Learning routines and disruptive technological change

Abstract

Purpose During hyper‐competition, disruptive technological innovations germinate causing significant changes in software development organizations' (SDOs) knowledge. The scope and flexibility of the SDO's knowledge base increases; its volatility and the demand for efficiency grows. This creates germane needs to translate abstract knowledge into workable knowledge fast while delivering solutions. The aim of this article is to examine SDOs' responses to such learning challenges through an inductive, theory‐generating study which addresses the question: how did some SDOs successfully learn under these circumstances? Design/methodology/approach The article takes the form of an exploratory, theory‐building case study investigating seven SDOs' web‐development activities and associated changes in their learning routines during the dot‐com boom. Findings The SDOs increased their ability to learn broadly, deeply, and quickly – a learning contingency referred as “hyper‐learning” – by inventing, selecting and configuring learning routines. Two sets of learning routines enabled broad and flexible exploratory‐knowledge identification and exploratory‐knowledge assimilation: distributed gate‐keeping; and brokering of external knowledge. Likewise, two sets of learning routines enabled fast and efficient exploitative‐knowledge transformation and exploitation: simple design rules; and peer networks. The authors further observed that SDOs created systemic connections between these routines allowing for fast switching and dynamic interlacing concurrently within the same organizational sub‐units. The authors refer to this previously unidentified form of organizational learning as parallel ambidexterity. Originality/value The study contributes to organizational learning theories as applied to SDOs by recognizing a condition where knowledge scope, flexibility, efficiency and volatility increase. It also argues a new form of ambidexterity, parallel ambidexterity, was created and implemented in response to this set of requirements. Parallel ambidexterity differs from traditional exploitative forms where SDOs focus on improving and formalizing their operational knowledge and improving efficiency. It also differs from traditional explorative forms where SDOs focus on identifying and grafting and distributing external abstract knowledge by expanding knowledge scope, flexibility. Most importantly, parallel ambidexterity differs from the widely recognized forms of sequential and structural ambidexterity because exploration and exploitation take place at the same time within the same unit in holographic ways to address volatility. Here learning outcome are applied directly and fast to the tasks for which the learning was initiated.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.