Exploration vs. exploitation

He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-494.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

2004

Volume

15

Issue

4

Pages

481-494

DOI

10.1287/orsc.1040.0078

DOI registrant

Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences

Link

https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0078

Cited from

biology_ecology, futurism_foresight, organizational_management, systems_cybernetics

Cited by

8 citations across 8 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Absorptive Capacity

  • This sourceEmpirical test showing the interaction of exploratory and exploitative innovation strategies relates positively to sales-growth rate.

• Adaptation
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Adaptive Capacity
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Ambidexterity (Exploit vs. Explore)
  • The resource allocation mechanism determining how organizational resources (budget, talent, time, attention) are divided between exploitation and exploration activities

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    The abstract supports the exploration/exploitation balance-and-imbalance result on sales growth, but names no resource-allocation mechanism and none of the resources the claim lists.

    “we find evidence consistent with the ambidexterity hypothesis by showing that (1) the interaction between explorative and exploitative innovation strategies is positively related to sales growth rate, and (2) the relative imbalance between explorative and exploitative innovation strategies is negatively related to sales growth rate.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

• Diversity
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• System Slack
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Three Horizons Analysis
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.
• Variation Strategies
  • Listed in the references but not attached to a specific claim.

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 8 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Registry ID ref:2153c414e922 · see in the full table