在快速變動且高度不確定的產業環境中，企業難以長期依賴單一且固定的商業模式，必須透過事業轉型回應不連續的環境變化，以維持長期競爭力，轉型過程仍需保持新舊之間的平衡。一方面需維持既有業務穩定營運與效率表現，另一方面投入新技術與新市場的探索，因此如何靈活執行「探索」與「利用」的雙元能力是企業保持長期競爭力的關鍵。本研究聚焦於企業在事業轉型過程中如何逐步建構雙元能力，以及途中影響轉型推動與雙元運作的阻礙。
本研究綜合回顧事業轉型、變革管理與組織雙元三項理論脈絡。事業轉型理論中強調企業需重新建構競爭基礎與價值流程，以因應外部環境變化。接著由重構過程切入變革管理方面，依據Lewin的「解凍－變革－再結凍」模型與Kotter延伸的轉型階段作為分析框架。從變革落地執行機制連結到雙元理論，引用March提出之探索與利用概念，探討企業如何在創新與效率之間平衡張力。
本研究以台灣車燈龍頭企業T公司為個案，探討傳統製造業在面對產業環境變化與轉型壓力下，如何推動事業轉型並建立組織雙元能力。採取質性研究之單一個案研究法，透過深度訪談與實地觀察蒐集關鍵初級與次級資料，以理論視角去觀察分析個案於2005年至2026年間之雙元組織發展歷程，呈現出「循序雙元→脈絡雙元→結構雙元」之動態演化歷程。研究進一步發現，影響雙元能力能否持續運作的關鍵，在於高階管理團隊是否能建立跨部門整合機制，以及適用於探索與利用雙方的「新的、共同的」績效制度。本研究認為傳統製造業中雙元能力的建立是追求一致中的「不一致」；納入組織慣性之觀點，分析出結構分離並不足以跨越組織慣性，單獨支撐轉型成功。提出事業轉型與雙元能力之間具有主從關係之脈絡，事業轉型決定企業欲重構之價值流程與競爭方向，而雙元組織則是支撐轉型落實的管理機制。

Nowadays rapidly changing environment, firms can no longer rely on a single and unchanged business model to sustain competitiveness. During business transformation, companies must simultaneously maintain operational efficiency in existing businesses while exploring new technologies and markets. Therefore, balancing exploration and exploitation has become a critical capability for sustaining long-term competitive advantage. This study investigates how traditional manufacturing firms gradually build organizational ambidexterity during business transformation, as well as the barriers influencing both transformation and ambidextrous operations.This research integrates theories of business transformation, change management, organizational ambidexterity, and organizational inertia. A qualitative longitudinal case study was conducted on T Company, a leading Taiwanese automotive lighting manufacturer, covering the period from 2005 to 2026. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, field observations, and secondary documents. The findings reveal that T Company’s ambidextrous development evolved dynamically from sequential ambidexterity to contextual ambidexterity, and eventually to structural ambidexterity. However, exploratory activities were gradually weakened by organizational inertia rooted in long-term OEM-oriented management logic and existing performance systems. In particular, the absence of shared performance mechanisms and cross-functional integration reduced collaboration between exploratory and exploitative units. Consequently, the study clarifies the driving-supportive relationship between business transformation and ambidexterity, wherein transformation defines the direction of value stream reconstruction, while ambidexterity serves as the enabling management mechanism supporting transformation implementation. Finally, the study highlights that shared performance systems and sustained top management integration are critical for overcoming organizational inertia and sustaining ambidextrous capabilities.

Adler, P. S., Goldoftas, B., & Levine, D. I. (1999). Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization Science, 10(1), 43–68.
Ansoff, H. I. (1957). Strategies for diversification. Harvard Business Review, 35(5), 113–124.
Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative research methods: A synopsis approach. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Kuwait Chapter), 6(11), 40–47.
Argote, L. (2012). Organizational learning: Creating, retaining and transferring knowledge. Springer.
Benner, M. J., & Tushman, M. L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), 238–256.
Bititci, U. S. (2007). An executive's guide to business transformation. Business Strategy Series, 8(3), 203–213.
Brix, J. (2019). Ambidexterity and organizational learning: Revisiting and reconnecting the literatures. The Learning Organization, 26(4), 337–351.
Cooper, R. G. (1990). Stage-gate systems: A new tool for managing new products. Business Horizons, 33(3), 44–54.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.
Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537.
Danneels, E. (2002). The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences. Strategic Management Journal, 23(12), 1095–1121.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed.). Sage.
Duncan, R. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In R. H. Kilmann, L. R. Pondy, & D. Slevin (Eds.), The management of organization (Vol. 1, pp. 167–188). North-Holland.
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
Gumiel, J. Á. (2024). Improving the reliability of automotive systems. In Recent advances in microelectronics reliability: Contributions from the European ECSEL JU project iRel40 (pp. 151–195). Springer.
Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural inertia and organizational change. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 149–164.
He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
Hedrick, T. E., Bickman, L., & Rog, D. J. (1993). Applied research design: A practical guide. Sage.
Holmqvist, M. (2003). A dynamic model of intra- and interorganizational learning. Organization Studies, 24(1), 95–123.
Holmqvist, M. (2004). Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: An empirical study of product development. Organization Science, 15(1), 70–81.
House, C. H., & Price, R. L. (2009). The HP phenomenon: Innovation and business transformation. Stanford University Press.
James, L. R., & Jones, A. P. (1974). Organizational climate: A review of theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 81(12), 1096–1112.
Jansen, J. J. P., Andriopoulos, C., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizing for ambidexterity: Founding, developing, and revitalizing dynamic capabilities over time. Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Jansen, J. J. P., George, G., Van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2008). Senior team attributes and organizational ambidexterity: The moderating role of transformational leadership. Journal of Management Studies, 45(5), 982–1007.
Jansen, J. J. P., Vera, D., & Crossan, M. M. (2009). Strategic leadership for exploration and exploitation: The moderating role of environmental dynamism. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 5–18.
Jones, O., & Macpherson, A. (2006). Inter-organizational learning and strategic renewal in SMEs: Extending the 4I framework. Long Range Planning, 39(2), 155–175.
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.
Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). Jossey-Bass.
Klepper, S. (1996). Entry, exit, growth, and innovation over the product life cycle. The American Economic Review, 86(3), 562–583.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard Business Review, 73(2), 59–67.
Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, 14(S2), 95–112.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; Social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
Markides, C. C. (2013). Business model innovation: What can the ambidexterity literature teach us? Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 313–323.
Moore, G. A. (2011). Escape velocity: Free your company's future from the pull of the past. HarperBusiness.
Morgan, R. E., & Page, K. (2008). Managing business transformation to deliver strategic agility. Strategic Change, 17(5–6), 155–168.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 185–206.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 53(4), 5–22.
O'Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.
Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: Antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375–409.
Santos, E., Queiroz, M., Borini, F. M., Carvalho, D., & Dutra, J. S. (2023). The journey of business transformation: Unfreeze, change and refreeze—A multiple case study. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 36(1), 47–63.
Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization Science, 16(5), 522–536.
Subramaniam, M., & Youndt, M. A. (2005). The influence of intellectual capital on the types of innovative capabilities. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 450–463.
Sull, D. (1999). Why good companies go bad. Harvard Business Review, 77(4), 42–52.
Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (5th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Turner, N., Swart, J., & Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317–332.
Tushman, M. L., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8–29.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 222–240.
Williams, C. (2007). Research methods. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 5(3), 65–72.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.