1
Organizational ambidexterity: using project portfolio management to support project-level
ambidexterity
Yacoub Petro (email: Yacoub.Petro@stantec.com)
Stantec UK Limited, United Arab Emirates
Udechukwu Ojiako (email: udechukwu.ojiako@outlook.com)
College of Engineering, University of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
Hull University Business School, University of Hull, United Kingdom
UNIZIK Business School, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Nigeria
Terry Williams (email: terry.williams@hull.ac.uk)
Hull University Business School, University of Hull, United Kingdom
Alasdair Marshall (email: a.marshall@soton.ac.uk)
Southampton Business School, University of Southampton, United Kingdom
2
Abstract
The aim of this study is to assess the ability of project portfolio management practices to support the
pursuit of ambidexterity at the project level through engagement with specific dimensions and
mechanisms. The focus is on examining the operating/business model and challenges that are imposed
on the firms, but deemed resolvable through the simultaneous pursuit of multiple projects emphasising
contradictory strategic goals. Data are obtained from multiple exploratory interviews of senior executives
involved in project-level activities who were drawn from twelve case organisations in the Middle East.
The study finds evidence of four forms of ambidexterity dimensions and mechanisms. Analysis
undertaken against operating/business model and challenges of these dimensions and mechanisms of
ambidexterity suggests that they are not only inter-related, but do so at various organisational levels.
Keywords: Organizational ambidexterity, Ambidexterity mechanisms; Projects, Portfolio management
1. Introduction
1.1 Projects in operations
The literature suggests that projects represents critical drivers for operationalizing the visions of
organisations (Ojiako et al. 2015; Maylor et al. 2018). Due to their ephemeral nature (see Turner et al.
2015; Prado and Sapsed 2016), the mutuality of its interdependent processes (Turner and Lee-Kelley
2013) and temporal switching ability (Liu and Leitner 2012; Kortmann et al. 2014), projects serve as the
ideal conduit for managing distinct routines that encompass operations (Hayes 2002).
Extensive research has been undertaken within the strategic management (Wassmer et al., 2017)
and project management discipline (Kornfeld and Kara 2011; Martinsuo 2013) examining to what extent
organisations may be better off pursuing single as against a multiple number of project initiatives and
whether organisations have the competency simultaneously to pursue multiple projects that emphasise
contradictory strategic goals (Wassmer et al. 2017). Studies appear to suggest that most organisations
rarely undertake to deliver single projects (Eriksson 2013). In fact, there is acknowledgement in the
literature that while there are considerable advantages for organisations to direct their resources
delivering single project initiatives, doing so could lead at a certain tipping point to declining returns. To
counter the potential for such an occurrence, most organisations introduce and manage simultaneously,
a continuous range of multiple concurrent projects in the form of ‘portfolios’. Managing a project
portfolio requires a broad perspective of projects that departs from construing each project as an
independent entity. In a portfolio, while each project is independent, collectively, they are interdependent
3
(connected to other projects via resource sharing), thus makes a contribution (however discrete) to the
viability of the entire portfolio (Verma et al. 2011).
1.2 The project portfolio imperative
Organisations conceive portfolios as “…a group of projects that are carried out under the sponsorship
and/or management of a particular organization” (Archer and Ghasemzadeh 1999, p. 208). Herein,
portfolios serve as a means of sharing resources among multiple concurrent projects which are perhaps
smaller than would justify the dedication of specific ring-fenced resources (Verma and Sinha 2002;
Kopmann et al. 2017). Portfolios provide organisations with the opportunity to enable different projects
simultaneously access critical resources that reside within the boundaries of other projects. This allows
for process efficiencies to be attained. By pursuing multiple projects at the same time, organisations can
also ensure that risk are widely spread (Wassmer et al. 2017). Furthermore, project portfolios can provide
learning benefits as organisations develop their experience base gleaned from the different projects.
Although project portfolios accord organisations a number of advantages, portfolios are
associated with a number of unintentional negative consequences. One such consequence is the increase
in the demands for information processing and greater costs of coordination due to stakeholder
heterogeneity (Ojiako et al. 2015a). Key project stakeholders within organisations may express different
preferences for individual projects within their portfolio given limited resources. Project stakeholders
with a preference for predictability, high task certainty and who are risk averse may support projects
which are designed within the realm of pre-existing organisational competencies (Chipulu et al. 2019).
These projects are by implication more likely to involve standard practice (articulated in policy and other
methodology-based documentation – see Verma et al. 2011). On the other hand, project stakeholders
who are more inclined to opportunity seeking and who are neither risk averse nor concerned about high
task uncertainty may seek to stretch or innovate on current competencies and by implication explore new
ideas.
In order to reduce information processing and coordination costs associated with project portfolio
management (henceforth ‘PPM’), organisations can among various approaches seeks to seamlessly
balance or re-negotiate the various tensions experienced within these portfolios. When an organisation
over-invests in exploitative as against explorative projects, they are likely to enjoy success from
exploiting existing competencies, but in the face of major changes in technology, such success is unlikely
to sustain strategic competitiveness as those competencies become outdated and begin to represent the
core rigidities of tomorrow (see Leonard‐Barton 1992). At the same, when an organisation over-invests
4
in exploitative projects, it will begin to encounter significant costs due to its engagement with constant
search activities (Cao et al. 2009). According to Piao and Zajac (2016), being engaged in repetitive
exploitative initiatives by an organisation is only likely to degrade its ability to develop explorative
capabilities and in the process proactively engage with dynamic changes to their business environment.
Such organisations will also likely experience “success trap” if emphasis is predominantly on for
example projects (portfolios) that emphasise the exploitation of existing initiatives (Levinthal and March
1993, p.106). On the other hand, where there is predominant emphasis on exploring new (strategic)
initiatives, “failure traps” becomes more of a reality (Levinthal and March 1993, p.105). Herein, an
organizations ability to simultaneously manage different projects (with different objectives and a host of
other imperatives such as stakeholder interests) within a portfolio will be driven by a number of core
capabilities – one being ambidexterity (Fernhaber and Patel 2012).
1.3 Ambidexterity
As a maturing research concept and theoretical prism, ambidexterity, which involves “….the ability to
simultaneously pursue both incremental and discontinuous innovation and change…” (Tushman and
O'Reilly 1996, p. 24). Ambidexterity is increasingly attracting the attention 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). As a theoretical prism,
ambidexterity is not only one of the theories that is currently being extended into project management
from operations management (Maylor et al. 2018), but it has also been utilised as a prism to explore a
number of project management concepts including for example complexity. For example, Turner et al.
(2018) claims that instead of a traditional view of complexity as a construct to be either reduced or
resolved, an ambidextrous perspective will imply the concurrent “accommodation” and “minimisation”
of complexity. Ambidexterity is a lens that recently has increasingly begun to be used within Production
Planning & Control (see for example, Esposito de Falco et al 2017; Love et al 2018). The interest among
scholars on ambidexterity appears driven by its versatile and pervasive nature and application to various
disciplines (Birkinshaw and Gupta 2013; Turner et al. 2013a).
1.4 Ambidexterity and PPM
From our understanding of the literature, PPM is critical to successfully achieving ambidexterity. In fact,
as both Eriksson (2013) and Sinha (2016) has emphasised, the conflict and/or tensions associated with
5
ambidexterity can be addressed by adopting PPM. Here, PPM can help manage not only the interfaces
and interdependencies that arise between projects pooled within the same portfolio, but the contradictions
associated in managing projects with different and contradictory expectations. Since the argument goes
that organisations that are able to simultaneously pursue multiplicity are more likely to exhibit superior
performance (Fernhaber and Patel, 2012), it is reasonable to posit that PPM is able through its role in
simultaneousity to enhance organisational ambidexterity and by implication, organisational performance.
We argue therefore that PPM complements a number of benefits of ambidexterity. Thus, an organisation
with a substantially level of PPM competency will be able to not only effectively manage concurrent
projects, but also be able to manage existing projects while developing newer ones, even ones with
conflicting project goals and strategic objectives.
It then follows that project portfolios may be a crucial means of achieving firm ambidexterity
(Bresciani et al. 2017; Wassmer et al. 2017). This occurs because through alliances, organisations gain
access to networks outside their firm boundaries and are able to draw upon through their external alliance
partners, new resources that are able to complement resources which already exist internally (Bresciani
et al. 2017; Wassmer et al. 2017). In addition, through alliance partners, organisations are able to for
example choose to focus their efforts on exploration and value creation while delegating/shifting less
value creating activities (exploitation) to their alliance partners. Thus, Bresciani et al. (2017) claims that
alliances are an important means by which organisations release internal resources from the dual
challenge of simultaneous exploration and exploitation – in effect, contradictory expectations. The point
which must however be noted from alliance literature (for example, Tiwana 2008), is that while PPM
may create an opportunity for managing ambidexterity, optimised PPM cannot discount the need for
effective management of individual projects (Gerwin and Ferris 2004). In fact, Tiwana (2008) opines,
“…the successful accomplishment of novel projects requires the heterogeneity of capabilities and
expertise provided by bridging ties among alliance partners” (p. 251). Not only are projects utilised to
drive value in most businesses, but also it is at the project level (due to its transient, ephemeral and
atypical nature) as against the portfolio level that the visions of organisations are operationalized and
ambidexterity is likely to be best actualised (Turner and Lee-Kelley 2013; Petro et al. 2018).
1.5 The research question
Mindful of scholarship calling for increased empirical studies in operations (Choi et al. 2016) and project
management (Geraldi and Söderlund 2018), project management is a discipline which is oriented towards
practical application (Cicmil et al. 2006; Blomquist et al. 2010). Cicmil et al. (2006) for example
