[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Rethinking contextual ambidexterity through parallel structures:
The case of Renault’s Fab Lab
Abstract
While managers are presented in the literature on innovation management as instrumental
in building contextual ambidexterity through establishing a supportive context, our study offers an
alternative stance. We posit the role of parallel structures in sustaining contextual ambidexterity.
Our context is a pioneer internal Fab Lab at the worldwide car manufacturer Renault. Overall, we
identify three main contributions. First, in depicting Fab Labs as parallel structures, we locate
outside of the traditionally identified business unit a source of contextual ambidexterity. Second,
we delineate four key functions and related features – spatial, technical, methodological, and
cultural – of internal Fab Labs that nurture contextual ambidexterity. Third, we show that despite
a non-supportive context inside their respective business units, employees can demonstrate
ambidextrous skills, which requires autonomous initiatives and individual transgression, as well
as a specific way of facilitating the Fab Labs.
Keywords
Contextual ambidexterity; Fab Lab; Innovation; Parallel structures
1
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Introduction
Order or disorder? Stability or flexibility? Control or “laissez-faire”? The logic of exclusivity that
has long prevailed in the literature and practices of innovation management (Christensen, 1997;
March, 1991; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996) has recently been challenged by the ambidexterity
literature, as well as by other perspectives (Lewis & Smith, 2014; Smith & Lewis, 2011).
Increasingly, authors encourage organizations to invest in activities that at first seem contradictory,
especially in the face of the exploration/exploitation dilemma (Mom, van den Bosch, & Volberda,
2009; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013; Zimmermann, Raisch, & Birkinshaw, 2015). The term
organizational ambidexterity has been coined to describe the capacity to conciliate these specific
contradictory activities at the organizational level (Duncan, 1976; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996),
and a major field of research has developed around this concept, with the capacity to reach longterm performance (He & Wong, 2004; Lucena & Roper, 2016; Raisch, Birkinshaw, Probst, &
Tushman, 2009).
Organizational ambidexterity has long been thought of as the result of structural
ambidexterity, e.g., the use of structure and strategy to enable differentiation between exploration
and exploitation (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2004; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). Recently, contextual
ambidexterity (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004) has emerged as an alternative source of organizational
ambidexterity, thus moving the focus from a top-down hierarchical approach to a more organic
and ascending sense of innovation. Indeed, contextual ambidexterity emphasizes behavioral and
social ways of integrating exploitation and exploration (Birkinshaw & Gibson 2004) rooted in
supportive contexts (Ghoshal & Bartlett, 1997). However, in this latter literature that sheds light
on the role of individuals in sustaining contextual ambidexterity, the focus is mostly at the
executive level (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009): the development of contextual ambidexterity is
2
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
subordinated to a supportive organizational context created by managers (Gibson & Birkinshaw,
2004). Our paper explores another source of contextual ambidexterity through parallel structures,
e.g. structures allow employees to move back and forth between exploration and exploitation
structures (Raisch, 2008). To come up with this alternative source of contextual ambidexterity, we
conducted an empirical qualitative case study of the multinational car manufacturer Renault. Over
a period of ten months, we conducted 42 interviews of employees from four units, following their
use and appropriation of the corporate Fab Lab – also called the “internal Fab Lab.” It emerged
that this Fab Lab played the role of a parallel structure, and fulfilled four different functions to
sustain contextual ambidexterity. Our research question can thus be formulated as follows: In
which ways does a Fab Lab, acting as a parallel structure, foster contextual ambidexterity?
This localization of contextual ambidexterity in Fab Labs acting as parallel structures
provides three main contributions. First, we identify an alternative source of contextual
ambidexterity, e.g., outside of the traditionally identified business unit. Second, we identify four
key functions and related features of parallel structures that support contextual ambidexterity: their
spatial, technical, methodological, and cultural dimensions. Third, we show that despite a nonsupportive context, employees can demonstrate ambidextrous skills through their strategic
autonomous initiatives and transgression, as well as a specific facilitation of a Fab Lab. With this
individual focus, we challenge the dominant focus on managers to sustain contextual ambidexterity
in order to draw attention to employee skills; we thus offer a more employee-based and micro
perspective on ambidexterity in a literature where manager-centered and macro views have been
dominating.
3
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Contextual ambidexterity as an alternative to structural ambidexterity
Contextual ambidexterity has recently emerged as an alternative approach to the traditional
and most commonly studied structural ambidexterity (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). Below we
review how contextual ambidexterity contrasts with structural ambidexterity, and we deliver the
main arguments for studying contextual ambidexterity more specifically.
Structural ambidexterity is the first and most studied type of ambidexterity (Duncan, 1976;
Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). It embraces a top-down perspective, where social dynamics in the
organization are decided upon and carried out primarily by the top management, and then dictated
to employees. Thus, structural ambidexterity follows a dual logic with two distinct units leading
to exploitation and exploration activities in a mutually exclusive manner. Exploitation structures
typically operate on a mechanistic logic (Burns & Stalker, 1961), e.g., characterized by a
hierarchical coordination and a high degree of formalization; they also occupy most of the
employee population (Benner & Tushman, 2003). Alternatively, units dedicated to exploration
activities call for another, more flexible business logic with broader goals, where processes are
less constraining (Benner & Tushman, 2003); they typically occupy a less important part in the
organization and embrace a more organic structure (Burns & Stalker, 1961).
In contrast to this top-down structural ambidexterity, contextual ambidexterity, defined as
“the behavioral capacity to simultaneously demonstrate alignment [exploitation activities] and
adaptability [exploration activities] across an entire business unit” (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004,
p.209), has a bottom-up logic, emphasizing the role of individual ambidexterity nurtured by a
supportive context. This supportive context is defined by its quality and expressed in terms of four
attributes (Gibson & Barlett, 1994): discipline ensures that employees effectively honor their
4
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
commitments; stretch refers to individuals’ willingness to extend and go beyond their strictly
defined objectives; support is provided by managers in lending assistance and countenance to
others; and trust is formed from and in the context, ensuring that individuals rely on the
commitments of each other. Indeed, as Andriopoulos and Lewis (2009, p.696) emphasize, this
“contextual approach uses behavioral and social means to integrate exploitation and exploration.”
Therefore, of particular importance in this line of research are individuals’ abilities, making this
approach more in tune with the social science field of methodological individualism (Weber,
1964), which argues that social phenomena are the result of individual actions, before looking at
the unit or organizational levels. Within the contextual ambidexterity literature, this individual
focus is mostly located at the managerial level, where managers are supposed to ensure the
conditions necessary for individual ambidexterity (Andriopoulos & Lewis, 2009). However, most
of the time, this individual focus also relates to employees’ ambidexterity (Bonesso, Gerli, &
Scapolan, 2014; Gupta, Smith & Shalley, 2006; Rogan & Mors, 2014) – here, the ability to conduct
both exploitation and exploration activities is identified as an individual capacity before becoming
an organizational one (Raisch et al., 2009). Within this contextual ambidexterity, we can thus
distinguish between the perspectives that emphasize the role of supportive contexts generated by
managers, and the perspectives that focus on ambidextrous employees’ skills.
A third perspective based on the concept of parallel structures (Raisch, 2008) can be
distinguished in this study of contextual ambidexterity. Here, ambidexterity does not emerge
through the establishment of a supportive context inside business units, but through the
establishment of an external and flexible structure supportive to the business units, as in the
corporate venture (Hill & Birkinshaw, 2014). In this design of parallel structures, exploitation
units are directly related to the top management in the architecture of the organization while the
5
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
parallel structure – mainly dedicated to exploration activities – supports these exploitation units
by giving employees the opportunity to explore. As Raisch (2008, p.3) indicates: “parallel
structures allow employees to move back and forth between two types of structures, depending on
their respective tasks: formal primary structures designed for routine tasks and to ensure efficient
operations, and supplementary network structures that are flexible enough to support innovative
activities.” This design of parallel structures allows for reflection on the development of contextual
ambidexterity not only in the business unit, but through an alternative space. Yet very few studies
have been conducted on parallel structures and little is known about how organizations deploy and
execute this different solution (Raisch, 2008; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004). As described below,
through our study of an internal Fab Lab that appeared to play the role of a parallel structure, we
build on and extend Raisch's (2008) approach toward contextual ambidexterity by explicitly
describing parallel structures as an alternative source of contextual ambidexterity, while this link
was mostly implicit in prior studies. Then, we identify key functions of internal Fab Labs
conducive to develop contextual ambidexterity. Next, we present our research method and context.
Research method and context
Approach and context
We conducted an exploratory and descriptive embedded case study in the multinational car
manufacturer Renault. Renault is a worldwide French car manufacturer, with a main Technocentre
where we have conducted our research in Guyancourt, 25 km from Paris. This site has more than
10,000 employees encompassing all actors involved in vehicle conception and fabrication, ranging
from specialists in a variety of disciplines (research, design, product engineering, etc.) to many
6
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
representatives of original equipment manufacturers and suppliers. Belonging to the highly
competitive and fast-evolving automobile industry, Renault faces an urge for innovation, emerging
both from within and outside (such as with Google) the original industry. However, over the past
few decades, Renault has struggled with innovation processes, in particular to convert innovations
into mature projects. The exploitation/exploration tension has also been central, though
challenging, to Renault’s overall innovation strategy. Until recently, this tension was addressed
through a structural separation of innovation processes; exploratory activities were located within
the so-called “Research” units while exploitation activities were physically apart, in
“Technological” units, thus depicting Renault as a structurally ambidextrous organization. Then,
in June of 2013, Renault implemented a new place named “Creative Lab” which is an internal
Fabrication-Laboratory, or “internal Fab Lab”, triggering our research interest and decision to
explore what was happening in this emerging innovation structure. A Fab Lab is a third-place
(Oldenburg, 1999), a space of freedom, a place of comings and goings, of exchange and lightness,
between the formal and the informal sphere. It is mainly dedicated to exploratory activities and
rapid prototyping, which implies organizational improvisation and bricolage (Gershenfeld, 2012).
Today, this structure is emerging in some large industrial companies such as Airbus, Safran, Air
Liquide, Seb Group, and Orange, to stimulate and expand innovation and exploration activities
within and across organizations. In depicting the functioning of the emerging phenomenon of
corporate Fab Labs, our research is thus based on a “revelatory case” (Yin, 2012, p.18), e.g., a
kind of single case study relevant for “an empirical inquiry about a contemporary phenomenon
(e.g., a “case”), set within its real-world context.”
7
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Data selection and collection
While we were exploring what was happening in the Fab Lab, it seemed appropriate to
investigate the units to which the active members of the internal Fab Lab belonged. We thus
selected four units representative of the diverse organization of Renault's innovation process. We
conducted our case study through four embedded organizational units at Renault following the
replication principle (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2012). Each unit selected plays a key role in the
development of a vehicle project. This choice to focus both on employees and their business units
is coherent with the concept of contextual ambidexterity (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004); this led us
to choose the embedded case study as a research design (Yin, 2012) as it involves the study of
several units within the same organization.
Our data collection began in September 2013 when we first visited the Renault Technocentre.
While our collaboration with the Renault Group, including presentations of progress, discussions,
note taking on the evolution of the field, etc., continued until September 2015, the data collection
itself lasted ten months, from September 2013 to June 2014, with twice weekly visits on average.
We followed the principles of triangulation and data saturation, which can be summarized by three
statistics: 43 days of observation, 42 semi-structured interviews with an average duration of 1 hr
20 min and over 500 pages of internal and external documents. Furthermore, based on a heuristic
approach, we built a codebook to analyze our data (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). Among
the 42 interviews, 38 were conducted in the four units studied as shown in Table 1, and four
additional interviews were done within the Strategy and Planning department, which represents
the organizational unit where strategic guidelines are decided. These latter interviews helped us
understand the strategic context of the organization, but we do not describe it as a full-fledge case.
------------Insert Table 1 about here ------------
8
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Data analysis
In parallel to the data collection process, we started to perform the data analysis following an
abductive (Dunne & Dougherty, 2016) reasoning made of iterative loops between empirical
evidences and literature statements. This approach facilitates the categorization of themes through
goings and comings between collecting the data and studying the literature.
We started the analysis by identifying the first concepts emerging from our data which
permitted a conceptual coding used in-vivo (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Then, comparing the initial
data analysis to the literature, we developed a first codebook which has progressively been
declined in themes based on first order, second order and aggregate themes (Miles et al., 2014).
Figure 1 presents our data structure. We pursued the recursive approach between the literature and
the empirical data until we had a clear codebook and data saturation. As developed in the findings
section, the notion of contextual ambidexterity emerges in this process. We also used peer
debriefing with members of our department and participants of different colloquiums we attended
to ask for critics on our data collection and analysis procedures. Our results are exposed in the next
paragraphs.
------------Insert Figure 1 about here------------
The development of contextual ambidexterity through Renault’s Fab Lab
While structural ambidexterity is still present at Renault, another source of ambidexterity
happens to take place in this organization through the newly created Fab Lab. Below we depict the
context of the emergence of Renault´s Fab Lab and introduce its main characteristics. Then,
9
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
through the review of four cases, we explore the role of the Fab Lab in enhancing contextual
ambidexterity.
Context of the emergence of Renault’s Fab Lab
From its historical and hierarchical separation between exploitation and exploration
activities in distinct organizational units, the French car manufacturer has inherited a structural
ambidexterity still present today. This conventional innovation process responds to a top-down
logic and structures the organization in a dual way with unities exclusively dedicated to exploration
and unities exclusively dedicated to exploitation. Hence, such a structurally rooted separation
impedes employees of the exploitation department from constructively engaging in exploration
activities as reported by an employee:
“Within our unit, we have antiquated and basic tools, such as post-its....It's not inventive
enough to stimulate our minds. And even if following a creativity session, some people
come up with many ideas in their head, we use such basic tools that nothing comes out of
it.” (Innovation Chief Project – DIV)
With a willingness to stimulate Renault’s innovation processes, the internal Fab Lab, herein
called Creative Lab at Renault, emerged in late 2013 to support innovation and creative practices
inside the firm. It is internally defined as: “a supportive structure to the upstream phase of the
classical innovation process” (Creative Lab manager – ID).
Hierarchically connected to the Innovation Department in charge of exploration activities,
the Creative Lab was intentionally designed to be different from the rest of the company to offer
new exploration opportunities to the employees belonging to exploitation units. The organization
of the place, the equipment, tools, and people available are made to be complementary to the
existing resources in Renault. The 60m2-room housing the Creative Lab has been arranged in a
10
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
circular fashion to promote “casual and open trade.” A few high-end exclusive machines and tools
that are rare in the rest of the organization are made available to all in this space: 3D printers,
computers with software for 3D printers, a laser cutter, a library, a large magnetic whiteboard, a
digital platform for exchange and discussion of articles, etc. Creativity and prototyping happen
through the interaction of an active community composed of individuals with diverse skills. These
activities take place in the absence of any hierarchy or order given. Moreover, a culture and ethics
of experimentation, trial and error, and mutual help embracing the institutional Fab Lab Chart1 is
dominant.
Through its place, its animation, and its computer numerical control (CNC) machines and
tools, the Creative Lab aims to be an open to all space dedicated to creativity activities in a logic
of freedom. The purpose is therefore to bring a new vision based on employee initiative, which
enables a deeper consideration of topics and ideas usually restricted by the rigid processes or by
the immediate return on investment requirements. Hence, we see that the internal Fab Lab was
designed to be accessible directly to employees, to give them the individual opportunity to conduct
exploration activities in parallel to their exploitation activities, i.e., to develop contextual
ambidexterity.
Contextual ambidexterity fostered by the internal Fab Lab in four units
To better understand the role played by the Fab Lab as a parallel structure, we decomposed
this exploration into three elements: 1) we studied the quality of each organizational unit’s context
expressed in terms of its contribution to the development of ambidexterity; 2) we analyzed the level
of appropriation of the Fab Lab by the employees, 3) finally, the combined analysis of these two
1
http://fabfoundation.org/the-fab-charter/
11
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
elements helped identifying four key functions and related features of the Fab Lab as a parallel
structure that support contextual ambidexterity: spatial, technical, methodological and cultural
dimensions. The analysis of each of these three elements is decomposed below for each of our 4
cases.
DIV case [Exploitation unit]. DIV is the Engineering Department that structures Renault’s entire
innovation process. It is responsible for the verification and integration of innovations developed
both internally and externally. It is characterized by a formal structure and standardized processes.
While this configuration is conducive to the fulfillment of the initial mission of employees
(exploitation activities), the organizational context is rather unfavorable to the development of
exploratory activities. More specifically, the hierarchical management leaves little room for
exploration activities that do not fall directly and explicitly in the missions defined by
management. This is what discourages an employee of the DIV:
“When I come up with a great idea, then what do I do? I am reminded by the ‘police’ of that
thing: I have a job.” (Vans Vehicles engineer - DIV)
Given the structural obstacles and lack of support for this type of activity, employees abandon
their potential projects, sometimes without even sharing the idea. A project leader explains:
“We certainly have the possibility to express ourselves, but it does not go up the hierarchy. It
faces a dead-end.” (Project leader – DIV)
Thus, the context of this unit does not allow individuals to develop their ambidexterity, which
induces a lack of contextual ambidexterity within the unit.
In contrast to this original non-supportive context, the Creative Lab seems to represent an
opportunity to conduct exploration activities for employees of the DIV. The Creative Lab is viewed
and used by DIV employees as a place that supports the exploration of employees beyond the
existing conceptual boundaries within the unit, as noted below:
12
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
“While I was investigating internal support to engage in exploration activities, I learned that
there was a new structure that had emerged at Renault [The Creative Lab] that could precisely
fill out that role! So I contacted [a facilitator of the Creative Lab] first to ask her to make a
presentation of the Lab’s activities, and then to see if and how we could use that support...
Initially, this Fab Lab was designed as a way to open up our minds, to help us generate new
ideas.” (Innovation project manager – DIV)
DIV users of the Creative Lab identify several benefits from being in the Creative Lab: the
openness and accessibility of the place, the materials to conduct exploration activities, and a culture
of discovery among diverse individuals. According to a DIV project leader:
“It brought us multiple things: first, a place, which allows us to be elsewhere than in our usual
office and have access to materials and tools....second, specific methods of innovative design
that we started to use and that we continue to exploit...and [third] some unexpected contacts
with German, Japanese, and English fellow participants who had reactions of surprise, which
helped us better frame our studies.” (Project Leader – DIV)
The importance of the Creative Lab as a physical space with a unique culture has often been
emphasized by DIV employees:
“The place, the layout of the place,...accessories, a table with coffee, tea, and stuff to
eat....All this is very important to me!...The absence of a rigid agenda, that is to say, if people
want to talk and we feel it's necessary, well we forget the agenda. We are not in a meeting
working; we are sharing and reflecting.” (Vans Vehicles engineer - DIV)
Through this case and as reported below in Table 2, we thus see that despite a non-supportive
initial context, some DIV employees demonstrated a high appropriation of the Creative Lab; they
emphasized the inclusive culture and the spatial features of this place.
DP case [Exploitation unit]. The DP is located upstream of the innovation processes. Its role is to
set guidelines for the identity of each vehicle project while innovating. This department is trying
to fulfill two missions in the development process of new vehicles. On the one hand, it leads
exploitation activities by seeking to reintroduce elements used in previous vehicle in order to
develop new vehicles. On the other hand, it conducts exploration activities in seeking to
13
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
completely revisit existing vehicles or to develop new ones. In this unit, the dynamic conciliation
of both types of activities is promoted by managers:
“We need a mix between something very structured and something not structured at all that
would never end up in the car. So I like to promote both. That is, on the one side, I need a
process, and on the other side, as soon as I can put a little mess into it, I do it.” (Vice-Director
and Chief of the Prospective product - DP)
Although ambidextrous behaviors are encouraged within the DP, employees must confront
other departments to advance their projects. And those departments are described as:
“organized rigidly, with very precise contents expected at each milestone.” (Vice-Director
and Chief of the Prospective product - DP)
In this rigid context, employees of the DP struggle to develop their ambidexterity. Some
employees are even calling for a change in the culture of innovation in order to remedy it:
“I think we need a real cultural revolution in the perception of innovation, the understanding
of the impact of innovation on products and services. We have to appropriate internally the concept
of innovation.” (Advanced Planning leader)
So we see that even if the DP context is very supportive of the development of contextual
ambidexterity, it can still be impeded by other departments. In this environment, the Creative Lab
makes it possible to conduct exploration activities in an accelerated way. In this place, unlike in
the traditional processes, projects conducted by members are not subject to predetermined
conditions:
“With the tools of the Creative Lab, there are many ways to compare ideas that are much
faster than in traditional cycles.” (Manager of the Cross-Car-Line and Strategic Services)
“What is interesting is that [the Creative Lab] showcases innovations....We see their limits too,
which is important….Then we ask ourselves whether it's interesting or not. And that helps get
everyone to agree on how to follow up with the concept.” (Brand Strategy Leader)
The Creative Lab is seen as a way to stimulate exploration activities through machines and
tools conducive to rapid prototyping and improvisation:
14
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
“We had a concept that was a bit complicated and somewhat innovative, and we could not
mature it, and then Guillaume went to [the facilitator of the Creative Lab], and made a script
and a model with the 3D printer to say this is what we want to do.” (Advanced Planning leader)
Although the context of the DP is supportive for employee initiatives, the parallel structure
allows them to circumvent the traditional innovation processes of the organization in order to build
explorative projects faster and without organizational constraints. The Creative Lab also allows
rapid prototyping and bricolage for exploitation employees, which speeds up the innovation
process; these technical and methodological aspects of the parallel structure are particularly valued
by DP employees.
DP-SMET case [Exploitation unit]. While DP-SMET is a smaller structure at Renault, it bears an
important innovation responsibility in terms of the services it provides to the overall company.
Free and independent, this business unit is in charge of the whole market of mobility services,
from design to implementation. This type of activity and related project management involves a
conciliation of exploration and exploitation tasks at the individual level. This individual
ambidexterity comes with significant autonomy from the DP-SMET unit members, who even call
themselves “intrapreneurs”:
“Also, the fact that [the DP-SMET] is a small structure. This is even intrapreneurship. So also
we seek out innovation frames different from the classical ones we have at Renault, to be able
to do something really new.” (Project Leader – DP-SMET)
Similar to the DP case, although the context of the DP-SMET is conducive to balancing
exploitative and explorative activities, the unit projects still face the rigid processes of the rest of
the organization:
“Processes within our organization are such that if one wants to innovate on specific topics
that go very very fast, it is impossible to follow conventional schedules of other projects.”
(Project Leader – DP-SMET)
15
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
In this context, the Creative Lab allows DP-SMET members to go around Renault’s traditional
innovation processes to pursue their explorative projects:
“We have innovation paths not common at all compared to what is done at Renault. And
the Fab Lab thing is also an opportunity to voluntarily leave the classic innovation flows.”
(Project Leader – DP-SMET)
Moreover, the Creative Lab is also regarded as a meeting place for individuals. Employees
describe it as a place to encounter people they never had the chance to work with in the traditional
activities of Renault, which represents an invaluable, and mostly invisible, asset:
“It is a place of exchange conducive to many other topics in parallel. As a matter of fact, the
fact that I met [a Renault colleague] via the Creative Lab is an added value for the DP-SMET,
representing several thousands of euros...they will never find in their balance sheet, but this
linking is for me a development investment, of involvement. It may be twenty thousand euros
that I won, via them, very concretely.” (Strategy Project Leader – DP-SMET)
Finally, DP-SMET employees emphasize the role of the facilitators of the Creative Lab. They
provide stimulation and support in the study of new concepts, as well as original methods of
design:
“[Creative Lab facilitators] provide, in addition to the location,…specific skills in facilitating
workshops, including designing methodology, which are obviously very helpful. And they also
have this thing….They push you to generate ideas.” (Project Leader – DP-SMET)
Thus, with a very supportive context, the DP-SMET has its employees develop a dynamic of
conciliation between exploration and exploitation activities. However, the very strong link built
with the Creative Lab stimulates the exploration activities of the employees while avoiding the
constraints of the traditional processes. Employees emphasize the importance of the
methodological accompaniment in the form of coaching and specific methods used by the
facilitators in exploration activities.
16
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
ID Case [Exploration unit]. The Innovation Department (ID) manages the upstream part of
Renault’s innovation processes. Its main activities of creativity and promotion of innovation
consist of:
“reinforc[ing] the openness of the company to the outside world, help[ing] to prepare
disruptions and to anticipate the evolutions in the mobility ecosystem.” (Director of the ID)
Thus, this unit promotes exploration activities within the company and supports the various
organizational units dedicated to exploitation activities in their potential exploration efforts.
Considering their missions, members of the ID openly criticize the conventional innovation
processes of the company that they perceive as too restrictive:
“In my opinion, there are two types of innovation, and the problem is that [the decisionsmakers] take only one restrictive approach. For them, innovation means ‘something that can
be transferred to Vehicle Projects.’ Well, as you can see, with this narrow conception, you have
broken the chain of innovation. That´s my opinion; innovation is nipped in the bud when
already in the design you're saying ‘it has to be transferable to this vehicle.’ Well, it’s blocked
right from the beginning.” (Innovation Project Leader, ID)
In addition, these members of the ID voice a transgressive approach to their mission,
promoting a different vision of innovation inside Renault:
“Yes, there is a particular culture [in the ID], a little Gallic village and it’s not necessarily
respectful of the rules and processes. We rather want to shake the tree.” (Strategic Intelligence
employee – ID)
As a consequence of the nature of the activities of this department, and since the Creative
Lab has emerged and is hierarchically attached to the ID, the relationship between this unit and
the Creative Lab is unique. The Creative Lab has been widely appropriated by the ID to better
support employees in their exploration activities coming from other units. Thus, members of this
unit use the Creative Lab to strengthen and fulfill their main activity, providing support to the
exploration activities of other departments:
“We use [the Creative Lab] to start exploring concepts, for example, when new topics of
technologic intelligence come up. We will organize working sessions among us to determine
17
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
the different concepts to explore for our technological intelligence activity. If you have a case
study such as this, we will make small meetings [in the Creative Lab] to understand the
subject.” (Strategic Intelligence employee – ID)
Moreover, the culture of openness, the friendliness, and the agile logic put forward in the
internal Fab Lab is perceived as essential to the members of the ID. These characteristics permit
ID members to accompany actors belonging to exploitation units in their exploration activities:
“It's very healthy to have places like [the Creative Lab], because brainstorming in a meeting
room is complicated; people are still locked in their pattern of thinking, in their
constraints....So now, to the extent that they are in a slightly different place, in a slightly
different configuration, sitting here, there...standing, etc., it allows them to get rid of [these
constraints].” (Connected Services engineer - ID)
As described above, one of the missions of the ID is to facilitate the development of a
dynamic, which enables employees of various departments to combine their exploitation and
exploration activities. In this context, members of the ID unit found the Creative Lab a very useful
tool to better support those employees in their exploration activities and better promote innovation
into the organization. Considering all these elements, we can note that the permissive and inclusive
culture of the Creative Lab combined with the special layout of the place help the members of the
ID in particular to fulfill their missions.
Table 2 below summarizes the results of our analysis for each case studied. The key
functions and dominant features of the Creative Lab will be further discussed in the next section.
-------------Insert Table 2 about here-------------
18
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Locating an alternative source of contextual ambidexterity in a parallel
structure
Contextual ambidexterity developed outside of the business unit
While contextual ambidexterity is mostly identified as a responsibility of and originating
from managers, our study locates an alternative source of contextual ambidexterity within the Fab
Lab that we conceptualize as a parallel structure. Indeed, it appears that Renault’s Fab Lab
constitutes a parallel structure as it permits employees to move back and forth between two types
of structures and thus represents an alternative source of contextual ambidexterity. First the Fab
Lab offers exploration opportunities to employees from exploitation departments: in parallel to
their daily operating functions, they engage in exploration activities, helping them work differently
at their ongoing activities, which would not be possible if they had stayed in their respective
exploitation departments. So when they get back to their respective units, employees are able to
bring with them their newly acquired skills and insights, developing a stronger collective dynamic
of innovation and nurturing contextual ambidexterity. Second, for people from exploration
departments (ID case), the Fab Lab connects them with exploitation employees. Finally, the
relatively few rules and methods present in the Fab Lab provide the necessary stability to
collaborate efficiently with the standardized innovation processes. As a result of all these
dynamics, the Fab Lab acts as a parallel structure offering an alternative source of contextual
ambidexterity; we thus make explicit the link between parallel structure and contextual
ambidexterity that was mostly implicit in the literature (Raisch, 2008; Hill & Birkinshaw, 2014).
Table 3 compares and contrasts this contribution to contextual ambidexterity with the seminal
article by Gibson & Birkinshaw (2004).
-------------Insert Table 3 about here-------------
19
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Furthermore, we identified specific functions and related features that Fab Labs as parallel
structures have to support contextual ambidexterity: spatial, technical, methodological, and
cultural. We develop them next and discuss their connection to enabling the acceptance of such an
alternative context for contextual ambidexterity.
Key functions and related features of an internal Fab Lab in supporting contextual ambidexterity
Building on Table 2, we next review the key functions of Fab Labs to stimulate contextual
ambidexterity, which goes with dominant features.
First, the spatial feature of the Fab Lab, dominant for the DIV and ID employees, relates
to this alternative space that allows employees to physically engage in different activities. The
existence of this place alone permits employees to change landscapes and commit to something
different. In the DIV case, it means escaping a non-supportive context; in the ID case, it is a place
to meet other people in a different setting. By evoking this physical place, employees implicitly
emphasize the third place aspect (Oldenburg, 1999) of Fab Labs: a space of freedom, a place of
comings and goings, of exchange and lightness, and which is – in its characteristics – between the
formal and the informal spheres. This mix of formality and informality found in the Fab Lab
connects with the more formal approaches to innovation that used to be the only existing at
Renault, the top-down approach of structural ambidexterity. Consequently, our study shows that
these two forms of ambidexterity are not mutually exclusive but can coexist to foster the
performance of an organization. By doing so, we contribute to a pressing call in the literature
(Dupouët & Barlatier, 2011). Indeed, Fab Labs as parallel structures bring a fresh perspective on
how to coordinate these two types of ambidexterity – structural and contextual.
20
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
A second feature of Fab Labs is the technical dimension, related to the accelerated
prototyping allowed. The Fab Lab supports materialization of ideas, facilitates discussions, and
stimulates creativity with, inter alia, rudimentary tools and CNC machines. For example, as seen
with the DP case, the Fab Lab provides open access to a CNC machine to produce objects that
have been designed by members of an online and external community, and this appears as
fundamental to the experience of DP employees. Through it, employees see an opportunity to put
forward ideas that the hierarchy would have been otherwise unlikely to endorse. Thus these rapid
prototyping functions accelerate the development of innovative projects especially by facilitating
the expansion of a culture of innovation, intrapreneurship and bricolage (Perkmann & Spicer,
2014), especially through technology (Hollen, Van Den Bosch & Volberda, 2013).
A third feature of the internal Fab Lab is methodological, when the Fab Lab provides
support of exploration activities and innovative design methods, presenting an opportunity for
employees to deeply explore new topics breaking with the traditional processes and design
methods of the company. This is a dominant feature for both DP and DP-SMET employees.
Together, the technical and methodological features of the Fab Lab relate to the increasingly
popular aspect of innovation management practices referred to as organizational improvisation
(Baker, Miner, & Eesley, 2003), e.g. making do by creating new combinations of the resources at
hand. This methodology feature also provides a normative aspect structuring the flexible and
permissive dynamic of the Fab Lab.
Finally, the permissive and inclusive culture of the place completes the fundamental
features of the Creative Lab. It is obvious for DIV and ID employees. Openness for people, a
trial/error logic, but also creative materials and layout are among the top cultural characteristics
that make this place different and valued for its nurturing contextual ambidexterity. This cultural
21
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
emphasis seems important to highlight as it relates to the human side of innovation management
(Khanagha, Volberda, Sidhu, & Oshri, 2013); indeed, behind technical systems lie social and
cultural systems (Orlikowski, 2010), and emotional support is often key to innovation (Russell,
1999).
In fact, it seems key to apprehend these four features as not mutually exclusive but rather
as synergetic in allowing the Fab Lab as a parallel structure to support employees to engage in
innovative ideas, projects, and activities, and develop their autonomy. Indeed, the positive
portrayal of the Fab Lab as a parallel structure should not undermine the challenges of their
implementation. As alternative sources of and places for contextual ambidexterity, Fab Labs
certainly disrupt traditional ways of managing innovation, either through structural ambidexterity
or within business units for contextual ambidexterity. As such, they inevitably challenge
organizational and individual learning routines (Khanagha, Volberda, Sidhu, & Oshri, 2013). To
face potential resistances to such alternative spaces, we believe that the multiple features of Fab
Labs that we have identified, the more traditional spatial, technical, and methodological features,
as well as the cultural element, constitute an asset, nurturing innovation and change. To explore in
greater detail the challenges of implementing Fab Labs as parallel structures, we further discuss
the role of individuals and the facilitation of Fab Labs in developing contextual ambidexterity.
22
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
The role of individuals and the facilitation of a Fab Lab as a parallel structure
in the development of contextual ambidexterity
Autonomous initiative and transgression at the heart of parallel structures
First we discuss the argument that the contextual ambidexterity taking place within parallel
structures is sustained by autonomous and transgressive behaviors.
The units we have explored in our research either had an initial supportive context (DP and
DP-SMET units) or a non-supportive (DIV unit) one. This led to two scenarios in terms of the
development of contextual ambidexterity and related skills as demonstrated by employees:
1) In DP and DP-SMET supportive units, employees’ motivation to engage in exploration
activities within the Fab Lab was supported and/or encouraged by managers’ approval. They could
freely use the Lab. This allowed them to bring back to their organizational unit innovations and
sustained contextual ambidexterity through developing and improving the activities of their unit.
In these initially supportive contexts, contextual ambidexterity was thus developed through
autonomous strategic initiatives that “attempt to escape the selective effects of the current
structural context, and they make the current concept of corporate strategy problematical”
(Burgelman, 1983, p. 65).
2) In the DIV non-supportive context, individuals who visited the Fab Lab were confronted by a
paradoxical and frustrating situation (Smith, 2015) – expressed or implied – between their desire
to conduct exploration activities and the context of the organizational unit, which presented an
obstacle to achieving this goal. In this configuration, employees who wished to continue these
exploration projects could not do it through the traditional processes; they found in the Fab Lab a
way to engage in these exploration activities, but without the approval of their managers. Thus,
they had to personally commit to exploration activities without, and sometimes despite, the support
23
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
of their unit, and the Fab Lab then served to accompany these autonomous initiatives. We can
qualify these employees’ behaviors as transgressive, to the extent that their practices do not respect
the established rules. And insofar as such transgressions emerge as a strategy to stimulate
innovation, they can be considered “positive transgressions” (Babeau & Chanlat, 2011). Our study
thus portrays the Fab Lab as a tool to circumvent traditional organizational processes and in return
stimulate contextual ambidexterity. This DIV case is especially interesting as it shows that despite
a non-supportive initial context, contextual ambidexterity still emerged through individual
autonomous initiatives and transgressive behaviors, through the Creative Lab. This finding
challenges the literature: the emergence of contextual ambidexterity is no longer exclusively
subordinated to the quality of the organizational unit’s context but can also be fostered by
autonomous behaviors through an alternative space, e.g. here a parallel structure. In doing so, we
contribute to the research that address the micro-foundations of ambidexterity (Bonesso, et al.
2014), including pointing out the characteristics, here autonomous and transgressive behaviors,
that support it. Indeed, this study shows that employees can extend the context of their
organizational unit by benefiting from the Fab Lab’s features as a parallel structure.
The facilitation of an internal Fab Lab: a key component in the development of contextual
ambidexterity
In this study, we locate in internal Fab Labs – described as specific parallel structures – a
source of contextual ambidexterity through employees’ ambidexterity. We have just reviewed the
challenges that employees’ ambidexterity poses to individuals. In the study of these challenges,
we must go beyond the micro-level to include the meso-level, with the issue of the facilitation of
the Fab Lab, or more largely parallel structures. Hence, it is important to emphasize that this
balance within the Fab Lab between exploitation and exploration, which allows for individual
24
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
ambidexterity, depends on the way this parallel structure is facilitated. Indeed, on the one hand,
the flexibility and supportive social environment for exploration activities embodied in the
functions of the Fab Lab offers the necessary autonomy for individuals to develop their
ambidexterity. On the other hand, the few rules and methods in the Fab Lab provide the necessary
stability to collaborate efficiently with the standardized innovation processes. The difficulty then
is to preserve these features concomitantly to ensure the sustainability of the Fab Lab’s utility in
the development of contextual ambidexterity.
Regarding flexibility and supportive social context, these features come primarily from the
Fab Lab’s autonomy within the organization. The facilitators of the Fab Lab must therefore ensure
that the Fab Lab preserves this autonomy. To meet this prerequisite for the proper functioning of
the parallel structure, budget granting should not be subject to conditions imposed by funders.
Facilitators must be sufficiently free and autonomous to enable agile management and create a
supportive context to employees’ autonomous initiatives. Similarly, these facilitators should avoid
positioning the Fab Lab into the standardized innovation processes as an ordinary business unit.
Indeed, the Fab Lab is not intended to incorporate the standardized innovation processes on pain
of losing its flexibility and autonomy (Hill & Birkinshaw, 2014). Instead, its objective is to provide
support for exploration activities of the different organizational units dedicated to exploitation
activities and which are anchored in this system.
Concerning the internal Fab Lab's stability, it depends on the perception that the different
employees have of it and on its degree of appropriation through the organization. Indeed, employee
representation and the relationship of trust and reliability to the Fab Lab establish the reasons for
its appropriation and legitimacy. However, the facilitators of this parallel structure should also
ensure its legitimacy with the rest of the organization, specifically the existing hierarchy, since one
25
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
of the objectives is the reintegration of innovations into the standardized innovation processes in
order to arrive on the market (Hill & Birkinshaw, 2014).
In the end, and in order to develop contextual ambidexterity, the facilitators of the internal
Fab Lab should find a particular balance that is simultaneously outside the standardized innovation
processes, while providing support to them. Therefore, its flexibility should nurture the innovative
design and exploration activities, while its stability should concretize a connection with the
standardized innovation processes and the units dedicated to exploitation activities. In this sense,
the internal Fab Lab represents a way to reconsider the standardized innovation processes by
organizing and systemizing exploration activities through the different business units of a firm.
Conclusion
While the literature on contextual ambidexterity has focused primarily on the role of
managers to initiate a supportive context for developing contextual ambidexterity, our research
challenges several of these related assumptions. By identifying Fab Labs as potential parallel
structures sustaining contextual ambidexterity, we identify an alternative place, outside of the
business unit, which can support the emergence of contextual ambidexterity. This alternative space
appears to have four specific features – spatial, technical, methodological, and cultural – that
actually support the development of contextual ambidexterity. Our work also challenges the
dominant focus on managers as the primary source of contextual ambidexterity, and shows how
individuals can find in parallel structures the resources to foster contextual ambidexterity. This
comes with autonomous initiatives and transgression that can appear as disruptive, challenging an
organization used to more structured and compartmentalized approaches to innovation. We also
found that a great responsibility rests on the facilitation of Fab Labs to be agile enough to stimulate
26
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
exploration activities and – in the meantime – stable enough to provide support for the exploitation
activities of the various business units.
This research opens the way towards multiple, complementary studies. We would like to
emphasize two of them. First, it would be interesting to further explore the functions and features
of parallel structures, either though the study of Fab Labs, or other parallel structures, and, in
particular, to connect their features with the benefits of contextual ambidexterity. Second, this
paper opens the question of conciliation between structural and contextual ambidexterities and
calls for further investigation of this important issue for the management of innovation.
27
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Bibliography
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational
ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization Science, 20: 696-717.
Babeau, O. & Chanlat, J.F. (2011) Déviance ordinaire, innovation et gestion. L’apport de Norbert
Alter. Revue Française de Gestion, 1: 33-50.
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (1997). The myth of the generic manager: new personal
competencies for new management roles. California management review, 40: 92-116.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The
productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28: 238–256.
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the
field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27: 287–298.
Bonesso, S., Gerli, F., & Scapolan, A. (2014). The individual side of ambidexterity: Do
individuals’ perceptions match actual behaviors in reconciling the exploration and
exploitation trade-off? European Management Journal, 32: 392–405.
Burgelman, R. A. (1983). A model of the interaction of strategic behavior, corporate context, and
the concept of strategy. Academy of Management Review, 8: 61–70.
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation.
The Management of Organization, 1: 167–188.
28
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Dupouët, O., & Barlatier, P. J. (2011). Le rôle des communautés de pratique dans le développement
de l’ambidextrie contextuelle: le cas GDF SUEZ. Management international/International
Management/Gestiòn Internacional, 15: 95–108.
Dunne, D. & Dougherty, D. (2016), Abductive Reasoning: How Innovators Navigate in the
Labyrinth of Complex Product Innovation. Organization Studies, 2: 1-29.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-Velocity Environments.
Academy of Management Journal, 32: 543–576.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of
Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47: 209–226.
Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). the Interplay Between Exploration and
Exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 693–706.
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the
Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 15: 481–494.
Hill, S. A., & Birkinshaw, J. (2014). Ambidexterity and survival in corporate venture units.
Journal of management, 40: 1899-1931.
Hollen, R., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2013). The role of management innovation
in enabling technological process innovation: An inter‐organizational perspective. European
Management Review, 10: 35-50.
Khanagha, S., H. Volberda, J. Sidhu, and I. Oshri, 2013, Management Innovation and Adoption
of Emerging technologies: The Case of Cloud Computing. European Management Review,
10: 51-67.
Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the
focus and widening the scope. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1-23.
29
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Lucena, A., & Roper, S. (2016). Absorptive capacity and ambidexterity in R&D: linking
technology alliance diversity and firm innovation. European Management Review, 1-20.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning. Organization
Science, 2: 71–87.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (3rd ed). Sage Publications, Inc: Sage.
Mom, T. J. M., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding Variation in
Managers’ Ambidexterity: Investigating Direct and Interaction Effects of Formal Structural
and Personal Coordination Mechanisms. Organization Science, 20: 812–828.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons,
and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Da Capo Press.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2010). The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in
management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34 (1), 125-141.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business
Review, 82: 74–83.
O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present and future.
The Academy of Management Perspectives.
Raisch, S. (2008). Balanced Structures: Designing Organizations for Profitable Growth. Long
Range Planning, 41: 483–508.
Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational Ambidexterity:
Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance. Organization Science,
20: 685–695.
30
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Rogan, M., & Mors, M. (2014). A Network Perspective on Individual-Level Ambidexterity in
Organizations. Organization Science, 25: 1860–1877.
Smith, W. K. (2015). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic
paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 1592-1623.
Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model
of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36: 381-403.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary
and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38: 8-30.
Weber, M. (1964). L’éthique protestante et l’esprit du capitalisme. Paris: Plon.
Yin, R. (2012). Applications of case study research (3rd ed). Sage.
Zimmermann, A., Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2015). How Is Ambidexterity Initiated? The
Emergent Charter Definition Process. Organization Science, 26: 1–21.
31
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Table 1. Our four case studies
Cases
Types of
activities
Presentation of the department
# of
Interviews
Engineering
Department
[DIV]
Exploitation
Product
Planning
[DP]
Exploitation
Service of
Mobility and
Transversal
Equipment
Program
Department
[DP-SMET]
Innovation
Department
[ID]
The Engineering Department structures
Renault’s entire innovation process. It is
responsible for the verification and integration
of innovations developed internally and
suppliers’ innovations to the technical
constraints of the vehicles.
The Product Planning Department is the
fulcrum of Renault’s innovation processes. It
is characterized by its design work and is the
driving force behind proposals in the
development of new vehicle projects.
11
12
Exploitation
The DP-SMET aims to develop services
related to vehicles. Its main tasks are to
develop and deploy new services within the
vehicles produced by Renault.
6
Exploration
This department faces the challenge of
organizing the conception part of Renault's
innovation projects. It therefore includes the
initial activities of exploration. This is a subunit of the Research Department. The Fab Lab
belongs to this department.
9
32
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Table 2. Summary of the quality of the context, level of individual appropriation, key functions
of the Creative Lab, and associated features within four units at Renault
Case
Quality of Level of Key functions of the Creative Lab
context
individual
appropriat
ion
DIV
NonStrong
Grants access to a supportive
(exploitation) supportive
context for exploration activities
and permits escape from the
unfavorable context of the unit
DP
Supportive Strong
Allows for rapid prototyping –
(exploitation)
reality testing – and circumvention
of the traditional innovation
processes in order to progress faster
DP-SMET
Very
Very
Accompanies employees in their
(exploitation) Supportive Strong
exploration
activities
and
stimulates the already existing
contextual ambidexterity
ID
N/A
Very
Allows exploration employees to
(exploration)
strong
meet and supports employees from
exploitation units
33
Dominant
features of the
Creative Lab
Spatial
cultural
and
Technical
and
methodological
Methodological
Spatial
cultural
and
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Table 3. An alternative source of contextual ambidexterity in the Fab Lab as a parallel structure
Original presentation
(Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004)
Managers
Fab Lab as a parallel structure
Managers and employees
Employees
Business Unit
Outside of the business unit
Exploration activities
Within the BU
Within the parallel structure
Exploitation activities
Within the BU
Within the BU
Supportive context
developers
Ambidextrous
individuals
Localization of
contextual ambidexterity
34
Facilitators of the Fab Lab
[February 2017] Paper under review at the European Management Review
Figure 1. Data Structure: The Development of Contextual Ambidexterity through the Creative Lab
Statements reporting “Within our
unit, we have antiquated and basic
tools”, “I am reminded by the
police”, “It faces a dead-end”
Statements illustrating “there is a
particular culture”, “not
necessarily respectful of the rules”
Statements showing “People don’t
know what the Creative Lab is”, “It
is not known enough”
Statements illustrating “The
Creative Lab brought us multiple
things”, “With the tools of the
Creative Lab”, “All this is very
important to me!”
Non-Supportive
Quality of the
Business-Unit
context
(Very) Supportive
Weak
(Very) Strong
Level of
individual
appropriation of
the Creative lab
Contextual
ambidexterity
Statements about “a place, which
allows us to be elsewhere than in
our usual office”, “the layout of the
place... accessories, a table with
coffee, tea, and stuff to eat”, “a
place of exchange conducive to
many other topics”
Spatial feature
Statements illustrating the utility of
“a model with the 3D printer to say
‘this is what we want to do’”, “It
brought us […] access to materials
and tools”
Technical feature
Statements about “specific methods
of innovative design”, “to help us
generate new ideas”, “many ways to
compare ideas that are much faster
than in traditional cycles”
Methodological
feature
Statements illustrating “The
absence of a rigid agenda”, “a way
to open up our minds”, “an
opportunity to voluntarily leave the
classic innovation flows”
Cultural feature
35
Dominant
features of the
Creative Lab