Multilevel analysis of ambidexterity and tagging of specialised projects in project-based information technology firms
TL;DR: The study extends the concept of ambidexterity to the “within” project level and finds it relevant at the lowest level in the project-based structure.
Abstract: Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the expression of ambidexterity at the “between” projects level as well as the “within” project level in project-based information technology firms (PBITF). The research also provides a framework for the classification of specialised projects. This classification is essential to clarify the level of attention the project will receive with respect to the appropriation of resources and the requisite management bandwidth. Design/methodology/approach This paper draws on a nine-month long field-based qualitative study and ensures a rigorous triangulation of the findings through an analysis of archival data and actual project artefacts. Findings The authors bring forth three critical implications for practice. First, strategizing ambidexterity at the level of “between” projects and “within” projects is heavily dependent on the interaction among distributed actors and partners. Second, routines and actions to deal with manpower constraints are completely different at these two levels. Lastly, the classification framework of specialised projects proposed here should enable firms to appropriately apportion resources to engagements that are strategic in nature. Originality/value The study extends the concept of ambidexterity to the “within” project level and finds it relevant at the lowest level in the project-based structure. Also, the framework for the classification of specialised projects that is provided will assist decision makers in PBIT firms to decide the organisational response to such projects.
...read more
Citations
12 citations
Cites background or result from "Multilevel analysis of ambidexterit..."
...This point is reiterated in his later works (see Turner et al. 2013a; Turner et al. 2016a) and the works of Liu et al. (2012) and Sohani and Singh (2017) who assert that while there is substantial research is available on organisation-level ambidexterity, insight on project-level ambidexterity is…...
[...]
...From our understanding of the literature, PPM is critical to successfully achieving ambidexterity....
[...]
...2013a, 2013b, 2014, 2015, 2016a,b; 2018) and the wider operations management discipline (Kortmann et al. 2014; Sohani and Singh 2017)....
[...]
...Sohani and Singh (2017) examined the processes and routines utilised to operationalise ambidexterity finding amongst others that the nature of the interaction among various individual actors across different functional units (including at the level of the portfolio) of the organisation played a…...
[...]
...…of scholars in the field of project management (Aubry and Lièvre 2010; Leybourne and Sainter 2012; Eriksson 2013; Turner and Lee-Kelley 2013; Turner et al. 2013a, 2013b, 2014, 2015, 2016a,b; 2018) and the wider operations management discipline (Kortmann et al. 2014; Sohani and Singh 2017)....
[...]
7 citations
Cites background from "Multilevel analysis of ambidexterit..."
...Instead of starting with the existing constructs and their interlinkages, we began with an area of investigation and allowed constructs and their interrelationships to emerge there from (Sohani and Singh, 2017; Strauss and Juliet, 1990)....
[...]
5 citations
2 citations
2 citations
References
31,901 citations
31,251 citations
31,112 citations
21,330 citations
14,959 citations