Discussion Paper No. 65

Managing Ambidextrous Organizations
for corporate transformation:A case study of Fujifilm’s transformation process , Japan
Tomoatsu Shibata
Mitsuru Kodama
Jun Suzuki

Feb. 2017

Data Science and Service Research
Discussion Paper

Center for Data Science and Service Research
Graduate School of Economic and Management
Tohoku University27-1 Kawauchi, Aobaku
Sendai 980-8576, JAPANManaging Ambidextrous Organizations for corporate transformation- A case study of Fujifilm’s transformation process , Japan Abstract: Within previous research on innovation management, the concept of ambidextrous
organizations that allow the two different activities of exploration and exploitation with theirdifferent objectives and characteristics to coexist within an organization while being separated
has been presented. Regardless of the fact that the relationship between exploration andexploitation differs depending on situations, existing literature does not consider thesedifferences and therefore has only limited relevance and effectiveness. This paper focuses on the
product substitutability of exploratory product and existing core products, proposes thecannibalistic and complementary types of ambidextrous organizations, and discusses effective
management respectively. Then, through in-depth case study of Fujifilm, the paper illustrates
how contingency framework of an ambidextrous organization will be effective for explaining
the survival of Fujifilm in the emergence of digitalization. Thus, this paper aims to refine andenhance the concept of ambidextrous organization.
Keywords: ambidextrous organization, Fujifilm, technological change, diversification strategy,
exploration
1 Introduction
Most of the companies involved in photographic film either withdrew or went bankrupt with theonslaught of digitalization. Konica Minolta quit the film and camera businesses in 2006, andPolaroid went bankrupt in 2001. Then in 2012, Kodak, a company that had made major
contributions to the film camera industry, also failed. All of these were the results ofphotographic film business being at the mercy of the invading wave of digitalization. Amongthese businesses was Fujifilm, a photographic film business that survived by dramaticallyshifting its business domains to become a total health company. Why then, was Fujifilm able tosurvive? Of course, this entails a variety of complex factors. This paper investigates Fujifilm’s
success from the perspective of an ambidextrous organization, an organization in which
exploration and exploitation are executed in parallel.
Exploration and exploitation are two different types of activity with different objectives andcharacteristics. Exploration is essentially trial and error through various experimentation with anumber of choices, while exploitation is characterized by expanding and refining current
capabilities and technologies (March, 1991). The difference between the two can be understood1

by their learning styles and the knowledge that is acquired. To grow sustainably, it has been
identified that a company must engage in both these activities (March, 1991).
The differences of this knowledge acquired in the context of specific business activities leads
to forays into new markets or new market creation, or improvements to flagship products andmain businesses. In this regard, exploration is the innovation activity of discovering the seeds of
new businesses or markets and nurturing them, which requires exploration activities beyond thescope of current main business, and requires diverse experimentation and trial and error (He andWong, 2004). In contrast, exploitation is activity that entails further refinement anddevelopment of existing knowledge, know-how and experience accumulated in current corebusinesses to develop improved products and services (He and Wong, 2004). Exploitation is
directly related to improving earnings, whereas exploration contributes to future profitability.
Although different in objective and character, these two types of activities are necessary for acompany to sustainably maintain its competitiveness. Thus, as an organizational model, theconcept of the ambidextrous organization in which exploration and exploitation are separated
but allowed to coexist within the organization was put forth (O’ Reilly and Tushman, 2004).
The academic significance of this paper is to contribute to the refinement of the concept of theambidextrous organization, and raise its relevance and effectiveness. An issue facing an
ambidextrous organization is that of the differences between exploration and exploitation not
being considered regardless of the fact the relationship between exploration and exploitation
varies and differs depending on circumstances. New products brought about by exploration canobstruct demand for existing core products. The technological shift from the film camera to thedigital camera was one such example. In principle, the exploration into the digital camera willlead to the reduction of demand for photographic film and film cameras. In an alternative
scenario, the relationship between exploration and exploitation would have been different had
there been exploration for new business to enable diversification. Thus, pressing business issues
are not the same, and hence the required management must be different. Those differences must
be considered to raise the relevance and effectiveness of the ambidextrous organization,
depending on the circumstances.
This paper is structured as follows. The following section first conceptually extracts atheoretical framework for adapting to changing conditions depending on the relationshipbetween exploration and exploitation in light of existing research, and then presents the twoconcepts of the cannibalistic and complementary types. After that in the third section, the paper
considers to what extent the present framework is valid and effective through a detailed analysisof transformation at Fujifilm - management of an ambidextrous organization to respond tocircumstances can be seen in this company’s transformation. Then, the fourth section considers
management required to make an ambidextrous organization function.
2

2 Theoretical considerations on ambidextrous organizations
2.1 Exploration and exploitation
Sustainable corporate growth requires the two types of activities, exploration and exploitation,
activities which are different in objective and character (March, 1991). However, excessive
inclination toward either is not desirable. Excess bias toward exploration activities will impact
on profitability due to the costs and time involved. Conversely, tendencies toward exploitation
can lead to short-sighted profitability, but can be detrimental to medium-term competitivenessdue to neglecting to foster new business. For these reasons, existing research suggests theimportance of reaching an appropriate balance between exploration and exploitation (McCarthy
and Gordon, 2011; Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004). However, in general, excess bias towards
exploitation can occur easily, since it is directly linked to business performance. Rather thanengage in time-consuming exploration, inertia arises as decisions are made to go in the directionof further strengthening improvements and upgrades of existing core business and companies
are drawn into its core business mechanisms and operational processes. One of the main reasons
established large corporations are sometimes poor at generating innovation is because of theinfluence of such inertia from their core businesses.
In these situations, existing research asserts that exploration and exploitation activities should
be structurally separated to achieve a balance between them. The organizational concept that
deals with structural separation and balancing exploration and exploitation is that of theambidextrous organization (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004). In this concept, divisions specializing
in exploration are separated from those specializing in exploitation of main business, and theiractivities are pursued both autonomously and in parallel. Since the objectives and character ofactivities for exploration and exploitation are not the same, the mechanisms of incentivizing
staff, business processes and organizational culture should also differ. Thus, it is rational tostructurally separate the two and enable them to conduct autonomously. In contrast, if there isno suitable mechanism for connecting the activities of the two, exploration activities can easily
become isolated from the main lines of business leading to conflict between the two within acompany.
In other words, allowing exploration and exploitation to coexist in the same company with
their dissimilar characteristics requires skilled management of strategic contradiction (Smith andTushman, 2005), creative abrasion (Leonard-Barton, 1995) and productive friction (Hagel III
and Brown, 2005), because the focus needs to be on bringing about synergies rather than
discord. To do this, what is important? Existing research focuses on the role of top management,
and asserts the importance of top management presenting organizational visions to both entities,
and supervising the allocation of resources (Smith and Tushman, 2005; Tushman and O’Reilly,
31997; Lubatkin et al., 2006). There is also existing research that identifies the importance of
middle and staff-level information sharing and communications (Govindarajan et al., 2005).
Thus, regarding what is important for making an ambidextrous organization function well,
existing research doesn’t offer sufficient knowledge, and some research is in conflict. However,
the research commonly recognizes that in any case, the combination of exploration andexploitation is related to sustainable competitiveness (He & Wong, 2004; Govindarajan &Trimble, 2005; Markides & Charitou, 2004; Adler et., 1999; Holmqvist, 2004; Katila & Ahuja,2002).
The findings of existing research can be sorted as follows. While the character and objectivesof exploitation activities for improving core business and those of exploration activities forpioneering new business are different, both are necessary for sustainable growth. Thus, existing
research commonly suggests that if an ambidextrous organization can be made to function well,it will lead to higher performance over the long term. Currently, the point about making an
ambidextrous organization function by circumventing discord and conflict at the same time asbringing about synergies has not been sufficiently clarified. Hence, this paper presents acontingency framework of an ambidextrous organization in terms of relationship between
exploration and exploitation, and illustrates its relevance and effectiveness.
2.2 Analytical framework - the relationship between exploration and exploitation
To deepen understanding of the relationship between exploration and exploitation, I will begin
by discussing specific circumstances surrounding exploration activities. Exploration refers to
the activities of experiment and trial and error related to learning and the acquisition of new
knowledge. For example, technology exploration through experimentation and trial and error in
R&D, external exploration in search of external resources, and market exploration to experimentwith channels and effective access to a market. Ambidextrous organizations run these
exploration activities in parallel with exploitation to improve core products within the sameorganization.
In these circumstances, a factor that determines the relationship between exploration andexploitation is the effect the achievements of exploration activities will have on demand andsales of core products. To what degree are products born of exploration activities substitutablefor core products? If they have high substitutability, exploration activities will reduce demandfor core products and hinder their growth. Thus, exploration products and core products could
be in a cannibalistic relationship.
Typical examples can be seen in companies that engage in exploration activities when facedwith technological change. When a new product emerges that has potential as a substitute for an
existing product, the company that has been successful with the existing product has to further
4improve and upgrade it at the same time as engage in parallel exploration activities into theemergent new product (Shibata, 2012a; Shibata, 2012b). In competitive markets and technicaladvances, the object of exploration in this case is set regardless of whether there is acannibalistic relationship with the company’s core products. As a result, there are many cases
where the new product exploration results in substitution and expulsion of the existing product.
For example, Fujifilm is a company that faced the emergence of the digital camera, and eventhough the digital camera was a substitute for the company’s core products, they went ahead andexplored digital camera development anyway. It could also be said that they the company didn’t
really have any other choices, merely because the competition would explore digital cameras
even if Fujifilm didn’t.
It is easy in such cases for discord and conflict to arise between divisions engaged in
exploration and those engaged in exploitation. It is not unusual for there to be a backlash fromdivisions engaged in core products. Therefore, how to make ambidextrous organizations
function while avoiding conflict between the two is an important management issue.
In contrast, if products born from exploration have low substitutability, then they won’t
impact negatively on demand for core products. Rather, products born of exploration should
create new customers for the company. Typical case is when companies try to diversify theirbusinesses. When a company wants to diversify, it has to explore specific business areas afterinvestigating which areas are candidates for new business. For example, when BrotherIndustries faced a slump in demand for sewing machines and had to diversify, the company firstconsidered whether to move into home appliances, printers or fax machines etc., and narrowed
down its candidate business areas. Finally, the company selected and clarified which businessareas to explore as new domain. Compared to cases in which technical change force thecompany to select business area in competitive markets, there is much room for discretion in
selecting exploration area. Thus, in case of diversification, it is rationale for the company to
explore business areas that have low substitutability with core products.
If product substitutability is low, it is not likely that conflict will arise between the explorationand exploitation sections. The managerial issues for an ambidextrous organization are those ofeffective resource allocation and promoting synergies between the two entities. Management
issues differ for low substitutability and high substitutability cases, even when company adopts
ambidextrous organization.
Thus, depending on the degree of substitutability, the relationship between the two is different.
Figure 1 classifies the idea of the ambidextrous organization from the perspective of productsubstitutability. This paper calls high substitutability cases “cannibalistic” and low
substitutability cases “complementary”. Appropriate management that can deal with different
managerial issues is required for the cannibalistic and complementary types. Existing research5has not considered their differences so far. However, distinguishing these relationships willrefine the concept of the ambidextrous organization and bring more effectiveness and relevanceto it. Following, the paper analyzes the corporate transformation process at Fujifilm from theperspective of the ambidextrous organization, and presents the relevance and effectiveness of aframework for adapting to circumstances.

2.3 Research Method
This research has exploratory aspects of extracting details of certain people and organizations
involved in corporate innovation activities, gathering data regarding the processes of theiractivities, and carefully analyzing these. Therefore, the authors have adopted a qualitative
survey and case study analysis as their methodology. This research methodology provides forthe rich gathering of data and rich analyses for introducing a new theoretical framework thatcannot be found in previous research.
Many scholars have already pointed out the effectiveness of case studies (e.g., Eisenhardt,
1989; Pettgrew, 1990; Yin, 1994). Case studies are a very effective methodology for explaining
the relationship between causes and results of business phenomena and their appropriatenessfrom multiple perspectives and interpretations through deep insights based on objective
qualitative information and the researchers’ subjective interpretation regarding individual cases,
which cannot be obtained from statistical methods. Case studies are important not only incomplementing generality through statistical methods but also in constructing novel, creative
theories.
6

The case study in this paper focuses on research questions relating to corporate transformation
process and provides an in-depth analysis and observations regarding how that company
achieved transformation. The case study of Fujifilm, which is the subject of this research, isbased on the authors’ interviews of a number of persons at the helm of the company including
one board member and three officers, as well as internal information and data (including general
corporate information prepared by the company for the general public). Furthermore, theaccuracy of details of our case study were reviewed and confirmed by the company. Based on
the above research approach, we first prepared details of the case study and then proceeded with
our analysis and observations regarding the ambidextrous organization and new businessdevelopment based on the case.
3 Case Study: The Fujifilm corporate transformation process 1
Established in 1934, Fujifilm today has approximately 78,400 consolidated staff worldwide and272 consolidated companies (as of December 2015). As a group under FUJIFILM Holdings
Corporation, Fujifilm has operating companies Fujifilm Corporation and Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd. aswell as Toyama Chemical Co., Ltd., acquired in recent years, and Fujifilm Business Expert
Corporation, which provides shared services.
In countries all over the world, the Fujifilm group maintains global research, production andsales operations. In manufacturing as well, in addition to its main production bases in Japan, it
has manufacturing operations in China, North America and countries across Europe in locations
that are close to consumption areas. In addition to production, it also actively engages in R&D
overseas at a local level in open collaboration with various universities and research institutes in
the United States and in countries in Europe. At present overseas sales account for more than
65% of all sales.
To give an overview of Fujifilm’s history, it was established in 1934 to manufacture
domestically produced film. In the 1970s, as the digital era was about to begin, the first signs ofdigitalization began to appear in Fujifilm’s respective business areas.
After that, Fujifilm’s transformation process happened in two stages. In the first stage thecompany dealt with the pressing issue of digitalization. Fujifilm took initiatives in the earlystages to explore the digital camera, as it was in a cannibalistic relationship with photographic
film. With the initial success of the FinePix4700Z digital camera with the company’s

1

The Fujifilm case was created from books, magazines, information published on the company

website and interviews with company staff. The interviews were conducted on July 17, 2015 andJanuary 29, 2016, with participation by 3 interviewees, a company director, and directors of related
departments.
7

proprietary CCD, Fujifilm held a 23% share of the global market in 2000. However, stiffcompetition cut its share down to 10% in 2005 and then 8% in 2008. The first stage, that of amarket environment in which digital technologies where rapidly emerging, was a period inwhich Fujifilm was positioned by taking proactive steps to explore digital cameras.
The second stage of the transformation was in 2003, when Shigetaka Komori took over asCEO. Having reached its peak in 2000, the global demand for color film was in rapid decline,
and by 2005, the company’s photographic film business had fallen into the red. Apart fromdigital cameras, Komori accelerated diversification to non-digital camera businesses such as
healthcare and cosmetics at the same time as restructuring the photographic film business. For
this, the company set up an R&D headquarters to integrate research and development and at thesame time separated functions as the company's corporate labs and division labs. Thus, bydramatically overhauling its R&D systems, the company enacted exploration into new
businesses.
While meaning the same thing as exploring new territory, the market and competitiveenvironments faced in the first and second stages were different, which also affected therelationship between exploration and exploitation. The following analyze the state of
exploration carried out in each stage.
3.1 Exploration for digital cameras
Fujifilm started research and development of digital technology very early. In 1983, Fujifilm
shipped the medical world’s first digital X-ray image diagnostic system, the Fuji Computed
Radiography (FCR). FCR technology can provide doctors with digitalized diagnostic data
without using conventional X-ray film. After that, the digital wave eventually came around to
the area of printing, an area in which Fujifilm proactively invested. CEO Shigetaka Komori had
the following to say about a wave of digitization:“We had witnessed the penetration of digital technologies into the medical and printing fields,
and we knew it would spread to photography.” 2
Although Fujifilm took up digital technology early on with healthcare and printing, theimpact of digital on ordinary photography had a much bigger impact on the company. This was
because it had the potential to threaten its core photographic film business. If the company
could sell film, it could also sell developer and paper to print photographs. Since this business
was killing three or four birds with one stone as it were, it accounted for 54% of total sales
included those of related businesses, and was a money tree generating almost 70% of the2

Chapter 3 Fujifilm: A second Foundation. In: Harvard Business School, Case Study Japan

Corporate Collection. Diamond. (in Japanese)8company’s operating profits. Nevertheless, Fujifilm took the initiative to proactively explore
digital cameras.
In 1977, Mizuki, head of Fujifilm’s central laboratory, embarked on a digital camera researchand development project. The basic parts of a digital camera are its lens and charge coupleddevice (CCD), which is a semiconductor. The lens was optical technology fostered with film
cameras and could be used with digital cameras, whereas the CCD is a semiconductor thatwould be necessary to convert light into digital data, and was not required for film cameras.
Hence, since Fujifilm did not have CCD technology and know-how, the company procured itfrom outside sources at the initial stage of development. At the time, CCDs were said to costaround 300 thousand Yen. Hence, Fujifilm began R&D into the CCD so they could develop
them in-house. The company thus commenced semiconductor-related technical exploration aspart of its exploration activities into the digital camera.
Figure 2 shows Fujifilm’s trends in patent applications in the semiconductor technology area.
As mentioned, one of the core components of the digital camera is the image sensor which canbe a CCD or CMOS, and which requires semiconductor technologies for development. Thus,
presumably the trend in semiconductor-related patent applications indicates the state of
exploration in the new fields of the digital camera. Looking at this, it can be seen that the
number of patent applications rose by about 100 after 1984, then leveled off around 70 for awhile, but then skyrocketed after 1995. The rise post-1984 was brought about by technicalexploration into semiconductor-related areas, and was again accelerated with the sharp increase
from 1995 onward when the prospects for the spread of digital cameras became more certain as
discussed later.

9

In 1981, Hirozo Ueda, who was serving as director of the Fujifilm Ashigara Laboratory(Ashigara Lab director from 1977, Vice President and head of R&D from 1995 to 1998) openeda micro electronics research laboratory for developing the CCD in-house. The company sent 5
engineers to study semiconductors over a period of 3 years to Tohoku University’s Junichi
Nishizawa laboratory, which was the leading semiconductor research facility at the time. Afterthat in 1990, the company established Fujifilm Micodevices as a subsidiary in Sendai for design
and manufacture of image processing semiconductors, in which the R&D and manufacture of
the CCD was continued.
In 1985, the company had formally established an electronic imaging department to accelerate
the development of the digital camera. This department started out with 30 engineers including
some hired from Toshiba and 5 marketing staff. Then, the company released a number of digital
cameras onto the market in 1988, 1989 and 1991, and by 2000 the Electronic Imaging
Department had grown to 400 persons. 3 The company was proactive in commercializing digital
cameras at the time, although they had not reached a quality level making them a substitute forfilm cameras. The image quality of the digital camera could not yet match that of the film
camera, and with it the company could not provide image quality standards demanded bycustomers.
On the back of these developments, there were signs that the digital camera market was
finally getting established in 1995 when Casio released the QV10. With the achievement of amillion pixels the film camera image quality level was reached, and the device showed
prospects for actual use as a camera. Then in the same year, Windows 95 was released and the
PC became widespread, and because of the convenience of being able to connect a digital
camera to a PC, the digital camera brought with it unique value that was not available with film
cameras.
In 2000 Fujifilm had a 23% share of the global market and 28% of the domestic market with
the FinePix4700Z, a device that features the company’s super CCD honeycomb. The success of
this device was mainly due to the proprietary Fujifilm Microdevices-developed CCD
honeycomb, which enabled in 60% per inch increase in brightness with light capture. This
doubled digital camera sales from the previous year.

3

After the electronic imaging department was established, the company announced the “FUJIX

DS-1P,” the world’s first digital camera at an exhibition in Germany. This device used a memory
card for the digital memory, which is now a standard system. Then in 1989, the company firstmass-produced the 400,000 pixel CCD “FUJIX DS-X”, although the prohibitively high 1.3 million
yen price tag did not lead to satisfying sales. As well as that, the consumer-oriented “FUJIX DS100”
digital camera was commercialized in 1991.
10

However, stiff competition in digital camera market made it difficult to turn a profit, andhence it was necessary to cut down manufacturing costs to stay competitive. Thus, companies
moved their manufacturing to Taiwan and Korea. Since Fujifilm did not enter the market withstandard low-priced products, its market share fell to 10% by 2004. Fujifilm had beensuccessful in the initial phases of the digital camera industry, but its share fell due to the toughcompetitive environment.
3.2 The strategy of coexistence of digital cameras and film - coexistence of exploration andexploitation
Since the emergence of the digital camera was a threat to Fujifilm’s main business ofphotographic film and would render it unnecessary, the digital camera and film businesses werein a cannibalistic relationship. The digital camera had high substitutability over photographic
film. Furthermore, for employees working in the film business, the emergence of the digital
camera meant that the value of the know-how and technologies they had accumulated so far
would be destroyed. Thus, digital camera development wasn’t something that those working in
the film business should welcome.
Fujifilm ran its digital camera and film businesses in parallel for 20 years from the late 1980s
until around 2005 - an environment in which conflict could easily arise. The company had
thought that the image quality of digital cameras would pale in comparison to film cameras, andthat the demand for film would continue to grow. By 2000, there were 500 million silver salt
cameras in use, and it was thought that demand in China and India would increase. Engineers
also thought that developing even more sensitive film for developed countries of Japan, the US
and Europe would lead to increased demand. Ueda also says “I thought photographic film anddigital could coexist”.
Actually, in 1986, the “Fujicolor QuickSnap” was released, which was based on the new ideaof film with a lens attached. This was an explosive hit. With a million sold in its first year of
release, shipments of these devices more than doubled each year and by 1994 had reached 55
million in Japan, and 18 million overseas. The company also released a camera compliant with
the new Advanced Photo System (APS) specifications in 1996. APS was a camera and film
standard jointly developed by Fujifilm, Kodak, Canon, Nikon and Minolta, and had a number ofadvantages such as enabling miniaturization. In this way, the company continued withimproving and upgrading its photographic film, its core business.
At the same time, the company continued the development of the film camera. Figure 3 shows
the 10 years between 1995 and 2005 in which both new digital and film camera products were
continually developed and released onto the market. Even with the rapid decline in demand forphotographic film beginning in the 2000s, the company continued to develop film cameras.
11Thus, Fujifilm improved its film business by exploiting its accumulated technology andknow-how, and in parallel engaged in exploration activities into the digital camera.

As well as that, the company also drove a strategy of coexistence with its development andprint processes. Film that has been used to capture images only becomes a photograph throughthe processes of development and printing. Fujifilm’s network of photographic shops spreadaround the country provided rapid development and printing services, and the network
supported Fujifilm’s competitiveness. However, since the digital camera made it possible forpeople to use a PC and a printer to print their own photographs, photograph development andprinting services became unnecessary, jobs in photography shops became fewer, and discordwith the company’s traditional business partners became a probability. Thus, in 1996, Fujifilm
developed a digital minilab called “Frontier”, which enabled color prints of digital camera photo
data using laser exposure. Not only did this dramatically raise the quality of photographic prints,
but also extended color printing paper usage from the conventional film camera to the digital
camera. For this, the company developed high-speed digital image processing hardware, thelaser exposure unit and color image paper specialized for laser exposure. Then in 1999, Fujifilm
developed a low-cost version of the popular system called “Frontier 350/370”. These digital
minilab developments promoted the strategy of coexistence of photographic film and digital
cameras, provided some relief to the photography shops, who were the company’s importantbusiness partners, and must have contributed to mitigating objections.
There are three ways to print photos taken with a digital camera. The user can print them athome on a printer, or have them printed at a photography or retail outlet with a minilab, or have12

them printed over the Internet. Since the digital minilab prints were much more beautiful andlonger lasting than prints done at home, the demand for these rose quickly. Figure 4 shows thisgrowing demand, and suggests that the strategy to coexist with the development and printing
processes was a success.

In this way Fujifilm allowed its improvements of its film business and exploration into thedigital camera to coexist, not only upstream in product development, but also downstream indevelopment and printing processes. However as mentioned, by 2005, the company’s share of
the digital camera market had fallen, and the demand for film had also fallen to half of what it
was at its peak.
3.3 The second stage: Systematic exploration for new business
From 2003 onward, as the company’s digital camera market share shrunk and demand for its
photographic film fell away rapidly, the need to find and develop new business became apressing issue. Traditionally, Fujifilm’s new businesses started by naturally splitting off fromexisting businesses, actions that were supervised by the company's production materials division.
However, in stage 2, the company adopted a more proactive and systematic exploration
mechanism. Specifically, this entailed refining the exploration area and radically reviewing thecompany’s R&D system.
This second stage differed from the first stage exploration area in which the digital camera
was obvious, and had to be started with a wide-area exploration to find out exactly whatbusiness areas should be explored. Hence, in 2001, Fujifilm explored business areas based on a13

two-dimensional matrix of technology and the market. Since its inception, Fujifilm had
accumulated highly versatile fundamental technologies such as organic and inorganic materials
chemistry, imaging technologies, optical technologies and analysis technologies fostered infields such as photographic light-sensitive materials. The company spent 2 years taking stock ofthese accumulated technologies to match them with market needs. Finally, the company plotted
their existing and new technologies on a horizontal axis and plotted the present and future
markets on a vertical axis to create a four quadrant map. Based on the results of this study,
Fujifilm identified six business areas in which the company could apply its technologicalcapabilities to grow - the areas of healthcare, high-function materials, graphics, optical devices,
digital imaging and documents. This stage was the first time the company was able to clarify thebusiness areas to specifically explore.
We can look at the patent application situation in Fujifilm’s peripheral technical areas to infer
the state of its technical exploration. To see the trends in patent applications in these peripheraltechnical areas we counted the cumulative patent applications by technical field between 1982
and 2012, and looked at the top 6th to 13th fields in which patent applications had been made.
As shown in Figure 5, it can be seen that from 2000 onward, the number of patent applications
in all technical areas rise consistently from the top 6th to 13th fields. Differing from the corebusiness, it can be seen that technical exploration accelerated widely in the peripheral technicalareas. It could be said that the company had engaged proactively in a uniform diversification
strategy. CEO Shigetaka Komori spoke of the difference with Kodak saying “our diversification
was broader and deeper”, which is consistent with these trends in patent applications. 4

4

Creating new value through innovation: the Fujifilm challenge. Fujifilm Holdings (in Japanese)14

In addition, the company’s R&D organizational system was radically overhauled. In 2003, theR&D organizational system was centered on the photograph business, the core business of thecompany. As shown in Figure 6, as film research was carried out at Ashigara laboratory andphotographic paper R&D was done at the Fujinomiya Laboratory, the company's R&D
mechanisms were separated according to the elements that made up the photograph business,and there was almost no sharing across them. When the photographic film sales rapidly declined,
the company recognized that the lack of a mechanism to command and oversee R&D in its
entirety and flexibly position engineers as necessary was a huge hindrance to creating andfostering new businesses.

Thus, in 2004, the company set up an R&D headquarters, and under it created a technicalstrategy department (currently the innovation strategy planning department), an intellectual
property department under the CEO, and “divisional labs” to support those various divisions. In
addition, the company established a “Corporate lab” system for engaging in company-wide
basic and advanced research for support of its business divisions. The thinking behind this move
was to transform the R&D organization systems to clarify its roles and functions. Having only
the Divisional Lab pursuing development related to business would not have been enough tobring about innovation, hence, Fujifilm set up the Corporate Lab with separated functions foradvanced and basic R&D at the pan-company level. The advanced research laboratories
established in 2006 were part of the Corporate Labs.
These resulted in the company achieving the shift in the business areas in the second stage.
15

Figure 7 chronologically plots sales in the imaging and information sectors to indicate how theshift in business areas was made. Imaging sector includes conventional film, photographic paperand digital camera-related businesses. The information sector includes medical devices,
pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, printing systems and FPD materials etc. In the fiscal year ended
March 2004 (FY 2003), sales in imaging were greater than those in information. However, as
sales in imaging fell and those in information rose, the trajectories of these finally crossed andreversed. By 2015, information was achieving sales about 3 times those of imaging. Thus, instage 2, there was a shift away from the imaging area, which included the company’s traditionalcore business, to the information area.

3.4 Exploration and creation in the cosmetics businessIn the second stage, as mentioned, the company set down six growth areas. One of these wascosmetics business in healthcare area. Here, let’s look specifically at how Fujifilm executed its
exploration activities in this business. Fujifilm made its foray into the cosmetics market in 2006.
Sales of its flagship brand “Astalift” broke through 10 billion yen in its fourth year after release.
It has to be said that the sales of cosmetics are only a tiny when viewed in the context of theentire company. However, in terms of synergies between core business and exploration, creationof cosmetic business, having been born through synergies with the photographic film business,is indicative.
Due to loosening of regulations, the number of companies in the cosmetics market is now
more than 2000, and the market size has changed little over the past 10 years. Since it’s OK tocall it a saturated and mature market, it most certainly is not an attractive one. Nevertheless,
Fujifilm went in. The company determined that by using its technologies and know-how
16

accumulated in the photo film business, its core business, it could differentiate itself from othercompanies.
The exploration into the cosmetics business was done under the direct control of Yuzo Toda,
director of life science research laboratories at the time (Vice Present and CTO as of 2016).
Fujifilm selected healthcare as a new business field around 2004 - a business domain that covers
a significantly large area. Among those possibilities, Fujifilm explored by considering
specifically what to do, what should be done and which of its basic technologies of which it had
taken stock could be applied. It was known that collagen was the source of firmness of the skin,
and was actually also a key ingredient in photographic film. Thus, the company thought the basetechnologies accumulated in its photographic film business could also be used in cosmetics.
However, the path to turning this into a business in cosmetics entailed exploration activities
into technologies and the market as well as uncertainties that had to be surmounted. Certainly,
the company had the fundamental technologies, but there was no conclusive evidence that they
could actually be applied to cosmetics. In addition, the company had no prior experience in thecosmetics business, and neither did it have and established sales mechanisms or channels to getcosmetic products to customers. Thus, the company didn’t have solid prospects not only for thetechnology but also for the market. This situation was met with questions and opposition fromboth inside and outside of the company. Toda, who led the cosmetics business, looked back on
the time as follows:“Maybe we were like the 7 Samurai - we had to face a headwind. Only 2~3% of the company
approved of the new business at the time, with the remainder being politically independent or
indifferent. Those who thought “whatever” eventually became the opposition, and for us were
just insurgents. So, to make them think it was interesting, we thought about creating an example
of success, even if it was only small.” 5
When entering the mature cosmetics market, Fujifilm thought about what it should do todevelop cosmetics which cosmetics companies would not conceive. Hence, the company
rethought cosmetics from a fundamental perspective on what exactly was necessary for the skin.
They settled their focus on how to deal with blemishes and wrinkles, problems that reallybothered females. Yoshisada Nakamura, (Product Group Director, Life Science Division as of2013), had the following to say:5

http://forbesjapan.com/articles/detail/2803 Forbes JAPAN article on Yuzo Toda’s beliefs - a man

who supported Fujifilm’s new business strategy (in Japanese)17

“Cosmetics have both functional and emotional value. We focused on functional value, as it
was our area of strength. We said let’s make cosmetics that have never been possible. That was
our starting point. 6
When the company engaged in technical exploration to find out exactly what was good forskin, they found it was possible to apply the company’s proprietary nanotechnology to raise
photographic particle function and stability to improve the function of collagen. The company
also focused on antioxidant technology to find out whether it was possible to eliminate active
oxygen with antioxidants to protect the collagen. Here, the company selected a plant-derived
natural compound called astaxanthin from its proprietary database of compounds. With
cooperation from the analysis technology center, the company found in its research of its
antioxidant capabilities that it had the ability to scavenge extremely active oxygen. For theastaxanthin to reach deep into the skin, the particles would have to be made small down to thenano level (x 10-9 m), which presented many problems that could not be solved easily or
independently. Hence, the researchers sought help from the emulsifier and dispersant group who
had been involved in research into emulsions with photographic film. The group’s support
enabled them to successfully maintain the astaxanthin performance while making it in smaller
particles. This was how an “anti-oxidation technology” to prevent skin aging was developed.
In this way, Fujifilm explored functional cosmetics differentiated with technology and trod
the path to commercialization. The three fundamental technologies behind this were related tocollagen, anti-oxidation and nanotechnology to control the fine particles, and were alltechnologies accumulated in the film business, but transferred and applied to cosmetics. Thus, inthat process, the R&D system played a critical role in enabling cooperation and partnering
across departments with other groups in the company such as the analysis technology center andemulsifier and dispersant group. 7
4 Discussion
The paper has presented a contingency framework covering differences in the relationship
6

Ikujiro Nonaka, Essence of Success Vol. 64 Astalift/Fujifilm. Works Dec 2012 ~ Jan 2013 (inJapanese)
7

Fujifilm had to think about a marketing strategy to suitably convey the value of its cosmetics tocustomers. As a result, the company thought about starting out with mail order to get onto the market
and then expanding sales to shops. To convey the value of this technology-backed cosmetic product,
the company thought mail order would be a good way to deeply transmit detailed information about
it. Thus, in 2008, Fujifilm began broadcasting TV commercials. Currently 60% of sales are frommail order, and sales are executed through 8,000 stores.
18

between exploration and exploitation depending on circumstances and the different management
issues faced in ambidextrous organizations, and has analyzed the business transformation
process of Fujifilm from the perspective of the ambidextrous organization. This section
considers management to solve business issues of the ambidextrous organization.
4. 1 Contingency framework relevance and effectivenessAs already stated, Fujifilm’s transformation process can be understood in two stages, both inwhich exploration was enacted. In stage 1, the company partnered with Tohoku University andother companies and engaged in exploration activities into semiconductor technologies, and instage 2 engaged in technical exploration to eliminate active oxygen and market exploration.
These stages were the same in terms of exploration activities into new areas, but differed in therelationship between exploration and exploitation.
In the first stage, the exploitation of the company’s film business and exploration into digital
camera business were in a cannibalistic relationship over the same customers. The spread of thedigital camera was due to its substitutability with photographic film and resulted in reduced
demand for film. Since avoiding opposition from the photographic film business division due tothis relationship was a major business issue, the appropriate management was critical. In
contrast, in exploration and exploitation in the second stage, the relationship was not acannibalistic one, but one that brought about synergies. The result of Fujifilm’s exploration
activities into cosmetics brought it new customers, and was not a development that had
substitutability with the company’s core business, and hence did not obstruct those demands.
Thus, it’s difficult to assume that there was opposition from core business divisions. In this way,
bringing about synergies between businesses is an important point. These are the majordifferences between the first and second stages.
Hence, in the processes of transformation at Fujifilm, both exploration and exploitation were
performed in parallel in both stages, but the relationship between exploration and exploitation ineach stage was different, meaning the business issues facing the company were different, anddifferent management was required to solve problems in each stage. Fujifilm’s case shows that
contingency perspective into the ambidextrous organization indicates effectiveness andrelevance to actual corporate transformation process.
4.2 Conflict avoidance in the cannibalistic type
With the cannibalistic type, in other words the case in which exploration activities havesubstitutability with the company’s core business and reduce its demand, the critical managerial
issue in running an ambidextrous organization is that of avoiding backlash from and conflictwith core business divisions. Considering that the digital camera popularization would destroy
19demand for photographic film, obviously the company’s divisions involved in its film businesscould have expressed strong resistance to the digital camera development.
In actual fact, existing research reports that there were fierce clashes between the two at
Kodak (Lucas & Goh, 2009). In 1994, Kodak separated a new digital camera division from its
conventional photographic film division, and discord arose between the two divisions, hence thecompany had to reconfigure these organizations many times to try to eliminate it (Lucas & Goh,2009). 8
Conversely, as shown by the Fujifilm case, both the film and digital camera divisions poured
their efforts into developing the products for which they were responsible. Despite the fact thatthe company had set up the electronic imaging department and started digital camera
development early in 1984, why wasn’t there any opposition from the film division?
This paper points out two things – expanding and redefining business domains to include boththe analog and the digital, and enabling deep involvement in those tasks from employees.
Fujifilm formally listed the business domain of Imaging & Information (I&I) in late 1980s.
Beginning as a film company, Fujifilm redefined itself as an imaging company by expanding its
domain. Ueda, who was serving as director of R&D, said the following:“This company is not a film company, it’s an imaging company. With the I&I slogan, we
make efforts to convert information into high-quality images.” 9
The definition of imaging encompasses both digital and analog. Redefining and expanding themeaning of our businesses so that the company unified its people enabled the photographic film
and digital camera divisions to commit to their areas of responsibility and coexist, andprevented opposition.
As well as that, middle management was involved in the process of redefining domains, as
follows: In 1987, the middle managers’ group autonomously launched a strategic planningcommittee (Kuwashima, 2009). This committee had 10 members who came from various
different departments such as laboratories, manufacturing and personnel. Around this time, theelectronic imaging department had already been formally established to develop digital cameras,
and this group formed around middle management with interest in the future identity of Fujifilm,
and was thus created as a place for discussion on the future directionality of business. This
8

According to Kodak, it was Kodak development supervisor Steve Sasson that invented the world’s

first digital camera in 1975. This was a 100 x 100, 10,000 pixel device, whose images could be
displayed on a television. Up to 1993, Kodak invested around 5 billion dollars in digital camera
technology R&D. In other words, the company top management knew the digital technology era wascoming.
9
Chapter 3 Fujifilm: A second Foundation. In: Harvard Business School, Case Study Japan
Corporate Collection. Diamond. (in Japanese)20

group came together about once a month, and submitted a final report to senior management.
As shown in Figure 8, this report contained the two business domains of imaging andprecision compound chemistry, drawn as two large circles (Kuwashima, 2009). The area ofoverlap between these two domains was chemical imaging, in other words the domain in whichphotographic film was positioned with digital cameras and high function materials typicallyused with WV films at the edges. At the time, it was middle management that conceived thisbusiness domain. In 1987, the middle level management had already discussed future businessdomains, and had agreed a business direction that covered both photographic film and digital
cameras. These discussion and agreements had probably already been made with the official
redefinition of the I&I business domain.

To proceed technical change smoothly in the company, the involvement and understanding of
the employees was of major significance. Because engineers are normally strongly committed tothe technologies they are working with, it is very difficult for them to see their limitations(Shibata, 2012a; Shibata, 2012b). It is difficult for them to recognize their limitations whenselection mechanism (Burgelman, 1991) don’t work in organizations. Much more, the global
demand for film continued to grow until 2000, and it had not reached the limit of its
performance or quality. Hence, it would have been impossible for engineers to recognize thelimitations of photographic film. In such a situation, without understanding and involvement of
the engineers, shifting to the digital camera would have been difficult. In 2006, Fujifilm’s first
restructuring of its photography-related businesses, meant that the company had continued with
its strategy of coexistence right up until the time that engineers themselves could understand the21limitations of the photographic film business.10
4.3 Triggering synergies in the complementary typeIn the second stage, since exploration activities had low substitutability with core products, therelationship was not the cannibalistic type but one of increasing new customers. This paper has
described ambidextrous organizations with these types of relationships as “the complementary
type.” The crucial managerial issue with complementary type is how to bring about synergies
between businesses.
Firstly the important thing is to configure a suitable R&D organizational system. At the sametime as enabling flexible allocation of funding and exchange of resources across boundaries
between business and technical fields, the organizational system must also enable flexible
feedback from the market in the product development process. The former means flexible
resource flow horizontally between businesses and between technologies. The latter means
enabling flexible resource flow along the vertical direction from basic research through to sales,
in other words adopting a chain model of product development processes rather than a linear
model. Secondly, the important thing is to surmount the superficial differences between
products and markets etc., and direct attention to resources sharing at a deeper level (Shibata,
2012a; Shibata, 2012b).

10After that, Fujifilm entered its second foundation in 2006, and redefined the meaning of thecompany. The company shifted from its culture of imaging and information to become a company
aiming to contribute to further improving the quality of life of people. With its newly redefinedbusiness domains, Fujifilm now lists itself as a “total healthcare company.”22

In case of Fujifilm, up to 2003, R&D organizational system was centered on photographic
film, as shown in Figure 6. This system was based on a linear, one-way model from basic
research to product development, manufacture and commercialization, which functioned well in
the film era with its self-evident demand. However, this model didn’t run so well in the second
stage when the company was pressed to foster new business. This was because demand could
not be guaranteed. In 2004, with the establishment of Fujifilm’s new R&D headquarters, thecompany put in place a chain of command governing the whole, as shown in Figure 9. What canbe understood from Figure 9 is an organizational design in which laboratories are divided into
Corporate Labs that carry out basic research and Divisional Labs for their respective businesses,
and at the same time, the divisional labs also belong to R&D headquarters and each businessdivision. This entails coexistence in a matrix containing mechanisms differentiate developments
in line with market characteristics and mechanisms for integration across the boundaries
between businesses with the R&D headquarters. Hence, this try to maximize balance between
differentiation and integration.
As well as that, this organizational design enables feedback to Corporate Labs via divisionallabs on issues or the market needs of business divisions. Not only does development process
operate for one-way sequential flow from upstream to downstream, but also enables flow fromdownstream to upstream. This mechanism thus enables flexible resource exchange and sharing
across the boundaries in the horizontal direction between business division and the boundaries
in the vertical direction between processes. For example, this cross-functional system enables
flexible and optima allocation of resources for research and development costs. This resulted in
imaging R&D cost reduction up to 18% by 2006, which had been 30% of the total R&D costs in
2002, and increases in investment in other new growth areas. The R&D headquarters enabled
flexible resource allocation between exploration and exploitation.
In addition to reforming the R&D organizational system, Fujifilm also directed attention totechnologies at deep level. On the surface, the product characteristics, value offered tocustomers and applications of photographic film and cosmetics are completely different, but had
a high level of commonality when looked at fundamental technologies. Both have a relationshipwith control of collagen and both have an important focus on eliminating active oxygen.
Because these technologies were pretty exploitable, it was possible to bring about synergies
through sharing and integration transcending the boundaries between product areas and producefunctional cosmetics differentiated from other companies.
In this way, Fujifilm changed the R&D systems radically from stage 1 to stage 2. This enabled
the company to create synergies with core film business in the complementary type.
23

5 Conclusion and implications
This section briefly summarizes what has been discussed here and considers theoretical andmanagerial implication.
This paper aimed to clarify the differences in the relationship between exploration andexploitation brought about by product substitutability, then proposed a framework for the two
types of ambidextrous organization, and then discussed the management issues and effective
management in each type. Then, the paper illustrated usefulness of contingency framework
through the detailed case analysis of Fujifilm. In stages 1 and 2 of the company’s transformation
process, the company adopted two types of ambidextrous organization accordingly.
The effective management of the cannibalistic type and the complementary type must be
different, even in ambidextrous organization. Since crucial managerial issues are different,
management to handle them must be also different. Despite that, existing research has not madethis distinction, and has handled these issues as the same ambidexterity. It has also treatedorganization as the same, despite there being differences in the relationship between explorationand exploitation. One of the reasons existing research has derived opposite findings relating tomanagement of ambidextrous organizations is possibly due to this point. In this way, thecontingency framework of ambidextrous organization will enhance explanatory power throughmore refined classification of the concepts that existing research has grouped together andviewed in the same way. This is the theoretical implication of this paper.
In addition, as markets and technologies change increasingly rapidly, capability of corporatetransformation will become all the more important. The concept of the ambidextrous
organization is valid for corporate transformation, and how to manage it can influence whether acompany rises or falls. The reason why Fujifilm was able to survive and grow was adopting
ambidextrous organization appropriately in response to market conditions, which can be
possible answer in terms of ambidextrous organization. Fujifilm started with initiatives tomanage the cannibalistic type to develop the digital camera, and then complementary type
initiatives to accelerate new businesses creation. In other words, the shift from the cannibalistic
type to the complementary type entailed the company taking steps to bring about synergies tofoster new businesses. This required shifting to an appropriate organizational structure, which
led Fujifilm to radically transform its R&D system in 2004.
This paper demonstrates the relevance and effectiveness of contingency framework with justsingle case of Fujifilm. It would be desirable to add more case analyses and further raise thelevel of relevance and effectiveness of the ambidextrous organization.
References
24Burgelman, R. (1991) Intra-organizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational
Adaptation. Organizational Science, 2, 3, 239-262.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989) Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy ofManagement Review, 14, 3, 532-550.
Fujifilm Holdings (2016) Creating new value through innovation: the Fujifilm challenge. Tokyo,
Japan: Fujifilm Holdings. (in Japanese)
Gabbetti, G., Tripsas M., and Aoshima Y. (2010) Chapter 3 Fujifilm: A second Foundation. In:
Harvard Business School, HBS Cases for the Case Method: Case Study Japan Corporate
Collection. Tokyo, Japan: Diamond. (in Japanese)
Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J. (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role oforganizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 2, 209-226.
Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. (2005) Ten Rules for Strategic Innovations. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. (2005) Building breakthrough businesses within establishedorganizations. Harvard Business Review, May, 1-11.
Gupta, A.K., Smith, K.G., and Shalley, C.E. (2006) The interplay between exploration andexploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 693-706.
Graetz, F. and Smith, A. (2007) The role of dualities in arbitrating continuity and change informs of organizing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 10, 3, 265-280.
Hacklin, F., Marxt, C., and Fahrni, F. (2009) Coevolutionary cycles of convergence: An
extrapolation from the ICT industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76, 6,
723-736.
Hagel III, J. and Brown, J.S. (2005) Productive Friction. Harvard Business Review, 83, 2,
139-45.
Hargadon, A. and Sutton, R. (1997) Technology brokering and innovation in a productdevelopment firm. Administration Science Quarterly, 42, 3, 716-49.
He, Z. and Wong, P. (2004) Exploration vs. exploitation: an Empirical test of the ambidexterity
hypothesis. Organization Science, 15, 4, 481-494.
Henderson, R.M. and Clark, K.B. (1990) Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of
Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35, 1, 9–30.
Holmqvist, M. (2004) Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within andbetween organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15,70-81.
Kodama, M. and Shibata, T. (2014) Research into ambidextrous R&D in product development.
25

Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26, 3, 279-306.
Komori, S. (2013) Management of the Soul. Tokyo, Japan: Toyo Keizai (in Japanese)
Kuwashima, K. (2009) Chapter 10 Fujifilm WV Film. In: Fujimoto, T. and Kuwashima, K,
Japanese Process Industries. Tokyo, Japan: Yuhikaku Publishing (in Japanese)
Leonard-Barton, D. (1992) Core Capabilities and Core Rigidities: A Paradox in Managing New
Product Development. Strategic Management Journal, 13,1, 111-25.
Leonard-Barton, D. (1995) Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources ofInnovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Levitt, B. and March, J.B. (1988) Organization learning. In: Scott, W.R. and Blake, J. (eds),
Annual Review of Sociology. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, 14, 319-340.
Lewis, W. (2000) Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy ofManagement Review, 25, 3, 760-776.
Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., and Veiga, J.F. (2006) Ambidexterity and performance insmall- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of TMT behavioral integration. Journal ofManagement, 32, 1–27.
Lucas, H. and Goh, J. (2009) Disruptive technology: How Kodak missed the digital
photography revolution. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18, 46-55.
March, J. (1991) Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization
Science, 2, 1, 71-87.
McCarthy, I.P. and Gordon, B.R. (2011) Achieving Contextual Ambidexterity in R&D
Organizations: A Management Control System Approach. R&D Management, 41, 3, 240-258.
Merrifield, B.D. (1995) Obsolescence of Core Competencies versus Corporate Renewal.
Technology Management, 2, 2, 73-83.
Nonaka, I. (2012) Essence of Success Vol. 64. Astalift/Fujifilm. Works (Dec 2012 ~ Jan 2013)(in Japanese)
O’Reilly III, C. and Tushman, M. (2004) The Ambidextrous Organization. Harvard Business
Review, 82, 4, 74-82.
Pettigrew, A.M. (1990) Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and Practice.
Organization Science, 1, 1, 267-292.
Rosenkopf, L. and Nerkar, A. (2001) Beyond local search: boundary‐spanning, exploration, andimpact in the optical disk industry. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 4, 287-306.
Rosenkopf, L. and Tushman, M. (1998) The Coevolution of Community Networks andTechnology: Lessons from the Flight Simulation Industry. Industrial and Corporate Change,
7, 1, 311-346.
Shibata, T. (2012a) Unveiling the successful process of technological transition. R&D
Management, 42, 4, 358-376.
26

Shibata, T. (2012b) Managing parallel development towards technological transitions.
International Journal of Technology Management, 60, 3/4, 281-301.
Siggelkow, N. (2001) Change in the Presence of Fit: The Rise, the Fall and the Renaissance of
Liz Claiborne. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 4, 838-57.
Siggelkow, N. and Rivkin, J. (2005) Speed and search: Designing organizations for turbulence
and complexity. Organization Science, 16, 101-122.
Siggelkow, N. and Rivkin, J. (2006) When exploration backfires: Unintended consequences oforganizational search. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 779-796.
Smith, S. and Tushman, M. (2005) Managing Strategic Contradictions: A Top Management
Model for Managing Innovation Streams. Organization Science, 16, 5, 522-536.
Venkatraman, N., Lee, C., and Iyer, B. (2006, August). Strategic ambidexterity and sales
growth: A longitudinal test in the software sector. In paper presented at the Annual Meetingsof the Academy of Management, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Tushman, M. (1979) Work characteristics and subunit communication structure: A contingency
analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 1, 82-98.
Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C.A. (1997) Winning Through Innovation. Cambridge MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Westerman, G., Iansiti, M., and McFarlan, W. (2006) Organization design and effectivenessover the innovation life cycle. Organization Science, 17, 230-238.
Yin, R.K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 2nd edn. London: Sage.

27