Sport Management Studies

Designing the Relational Model of Organizational Ambidexterity and New Product Development Performance with the Mediating Role of Product Modularity in Firms Manufacturing Bodybuilding Equipment

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 M.Sc. of Management, Lorestan University

2 Professor of Management, Lorestan University

3 Associate Professor of Management, Lorestan University

Abstract
The primary purpose of this research is to determine the relationship between organizational ambidexterity and new product development performance with the mediating role of Product modularity in firms manufacturing bodybuilding equipment. In terms of purpose, the present study is an applied descriptive-exploratory research. In term of philosophy, it is based on the deductive research and positivism paradigm. The statistical population of the research is 147 senior managers and employees of factories and companies manufacturing bodybuilding equipment in the country. A total number method has been used for sampling. In order to measure the variables of the research, Huang and Li’s organizational ambidexterity questionnaire (2017), Yuxiao et al’s Product modularity (2018) and the new product development of Cheng and Krumwiede's (2018) have been used. The reliability of the questionnaires was confirmed by Cronbach's alpha and for data analysis, structural equation modeling and PLS software were used. The findings show that organizational ambidexterity has a positive and significant effect on new product development and Product modularity acts as a mediator variable in relation to organizational ambidexterity and new product development.

Keywords

Main Subjects

  1. Ahmad, S., Schroeder, R. G., & Mallick, D. N. (2010). The relationship among modularity, functional coordination, and mass customization. European Journal of Innovation Management, 13(1), 46-61.
  2. Burgess, N., Strauss, K., Currie, G., & Wood, G. (2015). Organizational ambidexterity and the hybrid middle manager: The case of patient safety in UK hospitals. Human Resource Management, 54(1), 87-109
  3. Cabigiosu, A., & Camuffo, A. (2017). Measuring modularity: Engineering and management effects of different approaches. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 64(1), 103-14.
  4. Cheng, C. J., & Krumwiede, D. (2018). Enhancing the performance of supplier involvement in new product development: The enabling roles of social media and firm capabilities. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 23(3),        171-87.
  5. Danese, P., & Filippini, R. (2010). Modularity and the impact on new product development time performance: Investigating the moderating effects of supplier involvement and interfunctional integration. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(11), 1191-209.
  6. Danese, P., & Filippini, R. (2013). Direct and mediated effects of product modularity on development time and product performance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60(2), 260-71.
  7. Davari, A., & Rezazadeh, A. (2013). Structural equation modeling with PLS software. Tehran: Jahad University Press. (Persian).
  8. Ebrahimpour, M., Moradi, M., & Mombiniy, Y. (2014). Effect of organizational ambidexterity on the manufacturing industries performance: Investigation the role of environmental dynamics. Iranian journal of management sciences, 9(36), 53-76. (Persian).
  9. Frenken, K. (2006). A fitness landscape approach to technological complexity, modularity, and vertical disintegration. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 17(3), 288-305.
  10. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation modeling with unobserved variables and measurement error. Journal of Marking Research, 18(1), 39-50.
  11. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). PLS-SEM: Indeed, a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-51.
  12. Hayes A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of popular inferential approaches to testing indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis: Does method really matter? Psychological Science, 24(10), 1918-27.
  13. Heim, G. R., Mallick, D. N., & Peng, X. S. (2012). Antecedents and consequences of new product development practices and software tools: An exploratory study. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(3), 428-42.
  14. Huang, J.W., & Li, Y.H. (2017). The mediating role of ambidextrous capability in learning orientation and new product performance. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32(5), 613-24.
  15. Jansen, J. J., Tempelaar, M. P., Van den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural differentiation and ambidexterity: The mediating role of integration mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797-811.
  16. Kanani, A., & Meigounpoory, M. (2014). Identifying and prioritizing the factors affecting the systematic innovation process for new product development in entrepreneur firms active in food biotechnology. Journal of Entrepreneurship Development, 7(3), 487-507. (Persian).
  17. Karhu, P., Ritala, P., & Viola, L. (2016). How do ambidextrous teams create new products? Cognitive ambidexterity, analogies, and new product creation. Knowledge and Process Management, 23(1), 3-17.
  18. Kremer, G., & Gupta, S. (2013). Analysis of modularity implementation methods from an assembly and variety viewpoints. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 66(9), 1959-76.
  19. Lau, A. K., Yam, R., & Tang, E. (2011). The impact of product modularity on new product performance: Mediation by product innovativeness. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(2), 270-84.
  20. MacDuffie, J. P. (2013). Modularity-as-property, modularization-as-process, and modularity’-as-frame: Lessons from product architecture initiatives in the global automotive industry. Global Strategy Journal, 3(1), 8-40.
  21. Maren A., Raassensa, V. N., Borghband, M., & Nijssen, E. J. (2018). Balancing modularity and solution space freedom: Effects on organizational learning and sustainable innovation. International Journal of Production Research, 56(20),       6658–77.
  22. Mombiniy, Y., Moradi, M., & Ebrahimpour, M. (2016). A comparative study in assessing the role of organizational ambidexterity in the performance of manufacturing and service firms. Journal of Management Improvement, 9(30),         87-112. (Persian).
  23. Naiji, M. J., Panahifar, F., & Tatari, Y. (2017). The effect of stakeholders participation in new product development on organizational performance. Industrial Management Perspective, 7(27), 27-46. (Persian).
  24. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3, 248-92.
  25. O’Cass, A., Heirati, N., & Ngo, L.V. (2014). Achieving new product success via the synchronization of exploration and exploitation across multiple levels and functional areas. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(5), 862-72.
  26. Pentina, I., & Strutton, D. (2007). Information processing and new product success: A meta analysis. European Journal of Innovation Marketing, 10(2), 149-75.
  27. Pour Abedi, M. (2015). Designing ambidexterity model in scientific and technological organizations based on grounded theory (A case of ACECR). Journal of Public Administration, 7(3), 619-36. (Persian).
  28. Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(1), 375-409.
  29. Sadeghi Moghadam, M., Zamani, M., Gashtasebi, M., & Shojaie, Y. (2015). Examining the innovation performance of the new product in the manufacturers of automobile parts in Iran. Journal of Technology Development Management, 3(2), 123-50. (Persian).
  30. Salas Vallina, A., Moreno-Luzon, M., & Ferrer-Franco, A. (2019). The individual side of ambidexterity. Employee Relations, 41(3), 592-613.
  31. Salvador, F., & Villena, V.H. (2013). Supplier integration and NPD outcomes: Conditional moderation effects of modular design competence. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 49(1), 87-113.
  32. Scheepers, C., & Storm, C. (2019). Authentic leadership’s influence on ambidexterity with mediators in the South African context. European Business Review, 31(3),     352-78.
  33. Sharifian, A. (2016). Examining the effect of modularity on product innovation performance with the terms of moderating role of supplier involvement and mediating role of innovativeness (Case study of companies in the field of Home Appliance) (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Tehran, Tehran. (Persian).
  34. Starr, M.K. (1965). Modular production: A new concept. Harvard Business Review, 43(6), 131-42.
  35. Vickery, S. K., Koufteros, X., Dröge, C., & Calantone, R. (2016). Product modularity, process modularity, and new product introduction performance: does complexity matter? Production and Operations Management, 25(4), 751-70.
  36. Wetzels, M., G. -Schroder, C., & Van Oppen. (2009). Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 33(1), 177-95.
  37. Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R.J. & Griffith, D.A. (2007). An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities: Implications for product innovation and market performance. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 63-93.
  38. Yuxiao, Y., Baofeng, H., Min, Z., Bill, W., & Xiande, Z. (2018). The impact of modular designs on new product development outcomes: The moderating effect of supply chain involvement. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 23(5), 444-58.
Sport Management Studies
Volume 11, Issue 58
January & February 2020
January and February 2020
Pages 65-84

  • Receive Date 27 March 2019
  • Revise Date 19 November 2019
  • Accept Date 24 November 2019

Home

Publication Ethics

Submit Manuscript

News

Journal Metrics

Contact Us