Integrating advanced digital technologies in existing lean-based production systems: analysis of paradoxes, imbalances and management strategies

2.1 Tensions in integrating digital technologies and lean production

The integration of digital technologies with LP has emerged as a significant area of interest within OM. When reviewing research on tensions in integrating digital technologies and LP, three clusters of papers emerged as shown in Table 1. The first cluster of papers investigate tensions that arise when implementing LP by utilising a paradox perspective whilst not considering perspectives of any digital technologies (Maalouf and Gammelgaard, 2016; Erthal and Marques, 2022; Secchi and Camuffo, 2019). This small set of papers focussed on case-based research and found that organisational culture and the way of organising Lean practices in the process are critical. The second cluster of papers embrace papers on tensions in implementing I4.0 by utilising a paradox perspective, whilst not considering perspectives of LP (Dieste et al., 2022; Putra et al., 2023; Smith and Beretta, 2021; Mishra et al., 2022). These studies are majorly based on single cases and proposed resolution or coping strategies to manage diverse set of paradoxes. Whilst not using paradox theory explicitly, Holmemo and Korsen’s (2023) paper distinguish itself from the other papers by also identifying paradoxical relationships between lean and digitalisation.

The third, and largest cluster of papers, is focussing on the integration of I4.0 and LP, but do not explicitly utilise a paradox perspective (Rosin et al., 2020; Sanders et al., 2017; Tortorella et al., 2019, 2021; Buer et al., 2021; Rossini et al., 2019; Mokudai et al., 2021; Holmemo and Korsen, 2023; Kumar et al., 2023; Von Haartman et al., 2021; Bittencourt et al., 2021). Most of these studies are dominated by survey method, compared to case studies, which is commonly used when exploring paradoxes in the integration of either I4.0 or LP. These survey studies confirmed that there is an interesting synergistic relationship between I4.0 and LP concepts and in combination they have a better effect that can lead to improved operational performance. Moreover, LP is considered as a foundation for successful implementation of I4.0. One plausible explanation to a successful integration of I4.0 and LP is that companies need to have management engagement and improvement processes in place (Bittencourt et al., 2021), which implies the importance of an improvement culture and that improvement initiatives of various kinds, in which digitalisation is one source for improvements, needs to be balanced. Hence, a mature LP approach seems to create a readiness for I4.0 integration (von Haartman et al., 2021). However, there are less tensions or contradictions identified in the survey studies of I4.0 and LP. In the two case studies, contradictions are more salient. For instance, Mokudai et al. (2021) describes what they refer to as a lean trap, i.e. when problems and potential digital technology solutions are defined by people operating within the current LPSs, this might limit the view of, and interest in, more radical and disruptive solutions. In a similar vein, Holmemo and Korsen (2023) identify the lean-digitalisation paradox providing an explanation for the challenges in integrating I4.0 and LP by asserting that digitalisation is agile, yet centralised and programmatic and that digital tools are standardised yet locally optimised and asynchronous.

2.2 A paradox theory perspective

When new elements, such as digital technologies, are intended to be integrated into existing LPSs, differences in intents and priorities generate tensions that can be perceived as contradictory, thus leading to what have been framed as organisational paradoxes, which in one way or the other need to be managed to positively influence organisational development (Putnam et al., 2016; Dieste et al., 2022). Organisational paradoxes are constituted of contradictory yet interconnected elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time (Eisenhardt, 2000; Smith and Lewis, 2011). One example of a well-known paradox in organisations is the one between the two modes of organisational learning exploitation (i.e. activities conducive for short-term efficiency) and exploration (activities conducive for a long-term effectiveness and innovation) (March, 1991).

Smith and Lewis (2011) distinguish between four paradoxes commonly observed in organisations. Performing paradoxes arise from the need to meet diverse stakeholder expectations, resulting in competing strategies and goals, concerning the plurality of organisational goals, where stakeholders may have divergent views on what constitutes organisational success, such as financial goals versus social goals. Organising paradoxes stem from organisational systems, leading to competing designs, structures and processes, hence, they revolve around different approaches to structuring work, such as centralisation vs. decentralisation or standardisation vs. customisation. Belonging paradoxes occur when individuals seek both self-expression and group affiliation, creating tensions between personal identity and collective relationships and involves navigating between the individual and the collective. Learning paradoxes highlights the balancing act between existing knowledge (exploitation) and new ideas (exploration) i.e. the need to build upon existing knowledge and practices whilst also embracing innovation (Ozanne et al., 2016).

Apart from the theoretical recognition of organisational paradoxes, these paradoxes also need to be accepted and embraced by actors in an organisation because failing to manage paradoxes can lead to either stagnation or fragmentation (Dooley and Van de Ven, 1999; Raisch et al., 2009). The first step of managing or resolving paradoxes is making sense of and accepting a paradoxical tension, which means to recognise that the two sides/elements are simultaneously conflicting and interconnected and therefore that they require a comprehensive and joint solution. Acceptance also implies an awareness that prioritising one element over the other will create new issues elsewhere or later with possibly increased magnitude and range (Poole and Van de Ven, 1989; Smith and Lewis, 2011). Once a paradox is accepted and embraced, different type of actions and strategies to manage or resolve the paradox need to occur to create or maintain the dynamic equilibrium of the paradoxical tension (Smith and Lewis, 2011; Dieste et al., 2022; Weiser and Laamanen, 2022), which also has been the main focus in theory on organisational ambidexterity, i.e. the organisation’s ability to manage the different poles of a paradox simultaneously (Raisch et al., 2009; Secchi and Camuffo, 2019).

Previous research has identified different types of resolutions strategies to manage the juxta-positioned poles of a paradox simultaneously (Dieste et al., 2022). One type is structural separation (cf. structural ambidexterity) and refers to either 1) spatial separation, which means placing the paradoxical elements at distinct places or levels of context, or 2) temporal separation, i.e. allocating them in diverse time periods. Whilst other strategies are aiming for contextualisation as a strategy. Contextualisation is mainly focussed on the cognitive or behavioural aspects (cf. Raisch et al., 2009 on contextual ambidexterity) and helps managers to develop the capability to think paradoxically (Smith and Lewis, 2011; Xiao et al., 2019). because it (1) tries to soften the paradoxical tensions and make them more “workable” and (2) helps in “alleviating tensions by identifying relevant stakeholders as well as their aims and to define how they can be integrated to address the tension” (Dieste et al., 2022, p. 3). To enable contextualisation, the managerial practice of facilitation of learning has proven to be a key factor (Maalouf and Gammelgaard, 2016). A third strategy is synthesis and involves introducing new elements (such as novel organisational procedures and routines or technological solutions) that can reconcile both poles of the paradox (Dieste et al., 2022).

The three types of resolution strategies correspond to what Weiser and Laamanen (2022) frame as “pre-emptive balancing” in their conceptual dissipative equilibrium model, which are the strategies used by management for splitting (i.e. separation strategy) and integrating (contextualising strategy) the poles of the paradox. However, another critical dimension of managing organisational paradoxes advocated by Weiser and Laamanen’s (2022, p. 8) model is that “the organisational system is continually pulled out of equilibrium by organisational and human tendencies to drift, as well as by the unintended consequences of interactions between actors”. As such, the dissipative equilibrium model also views paradox management also as a continuous process of navigating paradoxical tensions through micro-shifts, requiring apart from the pre-emptive balancing of managers, continuous corrective and proactive actions to maintain organisational balance.

3.1 Research approach

This study is based on CMR (Shani et al., 2008) involving two global manufacturing companies. The study seeks to highlight the paradoxes, underlying tensions and potential management strategies when integrating digital technologies into existing LPSs, with the aim of achieving synergies and fostering the development of LPS. CMR is well suited for the involvement of multiple perspectives and expertise (Coughlan et al., 2016), which by providing field presence (Langley and Klag, 2019) and an insider’s gaze (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007), is crucial for understanding and addressing the intricacies of this integration. CMR is particularly valuable for both enhancing practical applications and providing valuable contributions to theoretical frameworks in the field of OM and organisation studies (Shani et al., 2012). Further, it enables a holistic and comprehensive understanding of tensions and organisational paradoxes (Shani et al., 2008). Thus, the possibility of obtaining versatile and complementary insights is opened, which is critical since the integration of digital technologies into LPSs is a complex and multifaceted challenge that involves various stakeholders at both the strategical and operational levels.

We applied two cases to collect the relevant data. Based on current practice (Goffin et al., 2019), we opted for theoretical sampling to select cases that would provide insights into the integration of digital technologies into existing LPS. The selection of the cases was informed by the overall CMR approach and the study´s purpose, which highlights the following aspects: the relationship between the researchers and the practitioners, the existing LPS and the strategies and organisation for integrating digital technologies.

First, we selected two global manufacturing companies (Table 2), Scania and Volvo Construction Equipment (Volvo CE), each leading within their respective market segments, with which well-established and long-term collaboration between researchers at the university and two managers (PhDs) already existed. The two managers, expected to contribute to the collection of a rich dataset and help in providing valuable insights into industry and indeed they actively contributed to the framing of the research focus and the study design (Shani et al., 2012). All five authors actively participated in the various phases of the study, including data collection, thorough data analysis, collaborative interpretation of the findings and the subsequent identification of potential action steps. The two managers at the companies were engaged as insider-researchers (Brannick and Coghlan, 2007) and as they were “native” to the organisations they were instrumental in helping to identify diverse stakeholders who could provide rich descriptions of the integration of digital technologies into the existing LPS and provide in-depth information about its key activities, supported by documents and background information. This provided the opportunity to contrast various perspectives on the integration of digital technologies into an existing LPS.

Second, we considered it as important to select cases where there was longstanding experience of working with LP. Both companies possess over 2 decades of experience in working with LPS and have been highly successful in their implementation of LP capabilities for improvement of the LPS. Thus, a key selection criterion was the maturity of the companies in their Lean journey.

Third, both companies continuously work with LPS-development and considered it as critical to adopt and integrate advanced digital technologies in finding new competitive and sustainable production approaches. Further, both companies have implemented actions dedicated to digital technologies at both company and factory level with well-defined strategies and organisations and both have high expectations about to be derived from a transformation to SP. Accordingly, both companies had already gained experience in integrating digital technologies into their existing LPS.

3.2 Data collection

With a shared interest in improving comprehension of the encountered challenges, the managers played an active role in both planning and executing the study (Shani et al., 2012). Throughout the process, the team maintained ongoing interaction, including face-to-face and virtual meetings, as well as regular email exchanges. The study, which forms the basis of this paper started in autumn 2022. Data was primarily gathered in in-depth interviews with key respondents, supplemented by case documents, two focus group sessions and regular research team meetings where the expertise of the two managers was drawn upon. This approach was well-founded due to the extensive collaborative history and deep knowledge concerning LP and digital integration within the two companies. This is especially true when working with a relatively focussed and uniform population that aligns with the study’s purpose (Hennink and Kaiser, 2022). The 11 respondents (Table 2), selected in accordance with purposeful sampling principles (Patton, 2002), provided comprehensive insights into both the strategic and operational aspects of LP and digital technologies integration. The in-depth interviews were conducted solely by university researchers, without active manager involvement. To ensure a structured approach for the interviews, an interview guide was developed, focussed on three main themes:

1. The development process of new technologies and digital services, including questions such as: How are SP-team organised and who are your stakeholders? Which digital technologies do you usually work with SP-team? Describe the typical development process? What are key stages and decision points (Start/stop/continue)? Which functions are involved in the development process?

2. The relationship between digital technologies, SP and LP, including questions such as: Which, if any, digital technologies seem to be more prominent in enhancing LP? Why? What experience have you gained/what lessons have you learnt from deploying digital technologies in LP?

3. The integration and implementation of new technologies within the organisation, including questions such as: How is the handover of technology to a recipient/another organisation handled? How is existing experience and knowledge preserved/supplanted/amended in the receiving organisation due to the new solution?

Additionally, two focus groups sessions were organised, one at each company. In total, six respondents participated in the two sessions. The dual aim of the focus group interviews was to gain more detailed understanding and further explore tentative findings derived from the in-depth interviews. In the focus groups interviews the respondents took part of tentative findings and illustrations and in both sessions, there was a strong recognition, i.e. gain face validity, amongst the respondents an indication that we had reached saturation in terms of enough data to underpin our conclusions.

3.3 Data analysis

Data analysis was a collaborative effort involving all authors. Findings were placed in “collective inquiry” where the tensions of the integration of digital technologies were investigated. Inclusion of the two in-case managers, with their first-hand experiences and expertise within the companies, proved invaluable, providing a deep contextual understanding of the respondents’ statements and contributing to a more nuanced interpretation of the practical examples shared by the respondents.

Literature analysis commenced using the four paradoxes performing, organising, belonging and learning as preparatory concepts to provide direction in looking for patterns in the data. Consequently, our comprehension and utilisation of the concepts evolved concurrently with data collection and analysis through a structured and deliberate process of bringing together different concepts. These concepts were not explicitly introduced to the respondents but were employed to aid the researchers in theory development. Our data underwent thorough analysis based on the guidelines for thematic data analysis (Miles et al., 2018) encompassing three simultaneous activities: data reduction, data display and conclusion drawing. Initially, the interviews were recorded and transcribed, allowing us to become thoroughly familiar with the data. Each researcher read every transcript repeatedly, identifying interesting phrases that were transferred into a spreadsheet. This process facilitated the identification of common constructs and potential relationships through cross-interview analysis (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007).

Subsequently, we applied concepts from the analytical framework (Weiser and Laamanen, 2022) to analyse: characteristics of the integration of digital technologies; acceptance of organisational paradoxes; searching for tendencies to drift and related tensions; and searching for patterns of corrective and proactive actions/strategies. The analysis resulted in first-order categories of codes that represented respondents’ perspectives, expressed in their own words, phrases, or terms (Miles et al., 2018). These provisional codes served to organise subsequent data whilst remaining open to the identification of emerging codes. As a result, the emergence of themes was driven by both theory and data. Next, the analysis focussed on identifying links and patterns by comparing and combining the first-order categories, which lead to the formulation of second-order themes, including a list of initial codes divided into categories and created preliminary drafts illustrating how the categories related to the theoretical themes. This process involved a thorough exploration of the meaning, distinctions and commonalities of codes and categories amongst the authors, culminating in the development of a draft thematic map, representing the different types of tensions involved related to the four paradoxes proposed by Smith and Lewis (2011), Finally, we conducted a comprehensive review of the labelling of codes, categories and themes to ensure their clear definition, designation and alignment.

3.4 Research quality

To enhance the validity of the research, the author team including the two managers had extensive discussions on the initial conceptual framework and subsequent empirical findings. The CMR approach allows for structured exploration and exploitation by practitioners and researchers with the intention of reducing the likelihood of drawing false conclusions from the data collected (Coughlan et al., 2016). To minimise observer bias all interviews were done by at least two of the researchers and the analysis was done jointly (Eisenhardt and Graebner, 2007). Although the main focus of the research has been to identify patterns concerning paradoxical tensions rather than validating them, the topic is rather unexplored and thus the pattern matching was difficult and can have impacted the validity negatively (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). To mitigate the negative effects of conducting individual interviews, we completed them with focus groups to validate preliminary findings and gain face validity of the identified paradoxical tensions from the individual respondents. Further, to strengthen external validity data were collected from multiple respondents representing different internal functions as well as different sources of evidence aiming to triangulate responses and data. For example, we compared tensions identified from the interviews with governance models (e.g. technology roadmaps) of the respective company. At the start of each interview, we explained the paper’s idea, clarified key concepts to minimise the risk of misunderstandings.

4.1 Acceptance of organisational paradoxes

Previous research provides evidence of the potential synergies between LP and digital technologies for production system development (Buer et al., 2021). In this section we address RQ1 and by adopting a paradox theory (Smith and Lewis, 2011) perspective, it allows us to a get a more detailed understanding of tensions and related paradoxes (see Figure 1) that first need to be accepted and embraced and then secondly be pre-emptively balanced and work through (Weiser and Laamanen, 2022) to enable the integration of digital technologies in LPS. Illustrating quotes of paradoxes are also presented in Table 3.

4.2 Forcing imbalances of organisational paradoxes

What becomes evident in the data analysis is that even though there is a recognition and acceptance of critical organisational paradoxes that need to be worked through (see Figure 1), there is at the same time a tendency of internal drift that amplify tensions and force imbalances of organisational paradoxes, i.e. disturbing the state of equilibrium, see Figure 2 (Weiser and Laamanen, 2022). Different kind of forces are constantly pushing the organisations towards imbalances and in the worst case they tilt the organisation and generates vicious cycles (Smith and Lewis, 2011) constraining the potential for integration. In the analysis, we discern four different imbalance archetypes where the risk of organisational tilt is high: Myopia, Dogma, Technical Monuments and Detached (Table 3).

Myopia: One of the most pressing issues reported in both companies that constrain the integration of digital technologies in LPS, is the scenario in which production becomes too short-sighted and gets stuck in the day-to-day production routine and becomes protective of the current ways of working, i.e. Myopia. A mechanism enabling Myopia is when the short-term goal of production is over-prioritised and generate an imbalance in the performing paradox, i.e. current goals become prioritised over future goals. A potential consequence of prioritising short-term goals is that this also amplifies tensions and triggers an imbalance of the organising paradox because it affects the resource prioritisation between current operations and the future needs of improvement work and digital technologies. When critical resources are not provided to support the opportunity to absorb new technical solutions into production and as a part of the LPS it could eventually constrain production innovation. The SP manager at Scania describes this as follows:

Production managers have a very good overview of production, but they have very little technology competence. So, it is very difficult for them to really know what to prioritise when it comes to “where should I invest money in a system?

Which will be the absorbing organisation? Also, maybe you need to increase your, you know, employee count or competence early. So, you can absorb it later.

Another mechanism enabling drift towards Myopia is the situation in which production operators are consumed by their daily production routines and do not have the energy to look beyond their day-to-day work to carry out any future oriented improvement work, even though there be small windows of free time. Hence, daily production and disruptions in production affect the focus on integration of digital technologies because the daily disruptions are always prioritised, for instance to secure resource availability. In the case of Volvo CE, the biggest challenge in the implementation of digital Lean boards was to have a group that is working on the implementation every day, not just in one cell but in all cells.

Technical Monuments: A second critical issue is when the intention to integrate digital technologies becomes too technology-dominated, which generates an imbalance referred to as Technical Monuments. Technical Monuments’ was a phrase used by one of the respondents at Scania to describe the situation in which the introduction of new digital technology is imposed on production and, because of competence gaps, restricts the production organisation’s ability to absorb and utilise the principles of LP to improve.

We create a solution, but we can’t, we don’t understand it. Operators can’t use it. This single resource in some faraway part of the organisation is the only person understanding how to programme it. (Operations, Scania)

The drift towards Technical Monuments occurs then as an imbalance of the organising paradox when technical solutions are imposed on production; solutions which are perceived as “good in themselves” by their proponents in the SP-team but which do not necessarily fulfil any need that has been identified by production:

Some people working with new technologies. They want to run too fast. And they don’t understand which problem it is that needs solving. (LPS manager, Scania)

At the same time, there is no “sense of pull” from production or LPS-team because of a competence gap amongst the users (operators) on how to maintain and improve the new machinery. Hence, the absence of proper coordination and alignment amongst stakeholder interests (Pozzi et al., 2023; Mokudai et al., 2021) renders an imbalance of the organising paradoxes, which as a consequence also triggers an imbalance of the belonging paradox as responsibilities changes in production and LPS-team; shifting responsibility for updating and maintaining the technical solution further away from the value adding process, making changes and improvements difficult and time consuming; circumstances which make the new solution inflexible and gradually turns it into a technical monument that suppress LPS-development.

Dogma: A third critical issue, Dogma, arises when the basic assumptions of LP and the LPS become axiomatic and not seen as principles that continuously needs to be adapted and as such becomes dogmatic. In the interviews, respondents describe a situation when LP principles are perceived by their proponents as a normative ideology and that “this is right in itself,” leading to a dogmatic view favouring the application of current ways of adopting Lean principles, which triggers an imbalance of the learning paradox because it suppresses the exploration of future orientations.

Same thing with Lean if you are not open to try technology and you get stuck with Lean as a “tool” not a methodology and you believe there is no other way of doing it. Lean could slow down/block the vision with digital transformation. (LPS manager, Volvo CE)

Furthermore, by overly focussing on the exploitation of current production through continuous improvements and elimination of waste, there is also a risk of missing out opportunities for exploration and disruptive change. In the case of Volvo CE, LPS-coaches can sometimes be focussed on “what and why are we going to change” and as such sometimes question the need for exploration.

We sometimes just try to improve the same type of process to make it better and better, than evaluating a new type of process. (LPS manager, Volvo CE)

The Dogma imbalance resemblances what Mokudai et al. (2021) refers to as the ”Lean trap” in their study of digital technologies as Lean augmentation. The Lean trap unfolds in a situation when production is strongly rooted in a LPS and this tends to make managers and production engineers only view the potential of digital technologies from the perspective of existing LP practices, and in so doing, they then risk being blind to the potentials of new technologies.

Detached: the data also includes indications of situations when senior management is perceived to not share the same pace of learning as the other stakeholders of the LPS-team, SP-team and production and as such becomes Detached. Hence, Detached is partly a consequence of not embracing the learning paradox in the sense that senior management are not up to date in exploring of future opportunities thus generating a competence gap.

If top management are not involved they might miss the company/site-wide benefit offered by a solution, might be problems with expansion, they maybe don’t understand what the team was doing since it was a bottom-up approach. (SP-team, Volvo CE)

When the Smart factory started some years ago, there was an ambition to have, we called it the Smart factory council and it had representatives from different units sitting there, and the idea was that they would help with prioritization of what type of technologies to focus on. One tension there was that they felt like they didn’t have the real competence to answer for like what is more important or not. (LPS manager Scania)

The competence gap might then have spin-off effects because it triggers an imbalance of the performing paradox, as it impacts upon managers' opportunities or abilities to make decisions about new strategic initiatives that are grounded in the organisation.

Today we have a very good model and strategy for digitalisation, but it is not that well known. (LPS manager, Scania)

4.3 Re-contextualising actions as a rebalancing strategy

In the previous two sections we have learnt about the critical organisational paradoxes embraced in the integration of digital technologies in a LPS and the organisational and human forces amplifying tensions and imbalances of organisational paradoxes and disturbing the state of equilibrium. In this section, we address RQ2 and focus on the micro-shifts of corrective actions (Weiser and Laamanen, 2022), what here is conceptualised as re-contextualising, which seeks to rebalance and conjoin the different poles of a paradox and as such cope with the tendencies of internal drift, whilst offering proper coordination and alignment between LP and SP activities (Pozzi et al., 2023; Mokudai et al., 2021). Based on the data of what contributes to acceptance and embracement of the identified paradoxes and other resolution measures taken in the companies to restore balance and drive change and transformation of manufacturing operations, four types of re-contextualising actions and strategies are identified: Empowering, Patching, Pacing and Leveraging (Table 3).

Empowering: learning paradoxical thinking. To avoid competence gaps within critical domains – such as digital technologies – and the risk of drift from the learning paradox into Dogma or Detached, there are in both companies several initiatives and support structures for empowering through continuous learning and competence development to enable managers, production engineers and operators to acquire new critical knowledge, e.g. digital capabilities. Confirming the findings of previous research (Dieste et al., 2022; Smith and Beretta, 2021), both companies emphasise the importance of investments in continuous learning as a key factor for ensuring that staff in production can re-contextualise and manage the complex interdependencies simultaneously and thus manage ambiguities so that they can make decisions for themselves and in the long run increase the possibilities of the pull effect of new technology to rebalance the organising paradox of pull vs. push. Therefore, empowering people is key to paradoxical thinking (Xiao et al., 2019).

Patching: connecting and converging knowledge elements. The SP-teams have toned down the “push” of new technology and instead emphasise the importance of demonstrating the potential of the digital technology. The shift is a re-contextualising through connecting and converging, i.e. patching, different knowledge perspectives, finding a fit between them. Patching can then be described as a rebalancing strategy for all four organisational paradoxes using different LP-practices (Johansson et al., 2022). One example from Scania is where personnel developed and tested a checklist to ensure that different knowledge perspectives and interests are taken into consideration when testing new digital technologies. Another example of activities supporting patching is seconding people between business units so that they gain experience from different parts of the organisation and better understand different stakeholders, e.g. production staff with different specialist functions working within the SP-team. As such, patching is also conducive to generating a sense of ownership and relatedness during integration work by building trust-based relationships across the organisations.

Pacing: synchronising time horizons. The different pace of changes and new initiatives initiated by the SP-team (long-term), continuous improvements in production (short-term) and the pace of day-to-day production also leads to tensions which act on other activities in the organisation. Thus, initiatives taken in one part of the organisation creates tensions due to the difference of time perspectives which at worst results in Myopia or Technical Monuments. Pacing becomes critical in re-contextualising and synchronising time perception between different stakeholders. Hence, by synchronising different time perceptions the nexus of current and future production needs and digital technology affordances can be identified and the receiver side of a new digital technology may alter the perception from a “sense of push” into a “sense of pull” through having new digital technologies available “just-in-time” to meet the needs being experienced.

Leveraging: utilising divergence for exploration. The importance of adopting new ideas in response to a changing context is a key factor in leveraging. By understanding the system, looking ahead and actively exploring new solution options, appears to be a promising approach when addressing the learning paradox of exploitation vs. exploration (cf. Secchi and Camuffo, 2019). In leveraging, the companies make use of tensions and the divergence in the organisation as a driver of exploration, which ironically, is partly the same as driving the imbalances of Dogma and Technical Monuments. However, by continuously highlighting tensions, the divergence in the organisation is explicated, which can then be used to re-contextualise and leverage transformation processes. Hence, leveraging is about managing the learning paradox of exploitation vs. exploration as transforming mechanism (March, 1991).