Lavie & Rosenkopf (2006) "Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation
36 important questions on Lavie & Rosenkopf (2006) "Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation
What is defined as exploitation alliances?
Where does attribute exploration refer to?
What question does the function domain answer?
- Higher grades + faster learning
- Never study anything twice
- 100% sure, 100% understanding
What question does the structure domain answer?
What question does the attribute domain answer?
How are recurrent alliances between firms considered (structure domain)
What is considered exploratory behavior in the attribute domain?
What is considered exploration behavior in the attribute domain?
How can alliances serve?
What is the role of exploration and exploitation according to the organizational learning perspective?
What are the pressures for exploration? Where do they derive from?
Where does inertia result from?
In which way may inertia independently inhibit exploration in one or more domains of alliance formation?
- In the function domain, firms that commit to existing technologies are less likely to explore new technologies through their alliances.
- Inertia may reduce structure exploration by promoting partner-selection routines that impel firms to enhance the predictability, stability, and reliability of their alliances.
- Even when partner selection routines fail to yield relevant partners, firms may still leverage established routines to identify partners that match a certain profile. In so doing, they specialize and become efficient in managing alliances, thus reinforcing attribute exploitation.
What does absorptive capacity facilitate?
What does absorptive capacity do?
How does absorptive capacity enhance exploration?
- Absorpitve capacity motivates the search for new technologies and the assimilation of external knowledge, thus facilitating the formation of knowledge-generating R&D alliances
- Absorptive capacity encourages the pursuit and assimilation of external knowledge and thus motivates firms to identify new partners that can furnish such knowledge
- Absorptive capacity reinforces structure exploration since in enhances receptivity to external knowledge and enables firms to apply and internalize the knowledge learned from new partners
Where does the challenge to balance in the function, structure and attribute domain derive from?
Where can the tendency to underscore either exploration or exploitation within domains be ascribed to?
What are path dependencies?
Why does path dependence emerge in exploitation?
What are the routines that become part of firm's repertoires?
Why may these outcomes in turn lead to path dependence?
Why is absorptive capacity path dependent as well?
Why is balancing within domains organizationally challenging and does in entail natural behavioral tendencies and cognitive constraints?
In turn, where do the firms that simultaneously exploit across domains limit their search activities and constrain potential technical and market opportunities by?
So why is balancing exploration-exploitation across domains possible?
- Inertia and ACAP within domains may not necessarily conflict across domains.
- Firms may explore in one domain by exploiting in another to specialize in either exploration or exploitation within each domain.
- It avoids unnecessary levels of uncertainty and risk when firms explore at the same time across the domains.
- It may limit the long-term prospect when firms exploit at the same time across the domains which hinder their search activities and constrain potential technical and market opportunities.
What does the transition between exploration and exploitation require?
How do firms balance exploration and exploitation in the context of alliance formation over time?
What is a possible path?
In which way may firms intertemporal balancing exploration-exploitation within and across domains?
- Small changes in firms’ perception of the environment improve constant attention and adaption over time, which may lead to temporal efficiency.
- Slow incremental changes may displace current development trajectories, which enable firms to avoid competency traps.
What happens when there is a shift between exploration and exploitation within a certain domain lead to a disequilibrium?
Why do firms tend to compensate?
- This help firms to protect its investments in the development of organizational routines and maintain ACAP.
- Firms may switch their inertial forces and ACAP in one domain to another due to the fact that corresponding investments and routines are somewhat fungible across domains.
What is the role of inertia and ACAP?
What is the role of path dependencies?
What is second-order exploitation?
What are the limitations to this study?
- Intra-organizational learning
- Time intervals
- Industry context
- Inertia and absorptive capacity - lack of proper measurement
- Lack of link with firm performance
The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:
- A unique study and practice tool
- Never study anything twice again
- Get the grades you hope for
- 100% sure, 100% understanding
![Trustpilot Logo](/images/design_2020/lp/clp-trustpilot-en.png)