عنوان مقاله [English]
Today, offering the best new product development performance has become the most important concern of the managers of the knowledge-based companies and they are trying to achieve superior performance by using different techniques. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of organizational memory on new product development performance in knowledge-based companies: by explaining the role of organizational ambidexterity, technological turbulence and organizational Innovation.
Today, the life of the product market is declining and anticipated that will double the rate of product development in every five years (Wu et al, 2017; Awwad & Akroush, 2011). New product development is a strategic and key activity for many companies through which new products will have a significant share in sales and profits (Khasmafkan Nezam et al, 2014). As a result, new products that fix the needs and demands of customers are the key factor in maintaining and improving the competitive advantage (Manian et al, 2011). It is anticipated that innovation gains more importance in achieving competitive advantage and its maintenance as the organization environment becomes more complex and dynamic (Nasre Esfahani et al, 2013). On the other hand, today, the rapid fluctuations in science and technology and the economic turmoil caused by the lack of capital in product innovation have always been a problem, especially in developing countries (Mahmoudzadeh et al, 2015), And has persuaded the organizations to direct their objectives and tendencies towards organizational ambidexterity and innovation (Mortazavi et al, 2015; Booshehri, 2016). Considering the importance of knowledge-based companies in scientific and technological progress, and the complexities and changing conditions governing their business environment in the country, and given the success in offering new products, one of the most challenging management topics specially in knowledge-based companies, The present study aims at showing the impact of innovative culture and organizational memory on new product development performance with explaining the mediating role of organizational ambidexterity in knowledge-based companies and seeks to answer the question of how innovative culture and organizational memory improves achieving exploration and exploitation? And finally, how does organizational ambidexterity affect the new product development performance?
Research population includes Knowledge-based Firms located in the science and technology Park of Tehran University. 155 companies are located in this Park, among these parks, 90 companies are development, 40 companies are growth and 25 are technology core companies.
Materials and Methods
In the present study, a researcher-made questionnaire which estimates the effect of innovative culture and organizational memory on the new product development performance was used and includes 25 questions. For validity purpose, face validity and for reliability purpose Cronbach's alpha coefficient were used. For ambidexterity and organizational memory scales, Lee et al. (2017) measurement and Dunham and Burt (2014) and Harvey (2012) with 4 questions were used. In this study, the definition of innovative culture by Lee et al. (2016) with 5 questions was used. Also, the scale of new product development performance by Chen et al. (2015) and Parker and Brey (2015) with 4 questions was used as the basis of the questionnaire. Structural equation modeling and LISREL software were used to test the hypothesis.
Discussion and Results
Findings show that the conceptual model has overall validity and all key paths in the model are statistically significant. The results indicate that while innovative culture and organizational memory can lead to higher new product development performance, organizational ambidexterity caused by innovative culture plays the mediating role. Findings show that innovative culture and organizational memory have a positive effect of exploration and exploitation; the results also show that innovative culture and organizational memory have a positive effect on ambidexterity. The results show that organizational ambidexterity (exploration and exploitation) has a positive impact on the new product development performance. The obtained results from the analyses showed that the effect of the increase in exploitation and exploration in the new product development performance is dependent on amount and direction of imbalance and can contribute to matching the ambidexterity mixed and balanced views. The results indicate that organizational memory improves organizational ambidexterity and in addition to having a direct effect on new product development performance, it indirectly affects it.
Findings showed pro-innovation culture and organizational memory have directly and indirectly (through organizational ambidexterity) effect on the new product development performance. The results also showed that pro-innovation culture and organizational memory through exploration and exploitation will help to better utilizing organizational memory to increase the new product development performance in Knowledge-based Firms.
1-Aaker, D.A. & Joachimsthaler, E. (2000). Brand leadership: Building assets in an information economy: Free Press.
2-Ajitabh, A. & Momaya, K.S. (2004). Competitiveness of Firms: Review of Theory, Framework and Models. Singapore Management Review, 26(1): 45-61.
3-Argote, L. & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: from experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5): 1123-1137.
4-Andriopoulos, C. & Lewis, M.W. (2010). Managing innovation paradoxes: ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long Range Planning, 43(1): 104-122.
5-Atuahene-Gima, K. & Murray, J.Y. (2007). Exploratory and exploitative learning in new product development: a social capital perspective on new technology ventures in China. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 15(2): 1-29.
6-Awwad, A. & Akroush, M.N. (2016). New product development performance success measures: an exploratory research. EuroMed Journal of Business, 11(1): 2-29.
7-Azar, G. & Ciabuschi, F. (2017). Organizational innovation, technological innovation, and export performance: The effects of innovation radicalness and extensiveness. International Business Review, 26(2): 324-336.
8-Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1): 99-120.
9-Bengoa, D.S., Kaufman, H.R. & Vrontis, D. (2012). A new organisational memory for cross‐cultural knowledge management. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 19(3): 336-351.
10-Birkinshaw, J. & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 287-298.
11-Bonesso, S., Gerli, F. & Scapolan, A. (2014). The individual side of ambidexterity: do individuals' perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and exploitation trade-off?. European Management Journal, 32: 392-405.
12-Booshehri, A., Bagheri, A., Tabaian, S.K. & Namvar, K. (2016). Role of absorptive capacity in ambidexterity (exploration and exploitatopn) improvement. Journal of Technology Development Management, 3(4): 77-96. (In Persian)
13-Brockman, B.K. & Morgan, R.M. (2006). The moderating effect of organizational cohesiveness in knowledge use and new product development. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34: 295-307.
14-Camisón, C. & Villar-López, A. (2011). Non-technical innovation: organizationalmemory and learning capabilities as antecedent factors with effects on sustained competitive advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(8): 1294-1304.
15-Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E. & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4): 781-796.
16-Chang, Y.Y. & Hughes, M. (2012). Drivers of innovation ambidexterity in small-to medium-sized firms. European Management Journal, 30(1): 1-17.
17-Chen, J., Neubaum, D.O., Reilly, R.R. & Lynn, G.S. (2015). The relationship between team autonomy and new product development performance under different levels of technological turbulence. Journal of Oprations Management, 33/34: 83-96.
18-Dai, Y., Du, K., Byun, G. & Zhu, X. (2017). Ambidexterity in new ventures: The impact of new product development alliances and transactive memory systems. Journal of Business Research, 75: 77-85.
19-De Visser, M., deWeerd-Nederhof, P., Faems, D., Song, M., Van Looy, B. & Visscher, K. (2010). Structural ambidexterity in NPD processes: a firm-level assessment of the impact of differentiated structures on innovation performance. Technovation, 30(5): 291-299.
20-Dunham, A. & Burt, C. (2014). Understanding employee knowledge: the development of an organizational memory scale. The Learning Organization, 21(2): 126-145.
21-Feiz, D., Motameni, A, Kordnaeij, A., Zarei, A. & Dehghani Soltani, M. (2017). The Impact of Brand Performance on Brand Competitiveness with Clarifying the role of Technological Opportunism. Public Management Researches, 10(35): 159-182. (In Persian)
22-Gemser, G. & Leenders, M.A. (2011). Managing cross-functional cooperation for new product development success. Long Range Planning, 44(1): 26-41.
23-Gibson, C.B. & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2): 209-226.
24-Harvey, J.F. (2012). Managing organizational memory with intergenerational knowledge transfer. Journal of Knowledge Management, 16(3): 400-417.
25-Helfat, C.E., & Peteraf, M.A. (2003). The dynamic resource-based view: capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10): 997-1010.
26-Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures. Organization Science, 2(1): 88-115.
27-Jansen, J.J., Tempelaar, M.P., Van den Bosch, F.A. & Volberda, H.W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4): 797-811.
28- Jassawalla, A.R. & Sashittal, H.C. (2002). Cultures that support product-innovation processes. Academy of Management Executive, 16(3): 42-54.
29- Junni, P., Sarala, R.M., Taras, V. & Tarba, S.Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: a meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4): 299-312.
30-Katila, R. & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: a longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6): 1183-1194.
31-Keykha, A., Hoveyda, R. & Yaghoubi, N.M. (2017). Studying the effect of intelligent leadership on educational performance of faculty members of public universities in Zahedan city with the mediating role of critical thinking. Public Management Researches, 10(35): 61-83. (In Persian)
32-Khasmafkan Nezam, M.H., Atafar, A., Nasresfehani, A. & Shahin, A. (2014). Areview on Human Capital, Organizational Learning Capability and New Product Development Performance Efficiency in Automobile Industry. Public Management Researches, 7(25): 57-74. (In Persian)
33-Lee, K., Woo, H.G. & Joshi, K. (2017). Organizationalmemory and new product development performance: Investigating the role of organizational ambidexterity. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 120: 117-129.
34-Lee, K., Woo, H.G. & Joshi, K. (2016). Pro-innovation culture, ambidexterity and new product development performance: Polynomial regression and response surface analysis. European Management Journal, 120: 1-12.
35-Li, C.R., Chu, C.P. & Lin, C.J. (2010). The contingent value of exploratory and exploitative learning for new product development performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7): 1186-1197.
36-Lin, H.E. & McDonough, E.F., III (2011). Investigating the role of leadership and organizational culture in fostering innovation ambidexterity. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 58: 497-509.
37-Lin, H.E., McDonough, E.F., Lin, S.J. & Lin, C.Y.Y. (2013). Managing the exploitation/ exploration paradox: the role of a learning capability and innovation ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(2): 262-278.
38-Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y. L., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small to medium-sized firms: the pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32: 646-672.
39-Lu, P., Yuan, S. & Wu, J. (2017). The interaction effect between intra-organizational and inter-organizational control on the project performance of new product development in open innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 35(8): 1627-1638.
40-Mahmoudi Maymand, M. & Kiarazm, A. (2015). The study of relationship between the components of intellectual capital and organizational innovation drivers. Research Transformation Management, 7(2): 57-74. (In Persian)
41-Mahmoudzadeh, E., Bagheri, A., Dehghanpir, A. & Kiarazm, A. (2015). Effect of High Technology Factors on Market Performance of NPD. Journal of Technology Development Management, 3(1): 31-62. (In Persian)
42-March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1): 71-87.
43- March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
44-Manian, A., Asgharizadeh, E. & Dehghan Banadaki, M. (2011). Role of Knowledge Management (KM) in the New Product Development (NPD) performance of Software SMEsA survey on Software SMEs in the Yazd Province. Journal of Information Technology Management, 3(8): 133-150. (In Persian)
45-Maslach, D. (2016). Change and persistence with failed technological innovation. Strategic Management Journal, 37(4): 714-723.
46-McCarthy, I. P. & Gordon, B. R. (2011). Achieving contextual ambidexterity in R&D organizations: a management control system approach. R&D Management, 41(3): 240-258.
47-Mitic, S., Nikolic, M., Jankov, J., Vukonjanski, J. & Terek, E. (2017). The impact of information technologies on communication satisfaction and organizational learning in companies in Serbia. Computers in Human Behavior, 76: 87-101.
48-Mom, T.J.M., van den Bosch, F.A.J. & Volberda, H.W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers' ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal, structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20: 812-828.
49-Moradi, M., Ebrahimpour Azbary, A. & Mambini, Y. (2015). Explaining Organizational Ambidexterity As a New Concept in the Management of Knowledge Based Organizations. Journal of Science & Technology Parks and Incubators, 10(40): 18-27. (In Persian)
50-Mortazavi, M., Rasuli Ghahrudi, M. & Rostami, A. (2015). The Effects of Organizational Innovations and Competitive Cost Leadership Strategy Performance though Competitive Advantages. Journal of Development Evaluation Management, 3(27): 17-25. (In Persian)
51-Nasre Esfahani, A., Amiri, Z. & Forokhi, M. (2013). The Effect of Internal Marketing on the Organizational Innovation with the Mediating Role of Staff Self-Efficacy 2. (Emersan Company as a Case Study. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 3(27): 17-25. (In Persian)
52-Padiha, C.K. & Gomes, G. (2016). Innovation culture and performance in innovation of products and processes: a study in companies of textile industry. RAI Revista de Administracao Inovacao, 13(4): 285-294.
53-Palm, K. & Lilja, J. (2017). Key enabling factors for organizational ambidexterity in the public sector. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 9(1): 2-20.
54-Parker, H. & Brey, Z. (2015). Collaboration costs and new product development performance. Journal of Business Research, 68(7): 1653-1656.
55-Piao, M. & Zajac, E.J. (2016). How exploitation impedes and impels exploration: theory and evidence. Strategic Management Journal, 37(7): 1431-1447.
56-Prajogo, D.I. & Sohal, A.S. (2006). The relationship between organization strategy, total quality management (TQM), and organization performance the mediating role of TQM. European Journal of Operational Research, 168(1): 35-50.
57-Raisch, S. & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34: 375-409.
58-Rivkin, J. W. & Siggelkow, N. (2003). Balancing search and stability: interdependencies among elements of organizational design. Management Science, 49(3): 290-311.
59-Sarmad, Z., Bazargan, A. & Hejazi, E. (2016). Research Methods in Behavioral Sciences. Tehran: Agah Publishing Institute. (In Persian)
60-Strese, S., Meuer, M., Flatten, T.C. & Brettel, M. (2016). Examining cross-functional coopetition as a driver of organizational ambidexterity. Industrial Marketing Management, 57: 40-52.
61-Tushman, M.L. & O'Reilly, C.A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38: 1-23.
62-Wang, C.L. & Rafiq, M. (2014). Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity and new product innovation: a comparative study of UK and Chinese high-tech firms. British Journal of Management, 25, 58-76.
63-Wei, Z., Yi, Y. & Guo, H. (2014). Organizational learning ambidexterity, strategic flexibility, and new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4): 832-847.
64-Wu, L., Liu, H. & Zhang, J. (2017). Bricolage effects on new-product development speed and creativity: The moderating role of technological turbulence. Journal of Business Research, 70: 127-135.
65-Yaghoubi, N.M., Shekari, A. & Rahat Dehmorde, Mahboube. (2012). Studying Fast Organizational Structural Empowerments in Banking System. Strategic Management Thought Journal, 10(1), 133-158. (In Persian)
66-Yan, M., Yu, Y. & Dong, X. (2016). Contributive roles of multilevel organizational learning for the evolution of organizational ambidexterity. Information Technology & People, 29(3): 647-667.
667-Zahra, S.A. & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27(2): 185-203.
68-Zollo, M. & Winter, S.G. (2002). Deliberate learning and the evolution of dynamic capabilities. Organization Science, 13(3): 339-351.