What exactly is an organization? To answer this question, we will refer to organizational theory formulated and developed in the 20th century. Chester Barnard believed that human groups appear to be organized rather than disorderly crowds because members with a common purpose are working purposively. Herbert A. Simon, who expanded on this idea, considered that making purposive decisions is rational as long as the purposes are accomplished step by step from top to bottom along a hierarchy of ends. However, he pointed out that this hierarchy of ends was incomplete and was, sometimes, contradictory. Regarding technology as an alternative to this, James D. Thompson came to the opinion that if organizations are purposive, their core should consist of one or more technologies. Karl E. Weick depicted the technology-formation process as an organizing process. People will initially repeat, for their various purposes, an interlocked behavior cycle as a common means. If the cycle is stable, people with differing goals will be able to use it, leading to the assembly of a larger module and a gradual shift to a common purpose.

This study shows that a positive correlation exists between diversification of place of work and organizational commitment. The study compared the working-at-the-office group, working-from-home group, and shared-office-use group using data from an internet survey (N = 3694) and data gathered from a survey of people using shared offices (N = 424). The results were as follows. First, we found that organizational commitment was higher for the group that combined working at the office and working from home and the group that combined working at the office and shared office use than it was for the group that was only working at the office. Second, we found that organizational commitment was higher for the group that combined all three (working at the office, working from home, and shared office use) than for the group that combined working at the office and working from home. From this, we assert that diversification of the place of work gives employees a positive view of their company in that it supports them, and this could enhance employees’ organizational commitment.

Data usage has a major impact on the corporate innovation process by providing more multifaceted and clarified customer insights than those that have been available before. However, data-driven development relies on objective data, and as a result of the constant pursuit of rationality, we are confronted with the opposite constraint of user trends. Project L, as discussed in this paper, adopted data-driven development after its official release; however, as product updates were led by user data, the product tended to be updated conservatively and for the existing users, which resulted in a slowdown in the active user growth rate. Fortunately, the development team size was not reduced even after the product was released; hence, Project L was able to change into a development policy in which the ratio of idea-driven development and data-driven development could be adjusted based on user trends. The result revealed that they were equally successful in capturing new users and retaining existing ones.

In studies on buyer–supplier relationships, interdependence is a commonly used keyword; however, its definition and measurement items have not received much attention. By reviewing the literature, this study found two streams in studies associated with interdependence, with each stream having certain commonalities in its measurement items. In the power-related context based on Resource Dependence Theory by (1) Pfeffer and Salancik (1978), it tends to use the percentage of sales accounted for by the trading partner, the substitutability of trading partners, and the switching cost, whereas in the task-related context based on (2) Thompson’s (1967) technology, dependence on the traded input and output is often used as measurement items for interdependence. In fact, both logics are implemented in Toyota Motor Corporation’s supplier management, using multiple suppliers to avoid resource dependence while some parts are determined by technology.

The Nadler–Tushman congruence model stands out as a well-known and effective framework for navigating organizational change (Nadler & Tushman, 1989, 1997). Despite the prevalent discussions on organizational ambidexterity in recent years, few people are aware that both of these concepts originated from the same researcher around the same period. Although these ideas followed separate developmental paths, their shared origins underscore a common research interest. This paper aims to explore Tushman's research and respond to the convergence of these two concepts after approximately 30 years. Based on Tushman's suggestion that the integration of multiple logics through an overarching identity is necessary, this paper considers and suggests a new integrated model. This model can help formulate a paradigm for dynamic organizational change that aligns with today's organizational environment.