Relationship Between Organizational Learning And Technological Innovation

Requirements from customers change every day, life cycles in all fieldsare shorter and shorter, existing competition situation and game rules areoverwhelmed again and again… all these features nowadays have beenannotated perfectly by Tom Peters:“Innovate or die.” There has been consentin innovation theory that innovation derives from organizational learning(OL). From the perspective of knowledge management, technologicalinnovation (TI) procedures include acquiring, transmitting, sharing, andexploiting knowledge. In view of the necessity of TI and OL, the issue onrelationship between explorative learning (ER), exploitative learning (ET)and radical innovation (RI), incremental innovation (II) is concerned muchby both researchers and managers. After studying on abundance ofmeaningful achievements on the issue, the writer finds out some defects. Forexample,“exploration” and “exploitation” show up frequently both in OLand TI theory, accordingly confusion and overlap occur; whether and howER affects II and ET affects RI? Researchers answer it differently. All ofthese are to be discussed further.The paper evolves discussion with the following topics:⑴After clearingup conceptions of “exploration” and “exploitation” in different fields, thepaper proposes dimensions of the conceptions and defines them accordingly.⑵Considering close relationship between OL and dynamic capabilities(DCs), the paper finds out measuring dimensions of DCs under theframework of knowledge evolvement.⑶Based on a random sample including278enterprises of different features in different industries, thepaper gives some meaningful empirical conclusions on relationship betweenER, ET and RI, II.⑷In the same way, mediating effect of DCs is discussedfurther.⑸As a moderator, environment dynamy is put into the model toexamine if it is different in relationships between the above-mentionedvariables with different environmental background.Finally the paper concludes that,⑴Clearing up the watershed between exploitative learning, explorativelearning and incremental innovation, radical innovation.Division between ER and ET derives from searching distant or localknowledge. While division between RI and II derives from the three stagesduring technological life cycle: science, technology and marketing. Thefinding make it easier to divide the two learnings and the two innovations,which has puzzled researchers and managers for a very long time.⑵Integrating dynamic capabilities into knowledge evolvementframework and finding out three dimensions to be measurements.The three dimensions are sensing ability, integrating ability andcoordinating ability. The finding provides an operational instrument for thefollowing empirical researchers. What’s more, it facilitates study, which isjust in its initial stage, on DCs and the relationship between DCs and relativeconceptions.⑶Different modes of innovation require different patterns oforganizational learning.To realize incremental innovation, the companies should be engaged inboth explorative and exploitative learning; to realize radical innovation, thecompanies have two choices, one is explorative learning, the other is tolearn exploitatively, meanwhile, to build dynamic capabilities; to realize bothmodes of innovation, besides being engaged in the both patterns oforganizational learning and building dynamic capabilities, the companies hadbetter be able to evade risk from the contradiction between explorative and exploitative learning. The conclusion undoubtedly contributes to scarceempirical conclusions in the field, what’s more, it is a beautiful answer forthe practical question: when we want different modes of innovation, whichpattern of organizational learning we shoud choose?⑷DCs mediate completely the path “exploitative learning→radicalinnovation”.By putting the mediator of DCs into the model, the paper supports thepaths of “ET→DCs→RI”, while the path “ET→RI” is not supported. Thatis, dynamic capabilities(sensing capability and integrating capability) arecomplete mediators between ET and RI, which is all-new for existingliteratures on relationship between OL and TI. On the other hand, the findinganswers to a certain degree the practical question that “sometimes, why doesnot organizational learning bring promotion of innovating ability?”⑸Most of paths among relationship between the two organizationallearnings and the two technological innovations are moderated positively byenvironment dynamy.That is to say, the more dynamic of the environment, the moresignificantly of ER affects RI and II, and the same for ET to II. Theconclusion provides a more comprehensive and systematical explanation oncomplicated relationship between OL and TI as well as answers the practicalquestion of “whether effects of organizational learning on technologicalinnovation are equally important under different environment?”...