Category Archives: Ambidexterity

Four Models of Intrapreneurship Innovation

Research shows that growth fueled through organic innovation is more profitable than growth driven by acquisition, in part because the organizational capability required is vastly different. But the litmus test is...

Firms of the Future: Managing 2 Business Engines

Bain and Company has recently published a worthwile article, debating on the question: What will the firm of the future look like? Among several characteristics, the authors also particularly anticipate future-proof companies to be required to manage two types of businesses by deploying distinct "engines".

Organizational Agility Entails Dual Innovation

Ralph Ohr explores the question: In order to increase agility, should organizations aim to become more nimble across their existing structures or should they capitalize on separated units/ventures - such as innovation or digital labs - being dedicated to initiate and develop explorative ideas and opportunities?

A Model for Dual Corporate Innovation Management

As rightly pointed out by Tim Kastelle recently, it’s imperative to distinguish discovery from execution when it comes to startup and innovation activities – bearing in mind that both purposes are complementary and equally important. Along with the case made in my previous post, this suggests following a dual approach to balanced corporate innovation management. The main objective of dual approaches is to ...

The Case for Dual Innovation

The first time I was advocating the idea of a dual innovation approach, here also referred to as organizational ambidexterity, is now more than 5 years ago. At this time it became pretty obvious to me that this concept – academically worn-out but deficiently or not at all put into practice in most organizations – would be of increasing importance ...