Almahendra 2015 Exploration Exploitation 20 Year

International Journal of Innovation Management
Vol. 19, No. 1 (February 2015) 1550008 (31 pages)

© Imperial College Press
DOI: 10.1142/S1363919615500085
EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION:

A 20-YEAR REVIEW OF EVOLUTION
AND RECONCEPTUALISATION
by EINDHOVEN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY on 01/31/15. For personal use only.
RANGGA ALMAHENDRA
Int. J. Innov. Mgt. 2015.19. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Universitas Gadjah Mada, Department Management

Faculty of Economics and Business
Jl Sociohumaniora, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
almahendra@ugm.ac.id
BJÖRN AMBOS
University of St. Gallen, IFB Institute of Management
Dufourstrasse 40a CH 9000, St. Gallen, Switzerland
bjoern.ambos@unisg.ch
Published 17 September 2014
The exploration–exploitation tension has been resonated and applied in diverse areas of
management research. Its applications have deviated substantially from the scope of
organisational learning as originally proposed by March [(1991). Exploration and ex-
ploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87]. Scholars have
developed set of definitions, new conceptualisations, and varied applications in rejuve-
nating the concept; and literatures on this topic seem do not significantly ensure a con-
clusive picture. It is still also unclear what are the antecedents and following scientific
breakthroughs which may have led to the divergence of this construct.
This study offers an added value as it becomes the first to apply a bibliometric analysis,
combined with fine-grained content analysis to attain a more comprehensive understanding
on how the construct of exploration–exploitation have grown and evolved during the last
20 years. We attempt to grasp the structural pattern of citing behaviour and collective
understanding among scholars, through conducting in-depth bibliographic review in a
complete population of articles on this topic, published in leading journals following
March [(1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2(1), 71–87].
This study identifies the intellectual base articles which form the basis of the explo-
ration–exploitation and the turning point articles that shift the discussion into different
directions.
Keywords: Exploration; exploitation; bibliometric study.
1550008-1
R. Almahendra & B. Ambos
Introduction
Although there has been abundant accumulation of researches focusing on orga-
nisation ambidexterity (Tushman and O’Reilly, 1997; He and Wong, 2004; Gib-
son and Birkinshaw, 2004) these growths of studies apparently do not significantly
ensure a consolidation of knowledge. Research on ambidexterity hypothesis has
been often characterised as diverse, fragmented, and still being in ferment
(Li et al., 2008).
As the popularity of this phrase grew further, researchers have been attempted
to address this issue from many different perspectives. Recently, scholars used the
term of ambidextrous organisation to address firms ability to simultaneously
perform two conflicting dilemmas of exploration and exploitation (March, 1991).

Following March’s paper in 1991, researchers have developed a set of defini-
tions, concepts, and various applications in rejuvenating the concept. The dilemma
of exploration and exploitation recently has been deviated more and more from the
one commonly used in mainstream organisational learning. This convergence of
discussions leads to ambiguity and even to some inconsistency in the interpretation
of the exploration–exploitation (Gupta et al., 2006; Li et al., 2008), which may
then intensify the fuzzy landscape of research on organisational ambidexterity.
Among the efforts to conduct literature study on exploration and exploitation
(Gupta et al., 2006; Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008; Li et al., 2008), little attention
paid to provide an empirical evidence using citation/co-citation analysis for ex-
amining the development pattern of closely connected articles on this topic. The
questions on which are the central articles and the turning point articles in the
discussion, as well as the diagnostic identification of the intellectual structure
within the discourse of exploration–exploitation have not yet been adequately
discussed in the academic literature.
This paper is an attempt to close the gap by conducting in-depth bibliographic
review in a complete population of scientific articles about exploration-exploita-
tion, published in major management journals following March’s publication in
1991. We systematically selected 145 articles on this topic during the last 20 years,
and retrieved their bibliographic records from the Social Science Citation Index
database of ISI’s Web of Science.
To capture the structural connection pattern in academic journals and the
evolution of knowledge on exploration–exploitation, we divide the analysis into
two separate tasks using different bibliometric tools. The first task is concerned
with the identification of root theories of exploration–exploitation which have
made an impact on the scientific community. We used bibliometric software,
SITKIS (Schildt, 2002) and UCINET to identify the structural interaction among
different studies on exploration and exploitation, and also to quantify the centrality
1550008-2
Exploration and Exploitation
of articles which indicates the importance of particular studies within the intel-
lectual network (Borgatti and Cross, 2003).
In the second analysis, we analyse the emerging trends in scientific discipline
and to visualise the dynamic evolution of the knowledge domain of exploration–
exploitation in illustrative view using CiteSpace II (Chen, 2006).
This study differs from most prior reviews of exploration–exploitation litera-
tures in at least two major aspects. First, this study complements previous studies
that have approached the topic from a qualitative perspective. Instead of using
subjective judgement on reviewing the literature, we use a bibliometric study to
identify the intellectual base and the turning point articles that had the greatest
impact on shaping the intellectual discussion to date. Second, by understanding the
citation patterns from the diverse groups of scholars, we aim to develop a coherent
and agreed body of practical balancing mechanism on exploration and exploitation
based on the classification of the literature.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: We will briefly start the discussion
by describing the background of this study. We will then explain the methodology
and summarise the empirical findings, which are divided in three main expositions:
analysis of the citation structure, mapping of the intellectual network and visu-
alisation of knowledge evolution (e.g., detecting emerging trend and turning points
articles). Based on the analyses, we attempt to recognise the antecedents of ex-
ploration–exploitation divergences and its outcomes in the development of the
research field.
The results should be beneficial for both new and established researches to
illustrate the hidden structure of this developing topic and to obtain a thorough
view on the intellectual structures in this research field. A bibliometric study of the
citations that appear in exploration–exploitation research articles may become a
starting point to explore and understand the origin and evolution of the scientific
discourse accepted by the scholarly community within the discipline.
Literature Review on the Exploration–Exploitation Dilemmas

The dilemma of exploration and exploitation has become one of the important
discourses to emerge in organisational learning field in the last two decades. One
remarkable merit should be addressed to a paper written by James March entitled
“Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning,” published in Orga-
nization Science (1991).
The central thesis of March’s paper is discussing on how firm maintain an
appropriate balance between knowledge exploration and exploitation as a primary
factor in system survival (March, 1991: 71). In this paper, March distinguishes
1550008-3
between exploration and exploitation. Exploration includes things captured by

terms such as search, variation, risk taking, experimentation, play, flexibility,
discovery, innovation (March, 1991: 71). Further, he also addressed exploitation
which includes such issues as refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection,
implementation and execution (March, 1991: 71). The strategic choices for ex-
ploration or exploitation compete for firm’s scare resource, resulting in the need
for firm to manage the tradeoffs between those two.
The tradeoffs between exploration–exploitation remind us with classical man-
agement dilemmas, where sometimes managers have to consolidate two opposing
tensions at the same time, i.e., tension for global integration or local responsive-
ness (Prahalad and Doz, 1987), pursuing mechanistic structure or organic structure
(Burns and Stalker, 1961), differentiation or low cost strategy (Porter, 1981),
implement evolutionary and revolutionary as well as maintain both control and
flexibility (Ghoshal and Bartlett, 1994).
Even though researches on exploration–exploitation are now receiving consid-
erable attention during the last two decades, these studies do not reach a clear
consensus. Benner and Tushman (2002), Katila and Ahuja (2002), and Lavie and
Rosenkopf (2006), are few from many articles surrounding, that examine theoretical
extension as well as to provide empirical support to March’s model. We also notice,
the definition of this construct also diverges in some variety of associated concepts.
The review of the different works revealed that most authors engaged in the
topic exploration–exploitation have attempted to propose different interpretation
addressing the distinction between exploration and exploitation; few examples are
presented in Table 1.
As Table 1 shows, the exploration–exploitation dilemma has been widely
discussed and applied in a diverse area of management research. However, it
remains unclear which articles first discussed the concept and which subsequent
scientific breakthroughs have led to the rejuvenation of the concepts.
Methodological Approach
This paper presents a literature review on how management research has discussed
the tension of exploration and exploitation by utilising a citation/co-citation analysis
of published academic papers during the last 20 years after the publication of March
(1991). Scholars use a bibliometric technique through the analysis of the citation
networks among authors as indicators of present and future development of scientific
work (Schildt et al., 2002; Olk and Griffith, 2004; Di Stefano et al., 2010).
As an object of scientific study, bibliometric analysis through citation networks
has a great advantage of data availability from web-based libraries such as
1550008-4
Table 1. Variety of constructs on exploration–exploitation.
Variety of concepts
Authors Exploration Exploitation

March (1991) Exploration includes search, variation, risk taking, Exploitation includes refinement, choice, production,
experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, and efficiency, selection, implementation, and execution.
innovation.
Levinthal and March Pursuit of new knowledge/competence. Use and further development of existing knowledge.
(1993)
Koza and Lewin (1999) Exploration alliances are identified as knowledge generating Exploitation alliances are identified as knowledge leveraging
R&D alliances. marketing alliances.
Baum et al. (2000) Learning occurs with processes of concerted variation, Learning occurs through local search, experimential
planned experimentation, and play. refinement, selection and reuse of existing routines.
Rosenkopf and Nerkar Exploratory innovation involves a shift to a different Exploitative innovations involve improvements in existing
(2001) technological trajectory. components and build on the existing technological
trajectory.
1550008-5
Vermeulen and Barkema Search for new knowledge. Ongoing use of a firm’s knowledge base.
(2001)
Rothaermel (2001) Exploration alliances occurs in upstream activities of the Exploitation alliances occur in downstream activities such as
value chain, enabling partners to share tacit knowledge and commercialisation and marketing that leverage and
develop new knowledge. combine partners’ existing capabilities through exchanges
of explicit knowledge.
Katila and Ahuja (2002) Exploration is operationalised as search scope (the propensity Exploitation is operationalised as search depth (the propensity
to cite different patents). to cite certain patents repeatedly).
Benner and Tushman Exploratory patent category comprises patents that depart Firm’s patenting efforts built on existing knowledge and
(2002) entirely from prior firm knowledge. process management involving efficiency, control,
stability, and reliability.
Benner and Tushman Radical innovations, intended to match the needs of emerging Incremental innovations intended to satisfy demand of
(2003) customer or market. existing customer or market.
Table 1. (Continued )
Variety of concepts

Danneels (2003) New product development project that requires competence New Product project drawns on existing competence.
the firms do not yet possess.
Holmqvist (2003) Exploration is concerned with creating variety in experience, Exploitation is about creating reliability in experience and
and thrives on experimentation and free association. thrives on productivity and refinement.
Kyriakopoulos and Marketing exploration strategies involve challenging prior Marketing exploitation strategies involve improving and
Moorman (2004) approaches to interfacing with the market, such as a new refining current skills and procedures associated with
segmentation, new positioning, new products, new existing marketing strategies, including current market
channels, and other marketing mix strategies. segments, positioning, distribution, and other marketing
mix strategies.
He and Wong (2004) Technological innovation aimed at entering new product- Technological innovation activities aimed at improving
market domains. existing product-market domains.
Grant and Baden-Fuller Collaboration with partners facilitates learning by accessing Collaboration to leverage existing knowledge with partners.
1550008-6
(2004) new knowledge outside a firm’s boundaries.
Rothaermel and Deeds Firms that cooperate with partners in R&D may develop Firms rely on alliances to use and commercialise existing
(2004) innovative technologies and applications. technologies or employ complementary partner.
Gibson and Birkinshaw Individual with exploration/creation-oriented actions will gear Individual with exploitation-oriented actions will gear toward
(2004) toward adaptability. alignment.
Zi-Lin and Poh-Kam Firms generate larger performance variation by experiencing Firms generate more stable performance, more certain and
(2004) substantial success as well as failure. closer in time.
Jansen et al. (2006) Exploratory innovation as effective strategy for dynamic Exploitative innovation as effective strategy for competitive
market negatively affects with centralisation. environments and benefit to a unit’s financial performance,
it is positively influenced by formalisation.
Lavie and Rosenkopf Alliances formed with new partners which encouraged to gain Forms new alliances with partners that are similar to its prior
(2006) more absorptive capacity (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). partners with respect to attributes such as size and industry
Variety of concepts

focus, which is fostered by organisational inertia theory
(Hannan and Freeman, 1984).
Miller et al. (2006) Local search by individuals is more consistent with Distant search by individuals facilitates the spread of
organisation-level exploration. knowledge and, hence, organisation-level exploitation.
Taylor and Greve (2006) Explorative team is defined as research and development team Exploitative team which is assigned to improve an existing
which is assigned to make a radical innovation. technology or product.
Beckman (2006) Exploration activities are encouraged in firms with founding Exploitative activities are encouraged in founding teams
teams whose members have worked at many different whose members have worked at the same company, since
companies, have unique ideas and contacts. they have shared understandings and can act quickly.
Perretti and Negro (2006) In term of composition, explorative team has greater level of In term of composition, exploitative team has lower level of
newness of members, and newness of member newness, and newness of member combinations. (Middle-
combinations. (High- and low-status team members and status team members and two-layer structures in favour to
1550008-7
one- and three-layer organisational structures more favour exploitation rather than exploration.)
to exploration.)
Caro and Gallien (2007) The assortment of products for which retailer would like to The assortment of products for which retailer has a “good
gather more demand information and more profitable in sense” that they are immediately profitable.
the long run.
Chaharbaghi (2007) Exploration stresses privileges of diversification, emphasising Exploitation stresses intensification through heightened
variety by regarding regeneration deriving from having repetition, minimal deviation and maximum control with a
ample choices. view to achieving greater reward and payback in milking
an existing opportunity.
Mc Namara and Baden- R&D activities concern with patenting and preclinical trials. R&D activities concern with human clinical trials and the
Fuller (2007) New Drug Application (NDA) regulatory approval
process.
Lin et al. (2007)
Variety of concepts

Allocates resources to the development of new network Allocates resources to refinement of existing partner
relations, for securing novel knowledge. relationships.
Dittrich et al. (2007) Explorative alliance network aimed at innovating and Exploitative alliance network, are primarily directed at
business development: Non-equity alliances, partner with making the most of existing competences: Higher equity
different technology. alliances, partner with similar technology.

Voss et al. (2008) Product exploration as an organisational emphasis on Product exploitation is defined as an organisational emphasis
introducing radical innovations that extend existing on marketing existing or incrementally modified products
product competencies. that capitalise on existing product competencies.
Im and Rai (2008) Exploratory knowledge sharing is the exchange of knowledge Exploitative knowledge sharing is the exchange of knowledge
between firms in a long-term relationship to seek long-run between firms in a long-term relationship to seek short-run
rewards, focusing on the survival of the system as a whole, rewards, focusing on the survival of the components of the
and pursuing risk-taking behaviours. system and pursuing risk-averse behaviours.
1550008-8
Geerts et al. (2010) Service firms seem to creating value for the new customers Service firms seem to creating value for the existing
and implement radical innovations, and often ad hoc customers and improving efficiency, whereas service
based. delivery is most important.
Prange and Schlegelmilch Exploration refers to experimentation with new alternatives, Exploitation describes the refinement and extension of
(2009) having returns that are uncertain, distant, and often existing competencies, technologies, and paradigms,
negative. exhibiting returns that are positive, proximate, and
predictable.
Vorhies et al. (2011) The firms use marketing exploration capabilities to Higher levels of marketing exploitation capabilities did
reconfigure marketing resources and that new market weaken the relationship between marketing exploration
knowledge, when embedded in the firm’s brand and the brand management and CRM capabilities.
management and CRM capabilities, does result in
improved brand management and CRM capabilities.
EBSCO, ProQuest and the Social Science Citation Index Portion of ISI Web of
Science. We constructed the data set for this study by retrieving all available
citation data of academic publication containing the phrase “Exploration AND
Exploitation” in the abstract, topic and title from the Social Science Citation Index
database of ISI’s Web of Science (http://apps.isiknowledge.com).
Since scholars have also used this concept in many different contexts, we also
cross checked the database with other search word such as “Explorative AND
Exploitative,” “Explore AND Exploit,” “Augmentation AND Exploitation” and
“Ambidexterity OR Ambidextrous” to ensure we did not miss a single article
related with this topic. We obtained the bibliographic and citation data of all
academic articles on exploration–exploitation during the period 1991–2012. A
total of 145 papers were identified from 49 different journals (Table 2).
Table 2. Number of articles by Journal 1992–2012.
Journal No. of paper

Organization Science 18
Strategic Management Journal 14
Academy of Management Journal 13
Journal of Management Studies 8
Research Policy 7
Management Sciences 7
Long Range Planning 7
International Journal of Technology Management 6
Administrative Science Quarterly 4
Journal of International Business Studies 4
Organization Studies 4
Industrial & Corporate Change 3
Journal of Management 2
Journal of Organizational Behavior 2
Management International Review 2
Academy of Management Review 2
Journal of Business Research 2
Advances in Service, Marketing & Management 2
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 2
Journal of Business Venturing 2
Journal of International Marketing 2
MIT Sloan Management Review 2
Journal of World Business 2
Management Decision 2
Others 26
Total 145
1550008-9
Results of the Study

Analysis of the citation structure
For the first stage of the bibliometric study, we measure the force of impact of
particular underlying theoretical ground that shapes the discussion of exploration–
exploitation literatures. The main purpose is to track the intellectual bases or
classical articles which persistently receive high number of citations.
Using the SITKIS Bibliometric Analysis software (Schildt, 2002), we found
145 academics papers in the database cited 6,119 references in total from 3,455
different authors. All in all, these 145 papers received 3,319 citations, Levinthal
and March’s paper (1993), entitled “The Myopia of Learning” has the highest
number of citations (799 citations), followed by Brown and Duguid (2001) with
205 citations. Out of the 145 papers, only 21 articles (14.5%) were cited more than
50 times, and 69 articles (47.5%) were referenced two times or less.
Moreover, we also observe the frequency of citations for individual articles in
order to show the dominance of certain articles over time. Frequently cited
documents are likely to have a greater influence on the field than those less cited
(Rodriguez and Navarro, 2004). March’s dominance on exploration–exploitation
construct is emphasised by the fact that 78, 62% of 145 papers on exploration–
exploitation quoted his work (Fig. 1).
Following illustration provides a clear empirical evidence of the dominance of
those particular paper year by year. It shows that articles in the topic tend to take 5
to 10 years to reach a reasonably peak number of ongoing citation (Fig. 2).
In a more detailed analysis, we were also interested to identify how often two
articles were quoted together in a single paper. We hypothesised that if two articles
are repeatedly cited together, these two articles are closely related to each other.
The common citation query showed that March (1991) and Levinthal and March
(1993) are cited together in 59 articles (40.69%), Cohen and Levinthal (1990) and
Fig. 1. Domination of quoted articles.
1550008-10
Fig. 2. Dominations of particular article year by year.

Table 3. Common citation analysis.
Article 1 Article 2 Cited together %

Levinthal and March (1993) March (1991) 59 40.69
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) March (1991) 39 26.90
Levitt (1988) March (1991) 31 21.38
Rosenkopf and Nerkar (2001) March (1991) 28 19.31
Teece (1997) March (1991) 28 19.31
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) Levinthal and March (1993) 26 17.93
Barney (1991) March (1991) 25 17.24
Katila and Ahuja (2002) March (1991) 25 17.24
Levitt (1988) Levinthal and March (1993) 24 16.55
Benner and Tushman (1982) March (1991) 23 15.86
March (1991) are quoted together in 39 papers (26.9%). The top ten list of
common citation analysis is presented in Table 3.
Moreover, we calculated the strength of similarity between the pair of two co-
cited articles using the Jaccard similarity index. The Jaccard index quantifies the
normalised co-citation strength between two articles, ranging from 0, representing
no co-citations, to 1, representing perfect co-appearance in subsequent articles
(Schildt et al., 2006). We retrieved the Jaccard index in a symmetrical matrix
showing the strength of similarity between two articles.
After converting this matrix into an input matrix of Pearson’s correlations
coefficients, we applied principal component analysis with varimax rotation to
identify a group of papers that are frequently cited together.
As presented in Table 4, we extracted five factors explaining 41.9% of vari-
ance. Each factor represents a distinct base of the theoretical foundations in the
1550008-11
Table 4. Factor analysis of the most cited articles (Extraction method: Principal Component
Analysis with Varimax Rotation. Variance explained 41.9%. Only factor loadings higher than 0.4
are reported).
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 5

Absorptive Behavioural Evolutionary Factor 4 Knowledge
Literature capacity Theory of Firm Theory RBV Based View
Stuart (1996) 0.743 0.401
Ahuja (2000) 0.713
Mowery (1996) 0.711
Helfat (1994) 0.694

Sorensen (2000) 0.664
O’reilly (2004) 0.660 0.439
Miles (1978) 0.619

Rothaermel (2001) 0.582
Adler (1999) 0.576
Fleming (2001) 0.564
Ghemawat (1993) 0.556
Burgelman (1991) 0.544
Tushman (1996) 0.532 0.443
Ahuja (2001) 0.519 0.479
Lawrence (1967) 0.472
Gibson (2004) 0.448 0.420 0.422
Henderson (1990) 0.445
Cohen (1990) 0.431 0.411
Lane (1998) 0.429
Porter (1980) 0.425
Burns (1961) 0.411
Powell (1996) 0.404
Levinthal (1997) 0.763
Levinthal (1993) 0.712
Leonardbarrton (1992) 0.690
Levitt (1988) 0.668 0.545
Rosenkopf (2001) 0.641
Katila (2002) 0.640
March (1991) 0.577
McGrath (2001) 0.564
He (2004) 0.520
Tushman (1986) 0.508
Brown (1997) 0.420 0.468
Benner (2002) 0.458
Gavetti (2000) 0.450
Cyert (1963) 0.448
March (1958) 0.421
Pfeffer (1978) 0.626
Nelson (1982) 0.487 0.619
1550008-12
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 5

Absorptive Behavioural Evolutionary Factor 4 Knowledge
Literature capacity Theory of Firm Theory RBV Based View
Tushman (1985) 0.406 0.539
Weick (1979) 0.523
Brown (1998) 0.509
Dimaggio (1983) 0.470
Burgelman (1983) 0.441
Aiken (1991) 0.429 0.798

Day (1994) 0.759
Podsakoff (1986) 0.581
Penrose (1959) 0.558

Jaworski (1993) 0.513
Szulanski (1996) 0.479 0.414
Wernerfelt (1984) 0.475
Prahalad (1990) 0.405 0.472
Christensen (1996) 0.457
Barney (1991) 0.449
Teece (1997)
Eisenhardt (2000)
Rowley (2000)
Grant (1996)
Nahapiet (1998) 0.686
Crossan (1999) 0.578
Nonaka (1995) 0.456 0.468
Nonaka (1994) 0.467
Grant (1996) 0.458
Benner (2003) 0.421 0.439 0.447
Dierickx (1989)
exploration and exploitation study. We use the loading values in the factors to
identify similarities and differences in the literature.
To better visualise these groups we also constructed a multidimensional map
based on the scaling of the Jaccard similarities data. The most frequently cited
articles are placed closely to each other, forming a cluster group. We named the
cluster groups based on the five factors identified from the previous principal
component analysis. Each group represents a different topic in the field of man-
agement study, although many of the groups are still related to each other. These
groups are Absorptive Capacity, Behavioral Theory of Firm, Evolutionary Theory,
Resource Based View (RBV), and Knowledge Based View (Fig. 3).
1550008-13
Fig. 3. Cluster groups of the most cited articles.
Mapping of the intellectual network

The analysis of citation structure confirms the existence of strong interrelation of
constructs among several prominent works in management field; and we also
clarify the domination of particular theoretical foundations in the exploration and
exploitation discourse. To further analyse the structural interaction among the
cluster groups, we also utilised social network analysis UCINET 6. The main
purpose of this analysis is to explore the co-citations pattern of different authors
and their relationships in a network system (Borgatti and Cross, 2003).
Since the 145 articles selected for this study have 6,119 cited references, it is
impossible to include all of them in the analysis. Therefore, we set a threshold to
remove information on cited document that does not have a significant impact in
the analysis (Schildt, 2006; Small and Greenlee, 1980). We define the most in-
fluential papers on the topic area, based on the criteria of those with a citation
count of over 4. Ratnatunga and Romano (1997) earlier asserted that attaining
more than four citations would place an article into significant contribution cate-
gory. UCINET can visualise a network pattern of the exploration–exploitation
discourse, and the core paper on the topic can be rapidly identified. All articles
being observed in this study are represented with circles nodes, while the citing
1550008-14
Fig. 4. Visualisation of citations/network pattern of articles.
articles are visualised with square nodes. Most papers examined in this study are
located closely to each other; making a dense cluster with March’ paper (1991) at
the centre position in the intellectual space.
To portray the development of the construct more fully, we generate a visual
illustration on the two dimension map which represents the structural interaction
among articles. Works that are closely related to others tend to occupy a central
position in the map; while those loosely related ones tend to appear on periphery
(Rodriguez and Navarro, 2004; White and Mc Cain, 1998).
As illustrated in Fig. 4 we may identify several papers, which are located on the
centre of discussion. The size of an individual node and high density of arrows
surrounding the node represents the absolute number of citers quoting the article.
Confirming the previous findings, we also identified five other intellectual base
articles besides March (1991) which are located at the centre of the discussion.
These are Cohen and Levinthal (1990), Levinthal and March (1993); Levitt and
March (1988), Barney (1991), and also the remarkable book by Richard Nelson
and Sidney Winter, entitled An Evolutionary of Economics Change, published in
1982.
UCINET can distinguish between a dense “core” article and less dense “pe-
riphery,” through calculating the centrality which measure how tightly linked each
paper is to the rest of the papers. This centrality measure also quantifies the
importance of the node’s position in a network. Papers with a high centrality are
considered to have a higher impact on the discourse.
Table 5 presents the five intellectual base articles which have the highest
centrality measures, compared to other nodes in the intellectual network.
1550008-15
Table 5. Centrality measures top 5 intellectual base articles.
Centrality measures
Top 5 intellectual bases Degree Closeness Betweennes Citing Articles %

March (1991) 0.783 0.951 0.191 114 78.62
Levinthal and March (1993) 0.478 0.866 0.071 67 46.21
Cohen and Levinthal (1990) 0.312 0.775 0.033 44 30.34
Levitt and March (1988) 0.254 0.754 0.023 35 24.14
Nelson and Winter (1982) 0.268 0.747 0.024 40 27.59
Barney (1991) 0.203 0.721 0.015 28 19.31
Several key results can be drawn from this analysis. First, we identified six
groups of clusters which represent the intellectual foundations in the discussion of
exploration and exploitation. Second, we investigated the origins in the explora-
tion–exploitation discussion through the identification of the intellectual base
articles in the five cluster groups. By understanding the main contributions of the
intellectual base articles, we were able to connect related distinction of explora-
tion–exploitation to various management contexts.
The findings show that the underlying theoretical foundations of exploration–
exploitation dilemmas were developed in six prominent works. These are: March
(1991); March and Levinthal (1991); Cohen and Levinthal (1990); March and
Levitt (1988); Nelson and Winter (1980) and Barney (1991).
Visualisation of knowledge evolution

We are not only interested to observe the underlying intellectual foundation of the
exploration and exploitation discussion, but also to detect the turning point articles
that lead to profound changes in the discussion. We used another bibliometric tool,
CiteSpace II to visualise the dynamic of co-citation patterns of specific terms or
publications which attract sudden increase in popularity (Chen, 2006).
We divided the entire interval time of analysis into several segments of equal
lengths and analysed the citation and co-citation data within and between those
defined time frames. A time interval of 20 years, between 1992 and 2012, was
divided into 20 equal time periods, an individual citation network is obtained from
each time segment.
Turning point articles are identified using two measures. First, by identifying
articles which have experienced a rise in references, in the subsequent time seg-
ment, reflecting the fact that scientists will predominantly cite the most recently
published articles. Second, by identifying the papers with high betweenness
centrality, there is a tendency that turning point articles usually register new
1550008-16
Fig. 5. Visualisation of turning points articles (time zone view).
concepts or new associations from the different underlying intellectual founda-

tions; therefore, the papers aim to bridge several groups of different research
cluster (Chen, 2006; Price, 1965). We visualise the aggregated co-citation network
chronologically in a time zone view in order to track the evolution of knowledge
domain over time (Fig. 5).
Turning points articles are easy to detect through visual inspection. The sizes of
node and label are proportional to the cumulative citation counts. The thickness of
outer ring represents the number of citations in a given time segment (Chen, 2006).
We identify six turning points articles, those are: Tushman and O’Reilly (1996);
Rosenkopf and Nerkar (2001); Katila and Ahuja (2002); Benner and Tushman
(2003). He and Wong (2004) and Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004). To support our
findings, we also calculated the betweenness centrality of those articles using
UCINET software. The results of the analysis confirm that the visualised turning
points articles according to CiteSpace II, are among the top list articles with high
betweenness centrality measures.
Discussion
Intellectual base articles
Several key results can be drawn from our bibliometric analysis; first we identify
prominent works which are considered as pivotal articles shaping the discussion of
exploration and exploitation. Second, by understanding the main contribution of
1550008-17
those intellectual bases and turning point articles we can connect related distinc-
tion on exploration–exploitation on various management contexts.
We can trace back the root of the exploration–exploitation discussion from the
intellectual bases articles identified in this study. Our findings reveal that the
underlying ground of exploration–exploitation dilemmas lie in six prominent
works, those are: March (1991); March and Levinthal (1991); Cohen and
Levinthal (1990); March and Levitt (1988); Nelson and Winter (1980) and Barney
(1991).
Previous literature reviews on exploration and exploitation, have rarely men-
tioned the importance of those intellectual base articles in their analyses. This
study reveals strong structural linkage between exploration and exploitation,
behavioural theory, absorptive capacity, evolutionary theory and RBV of the firm.
How these theories deal with the exploration and exploitation dilemma, will be
discussed in the following section.
RBV
March (1991: 71) noted that both exploration and exploitation are essential for
organisation, but they compete for scarce resources. As a response on this chal-
lenge, research on exploration and exploitation has also been scrutinised with the
lenses of RBV (Barney, 1991), more particularly looking into the influence of
firm-specific resource to its learning activities.
Over the past 20 years, RBV has become one of the most influential theories in
the field of strategic management. RBV responds the quest for answering ques-
tions why does firm could persistently outperform other, and what should be
developed to maintain sustainable competitive advantage. Firm’s resources
according to Barney (1991) comprise all assets, skills, organisational processes,
attributes; information and know-hows in which controlled by firm and enable
them to implement strategies more efficiently and effectively. Scholars have also
discussed the unique role of knowledge as a driving force in firm growth, in
particular focusing the importance of firm’s ability to create new knowledge
(exploration activities) and to integrate and to combine that knowledge (exploi-
tation activities).
Behavioural theory of the firm

One of the most prominent thematic perspectives in the organisational learning
literature is the adaptive learning approached, typified by the behavioural theory of
the firm (Cyert and March, 1963; Levitt and March, 1988).
1550008-18
Levitt and March (1988) viewed organisations as experiential learning systems.

They argue that organisation change over time by mechanism of encoding inferences
from history, adopting their old routines and past experiences for creating new
procedures or strategies to achieve favourable outcome (March and Levitt, 1988).
Further, Levitt and March (1988) also suggest that firms may also learn either
from internal experience or from the external experience. Retaining this beha-
vioural theory of the firm, exploration is defined as creating variety of experience,
and exploitation is all about creating reliability in experience (Holmqvist, 2003).
Nerkar and Roberts (2004) also introduced the term proximal versus distal ex-
perience to address the accumulation of firm’s learning process from their external
experience.
Research on firm’s ability to absorb knowledge from external sources gained

significant popularity in following decades, more specifically after the publication
of Absorptive Capacity concept (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). This concept be-
came the next influential grounds on the development of exploration–exploitation
researches.
Absorptive capacity
Wesley Cohen and Daniel Levinthal defined Absorptive Capacity as the ability to
value, assimilate and commercially utilise new external knowledge from the en-
vironment (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Originally, the construct of absorptive
capacity was introduced in the context of R&D activities (Cohen and Levinthal,
1989), along the time, this concept also departed into broader functional domain.
On their follow up paper, Cohen and Levinthal extended the concept to address
firm’s ability not only to assimilate external knowledge but also to forecast
technological trends, create products, and markets, and manoeuver strategically
(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990, 1994).
Lane et al. (2006) further suggest a more comprehensive definition of Absortive
Capacity construct based on their in-depth study of the literatures: Absorptive ca-
pacity is a firm’s ability to utilise externally held knowledge through three sequential
process: (1) exploratory learning, recognising and understanding potentially valu-
able knowledge outside organisation, (2) transformative learning, or assimilating
new knowledge, (3) exploitative learning, to re-create new knowledge and to le-
verage commercial outputs. Retaining these notions, the concept of exploration and
exploitation inherently becomes inseparable from the absorptive capacity construct.
Evolutionary theory of the firm

A book written by Nelson and Winter (1982), entitled: An Evolutionary Theory of
Economics Change, also marked as important foundation for the development of
1550008-19
an evolutionary perspective grounding the exploration–exploitation discussion to

date. They argued, like the concept of gene in biology, the idea of routines
should be placed as the most basic unit of analysis in order to understand how
firms change. Routines possess gene-like features, having capacity to inherit a set
of qualities (stability), while at the same time showing the capacity to mutate
(adaptation).
Many scholars then made an effort to relate the question on how routines
change and how firms evolve with the tradeoff between exploration and exploi-
tation (i.e., Sidhu et al., 2007; Garcia and Velasco, 2007).
Turning point articles

Recently researchers have developed a new set of definitions, and extended the
theoretical grounds for rejuvenating the exploration–exploitation concept. The
applications have deviated substantially from the scope of organisational learning
as originally proposed by March (1991). This study also reveals some turning
point articles which represent a crucial milestone in an intellectual transition.
Those turning point articles broke some common assumptions surrounding the
exploration–exploitation tensions, and attempted to offer a change of perspective
in the discussion.
While the intellectual base articles elucidate the underlying ground of the
discussion of exploration–exploitation, the turning point articles marked the salient
milestone shifting the discussion into different direction. Following section will
discuss briefly each of the contributions.
Tushman and O’Reilly (1996)

Michael Tushman and Charles O’Reilly were among the first scholars who
shed light on the discussion of ambidextrous organisation into the specificities
of exploration–exploitation context. They differentiate between the exploiting
units pursuing incremental innovation and exploration unit to generate radical
innovation.
Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) used a “juggler” metaphor to describe how firm
should have capabilities to simultaneously pursue both incremental and discon-
tinuous innovation over time. Tushman and O’Reilly elaborated further on their
book Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide to Leading Organizational
Change and Renewal that “organizations can sustain their competitive advantage
by operating in multiple modes simultaneously — managing for short term effi-
ciency by emphasizing stability and control, as well as for long-term innovation by
taking risks and learning by doing” (1997: 167).
1550008-20
The compelling concept of ambidextrous organisation from Tushmann and

O’Reilly (1996) marked the starting point for the emerging discourses on striking
the balance between exploration and exploitation.
Ten years after their publication, Gupta et al. (2006) offers a comprehensive
summary on how scholars approach the balance of exploration and exploitation.
They distinguished two types of balancing mechanism: Structural Ambidexterity
and Punctuated Equilibrium. Gupta et al. (2006) sum up the interpretation of
structural ambidexterity as a synchronous pursuit of both exploration and ex-
ploitation via loosely coupled and differentiated subunits or individuals, each of
which specialises in either exploration or exploitation. The second type of bal-

ancing refers to Punctuated Equilibrium as a notion of temporal cycling between
long periods of exploitation and short phase of exploration. Siggelkow and

Levinthal (2003) also suggested that unit switch over time by adopting more
separated organisational design at one time and more integrated ones at another,
this approach may further be tied to a company’s stage of corporate evolution,
which according to Siggelkow and Levinthal (2003) embrace different require-
ments to resource allocation and risk aversion.
Rosenkopf and Nerkar (2001)

Retaining the spatial interpretation of absorptive capacity and dynamic capabili-
ties, Rosenkopf and Nerkar (2001) more explicitly propagate spatial dimension for
the context of knowledge exploration and exploitation, through emphasising firm’s
ability to create, integrate, and recombine knowledge across boundaries.
Exploration activities are articulated as activities for increasing organisational
and technological boundary spanning search to create new knowledge. While
exploitation, on the other hand is equivalent to local search, inventing solutions in
the neighbourhood of the firm’s current expertise or the creation of incremental
innovation.
From this definition, the scope of exploration–exploitation was departed to the
knowledge search crossing geographical, industrial, or structural space. As the
spatial dimension of exploration–exploitation had received wider popularity,
scholars also advert the balancing solution of exploration–exploitation through
creating structural separation between exploitative and explorative activities at two
different structural spaces.
The idea of structural separation is based on logical thinking that companies
need to put in place dual structures in order to manage conflicting demand (Duncan,
1976; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1997), for example, R&D unit focus on explora-
tion of new product development, while other unit focuses on alignment and
exploitation.
1550008-21
Inspired by the work of Rosenkopf and Nerkar (2001), scholars started to

examine the boundary conditions within which the learning processes are expected
to occur; either through establishing interfirms alliances (i.e., Lavie and Rosen-
kopf, 2006; Rothaermel and Deeds, 2004) or integrating collaborative behaviour
of individual/teams (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004; Perretti and Negro, 2006).
Katila and Ahuja (2002)

Katila and Ahuja (2002) popularised the term research scope and research depth to
complement the cognitive dimensions of local search exploitation and distant search
exploration. They define search depth as the degree whereto searching activities
revisits prior knowledge, and search scope as the degree of new knowledge is ex-
plored (Katila and Ahuja, 2002).

They examine the patent data from robotic industry to demonstrate the inter-
action between propensity to cite different patent (exploration) and propensity to
cite similar patent repeatedly (exploitation) may predict firm’s new product
development.
Their works are inspiring later discussion in at least two ways. First, Katila and
Ahuja broke the previous assumption that not all exploitation and exploration
activities are competing for firm scarce resources. By using publicity available
resource such as patents, exploration and exploitation searches are not always
limited by resource constraints.
Second, they also broke the long believed assumption that knowledge seeking
activity is merely a pursuit of exploration. They illustrate that R&D unit is also
confronted with a dilemma, whether to focus on further adaptation of current
knowledge (local search exploitation), or to experiment a novel knowledge dis-
covery (distant search exploration).
Benner and Tushman (2003)

Benner and Tushman (2003) gave significant influence in the discussion of ex-
ploration–exploitation literatures for at least two ways. First, as proliferation of
books and papers discuss the popular management concept such as Total Quality
Management, ISO standardisation, BPR and Six Sigma; Benner and Tushman
(2003) became among the first who addressed the dilemma of exploration and
exploitation in these contexts of process management domain. They argued that
firm’s ability to simultaneously balance exploration and exploitation in the process
management context may influence both technological innovation and organisa-
tional adaptation.
Second, Benner and Tushman (2003) scrutinised the discussion of balancing
mechanism exploration–exploitation through the lenses of contingency view. A
1550008-22
contingency theory begins to believe that no single organisational structure was

inherently more efficient than the other. They confirmed that ambidextrous orga-
nisational forms provide the multifaceted contexts; and dynamic capability to
balance exploitation and exploration also requires complex management process
and highly competent senior team (Benner and Tushman, 2003). Previously,
Tushman and O’Reilly (1996) also noted that ambidextrous structure requires
autonomous innovating units, and its implementation still requires strategic inte-
gration initiatives from the top management’s vision.
Along the way, studies on contingent view of ambidexterity hypothesis had not
only focused on the organisational level (i.e., Westerman et al., 2006; Qing et al.,
2006), but also extended to interfirm alliance level (Lin et al., 2007).
Emerging research on organisational ambidexterity has been fairly prominent

over the last decades. At the beginning, most of the research on balanc-
ing exploration–exploitation had been done by examining the exploration–
exploitation activities or processes within the specific unit of analysis. Only
very few were discussing the direct evidence of the outcomes. He and Wong
(2004) and Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) are among the well-recognised
studies that present objective performance data associated with organisational
ambidexterity.
Our bibliometric study reveals that both papers are identified as turning articles
for the year 2004. We decide to embrace both papers as the turning points articles
which shift the new direction of exploration–exploitation studies.
He and Wong (2004)

He and Wong (2004) provided empirical evidence showing the positive
relationship on ambidexterity hypothesis and sales performance. They also
brought the concept of balancing explorative–exploitative technological innova-
tion strategy into the product-market domain. Firm’s need to strike balance be-
tween explorative innovation activities to enter new product-market position;
and exploitative innovation activities to improve existing product market
may positively increase firm performance. They also emphasised a relative im-
balance between those two activities which might negatively relate to firm
performance.
Although He and Wong (2004) did not explicitly advice issue of what is the
best approach to pursue ambidexterity, they broke the limiting assumption that
ambidexterity research requires a longitudinal study in order to fully capture the
dynamic balance of exploration–exploitation over time. Following their study,
scholars are also inspired to adapt their methodological approach to test the am-
bidexterity hypothesis in different research domain.
1550008-23
Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004)

In congruence with He and Wong (2004), Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) also
tested whether ambidextrous organisations obtain higher level of performance.
Both articles discuss the outcome of balancing exploration–exploitation, but from
two different points of view respectively.
Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) criticised the well-known notion of structural
ambidexterity, by introducing the concept contextual ambidexterity. The concept
of structural ambidexterity suggests that firm should separate exploration–ex-
ploitation activities in different hierarchical structure or business unit. In contrast,
contextual ambidexterity proposes that individual must develop the behavioural

capacity to simultaneously demonstrate alignment and adaptability across an entire
business unit. Those behavioural capacities are including a combination of stretch,

discipline, support, and trust (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004).
Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) is one of remarkable work shifting analytic
perspective of exploration–exploitation studies into the more micro level. As
emphasised by Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004) contextual ambidexterity differs
from structural ambidexterity, in a way firms need to develop “a dual capacity”
from the individuals, woven into the fabrics of an organisation level. This concept
is comprehended that the deployment set of organisation system and procedures,
should collectively define a context that helps an individual employee to balance
requirements posed by contradictory activity, to sustain business unit performance.
Subsequently, a growing body of literatures has discussed contingency or
contextual approach as one of balancing mechanism for exploration and exploi-
tation tensions at micro level. For example, contingency at individual level (i.e.,
Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004), team level (Ambos and Schlegelmilch, 2004).
Sharing contingency perspective on team level, Taylor and Greve (2006) sug-
gested that dichotomy between exploration and exploitation at the organisational
level is not driven by the differing knowledge assets used, but through
differing goals and expectations for the tasks. This also refers to the utilisation of
research mandate or market mandate as some contingency factors, which are found
on team utilisation in international R&D network (Ambos and Schlegelmilch,
2004).
Concluding Remarks
The concept of exploration and exploitation has finally been integrated in a wide
range of management literature. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the
first investigation to identify patterns of publications in the body of literature on
1550008-24
this topic using bibliometric analysis. Three important points can be drawn from
this study.
First, this research illustrates the persistence dominance of March’s (1991)
paper at the centre of the exploration and exploitation discussion. As a framework
and a concept, exploration–exploitation has proven its flexibility and wide ap-
plicability. The work of March (1991) has motivated scholars to discuss the im-
plementation of this construct in various associated contexts.
Second, the top-ranked intellectual base articles of exploration and exploitation
are mostly papers written by authors coming from different disciplinary back-
grounds. For instance, James March and Daniel Levinthal are organisational be-
haviourist scholars. Wesley Cohen has an expertise in knowledge management
and innovation, while Jay Barney is known as the founder of the RBV theory.
Some authors have very interesting background such as Barbara Levitt in soci-
ology and Richard Nelson in economics. This fact may explain why the discussion
of exploration and exploitation has not been consolidated but rather deviated into
many different academic perspectives. As demonstrated, the most widely cited
authors in the field have contributed distinctive influential theories in the man-
agement field. Scholars who subsequently cited these works may discuss a dif-
ferent research problem, applying different theories and employing different
methodological approaches.
Third, different assumptions and interpretations are implicitly or explicitly
present in various management studies. This study identifies six turning point arti-
cles, which according to the bibliometric indicators are considered as the most
impactful research frontiers shifting the intellectual discussion into different direc-
tions. Those turning point articles are: Tushman and O’Reilly (1996), Rosenkopf and
Nerkar (2001), Katila and Ahuja (2002), Benner and Tushman (2003), He and Wong
(2004) and Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004). These articles are only few among many
studies attempting to offer new perspectives on the understanding the tension of
exploration and exploitation from many different point of views.
Although the topics of exploration and exploitation have been discussed by a
heterogeneous group of management scholars, they have focused on organisa-
tional learning and evolution. Literature on this topic shares a common notion that
exploration and exploitation are recurring underlying phenomena in across many
adaptive systems.
In the past two decades we have seen a tremendous growth of research ob-
serving that organisation learning is the main strategic tool for firm to survive in
the turbulent global competition. Firms in dynamic environments face increasingly
powerful forces towards the locus of adaptation. An essential part of successful
organisational learning and adaptive system depends on how firm manage the
dilemma between exploration and exploitation.
1550008-25
So far, three competing streams of research have emerged in offering the so-
lution on how should firms reconcile the paradoxical demand of exploitation and
exploration. First, some scholars promote the simultaneity of action through spatial
separation (Structural Ambidexterity) while others scholars endorse the ambi-
dexterity through temporal separation (Punctuated Equilibrium). The middle
ground approach suggests that the decision to reconcile exploration and exploi-
tation tension is contingent upon particular environment demand and a firm’s
specific contexts (Contextual Approach).
We argue that despite the many theoretical recommendations on balancing
exploration and exploitation, none of the modes is inherently superior. The dy-
namic of exploration–exploitation tension is so complex; we suggest no universal
formula should be sought to resolve the dilemma. It is more important for manager
to develop the capability to identify the tradeoffs and to understand the dynamic
consequences of exploration–exploitation activities, either for short-term and long-
term orientations or local-distal implications.
Sometimes the ambidextrous balance between exploration–exploitation
involves “tacit instinct” which requires managers to understand the situational
context, while simultaneously showing the capability to effectively adjust the
organisational rhythm to the demands of the environment.
The subsequent framework attempts to integrate the variety of analytical
viewpoints, on how managers may recognise the exploration–exploitation di-
lemma more systematically (Fig. 6).
As visualised in above illustration, we need to first understand the dilemma of
the different interpretations of the exploration–exploitation. Is it a question of
Fig. 6. Framework of balancing mechanism.
1550008-26
novelty distance (cognitive dimension)? Is it a question of structural space distance

(spatial dimension)? Or is it a question of time distance implication (temporal
dimension)? Next, it is also important to address the question, in which functional
domain this problematic tension is likely to emerge? What is the specific dilemma
in that functional domain? Lastly, we must understand at what level of analysis the
most feasible to effectively approach what the balance is. Does the problem require
an individual adjustment? Should it be at the team level? Overall organisational
level? Or broader adjustment in the context of inter-firm network?
By understanding the dynamic of balancing mechanism, we can take a better
decision to prioritise the allocation of resources and to maximise the performance

benchmark along the exploration and exploitation tensions.
References
Ambos, B and BB Schlegelmilch (2004). The use of international R&D teams: An em-
pirical investigation of selected contingency factors. Journal of World Business,
39(1), 37–48.
Audia, PG and JA Goncalo (2007). Past success and creativity over time: A study of
inventors in the hard disk drive industry. Management Science, 53(1), 1–15.
Barkema, H and R Drogendijk (2007). Internationalising in small, incremental or larger
steps? Journal of International Business Studies, 38(7), 1132–1148.
Barney, J (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Man-
agement, 17(1), 99–120.
Beckman, CM (2006). The influence of founding team company affiliations on firm be-
havior. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 741–758.
Benner, MJ and M Tushman (2002). Process management and technological innovation: A
longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 47(4), 676–706.
Benner, MJ and ML Tushman (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management:
The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2),
238–256.
Borgatti, SP and R Cross (2003). A relational view of information seeking and learning in
social networks. Management Science, 49(4), 432–445.
Brown, JS and P Duguid (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice per-
spective. Organization Science, 12(2), 198–213.
Brown, SL and KM Eisenhardt (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity
theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.
Burgelman, RA (2002). Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(2), 325–357.
1550008-27
Chen, C (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient
patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377.
Cohen, WM and DA Levinthal (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.
Danneels, E (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic
Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.
Di Stefano, G, M Peteraf and G Verona (2010). Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: A
bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the
research domain. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1187–1204.
Dittrich, K, G Duysters and A Man (2007). Strategic repositioning by means of alliance

networks: The case of IBM. Research Policy, 36(10), 1496–1511.
Duncan, RB (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for inno-
vation. In The Management of Organization Design: Strategies and Implementation,
RH Kilmann, LR Pondy and D Slevin (eds.). New York, NY: North Holland.
Ghoshal, S and CA Bartlett (1994). Linking organizational context and managerial action:
The dimensions of quality management. Strategic Management Journal, 15(Special
Issue), 91–112.
Gibson, CB and J Birkinshaw (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating
role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2),
209–226.
Gilsing, V and B Nooteboom (2006). Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems:
The case of pharmaceutical biotechnology. Research Policy, 35(1), 1–23.
Grant, RM and C Baden-Fuller (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alli-
ances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61–84.
Geerts, A, F Blindenbach-Driessen and P Gemmel (2010). Achieving a balance between
exploration and exploitation service firms: A longitudinal study. Academy of Man-
agement Annual Meeting Proceedings, Montréal (Canada), August, 1–6.
Gupta, AK, KG Smith and CE Shalley (2006). The interplay between exploration and
exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.
He, L. and PK Wong (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the am-
bidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
Holmqvist, M (2003). A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning. Or-
ganization Studies, 24(1), 95–123.
Im, G and A Rai (2008). Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganiza-
tional relationships. Management Science, 54(7), 1281–1296.
Jansen, JJP, FAJ Van Den Bosch and HW Volberda (2006). Exploratory innovation,
exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and
environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.
Kang, S-C, S Morris and S Snell (2007). Relational archetypes, organizational learning,
and value creation: Extending the human resource architecture. Academy of Man-
agement. The Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 236–256.
1550008-28
Katila, R and G Ahuja (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of
search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal,
45(6), 1183–1194.
Koza, MP and AY Lewin (1999). The coevolution of network alliances: A longitudinal
analysis of an international professional service network. Organization Science,
10(5), 638–653.
Kyriakopoulos, K and C Moorman (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and ex-
ploration strategies: The overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal
of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 219–240.
Lane, PJ, BR Koka and S Pathak (2006). The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical
review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4),

833–863.
Lavie, D and L Rosenkopf (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance

formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797–818.
Levinthal, DA and JG March (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management
Journal, 14(8), 95–112.
Li, Y, W Vanhaverbeke and W Schoenmakers (2008). Exploration and exploitation in
innovation: Reframing the interpretation. Creativity & Innovation Management,
17(2), 107–126.
Lin, Z, Y Haibin and I Demirkan (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity
in strategic alliance formations: Empirical investigation and computational theorizing.
Management Science, 53(10), 1645–1658.
Makino, S, C-M Lau and R-S Yeh (2002). Asset-exploitation versus asset-seeking:
Implications for location choice of foreign direct investment from newly industrial-
ized economies. Journal of International Business Studies, 33(3), 403–421.
March, JG (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization
Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Miller, KD, Z Meng and RJ Calantone (2006). Adding interpersonal learning and tacit
knowledge to march’s exploration-exploitation model. Academy of Management
Journal, 49(4), 709–731.
Nelson, R and S Winter (1982). An Evolutionary Theory of Economics Change. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Nerkar, A (2003). Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new
knowledge. Management Science, 49(2), 211–229.
Nerkar, A and P Roberts (2004). Technological and product-market experience and the
success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry. Strategic
Management Journal, 25(8–9), 779–799.
Olk, P and TL Griffith (2004). Creating and disseminating knowledge among organiza-
tional scholars: The role of special issues. Organization Science, 15(1), 120–129.
Prange, C and BB Schlegelmilch (2009). The role of ambidexterity in marketing strategy
implementation: Resolving the exploration-exploitation dilemma. Business Research,
2(2), 215–240.
1550008-29
Perretti, F and G Negro (2006). Filling empty seats: How status and organizational hi-
erarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 49(4), 759–777.
Phene, A, K Fladmoe-Lindquist and L Marsh (2006). Breakthrough innovations in the
U.S. Biotechnology industry: The effects of technological space and geographic or-
igin. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 369–380.
Prahalad, CK and Y Doz (1987). The multinational mission: Balancing local demands and
global vision. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Porter, ME (1981). The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management.
The Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 609–620.
Qing, C, LM Maruping and R Takeuchi (2006). Disentangling the effects of ceo turnover
and succession on organizational capabilities: A social network perspective. Orga-
nization Science, 17(5), 563–576.

Raisch, S and J Birkinshaw (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes,
and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.
Rodriguez, R and R Navarro (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic
management research: A bibliometric study of the strategic management journal,
1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981–1104.
Rosenkopf, L and A Nerkar (2001). Beyond local search: Boundary-spanning, exploration,
and impact in the optical disc industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22(4), 287–301.
Rothaermel, FT (2001). Complementary assets, strategic alliances, and the incumbent’s
advantage: An empirical study of industry and firm effects in the biopharmaceutical
industry. Research Policy, 30(8), 1235–1259.
Rothaermel, FT and DL Deeds (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in bio-
technology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal,
25(3), 201–221.
Schildt, HA (2002). SITKIS: Software for bibliometric data management and analysis
v0.6.1. Helsinki: Institute of Strategy and International Business, 6. Available at
www.hut.fi/_hschildt/sitkis.
Schildt, HA, SA Zahra and A Sillanp (2006). Scholarly communities in entrepreneurship
research: A co-citation analysis. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 30(3), 399–415.
Sidhu, J, H Commandeur and H Volberda (2007). The multifaceted nature of exploration
and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation. Or-
ganization Science, 18(1), 20–38.
Siggelkow, N and DA Levinthal (2003). Temporarily divide to conquer: Centralized,
decentralized, and reintegrated organizational approaches to exploration and adap-
tation. Organization Science, 14(6), 650–672.
Starbuck, WH (2005). How much better are the most-prestigious journals? The statistics of
academic publication. Organization Science, 16(2), 180–200.
Taylor, A and HR Greve (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination
and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4),
723–739.
1550008-30
Teece, DJ, G Pisano and A Shuen (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Tushman, ML and CA O’Reilly (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolu-
tionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–30.
Tushman, ML and CA O’Reilly (1997). Winning Through Innovation: A Practical Guide
to Leading Organizational Change and Renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Verona, G (1999). A resource-based view of product development. Academy of Man-
agement Review, 24(1), 132–142.
Volberda, HW, C Baden-Fuller and FAJ van den Bosch (2001). Mastering strategic re-
newal: Mobilising renewal journeys in multi-unit firms. Long Range Planning, 34(2),
159–178.
Vorhies, D, L Orr and V Bush (2011). Improving customer-focused marketing capabilities

and firm financial performance via marketing exploration and exploitation. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(5), 736–756.
Voss, G, D Sirdeshmukh and ZG Voss (2008). The effects of slack resources and envi-
ronmental threat on product exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management
Journal, 51(1), 147–164.
Westerman, G, FW McFarlan and M Iansiti (2006). Organization design and effectiveness
over the innovation life cycle. Organization Science, 17(2), 230–238.
Zi-Lin, H and W Poh-Kam (2004). Exploration versus exploitation: An empirical test of
the ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
1550008-31

Almahendra 2015 Exploration Exploitation 20 Year

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Almahendra 2015 Exploration Exploitation 20 Year

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Innovation Management

Vol. 19, No. 1 (February 2015) 1550008 (31 pages)

EXPLORATION AND EXPLOITATION:

Universitas Gadjah Mada, Department Management

Published 17 September 2014

Keywords: Exploration; exploitation; bibliometric study.

perform two conﬂicting dilemmas of exploration and exploitation (March, 1991).

Literature Review on the Exploration–Exploitation Dilemmas

between exploration and exploitation. Exploration includes things captured by

Table 1. Variety of constructs on exploration–exploitation.

Authors Exploration Exploitation

Authors Exploration Exploitation

Authors Exploration Exploitation

Authors Exploration Exploitation

different technology. alliances, partner with similar technology.

Table 2. Number of articles by Journal 1992–2012.

Journal No. of paper

Results of the Study

Fig. 1. Domination of quoted articles.

Fig. 2. Dominations of particular article year by year.

Table 3. Common citation analysis.

Article 1 Article 2 Cited together %

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 5

Helfat (1994) 0.694

Miles (1978) 0.619

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 5

Aiken (1991) 0.429 0.798

Penrose (1959) 0.558

Fig. 3. Cluster groups of the most cited articles.

Mapping of the intellectual network

Fig. 4. Visualisation of citations/network pattern of articles.

Table 5. Centrality measures top 5 intellectual base articles.

Top 5 intellectual bases Degree Closeness Betweennes Citing Articles %

Visualisation of knowledge evolution

Fig. 5. Visualisation of turning points articles (time zone view).

concepts or new associations from the different underlying intellectual founda-

Behavioural theory of the ﬁrm

Levitt and March (1988) viewed organisations as experiential learning systems.

Research on ﬁrm’s ability to absorb knowledge from external sources gained

Evolutionary theory of the ﬁrm

an evolutionary perspective grounding the exploration–exploitation discussion to

Turning point articles

Tushman and O’Reilly (1996)

The compelling concept of ambidextrous organisation from Tushmann and

which specialises in either exploration or exploitation. The second type of bal-

long periods of exploitation and short phase of exploration. Siggelkow and

Rosenkopf and Nerkar (2001)

Inspired by the work of Rosenkopf and Nerkar (2001), scholars started to

Katila and Ahuja (2002)

plored (Katila and Ahuja, 2002).

Benner and Tushman (2003)

contingency theory begins to believe that no single organisational structure was

Emerging research on organisational ambidexterity has been fairly prominent

He and Wong (2004)

Gibson and Birkinshaw (2004)

contextual ambidexterity proposes that individual must develop the behavioural

business unit. Those behavioural capacities are including a combination of stretch,

Fig. 6. Framework of balancing mechanism.

novelty distance (cognitive dimension)? Is it a question of structural space distance

decision to prioritise the allocation of resources and to maximise the performance

Dittrich, K, G Duysters and A Man (2007). Strategic repositioning by means of alliance

review and rejuvenation of the construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4),

Lavie, D and L Rosenkopf (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance