Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore how organizations manage and integrate exploration and exploitation across the innovation project portfolio. Such ambidextrous capabilities are required for organizations to innovate and succeed in today's rapidly changing competitive environment. Understanding how exploration and exploitation projects are integrated can illustrate ways to enhance ambidexterity and boost learning for the benefit of both approaches.

A multiple-case study approach was used to explore innovation portfolio management in six large organizations that emphasize innovation in their strategies.

The findings draw upon concepts of paradox and contingency to reveal that the inherent tension between formality and flexibility in managing innovation project portfolios is aligned with the need for organizational ambidexterity that maintains effective exploitative innovation while supporting explorative innovation capabilities. Four integration mechanisms are identified that enhance ambidexterity across the innovation portfolio by embedding processes for transition from exploration to exploitation and cross-fertilizing knowledge to build innovation capability across both exploration and exploitation.

Managers may find inspiration on ways to enhance learning by bridging exploration and exploitation projects from the four types of integration mechanisms. Recognizing the paradoxical nature of the tension between formality and flexibility in project and portfolio management may also help guide organizations to effectively develop ambidextrous approaches to enhance overall innovation outcomes.

In contrast to perspectives which suggest that paradox and contingency approaches represent disparate perspectives, the authors demonstrate how they can complement each other and work together through innovation portfolio management to support ambidexterity at the portfolio and project levels.

The purpose of this study is to explore the agile project management (APM) approach through the contextual ambidextrous lens by overcoming the traditional perspective that separates projects within the opposite planned-exploitation- and emergent-exploration-oriented forms.

This study uses a grounded approach to five different agile-oriented companies for discovering how agile adoption shows both emergent (exploration-oriented) and planned (exploitation-oriented) tensions in a perspective that connects, rather than separates, them.

This study discovers five main categories, namely, approach, objectives, boundaries, leadership and feedback, that capture the tensions between planned and emergent issues of agile projects. The identified variables interact with different intervening conditions of the APM attributes (i.e. road map, product backlog, team backlog and solution delivery), activating different response actions (“exploitation embedded in exploration” and vice-versa), requiring, as a consequence, the need for contextual ambidexterity.

This study identifies different implications based on real project contexts, as the importance of a more complete picture of the APM approach, which also considers the combination of planned and emergent aspects of projects and, as consequence, the needs for dual capacities (T-shaped skills) both at project management and team levels.

This study identifies, in real project contexts, the relevance of integration between the corporate level and the agile project team. This implies the search for constant dialogue, with feedback exchange spread across all levels, also enabled by an integrated leadership approach.

This study highlights agile tensions in a real-world project context by describing how APM connects both explorative and exploitative aspects of change within the same APM initiative, in order to manage such tensions, which differs from previous studies that consider APM in alternation with a linear project management approach as stage-gate.

This study aims to investigate how contractual vs. informal governance influences the performance of collaborative innovation projects considering their exploitation vs. exploration character.

Data are collected from a sample of 218 companies that have developed innovative projects in collaboration with other organizations. Regression models are estimated to test the hypotheses.

The results indicate that contractual governance is the most effective for co-exploitation projects compared to informal governance. Specialization in either contractual or informal governance is more effective for co-exploration projects.

Developing collaborative innovation projects with other organizations is an alternative for firms to innovate either by exploiting complementary assets or by exploring new opportunities. Thus, the success of the collaborative innovation project is significantly affected by the way the collaboration is governed. On the one hand, for co-exploitation projects, companies should rely on contracts to improve their performance. On the other hand, for co-exploration projects, governance may specialize in either contracts or informal mechanisms to reach higher performance.

Despite previous studies analyzing the effect of contractual or informal governance on the performance of collaborative innovation projects, no research has focused on comparing simultaneously these effects, by using the innovation character of the project of co-exploitation or co-exploration as a moderator. Therefore, this paper explores comparatively the most effective type of governance mechanism for co-exploitation and co-exploration projects.

Prior studies highlight the importance of building ambidextrous capabilities to achieve both exploitation of current knowledge and technologies to make profits today, and exploration of new knowledge and technologies to adapt to and prepare for tomorrow’s demands. In spite of its theoretical and practical importance, research on organizational ambidexterity in project-based organizations is scarce. Thus, the purpose of the paper is to study how ambidexterity may be managed and how exploration and exploitation may be achieved in construction projects. The research identifies some drivers and barriers to exploration and exploitation and also sheds light on how various management approaches interact and affect exploration and exploitation activities.

The empirical material is drawn from 40 semi-structured interviews with managers representing the client, the contractor and the designer involved in each of the seven large construction projects in the sample.

In contrast to prior literature in high-tech industries where exploitation focuses on continuous development, exploitation in construction projects often involves adopting conventional methods and solutions based on existing knowledge without any development efforts at all. This may enhance short-term efficiency and lower risk at the project level but increase risk at the firm level. Tight time schedules hinder both radical innovations and incremental developments, and the findings also reveal that to invest in efforts on explorative solutions, it must be possible to exploit the solutions in the same project.

In this empirical context, the traditional structural and sequential ambidexterity solutions are not sufficient. In construction projects, contextual ambidexterity solutions in which key project actors collaborate in developing systemic innovations and fine-tuning solutions across projects are more effective.

Sufficient project size and/or long-term contracts over a series of projects enhance both investments in explorative activities and exploitation through continuous developments from project to project. In design–bid–build contracts, the client and consultant often miss opportunities to explore new technical solutions that rely on contractor competencies. Early procurement of contractors (e.g. in collaborative design–build contracts) thereby enables the achievement of both exploration and exploitation.

This study provides important input to the authors’ understanding of how exploration and exploitation may be managed in project-based industries, which has been scarcely studied in previous ambidexterity literature.

The purpose of this study is to investigate how procurement strategies may be designed to facilitate exploration and exploitation in construction projects.

This paper is based on a literature review of organizational research and construction management literature together with a brief interview study of Swedish clients and contractors.

The theoretical and empirical findings propose that small and simple projects with low uncertainty and scarce resources may focus on exploitation to enhance short-term efficiency through traditional procurement strategies including delivery systems that separate the actors and their activities (i.e. pure design-build- or design-bid-build-contracts), fixed price payment and price focus in bid evaluation. Large complex projects with high uncertainty and customization benefit from combining exploration and exploitation to enhance sustainable performance. This requires collaborative procurement strategies including joint specification through early contractor involvement, cost reimbursement coupled with incentive-based payment, bid evaluation based on multiple criteria and collaborative tools and activities in partnering arrangements.

This paper contributes to organizational learning literature by pinpointing the need for integrating procurement strategies that enhance combination of exploration and exploitation. The main contribution to the construction management literature involves the investigation of how procurement strategies may affect exploration and exploitation, as identified and articulated in the propositions developed in this paper.

From a practical perspective, the findings highlight the importance of tailoring procurement strategies to project characteristics to enhance a suitable balance between exploration and exploitation in construction projects.

The explicit focus on the operational project-level is uncommon but relevant in organizational learning literature.

In one of his most cited works, March (1991) observed that “The basic problem confronting an organization is to engage in sufficient exploitation to ensure its current viability and, at the same time, devote enough energy to exploration to exploration to ensure its future viability” (p. 105). The need to simultaneously pursue exploration and exploitation is a cornerstone of organizational ambidexterity, with the embedded assumption that exploratory ventures require organic management systems and exploitative activities benefit from more mechanistic management systems. The authors argue that this assumption about system alignment is neither well-supported by empirical evidence nor well-grounded in March’s original ideas about exploration and exploitation. The authors review the existing empirical evidence on the management systems that support exploration and exploitation and reveal some of the empirical and conceptual challenges. The authors then share a quasi-experimental study of 49 project teams over an 18-month period where they investigated how components of the management system – formalization, specialization, hierarchy, and leadership – differentially affect project success for explore and exploit projects. The authors find that exploitation projects can succeed under either mechanistic or organic systems, but that exploratory project performance suffers under a mechanistic system. In addition, the authors also find that leadership is the most important determinant of project success or failure. The authors discuss the implications of these results for future studies of organizational ambidexterity and draw attention to some of the underdeveloped ideas in March’s original article that might further advance the field.

Ambidexterity has been shown to contribute to project performance. Recent studies of ambidexterity on the project level focus on multilevel knowledge resources, individual actions and structural ambidexterity. However, the role of project management methods remains unclear. This is surprising because project management methods are broadly disseminated as standards. The purpose of this paper is to theorize how project management methods affect ambidexterity on the project level.

It is demonstrated how routine theory adds to a better theoretical conceptualization and understanding of project management methods. The analysis of this paper contains, first, the reconstruction of the contribution of each action in “Scrum” to either exploitation or exploration and, second, the discussion of roles in Scrum. To conclude, a “big picture” of what ambidexterity in projects can look like is developed.

The main findings suggest that Scrum facilitates sequential and contextual ambidexterity by producing a pattern of alternating exploitation and exploration actions and by assigning specific roles.

For practitioners this leads to steps they can take to enhance ambidexterity in projects. It is suggested to staff explicitly ambidexterity-related roles like a Scrum Master and to persist on explorative actions like adaption of project goals and Customer Feedback.

First, the present paper contributes an analysis of the underlying micro-mechanisms of sequential and contextual ambidexterity in projects. Second, it informs practitioners on what aspects of project management methods they should pay attention to.

Low labor costs and market access are no longer competitive differentiators; increasingly companies are looking to design and develop new products and services as a crucial source of competitive advantage. As the pressure to innovate increases, so does the tension between shorter-term exploitative development and longer-term exploratory innovation activities. We explore this tension using interview data from software SMEs and venture capitalist firms who invest in technology-driven companies. Findings indicate that, despite firm’s having established solid innovation plans, short-term exploitative demands crowd out their longer-term exploration innovation during the development phase. Agency and resource dependence theories are used to start to explore some of the reasons for this shift. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

There is a widespread agreement in the managerial literature that projects produce much more than what they deliver. However, most of the literature focuses on what project delivers (new products, processes, services …). This can be misleading, especially for highly innovative projects for which neither the goals, nor the means to reach them, are clearly defined at the beginning. Thus, contemporary research argues for a model in which project management is, first and foremost, a way to organize the exploration process. The question becomes the definition of a framework to evaluate the project results (success or failures). The purpose of this paper is to study this question by bridging project management and design literature. Indeed research on design processes propose tools that could help managers to better understand what has been delivered and learned during the exploration journey. The paper relies on the Manhattan case to illustrate the fruitfulness of this approach.

The paper opted for an exploratory study using an historical case study: the Manhattan project. The author was able to draw on a large amount of historical material which has not yet been used to study the management of exploration projects. The paper focuses on a specific set of events likely to reveal the problems raised by the evaluation of exploration projects. Given the information available, it was considered that the point of “theoretical saturation”, which Glaser and Strauss proposed as the criterion to stop collecting data, had been attained.

The paper shows how recent development in design theory may provide a fruitful theoretical framework to develop a new evaluation framework to assess the results of exploratory projects in terms of both products designed and knowledge developed.

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to explore this question further.

The paper includes implications for the development of new evaluation tools for exploratory projects.

The question of project evaluation is of the greatest importance to enhance the management of exploration processes. The paper's bridging of design theory and project management constitutes an original approach.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how a company reaches organizational ambidexterity during a merger process. Organizational ambidexterity refers to the proactive adaptations of an organization to simultaneously explore and exploit.

The paper presents a longitudinal case study of a public-private merger of two listed French companies. The data were collected from participant observation, interviews and archival documentation over two years.

The balance between autonomy and control by the parent companies evolves during the post-merger integration. The findings reveal that there was no concordance between the oscillations between autonomy and control on the part of the parent companies and the new organization’s exploration/exploitation strategies. However, the progressive evolution of control and autonomy from the parent companies engendered organizational ambidexterity during the third phase integration.

The study adds insight into how organizations can develop ways to manage organizational ambidexterity dynamics by employing temporal mechanisms, referring to an organization’s shifting sequentially between exploration and exploitation. The case highlights how temporal switching between exploration and exploitation occurs to ultimately enable ambidexterity.

Although organizational ambidexterity is recognized as a key element for post-merger integration, how it is achieved over the course of the merger process has received little attention. The study highlights that in the case of public-private mergers, the parent companies influence exploration and/or exploitation strategies. The paper adds insights on whether exploration and exploitation can be differentiated over time and whether exploration and exploitation can be reconciled at the same time.