Not a gap but an overlap: project teams and exploration vs exploitation in technological innovation

Véréna Hess () and Jean-Fabrice Lebraty ()
Additional contact information
Véréna Hess: MAGELLAN - Laboratoire de Recherche Magellan - UJML - Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3 - Université de Lyon - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises (IAE) - Lyon
Jean-Fabrice Lebraty: MAGELLAN - Laboratoire de Recherche Magellan - UJML - Université Jean Moulin - Lyon 3 - Université de Lyon - Institut d'Administration des Entreprises (IAE) - Lyon

Post-Print from HAL

Abstract: Purpose Companies in the financial services sector are faced with a turbulent, destabilizing environment and challenged to maintain existing activities while seizing new opportunities to remain competitive. In this vein, technological innovation project teams play a key role, and therefore understanding how these teams work and how their members interact throughout the life cycle of a technological innovation project is important. Design/methodology/approach This research, carried out in a large financial institution, analyzes five technological innovation projects and their teams over an entire year to better understand the evolution from the exploration phase to the exploitation phase during the life cycle of such projects. To do so, the authors conducted a qualitative case study, in which they took both observer and participant roles. They analyzed the data using NVivo software and created a data structure in accordance with the Gioia method. Findings The findings show an overlap phase between exploration and exploitation, with work on the product preceding work on the business model. This finding implies an adaptation of models presuming a sequential transition from exploration to exploitation and leads to managerial implications on how to manage the simultaneity of both logics during the identified overlap. Research limitations/implications Research focuses on one traditional company, limiting generalizability to newer, smaller firms. Practical implications Research shows that companies with contextual ambidexterity manage innovation better than those with structural ambidexterity by allowing flexible integration of exploration and exploitation tasks, promoting smoother transitions in innovation phases. Social implications Research enhancing understanding of innovation processes is crucial for better management and could improve company culture and work–life balance for project teams. Originality/value This research follows teams during the life cycle of five technological innovation projects and reveals a key moment that has been relatively understudied: the transition between the exploration phase and the exploitation phase. Highlights • This article examines teams involved in technological innovation projects. • The main theoretical frameworks are organizational ambidexterity and team processes. • The research involves a study of five projects in a large European financial institution. • The findings reveal an overlapping phase between exploration and exploitation.

Keywords: Ambidexterity; Exploration; Exploitation; Innovation; Teamwork; Technology; Banking (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025-03-20
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in Management Decision, inPress, ⟨10.1108/MD-04-2024-0863⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-05009502

DOI: 10.1108/MD-04-2024-0863

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().