شناسایی مولفه‌های اصلی دانشگاه دوسوتوان با رویکرد موازنه بین بهره‌برداری و اکتشاف

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

3 استادیار دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روانشناسی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

مقدمه و هدف: دانشگاه‌ها در عصر حاضر جهت حفظ پویایی و پاسخ‌گویی به تحولات، نیازمند رویکردهایی نوین مانند دوسوتوانی سازمانی هستند که بر بهره‌برداری از ظرفیت‌های موجود و اکتشاف فرصت‌های نو تمرکز دارد. این پژوهش با هدف شناسایی مولفه‌های اصلی دانشگاه دوسوتوان با رویکرد توازن میان بهره‌برداری و اکتشاف، در راستای ارتقاء مدیریت راهبردی در دانشگاه‌های جامع انجام شده است.
روش‌شناسی پژوهش: این پژوهش براساس هدف کاربردی و به علت تازگی موضوع با رویکرد کیفی و روش مطالعه موردی انجام شده است. موردِ مطالعه دانشگاه‌های جامع ایران بوده‌اند. جهت جمع‌آوری داده‌ها، به صورت هدفمند و با کمک تکنیک گلوله برفی با مدیران خبره آموزش و پژوهش دانشگاهی مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته انجام گرفت که پس از 14 مصاحبه اشباع نظری حاصل شد. تحلیل مصاحبه‌ها با روش تحلیل مضمون انجام گرفت و تطبیق نتایج با یافته‌های کتابخانه‌ای، رواسازی و درصد پایایی بازآزمون و پایایی بین دو کدگذارِ قابل قبول بر اعتبار یافته‌ها صحه گذاشت.
یافته‌ها: پس از تحلیل مضمون مصاحبه‌ها، در بخش بهره‌برداری 6 مضمون اصلی (14 مضمون فرعی) شامل سیاست‌های دانشگاهی، ساختارهای دانشگاهی، تعامل دانشگاه و صنعت، توسعه آموزش و پژوهش، مالی و بودجه، فرهنگ دانشگاهی و در بخش اکتشاف، 6 مضمون اصلی (12 مضمون فرعی) شامل نیازسنجی و آموزش، ساختار و فناوری آینده نگر، بودجه و منابع مالی، سیاست و فرهنگ نوآورانه، مدیریت استراتژیک، پژوهش و آینده‌پژوهی استخراج گردید. همچنین 6 راهبرد جهت موازنه بین بهره‌برداری و اکتشاف در دانشگاه در قالب 2 مضمون اصلی 1)سیاست و ارزیابی و2) منابع و ساختار، معین و نتایج در قالب مدلی اکتشافی ارائه گردید
بحث و نتیجه‌گیری: مدل دوسوتوانی دانشگاهی این پژوهش، راهکاری راهبردی جهت تلفیق بهره‌برداری عملیاتی و نوآوری آینده‌نگر در مدیریت دانشگاه‌های جامع ایران است. این مدل با تأکید بر توازن بهره‌برداری–اکتشاف، مسیر توسعه در نسل پنجم دانشگاه‌ها و طراحی راهبردهای بلندمدت پاسخگو به تحولات محیطی را فراهم می‌سازد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Identifying the Core Components of an Ambidextrous University with a Balanced Approach between Exploitation and Exploration

نویسندگان [English]

  • Pouriya Sardasht 1
  • Mahmood Abolghasemi 2
  • Mohammad Ghahramani 2
  • Farnoosh َAlami 3
1 Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran,
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Education and Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

Background and Objective: This study aims to enhance strategic management in comprehensive universities in Iran by identifying the key components of an ambidextrous university model. This model strengthens dynamism, quality, and responsiveness to change through a balance between exploitation and exploration.
research methodology: A qualitative research design was employed, focusing on comprehensive universities in Iran. Data were collected through purposive semi-structured interviews with experienced academic managers in education and research. Theoretical saturation was achieved after 14 interviews. Thematic analysis was used to interpret the data, and the findings were validated through triangulation with literature, acceptable test-retest reliability, and inter-coder agreement.
Findings: Thematic analysis revealed six main themes (with 14 sub-themes) in the exploitation domain: university policies, academic structures, university-industry interaction, development of education and research, finance and budgeting, and academic culture. In the exploration domain, six main themes (with 12 sub-themes) were identified: education and assessment, futuristic structures and technologies, financial resources, innovative policies and culture, strategic management, and future-oriented research. Additionally, six strategic approaches for balancing exploitation and exploration were categorized under two main themes: (1) policy and evaluation, and (2) resources and structure. These results were synthesized into an exploratory model.
Conclusion: The proposed ambidextrous university model integrates operational efficiency with forward-looking innovation, offering a strategic framework for transitioning to fifth-generation universities. By balancing exploitation and exploration, it facilitates strategic decision-making and enhances performance optimization in university management.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • : Exploitation
  • Exploration
  • Ambidexterity
  • Organizational Ambidexterity
  • Ambidextrous University

مراجع

Alavi, H., Hąbek, P. (2016). Optimizing outcome in the university-industry technology transfer projects. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 22(2), 94-100.10.2478/mspe-04-02-2016. [DOI: 10.12914/MSPE-04-02-2016]
Ambos, T.C., Mäkelä, K., Birkinshaw, J., d'Este, P. (2008). When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1424-1447.. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00804.x]
Bazan, C. (2019). From Lab Bench to Store Shelves: A Translational Research & Development Framework for Linking University Science and Engineering Research to Commercial Outcomes. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 53, 1-18.10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.05.001. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.05.001]
Benner, M.J., & Tushman, M.L. (2003). “Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited”. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238-256. [DOI: 10.5465/amr.2003.9416096]
Beyhan, B., & Findik, D. (2018). Student and graduate entrepreneurship: Ambidextrous universities create more nascent entrepreneurs. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 43(5), 1346-1374. [DOI: 10.1007/s10961-017-9590-z]
Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287-298. [DOI:  10.5465/amp.2012.0167]
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77-101. [DOI:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa]
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 Managemen, 54, 87–109.  [DOI: 10.1002/hrm.21725]
Carayannis, E.G. Campbell, D.F.J. (2019). Smart Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems. Switzerland: Springer, [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-01517-6_4]
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., & Esposito, E. (2019). Exploration and exploitation in the development of more entrepreneurial universities: A twisting learning path model of ambidexterity. Technological forecasting and social change, 141, 172-194. [DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.014]
Chang, Y.-C., Yihsing, P., Martin, B. R., Chi, H.-R., & Tsai-Lin, T.-F. (2016). Entrepreneurial universities and research ambidexterity: A multilevel analysis. Technovation, 54 (August), 7–9. [DOI: 10.1016/j.technovation.2016.02.006]
Colombelli, A., De Marco, A., Paolucci, E., Ricci, R., & Scellato, G. (2021). University technology transfer and the evolution of regional specialization: the case of Turin. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(4), 933-960. [DOI:  10.1007/s10961-020-09801-w]
Compagnucci, L., Spigarelli, F. (2020). The Third Mission of the university: A systematic literature review on potentials and constraints. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 161. [DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120284]
Cordero P, L., & Ferreira, J. J. (2019). Absorptive capacity and organizational mechanisms: A systematic review and future directions. Review of International Business and Strategy, 29(1), 61-82. [https://doi.org/10.1108/RIBS-10-2018-0089]
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1763859]
Drivas, K., Panagopoulos, A. (2016). Using the patent term changes in assessing the evolution of patent valuation from filing to maturity. European Journal of Innovation Management, 19(4), 528-546. 10.1108/EJIM-04-2015-0027. [https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-04-2015-0027]
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. The Management of Organization, 1, 167–188. [https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2515394]
Ferreira, P., Klarner, P., & Raisch, S. (2016). Staying Agile in the Saddle: CEO Tenure, TMT characteristics, and organizational ambidexterity. in academy of management proceedings (vol. 2016, no. 1, p. 15877). academy of management. [https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.15877abstract]
Forouhar, M., Forouhar, M., Gholami, S., Arghish, O. (2016). Identify and Rank the Barriers to Technology Transfer - Analytic Hierarchy Process. Modern Applied Science, 10(9), 142-152. 10.5539/mas.v10n9p142. [http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/mas.v10n9p142]
García-Hurtado, D., Devece, C., Hoffmann, V. E., & Camargo-Vera, C. (2024). On entrepreneurial and ambidextrous universities. Comparative study in Ibero-American higher education institutions. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship, 3(3), 100077. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stae.2024.100077]
García-Hurtado, D., Devece, C., Zegarra-Saldaña, P. E., & Crisanto-Pantoja, M. (2022). Ambidexterity in entrepreneurial universities and performance measurement systems. A literature review. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 1-22. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-022-00795-5]
Geisser, S. (1975). The Predictive Sample Reuse Method with Applications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 70(350), 320-328. [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01621459.1975.10479865]
Gianzina-Kassotaki, O. (2017). Leadership and ambidexterity: A multilevel analysis of the aerospace and defense organizations [Dissertation]. Warwick Business School. [https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/95904/1/WRAP_Theses_Gianzina-Kassotaki_2017.pdf]
Gibson, C. B. & Birkinshaw, J. (2004.) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal 47: 209– 216. [https://doi.org/10.5465/20159573]
Harder, B.T., Benke, R.J. (2005). Transportation Technology Transfer: Successes, Challenges, and Needs, Vol. 355. Washington: Transportation Research Board. [https://doi.org/10.17226/13923]
Hosseinzadeh Arablouiyekan R, Rahnavard F, Alinezhad A. (2024). Explaining the Dimensions and Components of Ambi/ tridexterity Universities in Iran. JMDP. 37(3), 81-118. [doi:10.61882/jmdp.37.3.81] (In Persian)
Jansen, J. J. P., Vera, D. & Crossan, M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. LeadershipQuarterly 20 (1): 5-18. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.11.008]
Junni, P., Sarala, R., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312. [https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0015]
Kane, G. C. & Alavi, M. (2007). Information technology and organizational learning: An Investigation of exploration and exploitation processes. Organization Science18 (5): 796-812. [https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0286]
Kang, S. C., & Snell, S. A. (2009). Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: a framework for human resource management. Journal of Management Studies, 46 (1), 65-92. [ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00776.x]
Kassotaki, O. (2017). Ambidexterity and leadership: a multilevel analysis of the aerospace and defense organizations (Doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick). [ https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/95904/]
Kassotaki, O. (2022). Review of organizational ambidexterity research. Sage Open, 12(1), 21582440221082127. [https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221082127]
Kassotaki, O., Paroutis, S., & Morrell, K. (2019). Ambidexterity penetration across organizational levels in an aerospace and defense organization. Long Range Planning, 52(3), 366–385. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2018.06.002]
Klofsten, M., Fayolle, M., Guerrero, M., Mian, S., Urbano, D., Wright, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial university as driver for economic growth and social change – Key strategic challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 141, 149-158. [DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.004]
Kolster, R. (2021). Structural ambidexterity in higher education: excellence education as a testing ground for educational innovations. European journal of higher education, 11(1), 64-81. [https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1850312]
Kortmann, S. (2014). The mediating role of strategic orientations on the relationship between ambidexterity-oriented decisions and innovative ambidexterity. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 32(5), 666–684. [https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12151]
Kusumastuti, R., Safitri, N., & Rusmaningsih, P. N. (2017). Towards Research University through Ambidexterity Practice: A Lecturer Perspective. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Ilmu Politik, 20(2), 163-174. [download.garuda.kemdikbud.go.id]
Kusumastuti, R., Safitri, N., Firdaus, N., Setyowati, M. S., Sakapurnama, E., & Nurita, P. (2016). Ambidexterity learning process for exploration and exploitation: A model of hybrid ambidextrous university. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, (NovemberSpecialIssue), 232-237. [https://scholar.ui.ac.id/en/publications/ambidexterity-learning-process-for-exploration-and-exploitation-a]
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. [https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1228667]
Lin, L.-H., & Ho, Y.-L. (2016). Institutional pressures and environmental performance in the flobal automotive industry: The mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Long Range Planning, 49(6), 764–775. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2015.12.010]
Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Yan, L., & Veiga, J. F. (2006.) Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management 32 (5):646-672.[ https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306290712]
March, J. G. (1991). "Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning". Organization science, 2(1), 71-87. [https://www.jstor.org/stable/2634940]
Mason, C., Anderson, M., Kessl, T., Hruskova, M. (2020). Promoting student enterprise: Reflections on a university start-up programme. Local Economy, 35(1), 68-79. [DOI: 10.1177/0269094219894907]
Mazurkiewicz, A., Poteralska, B. (2016). Barriers and challenges for technology transfer at R&D organisations. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, UK: Academic Conferences and Publishing International Limited Reading, pp. 150-158. [DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.134]
Meijer, L.L.J., Huijben, J.C.C.M., Van Boxstael, A., Romme, A.G.L. (2019). Barriers and drivers for technology commercialization by SMEs in the Dutch sustainable energy sector. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 112, 114-126. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.050]
Olk, P. (2020). Seeking ambidexterity in an increasingly turbulent environment: The case of the University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business. Journal of Management Inquiry,29(2), 134-138. [DOI: 10.1177/1056492619864639]
Pohlmann, J. R., Duarte Ribeiro, J. L., & Marcon, A. (2022). Inbound and outbound strategies to overcome technology transfer barriers from university to industry: a compendium for technology transfer offices. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 36(6), 1166-1178. [https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2022.2077719]
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). "Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators". Journal of Management, 34 (3), 375-409. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316058]
Ripkey, S.L. (2017). Organizational Change and Ambidexterity in Higher Education: A Case Study of Institutional Merger. [https://doi.org/10.1108/S0897-301620170000025008]
Rowley, D. J. (1997). Strategic Change in Colleges and Universities: Planning to Survive and Prosper. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. JosseyBass Inc., 350 Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94104. [https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED406883]
Schubert, T. (2009). Empirical observations on new public management to increase efficiency in public research—Boon or bane?. Research policy, 38(8), 1225-1234. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.06.007]
Sengupta, A., & Ray, A. S. (2017). University research and knowledge transfer: A dynamic view of ambidexterity in british universities. Research Policy, 46(5), 881-897. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.03.008]
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J., & Souder, D. (2009). A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Management, 46(5), 865–894. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00841.x]
Sliż, P., & Dobrowolska, E. (2023). The ambidextrous university concept: balancing exploitation and exploration in higher education. Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej. Organizacja i Zarządzanie, (177). [DOI:10.29119/1641-3466.2023.177.34]
Sliż, P., Siciński, J., Antonowicz, P., Bęben, R. (2022). The BPM Governance Supporting Factors and Implementation Barriers – The Experience of a Public University. In: A. Marrella, B. Weber (eds.), Business Process Management Workshops. BPM 2021. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol. 436. Cham: Springer. [https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94343-1_12]
Smith, S. M., Séraphin, H., & Cripps, K. (2022). The responsible management education paradox: Applying the conceptual lens of Organisational Ambidexterity. In Business Schools, Leadership and the Sustainable Development Goals (pp. 11-30). Routledge. [DOI: 10.4324/9781003244905-3]
Soares, J. L., dos Reis, D. R., da Cunha, J. C., & Neto, P. J. S. (2018). Organizational ambidexterity: a study in Brazilian higher education institutions. Journal of technology management & innovation, 13(3), 36-46. [http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242018000300036]
Stone, M. (1974). Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 36(2), 111-147. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x]
Tahar, S., Niemeyer, C., Boutellier, R. (2011). Transferral of business management concepts to universities as ambidextrous organisations. Tertiary Education and Management, 17(4), 289-308. 10.1080/13583883.2011.589536. [https://doi.org/10.1080/13583883.2011.589536]
Thomas, E., Pugh, R., Soetanto, D., & Jack, S. L. (2023). Beyond ambidexterity: universities and their changing roles in driving regional development in challenging times. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-20. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09992-4]
Todorovic, Z.W., McNaughton, R.B., Guild, P. (2011). ENTRE-U: An entrepreneurial orientation scale for universities. Technovation, 31(2-3), 128-137. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2010.10.009]
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary andrevolutionary change. California Management Review, 38 (4), 8–30. [https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852]
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Harvard Business Press. [https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=197100]
Wilden, R., Hohberger, J., Devinney, T. M., & Lavie, D. (2018). Revisiting James March (1991): Whither exploration and exploitation? Strategic Organization, 16(4), 352–369. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018765031]
Zand, M., shahtalebi, B., & nadi, M. A. (2023). Presenting a paradigm model of organizational ambidexterity in the Iranian public education system. Journal of New Approaches in Educational Administration, 14(4), 15-1. [DOI: 10.30495/jedu.2023.31143.6244] (In Persian)

فایل ها

سابقه مقاله

  • تاریخ دریافت: 20 مرداد 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری: 12 شهریور 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش: 12 شهریور 1404

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار