The concept of ambidexterity and particularly the concept of exploitation are ambiguous. March (1991), a study that became the theoretical basis for several research studies, asserted that exploitation has a trade-off relationship with exploration including innovation, and on the basis of this aspect, Levinthal and March (1993) proposed the myopia of learning. Nevertheless, Levinthal later modeled exploitation that can be called as innovation. Some argued that exploration and exploitation are bipolar on one axis, and some argued that they are two orthogonal axes. In this study, we proposed using Lévi-Strauss’ “bricolage” instead of “exploitation.” This bricolage is a concept of making do with the tools and materials at hand (performing innovation), and bricolage and exploration are used together with ambidexterity being the normal form. We examine this aspect by using Japan’s response to the current Coronavirus disease pandemic as an example.
Creating new products by incorporating new and original ideas derived from learning the internal mechanisms and structures of machines and other objects at hand through the process of repairing or tinkering with them is fundamental to the innovation, which is a staple of human existence. Recently, however, increasing product complexity, technical constraints, and regulations have gradually narrowed the scope of the user's ability to tinker. This aspect has given momentum to the movement to explicitly reclaim the Right to Repair and the Right to Tinker. This paper thus outlines the process that led to recognition of the importance of these rights.