This study compares two high-tech firms in terms of their differences in organizational characteristics and learning activities beyond the boundaries. It finds that the larger company continuously develops new technology to achieve long-term survival through a balance between exploration and exploitation while the smaller enterprise grows quickly by leveraging focused technology and core business. The innovation-oriented firm gives more emphasis to learning beyond its knowledge boundary and the customer-oriented firm focuses on learning beyond its organizational boundary. The two firms' sustainable development illustrates two strategies to adapt to the complexity of the external environment.
CesaroniF.MininA.D.PiccalugaA. (2005), ‘Exploration and exploitation strategies in industrial R&D’, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol 14, No 3, pp 222–232.
2.
ChesbroughH.W. (2003), ‘The era of open innovation’, Sloan Management Review, Vol 44, No 3, pp 35–41.
3.
ChungS.SinghH.LeeK. (2000), ‘Complementarity, status similarity and social capital as drivers of alliance formation’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 21, pp 1–22.
4.
FransmanM. (1984), ‘Technological capability in the third word’, in FransmanM.KingK., eds, Technological Capability in the Third World, Macmillan, London.
5.
GalendeJ.de la FuenteJ.M. (2003), ‘Internal factors determining a firm's innovative behavior’, Research Policy, Vol 32, No 5, pp 715–716.
6.
HendersonR.M. (1993), ‘Underinvestment and incompetence as a response to radical innovation: Evidence from the photolithographic alignment equipment industry’, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol 24, No 2, pp 248–270.
7.
JansenJ.J.P.van den BoschF.A.J.VolberdaH.W. (2005), ‘Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and ambidexterity: The impact of environmental and organizational antecedents’, Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol 57, No 4, pp 351–363.
LiuW.P. (2006), ‘Knowledge exploitation, knowledge exploration, and competency trap’, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol 13, No 3, pp 144–161.
10.
MangP.Y. (1998), ‘Exploiting innovation options: An empirical analysis of R&D-intensive firms’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol 35, pp 229–242.
11.
MarchJ. G. (1991), ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science, Vol 2, pp 71–87.
12.
MillerD.ShamsieJ. (1996), ‘The resource-based view of the firm in two environments: The Hollywood firm studios from 1936 to 1965’, Academy of Management Journal, Vol 39, pp 519–543.
13.
NairK.U. (2001), ‘Adaptation to creation: Process of organizational learning and increasing complexity of learning systems’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol 18, pp 505–521.
14.
PisanoG.P. (1990), ‘The R&D boundaries of the firm: An empirical analysis’, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 35, pp 153–176.
15.
RosenkopfL.NerkarA. (2001), ‘Beyond local search: Boundary-spinning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry’, Strategic Management Journal, Vol 22, pp 287–306.
16.
SveibyK.E. (2001), ‘A knowledge-based theory of the firm to guide in strategy formulation’, Journal of Intellectual Capital, Vol 2, No 4, pp 344–358.
17.
TeeceD.J.PisanoG. (1994), ‘The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction’, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol 3, pp 537–556.
18.
TiddJ.TrewhellaM.J. (1997), ‘Organizational and technological antecedents for knowledge acquisition and learning’, R&D Management, Vol 27, No 4, pp 359–375.
