspectives, 4/27:324–338.
[27] Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., Tushman, M.L., 2009, Organizational
Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained
Performance, Organization Science, 20/4:685–695.
[28] Jansen, J.J., Tempelaar, M.P., van den Bosch, F.A., Volberda, H.W., 2009,
Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration
mechanisms, Organization Science, 20/4:797–811.
[29] Taródy, D., Ferincz, A., Mike, K., Borbély, S., Burka, D., Balogh, V., 2016,
Organizational Ambidexterity as a new Research Paradigm in strategic
Management, Budapest Management Review, 47/5:39–52.
[30] O'Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L., 2008, Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability:
Resolving the innovator's dilemma, Research in Organizational Behavior,
28/1:185–206.
[31] Raisch, B., Birkinshaw, J., 2008, Organizational Ambidexterity: Antecedents,
Outcomes, and Moderators, Journal of Management, 34/3:375–409.
[32] Simsek, Z., 2009, Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel
Understanding, Journal of Management Studies, 46/4:597–624.
[33] Güttel, W.H., Konlechner, S., 2014, Ambidextrie als Ansatz zur Balancierung von
Effizienz und Innovativität in Organisationen, in: Burr, W. (Ed.), Innovation:
Theorien, Konzepte und Methoden der Innovationsforschung. Kohlhammer,
Stuttgart, pp. 345–371.
[34] Schneeberger, S.J., Habegger, A., 2020, Ambidextrie - der organisationale
Drahtseilakt, in: Schellinger, J., Tokarski, K.O., Kissling-Näf, I. (Eds.), Digitale
Transformation und Unternehmensführung. Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden, pp. 105–
144.