Nowa strona 1 » How to Design Structures for Innovation vs. Operational Efficiency

Dual Operating Models and Ambidextrous Organization Frameworks

Introduction: Innovation and Efficiency—A Structural Dilemma

In a world where both rapid innovation and flawless execution are imperatives, organizational leaders often find themselves grappling with a structural paradox. On one hand, businesses must continually explore new ideas, markets, and technologies to remain competitive. On the other, they must exploit existing capabilities to deliver consistent value, manage risk, and maintain margins. These competing demands—exploration and exploitation—do not naturally coexist within the same structural space.

Most organizations are architected either for operational efficiency or for innovation, but rarely both. Efficiency thrives in environments optimized for control, predictability, and standardization. Innovation, by contrast, flourishes in settings that encourage experimentation, autonomy, and tolerance for failure. Trying to drive both objectives through a single structural model often leads to suboptimization—where neither is done well.

Enter the concept of dual operating models and the ambidextrous organization—frameworks that intentionally separate and then strategically integrate structures to support both efficiency and innovation simultaneously. This guide offers HR leaders and executives a structured approach to designing these models, along with the organizational trade-offs, risks, and best practices for success.

Understanding the Two Competing Logics

Operational Efficiency: The Logic of Exploitation

Organizations optimized for efficiency are built to scale. Their structure is focused on:

Standardized processes
Defined hierarchies and control mechanisms
Clear performance metrics and KPIs
Efficiency, quality, and risk management

These organizations favor functional, divisional, or centralized models where predictability and repeatability are paramount. They are excellent at executing known business models, maintaining customer satisfaction, and achieving cost control.

Innovation: The Logic of Exploration

Innovative structures are designed to experiment. Their structure emphasizes:

Flexibility and autonomy
Cross-functional collaboration
Fluid roles and emergent leadership
Risk-taking, learning, and iteration

Such models tend to adopt networked, team-based, or project-driven formats. They support the discovery of new business models, radical solutions, and strategic breakthroughs. However, they can struggle with scale, discipline, and sustainability.

Structural Archetypes for Operational Efficiency

Before integrating innovation, organizations must understand their core structural logic for execution. The following archetypes are geared toward efficient delivery:

Functional Structure

Ideal for homogeneous product lines and centralized control. Each department specializes in a function (e.g., sales, HR, operations), supporting deep expertise and cost efficiency.

Divisional Structure

Useful when managing multiple product lines or regions. Each unit operates semi-autonomously with its own leadership, allowing localized decision-making while preserving enterprise standards.

Process-Based Structure

Organizes around key workflows (e.g., order-to-cash, procure-to-pay), ensuring seamless handoffs and efficiency. It’s well-suited for mature operations with consistent volume and repeatable outcomes.

Centralized Shared Services Model

Back-office functions (HR, IT, Finance) are consolidated for consistency, standardization, and scale economies.

Each of these structures drives scale, but may limit the responsiveness and agility needed for innovation.

Structural Archetypes for Innovation

To foster innovation, organizations often adopt more fluid, decentralized, and experimental structures. Common formats include:

Agile Squads or Tribes

Cross-functional teams that own an initiative or product from end-to-end. These teams have autonomy and iterate quickly using Agile or Scrum methodologies.

Innovation Labs

Dedicated units (internal or external) chartered to explore new technologies, business models, or customer segments. Often operate outside normal governance.

Incubators or Accelerators

Programs designed to generate new ventures or solutions. May include partnerships with startups or universities.

Skunkworks Projects

Small, secretive teams given significant freedom to innovate. Often used for breakthrough R&D in tech and defense sectors.

These models encourage creativity but are often detached from the core business, leading to reintegration challenges.

Dual Operating Models: A Structural Integration Strategy

The dual operating model separates the "core" (execution engine) from the "edge" (innovation engine), allowing each to function under the logic that best supports its mandate.

Core Characteristics (Exploit):

Stable hierarchy
Process optimization
Performance management
Cost and quality focus

Edge Characteristics (Explore):

Loose governance
Experimental project teams
External orientation (markets, tech)
Learning and iteration focus

Integration Mechanisms:

Shared leadership oversight
Portfolio and resource allocation processes
Cultural ambassadorship between core and edge
Talent rotation between zones

This design allows innovation to thrive without compromising core efficiency.

The Ambidextrous Organization: Dual Structures with Unified Intent

Coined by Charles O’Reilly and Michael Tushman, the ambidextrous organization is one that can explore and exploit simultaneously. It does so by structurally separating the units but integrating them strategically at the leadership level.

Key Design Elements:

Separate Units: One for core business execution; another for innovation initiatives.
Senior Team Integration: Shared executives ensure strategic alignment.
Tailored Metrics: Efficiency units focus on ROI, throughput; innovation units focus on speed, learning.
Cultural Bridging: Intentional overlap of talent, values, and communication forums.
Leadership Capabilities: Ambidextrous leaders who can hold paradox and balance trade-offs.

Examples:

Amazon: AWS operates semi-autonomously but reports into core governance.
Procter & Gamble: Dedicated innovation units coexist with brand-led business groups.

Common Pitfalls in Designing Dual Models

While the logic is compelling, dual structures are difficult to sustain without clear design principles. Watch out for:

Innovation Isolation

Innovation units become siloed, with no path to scale ideas back into the core.

Remedy: Design intentional reintegration pathways, pilot-to-scale playbooks, and cross-functional sponsors.

Leadership Tensions

Different incentives, cultures, and rhythms lead to internal competition.

Remedy: Ensure shared success metrics and clarify boundaries of authority.

Resource Starvation

Innovation units struggle to secure budget and talent as core demands dominate.

Remedy: Establish ring-fenced innovation funds and board-level oversight.

Cultural Drift

Innovation units become misaligned with the enterprise’s mission or values.

Remedy: Embed enterprise purpose into innovation charters and employee brand narratives.

Role of HR in Designing Dual Models

HR must act as both architect and translator—designing structures that work, and helping leaders operate within them.

HR’s Structural Contributions:

Talent Architecture: Define distinct roles, career paths, and succession plans across explore and exploit domains.
Leadership Development: Build ambidextrous capabilities—comfort with ambiguity, systems thinking, collaborative mindset.
Performance Systems: Tailor KPIs and rewards for each side of the model, while enabling cross-learning.
Cultural Stewardship: Balance entrepreneurial energy with operational discipline.
Org Design Facilitation: Use design thinking workshops to prototype, test, and iterate structural options.

Real-World Case Study: Philips Healthcare

Philips created two distinct structures:

HealthTech Division (exploit): Focused on core product development, supply chain, and clinical operations.
Philips Digital Innovation Lab (explore): Focused on AI, wearables, and telehealth solutions.

A shared executive committee bridged the two. Innovation projects were piloted in the lab and scaled in the division—creating a structural flywheel of value.

Key Takeaway: Structural ambidexterity must be strategic, not just architectural.

Conclusion: Design for Strategic Balance

There is no silver bullet for simultaneously driving innovation and efficiency—but structure matters deeply. Organizations that manage to do both well have accepted the tension as a strategic design challenge rather than a leadership failure.

By separating and then intelligently integrating structures that serve different logics, organizations can unlock the strengths of both. Efficiency keeps the enterprise grounded and viable; innovation keeps it forward-looking and relevant.

For HR leaders, the imperative is to embed structural intelligence into the operating model—ensuring that each part of the organization is designed to do what it does best, while contributing to the whole. This means:

Clarifying intent for each structural unit
Building tailored support systems for talent, performance, and leadership
Bridging cultural and operational divides
Acting as a strategic enabler of balance—not just compliance

In an increasingly dynamic world, organizations that can explore and exploit at the same time will not only survive—they will shape the future.