Success Patterns of Exploratory and Exploitative Innovation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has frequently argued that firms need to pursue exploratory and exploitative innovation strategies to be viable in an environment of technological change and intensified competition. However, it remains unclear whether exploratory and exploitative innovations are equally successful in different institutional environments. This meta-analysis synthesizes previous empirical findings to reveal under which institutional conditions firms benefit most from exploratory or exploitative innovation. We distinguish between institutional conditions that affect the success derived from exploratory and exploitative innovations through (a) the availability of resources and (b) attitudes toward innovation and the willingness of stakeholders to allocate resources to both innovation types. Our results show that national culture has a strong impact on the success of exploratory innovations, whereas only uncertainty avoidance influences the benefits derived from exploitative innovations. Socioeconomic conditions are equally important for the success of both innovation types. Our findings are of high practical relevance as due to increasing globalization more and more firms operate internationally and managers have choices regarding the location of their exploratory and exploitative innovation activities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it