IEEE Transactions on
ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
Special Issue: Building Entrepreneurial Ecosystems: Exploring Ambidexterity in Technology and Engineering Management
Guest Editors
Dr Elias Carayannis, George Washington University
Dr. Manlio Del Giudice, University of Rome “Link Campus”, Italy
Dr. ShlomoTarba, University of Birmingham, UK
Dr. Pedro Soto-Acosta, University of Murcia, Spain
Theme
Entrepreneurship and Intrapreneurship are key factors in commercialization of emerging technologies. The lack of them have been disastrous for organizations all around the world. This special issue will explore emerging research to outline key learnings for technology and engineering management. Cases from different kinds of organizations and industries will be considered to be able to identify new solutions for technology and engineering driven organizations. Most of the time disruptive process innovations are found in distant environments. We would like to build upon the prior research published in IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management (Cooper, 1971; Smilor, 1987; Keller et al, 1996; Tushman, 2004; Lin and McDonough, 2011; Marion et al, 2012)
The ability to act entrepreneurially appeared in management studies as connected to organizational ambidexterity (Du et al., 2013). Organization theory scholars refer broadly to organizational ambidexterity as an organization’s ability to pursue two competing objectives at the same time, such as manufacturing efficiency and flexibility (Adler et al., 1999) or differentiation and low-cost strategic positioning (Porter, 1996). There is an emerging consensus to frame organizational ambidexterity in terms of the competing demands for exploration and exploitation (Gupta et al., 2006; Raisch and Birkinshaw, 2008): where exploration involves “experimentation with new alternatives” with returns that are “uncertain, and distant,” and exploitation is the “refinement and extension of existing competencies, technologies and paradigms” with returns that are “proximate and predictable” (March, 1991). Thus, the general agreement in this literature is that an ambidextrous firm is one that is capable of both exploiting existing competencies as well as exploring new technology opportunities with equal dexterity (Carayannis and Rakhmatullin, 2014; Lubatkin et al., 2006; Tsai and Li, 2007), and also that achieving ambidexterity enables a firm to enhance its performance and competitiveness (Cao et al., 2009). However, organizational ambidexterity capability may enhance a firm’s performance in the long run only if it achieves incremental and radical innovation (Dewar and Dutton, 1986; Roberts, 2004). Incremental innovations are designed to meet the needs of existing customers or markets, while radical innovations are designed to meet the needs of emerging customers or markets (Benner and Tushman 2003; Danneels, 2002). Therefore, ambidextrous organizations excel at exploiting existing competencies to enable incremental innovation and at exploring new opportunities to foster radical innovation (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009). Overall, ambidexterity has been shown to be an important factor for enhancing overall firm performance (Junni et al, 2013).
An infrequent introduction of a new process, product, or service combined with a low exposure to risk exemplifies the traditional organization that is engaged in entrepreneurial and technological behaviour of low intensity (Carayannis, 1999; Vrontis et al., 2017). In the managerial literature, this attitude is deeply incorporated within a specific type of organisations, which had been usually reflected in a widely used concept: the knowledge-intensive enterprise (Del Giudice et al., 2017).
We welcome research articles that bridge the gaps in between theoretical conceptions and practical propositions, through the implications of theories on business practices, as well as through practice-based theorisation. We invite contributions, based on innovative studies that span theoretical boundaries and disciplines to develop new insights on implications and relationships between entrepreneurial conditions in global ecosystems and interactions in diverse industries and different market settings, in order to develop insights on the emerging perspectives of entrepreneurship. Such studies might be relevant, but not limited to:
- Entrepreneurial intensity, knowledge management and innovation ambidexterity
- Traditional vs. value based financial measures of entrepreneurial intensity;
- Entrepreneurial intensity and value creation;
- Entrepreneurial opportunities through knowledge/technology transfer;
- Knowledge sharing and entrepreneurial intensity;
- MIS, entrepreneurial intentions and fast growing firms;
- Entrepreneurism in Global and local ecosystems;
- Knowledge/Technology transfer and value creation within global ecosystems;
- Technological Entrepreneurship
- Evaluation of firm performance and entrepreneurial intensity in knowledge intensive markets;
- Knowledge/technology management initiatives for ambidextrous contexts;
- Relationships between intellectual capital, organizational ambidexterity and entrepreneurial intensity
The focus of the manuscripts should be on cutting-edge theoretical developments and phenomena in the best practices.
Submission Process: Please prepare the manuscript according to IEEE-TEM’s guidelines (http://ieee-tmc.org/tem-guidelines) and submit tt the journal’s Manuscript Central site (https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/tem-ieee). Please clearly state in the cover letter that the submission is for this special issue.
Schedule
- Interested authors send abstracts by June 30th 2018
- Decisions on acceptance of abstracts by September 30th 2018
- Papers submitted by March 31st 2019
Please email ALL FOUR co-Editors when you send in your abstracts and papers.
References
Adler, P., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43-68.
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M.W. (2009). Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20(4), 696-717.
Benner, M.J., & Tushman, M.L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256.
Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781-796.
Carayannis E.G., & RakhmatullinR. (2014). The quadruple/quintuple innovation helixes and smart specialisation strategies for sustainable and inclusive growth in europe and beyond. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 5(2), 212-239.
Carayannis, E. G. (1999). Fostering synergies between information technology and managerial and organizational cognition: the role of knowledge management. Technovation, 19(4), 219-231.
Cooper, A. C. (1971). Spin-offs and technical entrepreneurship. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, (1), 2-6.
Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095-1121.
Del Giudice, M., Carayannis, E. G., & Maggioni, V. (2017). Global knowledge intensive enterprises and international technology transfer: emerging perspectives from a quadruple helix environment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 229-235.
Dewar, R.D., & Dutton, J.E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32(11), 1422-1433.
Du, W., Pan, S. L., & Zuo, M. (2013). How to balance sustainability and profitability in technology organizations: An ambidextrous perspective. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 60(2), 366-385.
Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., and Shalley, C.E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693-706.
Junni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., &Tarba, S. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27, 299-312.
Keller, R. T., Julian, S. D., & Kedia, B. L. (1996). A multinational study of work climate, job satisfaction, and the productivity of R&D teams. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 43(1), 48-55.
Lin, H. E., & McDonough III, E. F. (2011). Investigating the role of leadership and organizational culture in fostering innovation ambidexterity. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 58(3), 497-509.
Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & 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(5), 646-672.
March, J.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.
Marion, T., Dunlap, D., & Friar, J. (2012). Instilling the entrepreneurial spirit in your R&D team: What large firms can learn from successful start-ups. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(2), 323-337.
Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy?.Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 61-81.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34(3), 375-409.
Roberts, E. B. (2004). A perspective on 50 years of the engineering management field. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 51(4), 398-403.
Smilor, R. W. (1987). Managing the incubator system: critical success factors to accelerate new company development. IEEE transactions on Engineering Management, (3), 146-155.
Tushman, M. L. (2004). From engineering management/R&D management, to the management of innovation, to exploiting and exploring over value nets: 50 years of research initiated by the IEEE-TEM. IEEE Transactions on engineering management, 51(4), 409-411.
Guest Editor Bios
Elias G. Carayannis is Full Professor of Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship at the George Washington University School of Business in Washington, DC. He is also co-Founder and co-Director of the Global and Entrepreneurial Finance Research Institute (GEFRI) and Director of Research on Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, European Union Research Center, (EURC) at the School of Business of the George Washington University. Dr. Carayannis’ teaching and research activities focus on the areas of strategic Government-University-Industry R&D partnerships, technology road-mapping, technology transfer and commercialization, international science and technology policy, technological entrepreneurship and regional economic development. Dr. Carayannis has several publications in both academic and practitioner journals, including IEEE Transactions in Engineering Management, Research Policy, Journal of R&D Management, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, International Journal of Technology Management, Technovation, Journal of Technology Transfer, Engineering Management Journal and many others.
Manlio Del Giudice is Full Professor of Management at the University of Rome “Link Campus”. He holds a PhD in Marketing and Management at the University of Milano-Bicocca and he is affiliated as Professor of Management and Entrepreneurship at the Paris School of Business, in Paris (France), and as Principal Investigador at the University of Murcia, in Murcia (Spain). He serves as Director for Research and Scholarly Relations within the Euromed Business Research Institute, where he is Senior Fellow as well. He is the author of about 100 international scientific publications (including 12 monographs); his researches have been published on flagship peer-reviewed journals like MIS Quarterly, Journal of Knowledge Management, International Journal of Technology Management, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Business Process Management Journal, International Studies on Management Organization, Journal of Organizational Change Management. He act as Editor in Chief of Journal of Knowledge Management.
Shlomo Y. Tarba is a Reader (Associate Professor), Head of Department of Strategy & International Business, and a member of Senior Management Team at the Business School, University of Birmingham, UK, and a Visiting Professor of Strategy at Coller Business School, Tel-Aviv University, Israel. His research interests include agility, organizational ambidexterity, cross-border mergers and acquisitions, and resilience. He has published in the Journal of Management, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Human Relations, Human Resource Management, British Journal of Management, Journal of World Business, Management International Review, Group & Organization Management, Long Range Planning, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Academy of Management Perspectives and California Management Review.
Pedro Soto-Acosta is a Full Professor of Management at the University of Murcia (Spain). He attended Postgraduate Courses in Management at Harvard University (USA) and received his PhD in Business Economics from the University of Murcia. He serves as Associate Editor and Senior Editor for several mainstream journals including Decision Sciences, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Electronic Markets, Information Systems Management, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, and Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. His work has been published in journals such as Computers in Human Behavior, European Journal of Information Systems, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Knowledge Management, Journal of Technology Transfer, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, and Technological Forecasting and Social Change, among others. Further information is available at http://webs.um.es/psoto
