Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 60 (2017) 374 – 379

27th CIRP Design, 2017

Commercialization within advanced manufacturing: value stream mapping

as a tool for efficient learning
Oda Ellingsen*
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Richard Birkelands vei 2B, 7491 Trondheim, Norway
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +47 90 15 93 93. E-mail address: odae@stud.ntnu.no

Abstract

Due to the recent drop in oil prices and high environmental dynamism, organizations delivering in affected markets need to
identify ways to reduce time to market (TtM) and cost of non-quality (CONQ) of their commercialization processes, in addition
to pursuing and developing new markets. In order to survive over time, organizations need to manage knowledge for both
exploitation and exploration, utilizing existing competencies and acquiring new ones. This paper discusses the study of a
multinational organization’s commercialization process of two large and complex projects and their R&T/D (research and
technology/ development) and NPI (new product introduction) processes. The two projects are chosen as they represent two ends
of a continuum scale of exploration and exploitation. The first project relies primarily on new knowledge, capabilities and skills
and the second on existing ones. The data is collected through an exploratory case study based on observation of a two-day value
stream mapping (VSM) workshop conducted for each of the projects. In addition to the case study, the analysis in the article is
based on archive data such as emails, hour bookings from the organization’s ERP-system, technological and financial reports,
presentation material, and internal and external announcements. This article’s novelty is derived from the depth of the insights
provided in the case and the rich and detailed data gathered. The findings provide a review of the operational challenges and best
practices for reducing TtM and CONQ of the commercialization process in the context of advanced manufacturing.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of the scientific
of the scientific committeecommittee of theDesign
of the 27th CIRP 27th CIRP Design Conference.
Conference

Keywords: Commercialization; exploration; exploitation; value stream mapping; advanced manufacturing; NPI

1.
Introduction capacity, advanced capabilities and technology, and a need for

A decisive part of an innovation is the commercialization
or industrialization process of the product or service. The time
where organizations could invest and build technology
fortresses with high barriers of entry are gone [1]. This
stresses organizations to reduce their time to market (TtM)
and their cost of non-quality (CONQ) of new product
introduction (NPI). Organizations need to continuously
improve and design their products and services for service,
cost and manufacturing [2, 3, 4]. Advanced manufacturing is
the application of novel technologies, and a term describing
manufacturing that adds a high degree of value in the
production process, typically associated with complex
products. Other characteristics comprise high cost base,
degree of knowledge creation, abstraction and absorptive
agile and flexible processes. The advanced manufacturing
industry is also characterized as first movers in terms of
technology, utilizing new often disruptive manufacturing
tools. Such new tools and technologies within manufacturing
technology have also been assigned the German term
Industrie 4.0 [5]. Advanced manufacturing industries can be
found in several places around the world, as in Norway. Such
industries are typically networks of many different  often
complementary organizations delivering to markets with
similar customer requirements. The actors are often close in
geographical proximity; they have known capabilities and
proven past history; and they compete locally for recruiting
the best employees and skills, which has raised the cost base.
With the recent environmental dynamism caused by the drop
in oil prices and with the current market situation, this calls
for cost reduction initiatives and new practices.

2212-8271 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 27th CIRP Design Conference
doi:10.1016/j.procir.2017.01.039
 Oda Ellingsen / Procedia CIRP 60 (2017) 374 – 379
The task of creating profitable growth and long-term
survival of organizations has been described in management
literature as organizational learning through exploration
(includes: search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play,
flexibility, discovery, and innovation) and exploitation
(includes: refinement, choice, production, efficiency,
selection, implementation, and execution) by March [6: 71].
March [6] introduced the underlying paradox of exploration
and exploitation of the balancing hypothesis and scholars
have given extensive attention to the paradox in this field of
inquiry. The phenomenon of balancing exploration and
exploitation behaves differently on different units of analysis,
which has important implications for the assumptions made.
Short term is overemphasized over long term since returns
from exploration are: positive, proximate, and predictable and
returns from exploitation are: uncertain, distant, and often
negative in short terms [6: 85]. However, organizations need
to manage both exploration and exploitation in order to
survive over time, but it is problematic to engage in both.
Levinthal and March [7] refined March’s [6] balance
statement from both, to exploitation to a minimum and
exploration to a maximum. They argued that economic
models had been developing without considering behavioral
assumptions and found that behavior was also biased, and that
becoming experts had a feedback-loop that reinforced a given
behavior, thus becoming less able to adapt to changes in the
environment. They also found that organizational techniques
are problematic. The problems encountered are difficulty in
transferring individual learning to organizational learning, and
in cross-functioning and unit learning.
Much is understood regarding how balance is achieved
and implications of balance. However, few empirical studies
have looked into the operational sides of managing the
transition from exploration to exploitation, or put in this
study’s context the transition from new product introduction
to a fully commercialized product. New insights in this field
will be of importance in efficiently bridging the gap between
invention, conceptualization and commercialization. Since
differentiation is related to exploration and cost reduction and
elimination to exploitation, there is a tension between the
organization’s need to achieve reduced cost and time of their
NPI and such processes’ inherent need for slack resources.
Such tension leads to the following problem statement and
this study’s focus: how do organizations successfully
commercialize complex product innovations, and manage the
transition from exploration to exploitation?
The overall objective of this study is to provide insight
into the operational side of how companies can manage the
commercialization of new technology and complex products
within the advanced manufacturing context. The motivation
for this study is based on the case company Rolls-Royce
Marine’s need to reduce cost and time of its NPI processes to
provide an overall reduction in CONQ and TtM for its fully
commercialized products. This study follows two major
reviews for value stream mapping (VSM) of two selected NPI
projects, representing two ends of the continuum of
exploration and exploitation.
375
2.
Theoretical framework
Since there is a continuous need to move products faster
to markets, organizations also need to continuously develop
their NPI processes [8]. However, Griffin also stated the
importance of understanding the current cycle time of the
processes before changing them, in order to have a baseline
control on the expected effects of the planned change. This
study elaborates such understanding by studying the value
stream of two NPIs, and identifying points of improvement
and acknowledges best practices in current processes.
Different schools of thoughts in management literature
conceptualize exploration and exploitation differently and
argue for exploration and exploitation as two ends of a
continuum [6, 7, 9] or that they are two orthogonal and
independent activities [10]. Gupta et al. [11] argued that
exploitation and exploration are mutually exclusive,
continuous within domains, and orthogonal across domains.
This study agrees with the view that the distinction is a matter
of degree rather than kind. The relationship between
exploration and exploitation is difficult to disentangle, since
they have inherent trade-offs. Such trade-offs are rooted in the
competition for scarce resources, overemphasizing immediate
and certain versus remote and uncertain outcome and the
inhabitation of experimentation of existing routines [6]. Since
organizations have the tendency to exploit over time, the
solution is to explore more, pushing long-term performance.
Siggelkow and Rivkin [10] show that organizational structure
matters and trying to explore as much as possible can backfire
at lower unit levels. Much of the research on exploration and
exploitation has identified antecedents [12, 13]. They can be
grouped in three categories: environmental (dynamism,
shocks, competitive intensity, and appropriability regime),
organizational history (absorptive capacity, slack resources,
organizational structure, culture, size, and age), and
behavioral (risk aversion, performance feedback, and past
experience) [14]. In addition to the questions regarding
definition and the continuum versus orthogonal issue, Gupta
et al. [11] identified two additional key questions related to
exploration and exploitation. Whether balance is achieved
simultaneously or sequentially; and whether companies
should do both or specialize in one?
Lavie et al. [14] identify four approaches for achieving
balance. The first is ambidexterity, the simultaneous pursuit
of exploration and exploitation and organizational separation.
Benner & Tushman [15] argue for ambidexterity and measure
exploration and exploitation along a continuum and find that
firms’ ability to maintain search and exploration is difficult,
and challenged by process management. Raisch et al. [16]
argue for managerial attention to achieve ambidexterity and
balance through organizational separation and integration of
internal and external knowledge. This requires dynamic
management processes that need to resolve the tension
between differentiation and integration, both at organizational
and individual levels. One challenge with such approach is
that the balance challenge can be resolved at one level, only to
find its way to the next level in the organization. Also, there is
the challenge of re-integrating the separate units leveraging
new knowledge created through exploration and utilizing it
376 Oda Ellingsen / Procedia CIRP 60 (2017) 374 – 379
through exploitation. The second answer for solving the
balance hypothesis is punctuated equilibrium, transition from
long periods of exploitation to short periods of exploration
[17]. Assuming that balance is achieved over time and
performed by the same unit without specializing contains the
challenge of integration and transition. Brown and Eisenhardt
[18] gave evidence that some companies were able to manage
such challenge and others were not. The third approach is
contextual separation, shifting from exploration and
exploitation, when the context requires the specific activity
[14]. The challenge in such approach is that it requires skilled
and diverse individuals, in order to cope with the challenge of
shifting between exploration and exploitation, and answering
contradicting requirements at different units. There is also a
question, whether one individual can possess both such
divergent skill sets. The fourth approach is domain separation,
specializing in exploration or exploitation and balance is
achieved across domains. The challenging part of such
approach is the assumption that domains are not
interdependent and the managerial challenge of assessing
whether to explore or exploit in any given domain. Hence,
there is no magic solution to balance exploration and
exploitation and the most challenging part is not to separate
exploration and exploitation, but rather to reconnect them.
The environmental operational conditions of a company will
determine the correct approach.
Balance can also be achieved across different modes of
operation, like internal organization mode where
organizations explore and exploit in-house [13], alliance
mode where organizations seek collaboration with alliance
partners [9, 19, 20] and acquisition mode where organizations
acquires firms holding complementary and related knowledge
[21, 22]. Balance within organizational modes are challenged
by conflicting routines, because exploration and exploitation
involve different processes [15]. Rothaermel & Deeds [20] are
the first to apply and empirically test the exploration and
exploitation framework in the context of alliances. They
found empirical evidence of a positive effect from an
integrated product development path leading from exploration
alliances, through products in development and exploitation
alliances, to products in the market. Unlike prior works, their
study acknowledges the fact that exploration and exploitation
can occur both within and through alliances. They also focus
on the dynamic aspect and demonstrate that exploration and
exploitation are both consequential and interdependent,
meaning that the positive effect of balance can be achieved
over time. In this way, the outcomes of exploration can be
exploited in later stages as well. However, their assumption of
operationalization of variables as the sum of alliances and
products also represents an opportunity to provide more in-
depth insight of how such transition is solved in practice.
Lavie and Drori [23] studied a similar issue—the knowledge
creation (scientific publications) and application (progress in
the commercialization of actual products based on the
publications). They found that the association between the
internal and external resources (collaboration) is collinear,
implying that too little or too much collaboration has a
negative association and that internal resources mitigate both
the negative and positive effects.
Capability
Explore
Merger &
New
Alliance
Acquisition
Known
Internal Alliance
Known New
Exploit Technology
Fig. 1. Strategic orientation adapted from (Lavie et al., 2010)
Fig. 1 is based on Lavie et al. and their distinction of
different modes of operation; internal, alliance and merger,
and acquisition. The model describes how organizations can
make use of alliances to acquire new knowledge, when the
capabilities needed are new and the technology is known or
when the technology needed is new and the capabilities are
known; or exploit known technologies to create new
capabilities or exploit existing capabilities to create new
technologies. Organizations should exploit internally when
both the capabilities and the technology are known. Also,
when organizations seek knowledge that require both new
capabilities and new technology the merger and acquisition
mode should be pursued.
Understanding the consequences of exploration and
exploitation is important as they affect firm performance. He
and Wong [24] were the first to empirically test the direct
performance implications of the balancing hypothesis in terms
of growth rates. They found a trade-off in competing for
scarce resources and a positive effect on growth rates. Their
study implies a limitation to the ambidextrous organization
derived from unmanageable tensions when exploration and
exploitation are pushed to extreme levels. A dynamic balance
point would allow and correspond to different balance points
in the individual NPI projects and its different processes and
contexts. Jansen et al. [25] found that unit ambidexterity is
more likely to increase performance when there are less
centralized units, less unit resource interdependencies, and
more resource munificence. Lavie et al. [14] found a negative
association with equal proportion of exploration and
exploitation within domains and a positive one for balance
across domains and recommended specialization.
3.
Value stream mapping as a tool for efficient learning
The precursor section has discussed how organizations
need to both create profitable growth and long-term survival.
This is achieved by reaching some form of balance between
exploration and exploitation. A decisive part in the process of
transitioning from NPI to a fully commercialized product is
the ability to leverage and exploit new or existing knowledge,
providing efficient learning processes. VSM is a tool to
increase a firm’s efficiency, and is typically used to identify
the transformation of information flow of raw material into
the finished product or service of a value, customers are
willing to pay for [26, 27].
 Oda Ellingsen / Procedia CIRP 60 (2017) 374 – 379
VSM is most commonly applied in manufacturing
processes and plant layout optimization. Rother and Shook
define a value stream as “all the actions (both value added
and non-value added) currently required to bring a product
through the main flows essential to every product: (1) the
production flows from raw material into the arms of the
customer, and (2) the design flow from concept to launch”. In
this way they also imply that VSM can be applied to a process
from concept design to launch or commercialized product.
Benefits of VSM are that it enables visualization of the
entire process, identifies flow decision, links between
operations and provides an as-is and to-be state map [27, 28].
Hines and Rich [29] outlined seven VSM tools and found that
managers reported that VSM was beneficial in eliminating
waste, focusing on key issues, and would continue to be
important in the coming years. Braglia et al. [30] applied
VSM to complex production systems and conducted a case
study to assess the validity of their proposed methodology and
found that it is beneficial in handling complexity. VSM not
only highlights process inefficiencies, but also serves as an
excellent form of guidance regarding improvement areas for
organizations, hence providing efficient learning opportunities
[31].
4.
Methodology
4.1.
Research design
This study performs an exploratory case study of a
multinational organization’s ongoing industrialization of two
NPI projects. The case company Rolls-Royce Marine (RRM)
is located in Norway and has operations in over 50 countries.
It delivers complex products and integrated systems to the
marine industry worldwide. Since organizations hold
operational knowledge difficult to detect by solely reviewing
the literature, this calls for case studies [32]. By studying and
attempting to bridge theory and practice, the aim is to make a
contribution to both domains, as argued by Van de Ven [33].
As seen in the literature, there are several discussions and
solutions on how organizations manage the balance of
exploration and exploitation. However, less is known
regarding how the balance processes develop over time and
how companies manage the transition from exploration to
exploitation, from an operational perspective. The
multinational case company performs both exploration and
exploitation, internally and externally. For this case, two NPI
projects are chosen to give in-depth insights on the processes
and developments over time. The first NPI project is the
permanent magnet tunnel thruster 1600 and 2000 (PMTT) and
the scope of this project was to industrialize the permanent
magnet (PM) technology for a range of 5 thrusters and it
relied on developing new capabilities, skills and knowledge.
The project was launched in January 2007 and the PM
technology was understood as proven technology. The second
NPI project was the product E26, a new hydraulic valve
function for several winch motors. The project was launched
in May 2009 and relied on known capabilities, skills and
technology. The two cases were selected to project
commonalities and divergence between the two NPI projects.
377
During spring 2015, the company performed a two-day
VSM workshop for each of the two projects with the objective
to understand the NPI cycle in support of ongoing business-
wide strategic program. The workshops had participants from
the following functions: senior executives; project managers;
R&T; R&D; manufacturing; engineering; quality; purchasing;
and service. In total, there were 17 participants in the two
workshops. At the time of the workshops, the NPI projects
had been ongoing respectively, 6y, and 8y and 4m.
4.2.
Value stream mapping as a tool for reviewing NPI
Within Rolls-Royce, there is an established practice to
perform VSM of different processes to identify bottle-necks
and points of improvements. Using VSM is recognized as a
tool to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
manufacturing and logistical processes. However, reviewing
more flexible and dynamic processes holds some novelty
within the field of advanced manufacturing. The Marine
division has only recently applied VSM to its NPI processes.
The leader of the workshop had experience from performing
such type of workshop on NPI process from the Aerospace
division of Rolls-Royce. The VSM follows established phases
and routines. Initially, the workshop leader held lectures on
VSM as a Lean based-philosophy tool and Six Sigma
methodology aimed at eliminating waste and reducing TtM
and CONQ. The specific methodology used in this case was
the SIPOC tool, which is an abbreviation for what a team
should identify and evaluate during the VSM process. The S
represents the supplier, I the inputs, P the processes, O the
outputs, and C the customers. Subsequently, all the central
actors and functions in the NPI projects were invited to the
workshop drawing up the timeline of the project with all
critical high level events and relevant outputs and
information. The customers of each event and process were
identified, and the processes inputs were also stated in
addition to its suppliers.
In the analytical phase of this VSM, the informant’s
information was matched with archive data and finally, a
complete map of the value stream was provided together with
a report with internally oriented communication of the results
including bottle-necks, points of improvement, lessons
learned, and best practices. This study’s analysis is based on
observations and field notes from participation in the two
VSM workshops and semi-structured interviews pertaining to
central functions in the two projects. The author of this article
had no prior knowledge about the two projects, disregarding
the information provided in the invitation for the workshops.
The analysis for the internally oriented report was based on
archive data such as, hour booking in the company’s ERP-
system; technology and financial business reviews;
presentation material; announcements; applications; and other
relevant technological reports. For this article’s study, an
independent analysis was conducted based on the field
observations and notes, the interviews, the internal report, and
access to the organization’s archive data. The statements
presented account the author’s interpretation, and do not
necessarily represent the organization’s views and
perspective.
378 Oda Ellingsen / Procedia CIRP 60 (2017) 374 – 379
5.
Findings and discussion
The main findings in this study is that interface between
R&T and R&D becomes challenging when both the
technology and product (capability) in new, e.g. evaluating
the maturity of technology, defining responsibilities related to
demonstration and proof of concept, and defining early phase
requirements. R&T has the responsibility of validating
technological concepts (which includes; design concepts, final
design and prototype definition and sourcing) and R&D has
the responsibility of developing, introducing and
commercializing the product (which includes: prototype build,
prototype testing, installation and commissioning, manuals
definition and design optimization, and operational trial).
The analysis of the PMTT project indicates that
challenges of transitioning from exploration to exploitation
were related to three separate levels in the organization:
interface between units, program management and
governance, and overarching product strategy. In the early
development phase of the PMTT the two units encountered
different issues and separately received new funding to
resolve the issues. Since the two units operated independently,
this led to parallel activities and duplicate solutions. At the
program management and governance level the two units had
at times conflicting performance measurements, thus missing
sufficient initiatives to develop one common solution,
optimizing according to separate unit performance
measurement. Requirements ensuring successful
industrialization were made in early phases when uncertainty
were high resulting in several major changes, leading to
inexpedient allocation of resources and funding. The
importance of including key functions, such as purchasing,
planning and control, in early stages became evident to secure
product quality and reducing rework.
An overarching product strategy ensures that the
developments are in line with the company´s wider portfolio
of business cases and introduction of similar and
complementary technologies. Such optimization will ensure
sufficient new functions (exploration) and correct unit cost
(exploitation). Since requirements (both from technological
and customer’s perspectives) evolve over time, re-assessing
the requirements continusly throughout the industrializing
process will help improve optimization of product strategy.
Integrating the marketing unit in early phases provide
valuable background knowledge for their production of
marketing material.
The total value stream lead time calculated was 8 years
and 4 months. Value adding cycle time was found to be 4
years and 11 months. Waiting time was 3 years and 5 months.
The interface issues accounted for 71% of the non-value
adding time. In 2013, the case company acquired a PM
technology provider (acquisition orientation). The analysis of
the E26 project, which had the objectives to develop a new
valve, revealed that introducing a new product that can be
viewed as an exploitative activity also entailed explorative
activities, which became a challenge for the R&D unit
processes, and the companies integrated product and process
readiness (IPPR). The key novelty of the final product is an
advanced electronic system and a new mechanical and
physical layout. The R&D unit had limited skills in advanced
electrical systems. This challenge was solved by allying with
a partner with expertise in this field (alliance orientation). As
with the PMTT project, the E26 did not have the required fast
make and development infrastructure, nevertheless both units
were able to define successful solutions, providing valuable
new knowledge for the company. The total value stream lead
time calculated was 6 years. Value adding time was found to
be 2 years and 6 months and waiting time was 3 years and 6
months. Important findings are the benefits of continuous risk
assessment and maturity level assessment, reviewing lessons
learned, and establishing product ownership. In both NPI
projects, there was identified a need for fast make and
development infrastructure. The importance of clarifying
product launch, core functions, people and skills required to
deliver a fully commercialized NPI became clear, highlighting
the challenge of transitioning and integrating exploration and
exploitation. To summarize, the key delaying factors causing
lack of value were:
•
Unclear interface between R&T and R&D.
•
Lack of sufficiently holistic; governance and program
management, and product strategy.
•
Lack of established development/ fast make infrastructure
•
Lack of specific commercial knowledge
•
Lack of distinct separation of exploration from exploitation
The best practices and valuable new knowledge are:
•
Successfully proven PM technology on PM TT1600 and
2000; outlined a technological platform for the PM TT
family range; a new supply chain to supply
industrialization of PM has been established.
•
E26 project team has provided a successful design and
validation of a new control system for the E26 valve family
within the planned budget target. And a new infrastructure
for fast make has been identified.
The debate in literature has been regarding how to provide
the correct balance and the implications of the balance.
However, little attention has been given to the management of
the transition phase from exploration to exploitation from an
operational perspective, and complex organizational
structures. This study provides insight into such processes and
the factors contributing to lack of value in terms of CONQ
and long lead time. Secondly, the literature argues that
exploration and exploitation require distinctly different skill
sets, and this study provides additional insight into the
interface between units. The results show that the exploitative
case, based on existing capabilities and new technology, made
use of alliance orientation to achieve balance, and the
explorative one used case acquisition orientation. This is in
line with the framework based on Lavie et al.’s [14]
distinctions. It also supports that organizations should
emphasize one over the other and specialize across domains,
related to the task characteristics. Finally, studying two
different types of innovation projects in-depth from NPI to
commercialized, within the same organization, has facilitated
a review of the challenges of transition from exploration to
exploitation. This extends the understanding of the difficulties
providing insights into why some, or under which conditions,
firms are able to achieve balance in line with Brown and
 Oda Ellingsen / Procedia CIRP 60 (2017) 374 – 379
Eisenhardt’s notion [18] and that the challenge still applies.
The case also revealed that although the multinational
company, both explores and exploits internally, it also makes
use of both alliance and acquisition modes in balancing
exploration and exploitation. The limitations in this study are
related to sampling and industry. The study is conducted
within one single organization, however, on the contrary the
organization is multinational and very diverse, accessing
processes and best practices from other divisions of the firm
with operations in different industries. Future work should test
whether the framework applies in other industries and explore
the role of absorptive capacity, “the ability to recognize value
of new knowledge, assimilate it, and apply it to commercial
ends”, access new knowledge [34: 128] and its role in
technology acquisition. The findings in this study are believed
to be valid for industries with similar knowledge-intensive
requirements.
6.
Conclusion
It is essential to reduce both CONQ and TtM of NPI
processes in order to sustain competition over time. By
gaining additional insights into the processes of new product
or technology development process, organizations can
perform proactive actions to leverage initiatives with a
positive impact on value creation and mitigate sources of
waste and lack of value. This study draws on operational
knowledge and contributes to the theory of how exploration
and exploitation activities in NPI processes are managed. The
findings are regarded as relevant for other organizations or
policy makers striving to find the balance between exploration
and exploitation and strategies to be pursued depending on the
nature of the technology or service.
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude and thank all the
level moderating effects of structural and resource
participants in the workshops for valuable inputs. This work is
part of Rolls-Royce Marine innovation initiatives and has
been financed by Rolls-Royce Marine and the Research
Council Norway, who are both gratefully acknowledged.
References
[1] McGrath RG. The end of competitive advantage: How to keep your
strategy moving as fast as your business. Harvard Business Review Press;
2013.
[2] Susman GI. (Ed.). Integrating design and manufacturing for competitive
advantage. Oxford University Press; 1992.
[3] Roozenburg NF., Eekels J. Product design: fundamentals and
methods (Vol. 2). Chichester: Wiley; 1995.
[4] Boothroyd G. Product design for manufacture and assembly. Computer-
Aided Design 1994;26(7):505-520.
[5] Kagermann H, Wahlster W, Helbig J. Recommendations for
implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0. acatech- National
Academy of Science and Engineering; 2013. German.
[6] March JG. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization science 1991;2(1):71-87.
[7] Levinthal DA, March JG. The myopia of learning. Strategic management
journal 1993;14(S2):95-112.
[8] Griffin A. Metrics for measuring product development cycle time. Journal
of product innovation management 1993;10(2):112-125.
379
[9] Lavie D, Rosenkopf L. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance
formation. Academy of Management Journal 2006;49(4):797-818.
[10] Siggelkow N, Rivkin JW. When exploration backfires: Unintended
consequences of multilevel organizational search. Academy of
Management Journal 2006;49(4):779-795.
[11] Gupta AK, Smith KG, Shalley CE. The interplay between exploration
and exploitation. Academy of management journal 2006;49(4):693-706.
[12] Sidhu JS, Volberda HW, Commandeur HR. Exploring exploration
orientation and its determinants: Some empirical evidence. Journal of
Management Studies 2004;41(6):913-932.
[13] Jansen JJ, Van Den Bosch FA, Volberda HW. Exploratory innovation,
exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational
antecedents and environmental moderators. Management science
2006;52(11):1661-1674.
[14] Lavie D, Stettner U, Tushman ML. Exploration and exploitation within
and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals
2010;4(1):109-155.
[15] Benner MJ, Tushman ML. Exploitation, exploration, and process
management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of
management review 2003;28(2):238-256.
[16] Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, Tushman ML. Organizational
ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained
performance. Organization science 2009;20(4):685-695.
[17] Burgelman RA. Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-
in. Administrative Science Quarterly 2002;47(2):325-357.
[18] Brown SL, Eisenhardt KM. The art of continuous change: Linking
complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting
organizations. Administrative science quarterly 1997;42(1):1-34.
[19] Koza MP, Lewin AY. The co-evolution of strategic alliances.
Organization science 1998;9(3):255-264.
[20] Rothaermel FT, Deeds DL. Exploration and exploitation alliances in
biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic
management journal 2004;25(3):201-221.
[21] Ahuja G, Katila R. Technological acquisitions and the innovation
performance of acquiring firms: A longitudinal study. Strategic
management journal 2001;22(3):197-220.
[22] Vermeulen, F, Barkema H. Learning through acquisitions. Academy of
Management journal 2001;44(3):457-476.
[23] Lavie D, Drori I. Collaborating for knowledge creation and application:
The case of nanotechnology research programs. Organization Science
2012;23(3):704-724.
[24] He ZL, Wong PK. Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the
ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science 2004;15(4):481-494.
[25] Jansen JJ, Simsek Z, Cao Q. Ambidexterity and performance in multiunit
contexts: Cross
attributes. Strategic Management Journal 2012;33(11):1286-1303.
[26] Beamon BM. Supply chain design and analysis: Models and
methods. International journal of production economics 1998;55(3):281-
294.
[27] Rother M., Shook J. Learning to see: value stream mapping to add value
and eliminate muda. Lean Enterprise Institute; 2003.
[28] Abdulmalek FA., Rajgopal J. Analyzing the benefits of lean
manufacturing and value stream mapping via simulation: A process sector
case study. International Journal of production economics
2007;107(1):223-236.
[29] Hines P., Rich N. The seven value stream mapping tools. International
journal of operations & production management 1997;17(1):46-64.
[30] Braglia, M., Carmignani, G., & Zammori, F. (2006). A new value stream
mapping approach for complex production systems. International journal
of production research, 44(18-19), 3929-3952.
[31] Seth D., Gupta V. Application of value stream mapping for lean
operations and cycle time reduction: an Indian case study. Production
Planning & Control 2005;16(1):44-59.
[32] Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Academy of
management review 1998;14(4):532-550.
[33] Van de Ven AH. Engaged scholarship: a guide for organizational and
social research: a guide for organizational and social research. OUP
Oxford; 2007.
[34] Cohen WM., Levinthal DA. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative science quarterly
1990;35(1):128-1