Search

Corporate foresight involves strategically exploring multiple potential futures and serves as a tool to guide organizational decision‐making processes. Despite its significance, a predominant focus on immediate, short‐term issues often characterizes the operational mindset of many companies. As a result, companies frequently encounter challenges in achieving organizational ambidexterity—the ability to balance and leverage both the exploitation of current capabilities and the exploration of new opportunities in the future. In this paper, we propose a theoretical investigation of corporate foresight. We develop a conceptual framework that delineates different relationships between corporate foresight and organizational ambidexterity, providing a structured approach to understand how these concepts interact and influence each other. Our framework proposes three ways corporate foresight can significantly enhance ambidexterity within organizations. First, corporate foresight can be pivotal in identifying and analyzing future trends and disruptions, which can inform strategic decision‐making. Secondly, corporate foresight can better align an organization's long‐term strategic goals and short‐term operational objectives, thus enhancing ambidexterity. Finally, corporate foresight can bridge different organizational units, promoting collaboration and knowledge sharing, aiding in developing a holistic approach to strategic planning that encompasses daily operational excellence and future‐oriented strategic posture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The management of technology is increasingly fuelled by societal challenges and user problems. For effective technology development and implementation, it is important that both are relevant not only in the present, but also in the future. Technological development and implementation take time which means that a technology originally meant to address a particular societal challenge, may be no longer relevant at the time it is implemented because the challenge or problem may no longer exist. We call this 'future technology myopia'. This myopia implies that while analysing the possible future development of a technology, sufficient vigilance should be given to the persistence of i). the technical challenge and ii). the development of the societal problem, and of alternative ways to deal with both. In view of the increasing interdependence between technology and society, broadening the technology management and analysis is therefore relevant for the effective development of technology to address future societal and user problems and for developing relevant strategic technology policies. In this paper we develop a Technology Management Ailment Matrix that identifies imbalances that might arise during the technology development process. It enables firms to identify and compare different technology management ailments collectively; it also identifies a further new ailment: future technology myopia. • Future Technology Myopia (FTM) states that in technology development, too little attention is paid to changing social issues • FTM is a valuable addition to existing ailments such as 'not-invented-her' and the 'innovator's dilemma'- One condition for FTM is that technology takes much time to develop • One strategy to deal with FTM is to broadly explore possible technologies that are potentially capable of addressing a societal issue [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of 'open innovation' has received a considerable amount of coverage within the academic literature and beyond. Much of this seems to have been without much critical analysis of the evidence. In this paper, we show how Chesbrough creates a false dichotomy by arguing that open innovation is the only alternative to a closed innovation model. We systematically examine the six principles of the open innovation concept and show how the Open Innovation paradigm has created a partial perception by describing something which is undoubtedly true in itself (the limitations of closed innovation principles), but false in conveying the wrong impression that firms today follow these principles. We hope that our examination and scrutiny of the 'open innovation' concept contributes to the debate on innovation management and helps enrich our understanding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]