Organizational learning with forgetting: Reconsidering the exploration–exploitation tradeoff

Miller, Kent D.; Martignoni, Dirk

doi:10.1177/1476127015608337

Cited by 32 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 61 publications

(132 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The costs and efforts involved in storing and copying information are low (Whelan and Teigland, 2013 ). Organizational processes such as “Exploration and Exploitation” (March, 1991 ), which describes the search, acquisition and elaboration of new information, the intensive and excessive use of information, and the evaluation of information as an important resource, have led to a continuous increase in available and recallable stored knowledge (Blaschke and Schoeneborn, 2006 ; Miller and Martignoni, 2016 ).…”

Section: Organizational Learning and The Supplemental Need For Forgetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intentional Forgetting in Organizations: The Importance of Eliminating Retrieval Cues for Implementing New Routines

Kluge

Gronau

2018

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To cope with the already large, and ever increasing, amount of information stored in organizational memory, “forgetting,” as an important human memory process, might be transferred to the organizational context. Especially in intentionally planned change processes (e.g., change management), forgetting is an important precondition to impede the recall of obsolete routines and adapt to new strategic objectives accompanied by new organizational routines. We first comprehensively review the literature on the need for organizational forgetting and particularly on accidental vs. intentional forgetting. We discuss the current state of the art of theory and empirical evidence on forgetting from cognitive psychology in order to infer mechanisms applicable to the organizational context. In this respect, we emphasize retrieval theories and the relevance of retrieval cues important for forgetting. Subsequently, we transfer the empirical evidence that the elimination of retrieval cues leads to faster forgetting to the forgetting of organizational routines, as routines are part of organizational memory. We then propose a classification of cues (context, sensory, business process-related cues) that are relevant in the forgetting of routines, and discuss a meta-cue called the “situational strength” cue, which is relevant if cues of an old and a new routine are present simultaneously. Based on the classification as business process-related cues (information, team, task, object cues), we propose mechanisms to accelerate forgetting by eliminating specific cues based on the empirical and theoretical state of the art. We conclude that in intentional organizational change processes, the elimination of cues to accelerate forgetting should be used in change management practices.

show abstract

Section: Organizational Learning and The Supplemental Need For Forgetmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intentional Forgetting in Organizations: The Importance of Eliminating Retrieval Cues for Implementing New Routines

Kluge

Gronau

2018

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In similar vein, Blaschke and Schoeneborn (2006) use the feature concerning two-step updating as a new construct “forgetting by an individual,” which turns a nonzero belief into a zero (cf. Miller and Martignoni, 2016).…”

Section: Replicating March’s (1991) Exploration–exploitation Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Replicating agent-based models: Revisiting March’s exploration–exploitation study

Chanda

Miller

2018

Strategic Organization

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To validate prior agent-based models, public disclosure of model code is necessary, but not sufficient. Conceptual model replication, involving independent reproduction of a model without referring to the originator’s code, is crucial for detecting nonconformity between the publication text and the model implemented. We frame and evaluate four scenarios to expose the shortfalls of replication efforts that use the original study’s program code and neglect the published model description. We identify, evaluate, and offer recommendations regarding disparities between the text and the program code that generated the results reported in March’s classic study of exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Based on our experience replicating his model, we suggest a two-step method of model verification—beginning with replicating the model from the published description, then turning to the program code of the original implemented model to account for divergent results. Exclusive reliance on either the published model description or the original program code does disservice to theory advancement, because disparities between the original conceptual and implemented models go unaddressed.

show abstract

“…The NK model conceptualized the exploration–exploitation dilemma as that between distant and local search. However, the dilemma has also been considered to take many other forms, a fundamental one being the trade-off between knowledge diversity and rapid knowledge utilization (March, 1991; Miller and Martignoni, 2016). The mutual learning model is used to examine whether these results hold in the latter context.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploration, exploitation, and variability: Competition for primacy revisited

Uotila

2017

Strategic Organization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines how exploration and exploitation contribute to variability in organizational performance and how this variability influences competitions for primacy, i.e. contexts in which the ability to generate exceptionally high levels of performance is a key success factor. The results of simulation analyses conducted using the NK model, the mutual learning model, and the multiarmed bandit model all show that while exploration introduces more internal variability in organizations, exploitation tends to increase the variability in performance between different organizations. Variability and uniqueness in relation to one's competitors, brought about by a single-minded focus on exploitation, is found to be advantageous in a race to finish first. In contrast, in contexts where avoiding especially low performance is the key consideration, exploration is found to be relatively more beneficial. These results suggest a need for a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between exploration, exploitation, and organizational risk taking.

show abstract

Organizational learning with forgetting: Reconsidering the exploration–exploitation tradeoff

Cited by 32 publications

References 61 publications

Intentional Forgetting in Organizations: The Importance of Eliminating Retrieval Cues for Implementing New Routines

Intentional Forgetting in Organizations: The Importance of Eliminating Retrieval Cues for Implementing New Routines

Replicating agent-based models: Revisiting March’s exploration–exploitation study

Exploration, exploitation, and variability: Competition for primacy revisited

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About