Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 2729 2022-11-18 11:13:33 |
2 layout -1 word(s) 2728 2022-11-18 11:24:04 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Prasetio, A.B.;  Aboobaider, B.B.M.;  Ahmad, A.B. Organizational Ambidexterity in Quality Dimensions and Triple Helix. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 17 June 2024).
Prasetio AB,  Aboobaider BBM,  Ahmad AB. Organizational Ambidexterity in Quality Dimensions and Triple Helix. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed June 17, 2024.
Prasetio, Agung Budi, Burhanuddin Bin Mohd Aboobaider, Asmala Bin Ahmad. "Organizational Ambidexterity in Quality Dimensions and Triple Helix" Encyclopedia, (accessed June 17, 2024).
Prasetio, A.B.,  Aboobaider, B.B.M., & Ahmad, A.B. (2022, November 18). Organizational Ambidexterity in Quality Dimensions and Triple Helix. In Encyclopedia.
Prasetio, Agung Budi, et al. "Organizational Ambidexterity in Quality Dimensions and Triple Helix." Encyclopedia. Web. 18 November, 2022.
Organizational Ambidexterity in Quality Dimensions and Triple Helix

Organizational ambidexterity is a concept for an organization that can balance profitability with innovation and development. Numerous historical studies have examined the triple helix, particularly those with industrial elements as the focus of inquiry, because the triple helix itself has three dimensions, namely university, industry, and government. As a multidimensional notion, quality dimensions might signify different things to different people, according to the relevant literature.

organizational ambidexterity triple helix quality dimensions

1. Introduction

Extremely rapid change is a hallmark of the contemporary organizational environment. In the face of change, nothing is constant other than the change itself. Today’s businesses work in a rapidly changing world that requires constant movement and adaptability. In this scenario, the most successful businesses will mix efficiency with creativity. According to management and organizational design theory, a business may select a mechanistic organizational design in order to prioritize and improve efficiency. A business that wishes to increase its innovation and agility may instead choose a sustainable organizational structure. In spite of this, the shifting organizational environment, increased rivalry, unpredictability, and escalating globalization require organizations to combine efficiency with inventiveness. According to management theory and the literature on organizational design, the organizational design option is a continuum with two extremes. If we select one, we must sacrifice the other. If the business prioritizes mechanical design, it will neglect the benefits of organic design, and vice versa. Previously, businesses could select a certain dimension, such as innovation, flexibility, new opportunities, or efficiency, control, and maximizing existing resources.
Organizational ambidexterity has been a topic of discussion for many years, and data suggest that numerous businesses have attempted to implement it. Companies with ambidextrous innovation strategies can make use of their current goods to fuel continuous improvement while also seeking out new markets to fuel major breakthroughs [1]. Numerous restraints, such as regulations and policies, provide a significant obstacle to the management’s ability to drive and implement innovation. When managers identify a chance to establish a new vision, develop a new strategy, and drive the organization in a new direction, they must strike a balance between altering rules and sticking to regulations [2]. If companies over-centralize rule modifications and allow them to go unchallenged, feasible and pragmatic business adjustments can result in chaos. While excessive centralization of rule-following can result in a more stable business structure and/or a regulated industry transition, it also increases the possibility of change delay.
Organizational ambidexterity cannot arise or exist on its own, but it is fostered by a number of factors. Numerous historical studies have examined the triple helix, particularly those with industrial elements as the focus of inquiry, because the triple helix itself has three dimensions, namely university, industry, and government. Several studies recognize the role of the triple helix, including one [3] that uses the triple helix to test the innovation system and another [4] that tests the theory of the triple helix in terms of technology readiness. The crucial variable in this research is the triple helix theory’s interaction with organizational ambidexterity, which should help researchers view the research conclusions from three viewpoints, notably in terms of the triple helix’s own dimensions.
According to [5], quality factors also contribute to the growth of organizational innovation. Refs. [3][6] define quality dimensions as a concept for assessing the value of various variables that influence the results of an activity, organization, or system. In [7], a business’s evaluation system includes service quality and knowledge quality as quality elements. According to the study, these two aspects play a significant role in deciding the quality level that users perceive or experience when using the system and can ultimately lead to a new perspective on the system. Another study [8][9] investigated customer satisfaction by employing system quality as a mediator to test their hypothesis. According to [10], system quality is crucial to ensuring that user or customer satisfaction are appropriately established; nevertheless, other variables predominate this component in this research. This research evaluates the impact of three quality elements, notably service quality, knowledge quality, and system quality, on the development of organizational ambidexterity. Also studied is the role of the three dimensions in structuring organizational ambidexterity as mediated by user satisfaction. In this research, technology readiness is the major mediator between the triple helix and the quality components of organizational ambidexterity. Optimism, innovativeness, discomfort, and uncertainty are the four indicators of technology readiness. These four dimensions are studied as triple helix and quality dimension organizational ambidexterity mediators.

2. Triple Helix

Develop organizational ambidexterity has been the subject of numerous studies. Among these are the triple helix model, the techno-economic network model, the open innovation model, and the national innovation system model, as well as the quadruple and quintuple helix models [11]. As shown in [12], each model has a different take on how actors in the innovation system can share knowledge to create value. Some of these models, such as the management perspective for innovation system development [13], focus on how the different players work together to create synergies. Others examine additional factors, such as government innovation systems [14]. In this research, researchers employ a triple helix perspective that emphasizes the role of actors and adheres to the triple helix (TH) framework. The triple helix model highlights the role of key players in building organizational ambidexterity [15]: various types of universities, governments, and organizations. In society, universities are the ones who actively engage in educational and scientific pursuits. Public institutions at all levels of government, from the federal to the municipal, are included in the government pillar of the triple helix model since they all play a role in the creation of public policy. Private businesses, NGOs, and cooperatives are all examples of private sector social and private activities that are included in the triple helix model but not the public or nonprofit sectors. However, researchers opted for the most traditional of these three approaches because academics and policymakers view it as a unified framework that provides a good interface for empirical research. Each aspect of this model significantly influences promoting organizational ambidexterity [16].
Developing organizational ambidexterity requires the triple helix, especially when resource management entails complicated problems that a single actor cannot solve. The triple helix concept can be utilized to ensure and implement organizational ambidexterity. Researchers define organizational ambidexterity as “the ability to simultaneously pursue incremental innovation and discontinuity by accommodating several contradictory structures, processes, and cultures inside the same organization” based on recent examples of organizational ambidexterity development. As a result, the triple helix is considered a suitable model for establishing organizational ambidexterity, as its pillars encourage various crucial features for developing organizational ambidexterity.

3. Quality Dimensions

As a multidimensional notion, quality dimensions might signify different things to different people, according to the relevant literature. Per [17], customer quality dimensions differ between actual service performance and customer expectations. Likewise, Ref. [18] defines quality dimensions as “the magnitude and direction of the gap between customer perceptions and expectations”. According to the literature, “quality dimensions have been widely defined with an emphasis on meeting needs and requirements and the degree to which the service supplied satisfies customer expectations”. In addition, they propose that “quality dimensions are global consumer judgments or attitudes regarding services that result from comparing consumers’ expectations of services to their assessments of actual service performance”. The quality dimensions that matter to customers are the ones that separate their ideal experience from their real one. Quality dimensions are the ways in which consumers rate the overall excellence of a product or service [19]. In addition, quality dimensions are defined as “the delivery of exceptional or superior service relative to client expectations”.
Specifically, “the perceived quality of a service is a consequence of the difference between consumers’ expectations and their views of the service they get”, as stated in the previous field of applied research [20]. In support of this notion, Ref. [21] stated that quality dimensions quantify the degree to which a product or service meets customers’ expectations. Based on the above definition of quality dimensions, it can be inferred that quality dimensions are the customer’s evaluation of how well the service satisfies their expectations in terms of perception. In this research, the quality dimensions serve as a standard for establishing and evaluating the generated organizational ambidexterity based on the view or perspective of the industry’s users or customers. In general, quality dimensions consist of multiple dimensions; however, just three dimensions are employed in this research: system quality, knowledge quality, and service quality. These three aspects have been proven to play a significant role in developing organizational ambidexterity.

4. Technology Readiness

Technology readiness refers to the capacity of individuals to adapt and utilize new technology to fulfill their personal and professional objectives [22]. The concept of technology readiness refers to a predisposition toward technology that is determined by a gestalt of mental facilitators and inhibitors. Four components comprise the construct: optimism, innovativeness, discomfort, and uncertainty.
A positive view on technology stems from the belief that it improves people’s lives by giving them more control over their environments and allowing them to work more quickly and effectively. There is a widespread perception that technology is a positive and beneficial thing. The ability to be a pioneer in technological advancement and a thinking leader is what we mean when we talk about innovativeness. It indicates the degree to which a person is an early adopter of new goods or services that are based on technology and an expert on issues that are associated with technology. The sense of not having control over technology and being overwhelmed by it is referred to as discomfort. This idea evaluates people’s prejudices against products and services based on technology. Lack of faith in technology and skepticism about its efficacy are hallmarks of uncertainty. The emphasis is on people’s confidence in technology-enabled transactions.
An individual’s inclination to accept new technologies may be seen as a mental state caused by a mixture of cognitive facilitators and barriers [23], as described by the concept of technology readiness. Customers are more likely to use and have a more optimistic perspective on technology goods and services if businesses are optimistic and creative. Customers are dissuaded from utilizing technology when they experience discomfort and uncertainty. It was discovered in [24] that customer segments with varying profiles of technology readiness exhibit notably distinct internet-related behaviors. X also demonstrated that not all users are equally prepared to accept services afforded by technology. Therefore, technology readiness should not be disregarded when evaluating client acceptance of technology-enabled services. Its function should be explained and incorporated into any technology acceptance model, particularly in industry innovation and organizational ambidexterity.
This research addresses research gaps by incorporating technology readiness into the triple helix and quality dimensions as variables of customer personality in the context of organizational ambidexterity. This research examines customer qualities’ effect on organizational ambidexterity in parallel with two other research areas. The first theory assumes that individual characteristics influence behavioral intentions via direct effects on perceptions. The second view highlights the significance of the moderating effect of individual characteristics on organizational ambidexterity. On the basis of these findings, researchers argue that technological readiness influences organizational ambidexterity in both a direct and moderating way.

5. User Satisfaction

The concept of user satisfaction extends back to [25], who claimed that information systems that match the demands of their users boost [26] user satisfaction. After these initial studies, user satisfaction became a widely respected research topic, reaching its pinnacle in late 2010.
In the earliest stages of user satisfaction research, [27] identified user satisfaction as one of the most influential criteria influencing business success. They anticipated that people would utilize an information system if they were satisfied with it. Consequently, satisfaction is an excellent indicator of innovation system success. In contrast, it is doubtful that people will utilize the system if they do not find it satisfying. In order to improve the system, it is essential to understand how users perceive it and its flaws. Ref. [28] discovered a strong correlation between managers’ involvement in organizational management development and their appreciation of the system, suggesting that user participation is the key to organizational system success. Ref. [29] discovered an association between users’ perceptions of organizational performance and their responses to satisfaction variables. User satisfaction is described in [30] as the level to which users perceive the available information system fits their needs. User satisfaction is an effective surrogate for a crucial component of information systems that cannot be quantified. Specifically, changes in organizational success. The conclusion of [31] is that user satisfaction leads to system usage and should therefore be prioritized as a measurement of organizational success.
User satisfaction, together with user attitude and user engagement, were all shown to have a significant impact on a system success, as examined by [32]. Given the importance of user satisfaction as a measure of organizational success, the measurement of user satisfaction has been thoroughly explored, and several user satisfaction assessments and questionnaires have been developed. However, there is no universally approved measurement, nor do all organizations utilize the same group of measures.

6. Organizational Ambidexterity

Organizational ambidexterity has existed for many years, and research indicates that numerous organizations have attempted to incorporate it. Ambidextrous organizations leverage existing products to enable incremental innovation and explore new opportunities to promote radical innovation [33]. Ambidexterity is the capacity to utilize existing strengths and explore new opportunities simultaneously. Exploiting existing resources focuses on refining and reusing products and processes. Exploration, on the other hand, focuses on the flexibility and radical thinking of the organization and its leaders, resulting in significant changes within the business, or what is known as radical innovation. Also close are alignment and adaptability, agility and stability, teamwork, and individual focus. Some experts say these qualities can exist in organizational and team contexts. Exploration is concerned with search, discovery, and risk-taking; exploitation is concerned with execution, performance, refinement, selection, and implementation, as well as avoiding risk [34]. Organizational ambidexterity is a relatively new term in the field of organizational dynamics. It entails the production of new goods and services [35].
An organization’s responsiveness to rapid change is exemplified by its ambidexterity. It complements the capacity to seize and investigate new opportunities [36]. Ambidexterity signifies that exploration and exploitation will occur at the individual level to produce synergy. In other studies, ambidexterity is characterized as a strategy to increase organizational effectiveness and efficiency by utilizing the development and accumulation of information through exploration and exploitation processes [37]. Exploitation and exploration are at opposite ends of two continuums; therefore, it is difficult to conduct both. An organization loses its competitive advantage if its products become outmoded, and its procedures are less effective and efficient than those of its rivals. However, it is frequently simpler to highlight exploitation because most organizational structures and cultures prioritize stability and control. In contrast, an excessive emphasis on exploration results in numerous lists of prospective ideas for new products and procedures for new customers and clients in new markets that are rarely realized. When focusing on exploration, which is radical innovation, researchers frequently provide radically new goods or processes that build on the business’s current competencies, which indicates that the business’s existing knowledge is familiar. If researchers are to undertake radical innovation, they must also prioritize the development of current skills and knowledge. It implies that priority must be placed on both exploration and exploitation. In order to capture the economic worth of discovery, it is vital to acknowledge exploitation as well. Similarly, a focus on exploitation will promote evolutionary development and control.
Numerous restraints, including legislation and policies, pose a formidable obstacle for management in encouraging and implementing innovations. Moreover, managers struggle to balance rule changes and regulations when they recognize a chance to establish a new vision, construct a new strategy, and steer the organization on a new path [38]. If the business concentrates excessively on regulatory change and leaves it unchecked, organizational transformation, which is reasonable and doable, can result in instability. An overemphasis on rule-following may result in a more stable organizational structure or regulated organization change, but there is a risk that this will delay change. There are a number of recommendations that are important for leaders to manage ambidexterity effectively. These are the precise processes that enable businesses to successfully manage distinct “explore and exploit” components and harness shared assets to enable the organization to adapt to new possibilities and threats. These traits enable managers to rearrange existing competencies and assets to seize new possibilities, even as the organization continues to compete in mature markets.


  1. Gibson, C.B.; Birkinshaw, J. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Manag. J. 2004, 47, 209–226.
  2. Raisch, S.; Birkinshaw, J. Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. J. Manag. 2008, 34, 375–409.
  3. O’Reilly, C.A.; Tushman, M.L. Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present, and Future. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 27, 324–338.
  4. Junni, P.; Sarala, R.M.; Taras, V.A.S.; Tarba, S.Y. Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2013, 27, 299–312.
  5. Raisch, S.; Birkinshaw, J.; Probst, G.; Tushman, M.L. Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ. Sci. 2009, 20, 685–695.
  6. Paireekreng, W.; Osathanukroh, J.; Supasak, C. A Study of Influence Factors for Advertising on Messaging Applications Towards Mobile Buyer ’s Decision Making. IJIIS Int. J. Inform. Inf. Syst. 2019, 2, 82–90.
  7. Astuti, T.; Puspita, B. Analysis of Customer Transaction Data Associations Based on The Apriori Algorithm. IJIIS Int. J. Inform. Inf. Syst. 2020, 3, 23–28.
  8. Madu, C.N.; Madu, A.A. Dimensions of e-quality. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2002, 19, 246–258.
  9. Jen, L.; Lin, Y. A Brief Overview of the Accuracy of Classification Algorithms for Data Prediction in Machine Learning Applications. J. Appl. Data Sci. 2021, 2, 84–92.
  10. Lehtinen, U.; Lehtinen, J.R. Two approaches to service quality dimensions. Serv. Ind. J. 1991, 11, 287–303.
  11. Leydesdorff, L.; Etzkowitz, H. Triple Helix of innovation: Introduction. Sci. Public Policy 1998, 25, 358–364.
  12. Etzkowitz, H.; Zhou, C. Triple Helix twins: Innovation and sustainability. Sci. Public Policy 2006, 33, 77–83.
  13. Leydesdorff, L.; Zawdie, G. The triple helix perspective of innovation systems. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2010, 22, 789–804.
  14. Aini, Q.; Hammad, J.A.; Taher, T.; Ikhlayel, M. Classification of Tweets Causing Deadlocks in Jakarta Streets with the Help of Algorithm C4.5. J. Appl. Data Sci. 2021, 2, 143–156.
  15. Tomura, N.; Uehara, S.; Kaneta, K.; Hara, R.; Sasaki, R.; Tsuchida, M.; Shibuya, A.; Yamashita, M. Construction of the E-Government Case Study of Japan and Estonia. Int. J. Appl. Inf. Manag. 2021, 1, 145–151.
  16. Saputro, P.H.; Nanang, H. Exploratory Data Analysis & Booking Cancelation Prediction on Hotel Booking Demands Datasets. J. Appl. Data Sci. 2021, 2, 40–56.
  17. Praetorius, A.-K.; Klieme, E.; Herbert, B.; Pinger, P. Generic dimensions of teaching quality: The German framework of three basic dimensions. ZDM 2018, 50, 407–426.
  18. Sharma, S.K.; Sharma, M. Examining the role of trust and quality dimensions in the actual usage of mobile banking services: An empirical investigation. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 44, 65–75.
  19. Pakurár, M.; Haddad, H.; Nagy, J.; Popp, J.; Oláh, J. The service quality dimensions that affect customer satisfaction in the Jordanian banking sector. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1113.
  20. Ramya, N.; Kowsalya, A.; Dharanipriya, K. Service quality and its dimensions. EPRA Int. J. Res. Dev. 2019, 4, 38–41.
  21. Alfy, S.E.; Abukari, A. Revisiting perceived service quality in higher education: Uncovering service quality dimensions for postgraduate students. J. Mark. High. Educ. 2020, 30, 1–25.
  22. Jafari-Sadeghi, V.; Garcia-Perez, A.; Candelo, E.; Couturier, J. Exploring the impact of digital transformation on technology entrepreneurship and technological market expansion: The role of technology readiness, exploration and exploitation. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 124, 100–111.
  23. Mukhtar, H.; Andi, W.; Nuryanto, N.; Hafidz, F.A.; Mohammad, R.A. Implementation of Knowledge Management in Different Industries. IJIIS Int. J. Inform. Inf. Syst. 2021, 4, 103–111.
  24. Trang, N.H. Limitations of Big Data Partitions Technology. J. Appl. Data Sci. 2020, 1, 11–19.
  25. Kwon, M.; Remøy, H.; van den Dobbelsteen, A. User-focused office renovation: A review into user satisfaction and the potential for improvement. Prop. Manag. 2019, 37, 470–489.
  26. Adiandari, A.M. Financial Performance Innovation Since Digital Technology Entered Indonesian MSMEs. Int. J. Appl. Inf. Manag. 2022, 2, 50–58.
  27. Thelen, G. Leadership in a Global World Management Training Requirement Using the Example of the Asian Studies Program at University of Applied Sciences (HTWG) Konstanz. Int. J. Appl. Inf. Manag. 2021, 1, 125–135.
  28. Alessa, T.; Abdi, S.; Hawley, S.M.; de Witte, L. Mobile apps to support the self-management of hypertension: Systematic review of effectiveness, usability, and user satisfaction. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2018, 6, e10723.
  29. Chen, T.; Peng, L.; Yin, X.; Rong, J.; Yang, J.; Cong, G. Analysis of user satisfaction with online education platforms in China during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare 2020, 8, 200.
  30. Hariguna, T.; Sukmana, H.T.; Kim, J.I. Survey Opinion using Sentiment Analysis. J. Appl. Data Sci. 2020, 1, 35–40.
  31. Hitoshi, H.; Kamei, S.; Ohashi, M. The Effectiveness of The Body of Knowledge Process in The Startup Analysis of Efficiency by Applying Startup Management Body of Knowledge (SUBOK) Guide. Int. J. Appl. Inf. Manag. 2021, 1, 70–80.
  32. Chen, L.; Yang, Y.; Wang, N.; Yang, K.; Yuan, Q. How serendipity improves user satisfaction with recommendations? A large-scale user evaluation. In Proceedings of the The World Wide Web Conference 2019, San Francisco, CA, USA, 13–17 May 2019; pp. 240–250.
  33. Tarba, S.Y.; Jansen, J.J.P.; Mom, T.J.M.; Raisch, S.; Lawton, T.C. A microfoundational perspective of organizational ambidexterity: Critical review and research directions. Long Range Plann. 2020, 53, 102048.
  34. Pertusa-Ortega, E.M.; Molina-Azorín, J.F.; Tarí, J.J.; Pereira-Moliner, J.; López-Gamero, M.D. The microfoundations of organizational ambidexterity: A systematic review of individual ambidexterity through a multilevel framework. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2021, 24, 355–371.
  35. Park, Y.; Pavlou, P.A.; Saraf, N. Configurations for achieving organizational ambidexterity with digitization. Inf. Syst. Res. 2020, 31, 1376–1397.
  36. Mom, T.J.M.; Chang, Y.-Y.; Cholakova, M.; Jansen, J.J.P. A multilevel integrated framework of firm HR practices, individual ambidexterity, and organizational ambidexterity. J. Manag. 2019, 45, 3009–3034.
  37. Clauss, T.; Kraus, S.; Kallinger, F.L.; Bican, P.M.; Brem, A.; Kailer, N. Organizational ambidexterity and competitive advantage: The role of strategic agility in the exploration-exploitation paradox. J. Innov. Knowl. 2021, 6, 203–213.
  38. Bui, T.-D.; Tsai, F.M.; Tseng, M.-L.; Tan, R.R.; Yu, K.D.S.; Lim, M.K. Sustainable supply chain management towards disruption and organizational ambidexterity: A data driven analysis. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2021, 26, 373–410.
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : , ,
View Times: 290
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 18 Nov 2022
Video Production Service