Several popular publications state that in regard to innovation, ambidextrous organizations are more successful compared to organizations that are incapable of balancing exploitative and explorative activities appropriately (Duncan, 1976; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Tushman & O’Reilly, 1996). However, several scholars (Hansen, 1999; Raisch & Tushman, 2016) argue that further research is needed in order to shed some light onto the often concealed intra-corporate interactions between exploitative and explorative units. It is that frontier, that enables and hinders the information and ideation exchange of radical and incremental innovations(Kraner, 2018). Thereof the paradoxical association between exploration and exploitation derives, that exploration generates opportunities that ensure indirectly future exploitation and exploitation ensure income to finance indirectly future exploration whereas exploration and exploitation suppress each other directly (Lavie, Stettner, & Tushman, 2010). Regarding the information and ideation exchange between the explorative and exploitative side, the said paradox was adopted with the findings of in-depth case studies by Kraner (2018).
It is of interest how particularly the practical boundary spanning manifests itself taking into consideration the existing formal boundary activities. More insights into intra-corporate ambidextrous boundaries regarding the innovation processes and their direct impact on innovation success proposes valuable knowledge to the industry and practitioners, as well as the current body of knowledge of innovation management and the ambidexterity domain.
It is expected that formal interaction between the exploitative and the explorative side positively affect innovation and therefore in a mid- and long-term perspective efficient processes/continuous innovation and successful new products. The expected results are that boundary spanning interactions positively mediate successful radical innovation as well as in reverse, incremental innovation too.