Exploration and exploitation within supply networks

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to introduce and define the concept of purchasing ambidexterity in terms of two dimensions: balance dimension and combined dimension. The study proceeds to empirically examine the multiple performance effects generated for the buying firm and its key suppliers. Design/methodology/approach Ambidexterity theory informs the authors’ conceptual model. To test the hypotheses, the authors collected survey data from 95 purchasing functions of medium and large European firms and applied various estimation techniques. Findings This research indicates that ambidexterity substantially varies across purchasing functions. Further, it discovers that a purchasing function’s ability to advance the combined magnitude of exploratory and exploitative activities represents an essential determinant of supplier efficiency, supplier product innovation, and buyer financial performance. Notably, this research also discovers that balancing the magnitudes of exploratory and exploitative activities on a relative basis produces negative effects on the innovativeness of the supply network. Originality/value Although ambidexterity theory has been applied to supply chain management, limited attention has been dedicated to purchasing ambidexterity. This gap led us to study how purchasing impacts the competitiveness of the buying firm and of its supply network by balancing and combining exploratory and exploitative activities. This research is the first to advance the notion of purchasing ambidexterity, unpack its underlying dimensions, and examine its multiple performance implications. Such a conceptual and empirical development presents new perspectives on how purchasing can help the buying firm and its supply network to strengthen their competitiveness.

Sustainable supply chain management towards disruption and organizational ambidexterity: A data driven analysis

“…Particularly, exploitation objectives to enhance the existing materials or technologies, while the exploration is to collect and diverse new information and knowledge to systematized organizations ( Guan and Liu, 2016 ; Lavie et al, 2010 ; Phelps, 2010 ; Yan and Guan, 2018 ). Prior studies have designedly preferred to assess the combined effect of exploration and exploitation on firm performance ( Uotila et al, 2009 ; Gualandris et al, 2018 ; Bravo et al, 2018 ). Sahi et al (2020) measure the strategic orientation effects, such as market and business tactical positioning, on operational exploitational and explorational ambidexterity for improving business performance and found that small and medium firms’ entrepreneurial and market orientations has greater prominence on explorative operational activities, and exploitative operational activities has high impacts on entrepreneurial orientation.…”

“…However, it is argued there is pressure between exploitation and exploration valuable ground found in environmental sustainability since ambidextrous operations require cross-border decision strategies to deal with the external environment changes with the internal resources and capabilities supports. Gualandris et al (2018) claimed small firms are better with enhanced exploration rather than balancing the two dimensions in rapidly changing SC environment with technologies, policies, and market requirements. Zhao et al (2021) argued that exploratory innovation not only reserves and enriches the existing knowledge, but also generates new materials or technologies compared with the exploitative innovation.…”

“…Sustainable production and consumption complex transformations is requiring firms to instantaneously push them to change from traditional operation to incrementally increasing to a more disruptive adaptation approach ( Gualandris et al, 2018 ). The organizational ambidexterity is argued to be capable for firms to efficiently control current business demands while fundamentally being adaptive to changes to develop the sustainable SC systems ( Hajli et al, 2020 ; Gomes et al, 2020 ; Parast, 2020 ; Syed et al, 2020 ; Yu et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Prior studies compared the ambidexterity effects on varied measures such as firm performance, supply chain competence, supplier product innovation, cooperative innovation, helping firms to create advantageous environments ( Cao et al, 2009 ; Gualandris et al, 2018 ; Bravo et al, 2018 ; Wang et al, 2018 ; Crescenzi and Gagliardi, 2018 ). Ponis and Koronis (2012) examined the SC network proactive plan and design ability to predict unexpected disruptive events, and adaptively respond to, while preserving the SC structure and function, and exceeding to a post operations-robust stage.…”

How purchasing departments facilitate organizational ambidexterity

“…However, purchasing is increasingly also contributing to new technology scouting and sourcing (Lakemond Echtelt, and Wynstra 2001;Legenvre and Gualandris 2018), mobilizing supplier resources (Ellegaard and Koch 2012) and facilitating early supplier involvement in new product development (Schiele 2010). Gualandris et al (2018) conceptualise purchasing ambidexterity as a contextual capability. They argue that 'for higher levels of ambidexterity, purchasing personnel will be allowed to make their own (contextual) judgments on how to best advance and balance efficiencyoriented and innovation-oriented activities' (Gualandris et al 2018, 672).…”