PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL

1 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2021.1909168
59
2 60
3 61
4 62
5 The impact of project portfolio management practices on the relationship 63
6 64
7 between organizational ambidexterity and project performance success 65
8 66
a,b,c
9 Q13 Udechukwu Ojiako , Yacoub Petrod, Alasdair Marshalle and Terry Williamsb 67
10 a
College of Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE; bHull University Business School, University of Hull, Hull, UK; cUNIZIK Business 68
11 School, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria; dStantec, Waterloo, Canada; eSouthampton Business School, University of Southampton, 69
12 Southampton, UK 70
13 71
14 72
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY
15 73

LY
Some studies suggest that organizational ambidexterity is best orchestrated through individual proj- Received 2 December 2019
16 ects. However, stand-alone individual projects are relatively limited in scope, while suffering from sus- Accepted 23 March 2021 74
17 ceptibilities to horizontal and vertical segmentation. This may render them poorly suited to serve as 75
KEYWORDS
18 conduits for organizational ambidexterity. By contrast, organizations which deliver projects in port-
Organizational ambidexter-
76
19 folios, often in order to maximize resource utilization, may discern that these also provide better con- ity; project portfolio 77
duits for organizational ambidexterity. This study examines not only the extent to which project
20 management (PPM); 78
portfolio management (PPM) practices impact orchestrations of organizational ambidexterity, but also projects; project
21 79

N
whether these orchestrated PPM practices impact further lead to superior project performance. Data performance
22 were collected from one hundred and sixty PPM stakeholders spread across eight countries in the 80
23 Middle East November 2016 to January 2017. The study finds portfolios performance to be strongly 81
24 and highly correlated with organizational ambidexterity. Furthermore, the more organizations exhib- 82
25
26
27
28
29
trous capabilities.
O
ited efficient project-portfolio-management practice, the more they were found to develop ambidex-
83
84
85
86
87
F
30 1. Introduction and contradictory constructs and related practices at issue 88
31 (Tushman and O’Reilly 1996; O’Reilly and Tushman 2011; 89
1.1. Context
32 Luger, Raisch, and Schimmer 2018; Martin, Keller, and 90
O

33 Academic scholarship has traditionally suggested that in glo- Fortwengel 2019). These differences mean that finding 91
34 balized operations, independent ‘stand-alone’ projects are appropriate organizational conduits for organizational ambi- 92
35 key to orchestrating the strategic visions of the parent dexterity is critical. Often individual projects are viewed as 93
36 organizations (Chipulu et al. 2016; Kopmann et al. 2017; able to provide such conduits (Eriksson 2013; Turner and 94
O

37 Maylor et al. 2018; Midler, Maniak, and de Campigneulles Lee-Kelley 2013; Turner, Maylor, and Swart 2015; Petro et al. 95
38 2019). This view recognizes that projects involve non-routine, 2019). As our literature review will explain, a number of 96
39 ad-hoc and one-off decisions. These decisions may be further descriptive and normative perspectives underlie this view 97
40 laden with potentially helpful ‘paradoxes’, ‘contradictions’ 98
PR

(e.g. commonplace views of individual projects as seamlessly

41 and ‘dualities’ that have traditionally spoken to perceived engaged in continuous iteration and adjustment). 99
42 Contrary perspectives express concern that individual 100
needs for trade-offs between competing strategic expecta-
43 101
tions and positions (Roscoe and Blome 2019). Generally, projects are susceptible to high fragmentation, and so they
44 102
‘Organisational ambidexterity’ is an approach that organiza- look to alternative forms of project orchestration for organ-
45 103
tions can follow in order to accommodate spontaneous and izational ambidexterity. One particular form, sometimes pre-
46 104
dynamic tensions arising between management practices by ferred, involves combined use of projects and programmes
47 105
simultaneously engaging in contradictory explorative and (Pellegrinelli, Murray-Webster, and Turner 2015). Midler,
48 106
49 exploitative behaviour (Tushman and O’Reilly 1996; O’Reilly Maniak, and de Campigneulles (2019) prefer programmes 107
50 Q2 and Tushman 2011). over projects. In this context, drawing from both Stal-Le 108
51 Cardinal and Marle (2006, 226) and Pellegrinelli (2011, 236), 109
52 we define a ‘project’ as a ‘ … temporary, but deliberate mani- 110
1.2. The problem setting
53 festation of an intent to utilise structured techniques and 111
54 It is commonly accepted that orchestrations of ambidexterity approaches to efficiently deliver tangible deliverables’. More 112
55 are challenging because of the distinct structural and compe- specifically, the management of programmes is concerned 113
56 tency requirements required to support the multiple distinct with projects that maintain similar objectives and resources. 114
57 115
58 CONTACT Udechukwu Ojiako udechukwu.ojiako@outlook.com College of Engineering, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates; Hull 116
Q1 University Business School, University of Hull, Hull, UK; UNIZIK Business School, Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, Nigeria
ß 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 2 U. OJIAKO ET AL.

117 Programmes also encompass projects that share dependen- (iii) Project performance (project success); one secondary out- 175
118 cies. They also generally tend to be commissioned for a spe- come of exploring such territory will be our extension of the 176
119 cific client, with benefit accrual emanating from projects above project-focussed ambidexterity literatures. 177
120 which are jointly managed (Sohani and Singh 2017). 178
121 However, the present research concurs with the view that 179
project ‘portfolios’ serve as a much more effective and effi- 1.4. Structure of the article
122 180
123 cient platform for coordination between projects (Teller et al. The next section (Section 2) gives an overview of the rele- 181
124 2012; Martinsuo 2013; Patanakul 2015; Kopmann et al. 2017; vant literature in organizational ambidexterity. This commen- 182
125 Petro 2017; Petro et al. 2020). In particular, this is because ces with a review of relevant concepts. We also examine 183
126 ‘portfolios’ which each deal with the ‘ … coordination and PPM literature, and the relationship between PPM and organ- 184
127 Q3 control of multiple projects’ (Martinson 2013, 794), may izational ambidexterity. In Section 3, we present the research 185
128 involve multiple projects pursuing sometimes different and methodology, which is based on data obtained between 186
129 contradictory strategic goals. Thus, in ensuring that diverse November 2016 and January 2017 from 160 practitioners. It 187
130 priorities are balanced (including the effective and efficient is explained that the questionnaire was improvised from 188
131 utilization of scarce project resources- see Kock et al. 2020), organizational scale measures developed earlier by Lubatkin 189

LY
132 project portfolio management (PPM) serves as an ideal plat- et al. (2006). In Section 4, we report the results of the data 190
133 form for the management of organizational ambidexterity analysis, which was undertaken using IBM SPSS Statistics soft- 191
134 (see Pellegrinelli, Murray-Webster, and Turner 2015; Bresciani, ware version 22. Discussions of implications from findings are 192
135 Ferraris, and Del Giudice 2018). One important consideration presented in Section 5. The article concludes in Section 6 by 193
136 driving preferences for portfolios as against programmes in attesting to the importance of the portfolio approach while 194
137 195

N
order to orchestrate organizational ambidexterity is that calling attention to its advantages with some critical
138 organizations do not generally practice ‘single project man- reservations. 196
139 agement’ (Martinsuo and Lehtonen 2007; Go €ro
€g 2011). 197
140 Rather, instead of commissioning and implementing single 198
141
142
143
144
145
‘stand-alone’ projects (Eriksson 2013), organizations typically
tend to commission, implement and manage projects in
portfolios (groups) of concurrent and interdependent proj-
ects (Archer and Ghasemzadeh 1999).
O 2. Organizational ambidexterity
2.1. What is organizational ambidexterity?
At its very basic form, ‘organisational ambidexterity’ is a con-
cept that seeks to explain the competencies and capabilities
199
200
201
202
203
F
146 which organizations need to develop and maintain in order 204
147 1.3. The research aim and question 205
to successfully engage in the simultaneous co-existence,
148 This research therefore sets out to examine the extent to trade-off and switching between ‘exploration of new possibil- 206
O

149 which PPM practices impact orchestrations of organizational ities’ and ‘exploitation of old certainties’ (March 1991; 207
150 ambidexterity, and whether these PPM practices further Tushman and O’Reilly 1996; O’Reilly and Tushman 2011). 208
151 impact the abilities of organizations to channel their ambi- ‘Organisational ambidexterity’ refers to an organization’s abil- 209
152 dextrous capabilities towards superior project performance. ity to ‘ … simultaneously (i.e., concurrently) pursue both 210
O

153 At the crux of our enquiry is whether ‘Project portfolio man- incremental and discontinuous innovation and change … ’ 211
154 agement’ enables/increases the effect of ‘Organisational (Tushman and O’Reilly 1996, 24). Two relevant terms of 212
155 ambidexterity’ on ‘Project performance successes’. We there- action are important here. First, the ‘exploration of new pos- 213
156 214
PR

fore present our research question as: sibilities’ focuses on search and discovery actions (March
157 1991). This construct is both strategic and experimental in 215
158 RQ: To what extent do Project Portfolio Management (PPM) 216
practices impact upon the orchestration of ambidexterity, and do character, being focussed on ‘distant’ knowledge (Petro et al.
159 these practices impact upon an organization’s ability to channel 2019, 2020). Second, the ‘exploitation of old certainties’ 217
160 its ambidextrous capabilities towards superior project focuses on deriving advantage from current and evolved 218
161 performance? 219
management initiatives and other practices, not only recog-
162 220
This research question is framed for consistency with the nizing but also actively regulating and cultivating the organ-
163 221
practice of ‘gap spotting’ in the formulation of research izational efficiencies and internal organizational consistencies
164 222
questions (see Sandberg and Alvesson 2011; H€allgren 2012). with which these activities are associated (March 1991).
165 223
Notably, the gap which our research question addresses Exploitation is therefore more tactical than strategic in char-
166 224
appears to exist despite literature asserting that PPM is opti- acter, being associated with ‘near’ knowledge that is more
167 225
mal for managing and actualizing projects/programmes likely to emerge from existing management information
168 226
(Pellegrinelli, Murray-Webster, and Turner 2015), and other (Petro et al. 2020).
169 227
literature which has primarily focussed on understanding the Generally, organizational ambidexterity literature assumes
170 228
challenges that organizations face which may be resolvable tensions not just between management practices in general,
171 229
through PPM (Petro et al. 2020). Recognizing that such but more specifically, and thinking more reflexively here, it
172 230
research is obliquely related to our own, we explore territory also considers tensions associated with trade-offs which
173 231
(Handfield and Melnyk 1998, 324) in the interplay between organizational ambidexterity effort generates itself. In effect,
174 232
(i) Organizational PPM, (ii) Organizational ambidexterity and it assumes such tensions will be greater where there is more
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 3

233 organizational capacity to engage in the necessary structural ‘exploration’ construct of ambidexterity, within this frame, 291
234 separation effort (Simsek 2009). negatively impacted project outcomes, while the 292
235 The literature posits that exploration and exploitation ‘exploitation’ construct exerted positive impact. In summary, 293
236 require different but complementary organizational struc- then, the relationship between organizational ambidexterity 294
237 tures and designs. For example, exploration generally thrives and project-related performance suggests that stronger man- 295
238 under decentralized structures while exploitation requires ifestations of ambidexterity (i.e. ambidextrous capabilities) in 296
239 more centralization. The literature also posits that organiza- individual project management is likely to lead to stronger 297
240 tions simultaneously pursuing and switching between explor- project performance (Jansen, Simsek, and Cao 2012; Cegarra- 298
241 ation and exploitation will outperform those that do not, as Navarro, Jime nez-Jimenez, and Garcia-Perez 2019; Dezi 299
242 they develop complementary competencies (Luger, Raisch, et al. 2019). 300
243 and Schimmer 2018; Wolf et al. 2019). This view of Reservations expressed, concerning preferences for indi- 301
244 ‘complementary’ suggests that an organization’s ability to vidual projects as conduits for organizational ambidexterity, 302
245 pursue exploration is more likely to be successful when include the following. Projects are increasingly complex, par- 303
246 undertaken in the presence of a simultaneous pursuit of ticularly by reliance on distributed and networked teams. 304
247 exploitation and vice versa (Levinthal and March 1993). This can lead to high levels of both horizontal and vertical 305

LY
248 fragmentation (Fellows and Liu 2012; Alashwal and Fong 306
249 2015). Here, while horizontal fragmentation implies that proj- 307
250
2.2. Projects as conduits for organizational ects increasingly involve multiple and heterogeneous special- 308
251 ambidexterity ist-functional actors, vertical fragmentation recognizes 309
252 Three reasons predominate within literature, for regarding project delivery processes as disruptively phase-managed by 310
253 311

N
individual projects as the most appropriate conduit for actors drawn from multiple levels of organizational hierar-
254 organizational ambidexterity. First, operational routines can chies. Reasons given for high internal fragmentation include 312
255 be implemented and managed (Hayes 2009). Second, project heterogeneous stakeholder objectives (Chipulu et al. 2019), 313
256 management as a discipline is very familiar with demands diverse cultural perspectives on projects (Chipulu et al. 2014, 314
257
258
259
260
261
of formalized project management methods: Milosevic and
Patanakul 2005) against the need to create the space for
unanticipated challenges (Gross 2014; Klein, Biesenthal, and
O
associated with balancing the need for certainty (via the use

Dehlin 2015). Individual project structures also allow for easy

2016; Ojiako and Chipulu 2014; Ojiako, Chipulu, et al. 2015,
Ojiako, Papadopoulos, et al. 2015), functional and role spe-
cialization (Ojiako et al. 2014) and preference for projects to
be monitored and controlled within distinct stage or phase
boundaries (Parvan, Rahmandad, and Haghani 2015).
315
316
317
318
319
F
262 switching of project resources between ‘exploitation’ and Sometimes such fragmentation has led to projects being 320
263 ‘exploration’ activities. Third, management of individual proj- characterized by not only poor flow of information, know- 321
264 ects can readily oversee continuous adjustments without ledge and learning, but also limited sharing of resources. 322
O

265 major disruptions to team structures, particularly since proj- This has led to calls for more inter-project coordination (‘No 323
266 ects are inherently ephemeral (So €derlund 2013; Tryggestad, project is an island’, Engwall 2003, 789) recognizing that proj- 324
267 Justesen, and Mouritsen 2013) and temporal (So €derlund ects are increasingly interdependent with other projects and 325
268 2013). Furthermore, most project teams are organized are likely to enhance their performance by leveraging this 326
O

269 for delivering one-off tasks with pre-designated (usually) interdependence. Accordingly, in the next section we con- 327
270 completion dates. They are also structured amorphously sider the project portfolio perspective. 328
271 329
(Scott-Young and Samson 2009), allowing for flexible self-
272 330
PR

organizing (Manning 2017) and also for professionals to be

273 2.3. Portfolios as an alternative conduit for 331
rotated in and out of the project for designated tasks (Riis
274 organizational ambidexterity 332
and Pedersen 2003) with minimal disruption (Scott-Young
275 333
and Samson 2009). Furthermore, project teams are usually Unlike programmes which are interested in projects that
276 334
subjected to flexible role-balancing between ‘reserved legit- maintain similar objectives and resources, PPM is more
277 335
imacy’, which comes with appointment to their role, and focussed on maintaining a centralized perspective of its con-
278 336
‘status hierarchy’, which comes from participation within pro- stituent projects. The primary aim, here, is to ensure that
279 337
ject governance (Clegg and Courpasson 2004). there is limited or no competition among specific projects
280 338
The extent to which individual projects facilitate individual for resources (Sohani and Singh 2017). Through portfolios,
281 339
manager adjustment is therefore also key. Lee, DeLone, and organizations can provide platforms for resource sharing
282 340
Espinosa (2006) found software development project manag- between projects, leveraging not only information, know-
283 341
ers engaging in ambidextrous coping strategies. Aubry and ledge and learning, but also competencies and resource
284 342
Lievre (2010) examined the experience of duality associated expertise from partner projects (Hoang and Rothaermel 2010;
285 343
with varying action modes over project lifecycles. Lin and Jansen, Simsek, and Cao 2012; Stettner and Lavie 2014;
286 344
McDonough (2011) found a correlation between project lead- Wassmer, Li, and Madhok 2017). In effect, portfolios serve as
287 345
ership and innovation ambidexterity. Hoang and Rothaermel boundary-spanning platforms that facilitate bridging of
288 346
(2010) looked at organizations (at the strategic and opera- sometimes highly diverse projects (Montibeller et al. 2009;
289 347
tions level) and their managerial participation in different alli- Kornfeld and Kara 2011). Portfolios can also provide some
290 348
ances and external partnerships, suggesting that the level of predictable institutional regulatory and cultural
 4 U. OJIAKO ET AL.

349 context for managing and coordinating resources across effect, then, project portfolios with individual projects that 407
350 projects, and they can further be used to optimize risk own- are more able to forge relationships with other projects out- 408
351 ership distributions. Using portfolios in this way, an organiza- side the same portfolio, and which therefore become con- 409
352 tion can increase the performance of individual projects nected to other projects with varying skills, expertise and 410
353 within the portfolio. competencies, are more able to generate new ideas. 411
354 Portfolios vary by type (see Bresciani, Ferraris, and Del Nonetheless, they are arguably very often less able to suc- 412
355 Giudice 2018; Luger, Raisch, and Schimmer 2018; Wolf et al. cessfully implement these initiatives. Hence, our first hypoth- 413
356 2019). One type is where constituent individual projects are esis considers that the performance PPM practices impact 414
357 relatively dis-similar, perhaps lacking overall networked upon the orchestration of ambidexterity. 415
358 coordination. This type may be more suitable in circumstan-
H1a. Portfolio performance is correlated with the orchestration of
416
359 ces where the organization is particularly interested in organizational ambidexterity 417
360 ‘explorative’ operations strategies (and individual supporting 418
361 projects). In such portfolios, there is likely to be a focus on 419
362 ‘upstream’ projects requiring new knowledge creation. 2.4. Organizational ambidexterity and superior project 420
363 Examples include New Product Development (NPD) projects. performance 421

LY
364 Conversely, an organization that is more interested in 422
365 ‘exploitative’ operations strategies may focus its attention on The literature opines that organizations engaged in explor- 423
366 portfolios comprising projects which are either part of the ation-focussed projects are likely to end up in endless ‘search 424
367 same coordinating network(s) or which are in varying ways and innovation’ that remains underexploited (Junni et al. 425
368 homophilic with each other. Here, the emphasis is likely to 2015; Petro et al. 2019) unless they develop strategic capabil- 426
369 be on collaborating for ‘downstream’ endeavours. Examples ities that are ‘rare’ and ‘inimitable’ (Barney 1991, 1996, 2001; 427

N
370 include projects focussed on product commercialization. Barney, Wright, and Ketchen 2001). Moreover, investing or 428
371 A number of salient factors discussed in alliance theory promoting projects focussed primarily or solely on explor- 429
372 provide insight into the ambidextrous capabilities of port- ation is an inherently risky strategy. This is because advan- 430
373
374
375
376
377
2014; Wassmer, Li, and Madhok 2017; Degener, Maurer, and O
folios (Teller et al. 2012; Sun and Lo 2014; Stettner and Lavie

Bort 2018). These factors include portfolio maturity and coor-

dinating experience. Portfolio maturity and co-ordinating
experience involve particular aligning mechanistic tenden-
tages to be gleaned from such projects can take years to be
realized, if at all (Lubatkin et al. 2006). In fact, organizations
investing or promoting projects predominantly focussed on
exploitation may become increasingly less willing and able
to search for new opportunities; hence, their existing skill
431
432
433
434
435
F
378 cies. As portfolios become more mature and their constituent base may become obsolete (Levinthal and March 1993). 436
379 projects become embedded within their information and Focussing equally on exploration and exploitation, on the 437
380 knowledge networks, and also more reliant on complemen- other hand, is likely to place an organization in a position 438
O

381 tary resources, they become more likely to emphasize where it both enshrines its current core competencies and 439
382 exploitation. Similarly, portfolios with substantial coordinat- becomes willing and able to search for and develop future 440
383 ing experience (and associated mature/efficient mechanisms) capabilities. 441
384 are more likely to focus towards downstream endeavours, Generally, the high rate of uncertainty associated with 442
O

385 thus also preferring exploitation. project environments raises questions relating to how port- 443
386 The use of portfolios serves to mitigate against the chal- folios perform (as ambidexterity conduits) in terms of effect- 444
387 lenges of dual pulls experienced by single projects seeking iveness and efficiency (see Lin, Yang, and Demirkan 2007). 445
388 446
PR

to pursue contradictory strategic objectives. In this vein, pro- Here, we have drawn upon the earlier works of Neely,
389 ject portfolios are likely to serve as better conduits of ambi- Gregory, and Platts (1995, p. 80) to define ‘performance’ as 447
390 dexterity in that they represent a more appropriate platform ‘ … the effectiveness and/or efficiency of action’. From this 448
391 literature, ‘effectiveness’ refers to the degree to which a pro- 449
to deal with the tensions that arise from exploration and
392 ject meets stakeholder specifications and expectations, while 450
exploitation. This is because portfolios allow for the facilita-
393 ‘efficiency’ refers to resources deployed to meet stakeholder 451
tion of permeability across project boundaries, thus leverag-
394 452
ing more varied competencies for ambidextrous specifications and expectations. Drawing from Cooke-Davies
395 453
management practice. It must be noted, drawing from (2002; p. 188), project performance, thus conceived, further
396 454
Tiwana (2008), that while project portfolios are associated predicts project success.
397 455
with various ambidexterity-related and project performance Drawing from the literature, it is widely proposed that
398 456
benefits, these can be mediated by the ties (relationships) when organizations simultaneously engage in both explor-
399 457
between the participating projects. Thus, projects exhibiting ation and exploitation, they are likely to outperform organi-
400 458
strong inter (homogeneous) portfolio relationships may be zations that emphasize just one of these (Jansen, Simsek,
401 459
much better able to implement exploitative initiatives, while and Cao 2012; Junni et al. 2013; O’Reilly and Tushman 2011;
402 460
at the same time being less able to develop these initiatives. Hughes 2018; Luger, Raisch, and Schimmer 2018). Thus, the
403 461
Conversely, projects within the same portfolios which exhibit literature acknowledges that ambidextrous competencies can
404 462
strong heterogeneous portfolio relationships are arguably enhance performance across all levels of an organization
405 463
very often less likely able to implement exploitative initia- (Junni et al. 2013). This same view is shared in project man-
406 464
tives, while being more likely to develop these initiatives. In agement literature where scholars have found that the
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 5

465 existence of ambidextrous capabilities within project teams section focussed on perceived ambidexterity (see the follow- 523
466 significantly contributes to project performance (De Visser ing section). The fifth (final) section of the questionnaire 524
467 et al. 2010; Liu and Leitner 2012; Turner, Maylor, and Swart focussed on perceived synergies and collaboration between 525
468 2015). More often than not, co-dependency between the projects (within a portfolio). 526
469 iterative clarification of objectives, continuous management 527
470 review and continuous striving towards more efficient cycles 528
3.3. Scale measures for ambidexterity
471 of feedback, will lead to a key competency whereby the pro- 529
472 ject is better able to avoid various process and learning traps As with Lubatkin et al. (2006) study, the 12 ambidexterity 530
473 that threaten project performance (Chandrasekaran, items used for the present research were measured by a 5- 531
474 Linderman, and Schroeder 2012). Sohani and Singh (2017) point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (‘strongly disagree’) to 5 532
475 note that ambidexterity plays a critical role in achieving pro- (‘strongly agree’). The scale measures for ‘exploration’ and 533
476 ject success. Hence, our second hypothesis considers that an ‘exploitation’ employed in this study are shown in Appendix 534
477 organization’s ability to channel its ambidextrous capabilities Table A1 (adapted from Lubatkin et al. 2006), which was 535
478 will drive superior project performance. based on earlier measures developed by He and Wong 536
479 H2a. Ambidexterity is correlated with superior project (2004)). The original He and Wong (2004) scale measured 537

LY
480 performance. views concerning how well organizations shift their product 538
481 design attention and resources between explorative and 539
482 exploitative objectives. The Lubatkin et al. (2006) scale was 540
483 3. The study innovative by employing twelve items balanced evenly 541
484 between ‘exploration’ and ‘exploitation’. These two con- 542
485 3.1. The study and hypotheses 543

N
structs were included as distinct, but not separate, within
486 We wish to examine the relationship between PPM, organiza- one unitary measure designed to recognize their comple- 544
487 tional ambidexterity and (individual) project performance mentary contributions to organizational ambidexterity. This 545
488 success. Study of the literature aligned to our own experi- ‘additive’ measurement approach has also since been fol- 546
489
490
491
492
493
ence indicates possible relationships, but clearly a quantita-
tive study was needed. We, therefore, undertook a survey
relating these three areas together. While this raises the pos-
sibility of Common Methods bias (Podsakoff et al. 2003), it
O lowed by other scholars (see Jansen, Simsek, and Cao 2012,
Jansen et al. 2009; Yu, Patterson, and de Ruyter 2013).
As the questionnaire (Appendix B) shows, we made the
following changes to the original Lubatkin et al. (2006) scale
547
548
549
550
551
does nonetheless provide an initial study of these measures. First, on the grounds that project performance
F
494 relationships. 552
success criteria have traditionally involved independent
495 553
measures of time, cost and quality (e.g. Atkinson 1999;
496 554
Ojiako, Johansen, and Greenwood 2008; Chipulu et al. 2019),
O

497 3.2. Description of the survey instrument 555

we separated quality and cost (item 7 of Lubatkin et al.). We
498 556
For the study, we employed a questionnaire (Appendix B) also dropped item 12 of Lubatkin et al.’s exploitation meas-
499 557
consisting of five sections structured as follows. The first sec- ure on grounds of its irrelevance to our study. We made no
500 558
O

tion (questions 1–5) focussed on respondent demographics, changes to Lubatkin et al.’s exploration items.
501 559
while the second section tapped evaluations of overall
502 560
organizational success relative to competitor organizations.
503 3.4. Hypotheses 561
The third section focussed on more specific evaluations of
504 562
PR

project performance, construing ‘PPM performance’ in simple The hypotheses stated above now become more precisely:
505 563
terms as a combination of ‘PPM effectiveness’ and ‘PPM suc-
506 H1b. Portfolio performance (PPM effectiveness and PPM success) 564
cess’. Here, ‘PPM effectiveness’ denotes the degree to which
507 is correlated with the organizational ambidexterity (using 565
use of PPM is perceived to meet stakeholder specifications
508 Lubatikin’s measure). 566
or expectations (see Neely, Gregory, and Platts 1995). On the
509 H2b. Organizational ambidexterity (using Lubatikin’s measure) is 567
other hand, our ‘PPM success’ construct denotes perceptions
510 correlated with project-management success (schedule/budget/ 568
that the intended goals of every project within the portfolio
511 quality/satisfaction). 569
were actually delivered (see Chipulu et al. 2019, p. 1074).
512 570
PPM effectiveness comprises: (i) ‘Future preparedness’
513 571
(Meskendahl 2010; Petro and Gardiner 2015), (ii) ‘Strategic fit’
514 3.5. Administration of the survey instrument 572
(Jonas 2010; Petro and Gardiner 2015), (iii) ‘Project portfolio
515 573
balance’ (Jonas 2010; Petro and Gardiner 2015) and (iv) The survey instrument (in English) was administered online
516 574
‘Synergies/collaboration’ between business units (Jonas to respondents predominantly based in the Middle East.
517 575
2010). While ‘Future preparedness’, ‘Strategic fit’ and Each of the researchers approached practitioners within their
518 576
‘Synergies/collaboration’ employed three measures of assess- individual networks on the basis of likely relevant (current or
519 577
ment, ‘Project portfolio balance’ employed five measures. very recent) experience. As Chipulu et al. (2014) noted,
578
520
521 Four measures were used for ‘PPM success’ (schedule, although arguably a form of non-probability sampling tech-
579
budget, quality and customer satisfaction). These associations nique, this means of identifying survey respondents is gener-
522 580
are diagrammatically represented in Figure 1. The fourth ally employed in research settings such as this study, where
 6 U. OJIAKO ET AL.

581 639
Future preparedness
582 640
583 641
584 Strategic fit 642
585 643
586 Project porolio balance
644
587 645
588 646
589 Synergies/collaboraon 647
590 PPM 648
591 Effecveness 649
PPM Performance

592 650
593 651
594 652
595 653

LY
596 Schedule 654
597 655
598 656
PPM Success Budget
599 657
600 658
601 659

N
Quality
602 660
603 661
604 Customer sasfacon 662
605
606
607
608
609
Figure 1. Influence relationships.

there is no comprehensive frame for sampling respondents

O Table 1. Factor analysis for ‘PPM effectiveness’. Q10
663
664
665
666
667
deemed to possess the appropriate experience from which
F
610 Factors 668
relevant information, knowledge and learning can be
611 Items 1 2 3 4 669
gleaned. Data collection was undertaken between November
612 Future preparedness 1 0.706 670
2016 and January 2017. Of the 248 returned responses, we
O

613 Future preparedness 2 0.806 671

discarded 88 responses because they were either (i) incom- Future preparedness 3 0.522
614 Strategic fit 1 0.775 672
plete or (ii) there were key critical items relating to ambidex-
615 Strategic fit 2 0.746 673
terity which were not answered. This left 160
616 Strategic fit 3 0.596 674
O

usable responses. Portfolio balance 1 0.376

617 Portfolio balance 2 0.163 675
618 Portfolio balance 3 0.614 676
619 3.6. Brief descriptive overview of demographics
Portfolio balance 4 0.778 677
Portfolio balance 5 0.792
620 678
PR

Synergies 1 0.627
621 The overall industry distribution of the respondents suggests Synergies 2 0.786 679
622 a combination of Construction (25.6%), Engineering (16.2%), Synergies 3 0.879 680
623 Allied consultancy (9.4%) and Manufacturing (10%), amount- 681
624 ing to 61.2% of the total respondents. About 41.9% of the Factor analysis was carried out on the selected variables 682
625 respondents worked for organizations with more than 300 in order to establish the three central constructs comprising 683
626 employees, 26.9% worked for organizations employing the research model: ‘PPM effectiveness’, ‘Ambidexterity’ and 684
627 between 75 and 300 staff. More than 65% of the respond- ‘Project performance’. An exploratory factor analysis (CFA) 685
628 ents (107 respondents) were drawn from senior to top man- was conducted using the factor reduction function in IBM 686
629 agement levels of their organizations. SPSS Statistics software version 22. To test the factor loadings 687
630 per construct, a Varimax rotation with a minimum of 25 iter- 688
631 ations was used. In summary, the four variables used to 689
4. Analysis
632 describe PPM effectiveness (‘future preparedness’, ‘strategic 690
633 4.1. Factor analysis fit’, ‘project portfolio balance’, and ‘synergies/collaboration’) 691
634 loaded successfully on the four different factors, as shown in 692
The survey data were analysed using a combination of
635 Table 1. A few items, as shown, were now dropped for not 693
approaches including (i) Factor, (ii) Correlation and (iii)
636 contributing. 694
Regression analysis. Adopting an approach similar to that of
637 The two variables for ambidexterity (‘Exploration’ and 695
638 Chipulu et al. (2014), we opted to test both hypotheses 696
‘Exploitation’) loaded successfully, with their 12 items loading
simultaneously.
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 7

697 on two corresponding factor domains in line with expect- The relationship of ambidexterity with both was first of all 755
698 ation. This is shown in Table 2. A few items designed to tap tested, thereafter testing mediation with project performance 756
699 ambidexterity were, however, jettisoned due to their rela- separately due to its greater involvement with ambidexterity. 757
700 tively poor contributions. The two variables (‘Performance’ All factors were then tested for reliability and internal con- 758
701 and ‘Success’) used to describe project performance and suc- sistency. These tests used all items that had loaded success- 759
702 cess also loaded successfully on two different factors as fully into their relevant factors by Cronbach Alpha (Nunnally 760
703 shown in Table 3. All items for this construct loaded success- 1978). In taking this decision it was noted that while 761
704 fully and were retained. Cronbach’s alpha has traditionally been used for this purpose, 762
705 composite reliability tests are becoming more popular; none- 763
706 theless, according to Peterson and Kim (2013) influential 764
707 Table 2. Factor analysis for ‘Ambidexterity’. study, the differences are ‘relatively inconsequential’. The test 765
Q11
708 Factors showed all factors to be reliable. Almost all alphas were 0.7 766
709 and above, as Table 4 shows. 767
Items 1 2
710 Although the ‘PPM performance’ items loaded successfully 768
Exploration 1 0.849
711 on two separate factors, its two constituent factors, 769

LY
Exploration 2 0.817
712 Exploration 3 0.846 ‘Performance’ and ‘Success’ exhibited reliabilities below 0.7. 770
713 Exploration 4 0.768 The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy 771
Exploration 5 0.593
714 Exploration 6 0.499 was carried out to ascertain the appropriateness of using fac- 772
715 Exploitation 1 0.444 tor analysis and to further confirm the reliability of those 773
716 Exploitation 2 0.858
measures selected for field investigations (Kaiser 1970). This 774
Exploitation 3 0.445
717 775

N
Exploitation 4 0.436 measure represents the ratio between variables’ squared cor-
718 Exploitation 5 0.622 relation and their squared partial correlation. A KMO value 776
719 Exploitation 6 0.582
closer to 0 represents a diversion between those variables, 777
720 and hence, factor analysis may not be appropriate for test- 778
721
722
723
724
725
Table 3. Factor analysis for ‘PPM performance and success’.

Items 1
Factors
O 2
ing. Good KMO results are those with a value that is higher
than 0.7 (Hutcheson and Sofroniou 1999). KMO was meas-
ured using SPSS and presented in Table 5, along with the Q4
reliability results.
779
780
781
782
783
Project portfolio performance 1 0.737
F
726 Project portfolio performance 2 0.821 784
727 Project portfolio performance 3 0.854 4.2. Correlation analysis 785
728 Project portfolio performance 4 0.758 786
Project portfolio success 1 0.748
O

729 A correlation analysis for factors constituting the research 787

Project portfolio success 2 0.647
730 Project portfolio success 3 0.780
model was carried out using the bivariate Pearson correlation 788
731 Project portfolio success 4 0.834 test (Table 6). Too enable this, a data normality test was con- 789
732 ducted using two methods. First, normality was checked 790
O

733 791
734 Q12 Table 4. Reliability test and KMO results for all factors. 792
735 Factor Number of items Items reduced to Cronbach alpha KMO 793
736 Project portfolio performance 4 NA 0.829 0.750 794
PR

Average project portfolio’ success 4 NA 0.779 0.747

737 Future preparedness 3 NA 0.754 0.677 795
738 Strategic fit 3 NA 0.757 0.693 796
739 Portfolio balance 5 3 0.715 0.712 797
Use of synergies 3 NA 0.757 0.657
740 Exploration 6 5 0.885 0.864 798
741 Exploitation 6 3 0.850 0.852 799
742 Global factor: PPM performance and success 2 NA 0.620
0.500
800
Global factor: PPM effectiveness 4 NA 0.791 0.860
743 Global factor: Ambidexterity 2 NA 0.861 0.912 801
744
Due to lack of reliability combined with a low KMO measure, constituent items were looked at separately in the further analysis. 802
745 803
746 Table 5. Results of regression analysis for small and medium enterprises only. 804
747 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 805
748 Dependent variable Dependent variable Dependent variable Dependent variable 806
749 Variable Performance Ambidexterity Performance Performance 807
750 (b) Ambidexterity 0.525

0.445
808
PPM effectiveness 0.674

0.480
0.545
751 R2 0.276 0.454 0.231 0.284 809
752 Adjusted R2 0.254 0.438 0.208 0.239 810
753 ANOVA F 12.559

28.283

10.186
6.347
811
VIF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.774 for all
754
Significance <0.05 level;

Significance <0.01 level; VIF: variance inflation factor.
812
 8 U. OJIAKO ET AL.

813 visually by inspecting the graphs and figures generated 871

1.000
11
814 through the descriptive analysis. A normal bell curve was 872

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

–
–

–
815 detected for almost all the variables. This was slightly skewed 873
816 to the right-hand side, indicating some participant optimism 874

0.778


817 in responding to the field questionnaire. Second, the 875
10
818 Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistical non-parametric test was car- 876
–
–
–
–
–
–
–

–
–

–
819 ried out to confirm the visual findings for normality. A two- 877
820 tailed correlation test was therefore performed to capture all 878

0.710


0.641


821 possibilities of correlation. 879
9

822 The outcome of our study showed support moderately 880

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

–
–
823 strong and highly significant (r¼ þ0.501 at sig ¼ 0.01) for the 881
824 relationship between ambidexterity and project performance, 882
825 and moderately strong and highly significant (r¼ þ0.593 at 883
0.599


0.724


826 0.930

sig ¼ 0.01) for the relationship between ambidexterity and 884
8
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–

827 PPM success. 885

LY
828 Ambidexterity was found highly correlated with the com- 886
829 bined/clustered global factor ‘Performance’ and ‘Success’ at 887
0.603


0.736


0.947


0.763

Bold italic font represents a check for collinearity – that is, a correlation that exceeds 0.8 may trigger a case of collinearity (similar items) as per Field (2009).
830 r¼ þ0.641 and sig ¼ 0.01 also. Moreover, taking exploration 888
7

831 and exploitation factors separately, these correlated with the 889
Correlation with row number

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

832 factors for project performance and project success, both sep- 890
833 arately and clustered. ‘PPM effectiveness’ was found highly 891

N
0.549


0.555


0.498


0.737


0.586

834 correlated with ambidexterity at r¼ þ0.778 with sig ¼ 0.01, 892

6

835 suggesting that the more an organization or its business units 893
–
–
–
–
–
–

836 exhibit an effective application of its PPM practices (measured 894

837
O
through its ‘PPM effectiveness’), the higher the level of ambi- 895
0.350


0.512


0.510


0.593


0.728


0.545

838 dexterity, which contributes to the explanation of H1b 896

5

839 (Portfolio performance being PPM effectiveness and PPM suc- 897
–
–
–
–
–

840 cess together). In particular, the model showed ‘PPM effective- 898
841 ness’ highly and strongly correlated with ‘Performance’ at 899
F
842 900
0.821


0.490


0.454


0.516


0.561


0.497

0.571

r¼ þ0.539, average projects ‘success’ at r¼ þ0.687, and the

843 901
4

cluster of ‘Performance’ and ‘Success’ at r¼ þ0.710.

–
–
–
–

844 As a number of factors were significantly and highly inter- 902

O

845 correlated within the model, a check for collinearity was 903
846 necessary prior to moving on to regression analysis. 904
0.847


0.635


0.476


0.497


0.691


0.619


0.625

0.699

847 905
3

Correlation values of 0.8 were taken as the threshold for col-

848 906
–
–
–

linearity (Field 2009). Collinearity here refers to the close

O

849 907
Bold font refers to relationships directly related to the quantitative research model.

dependence, and the exhibition of ‘non-independence’, of

850 the predictor variables (Dormann et al. 2013). This may occur, 908
0.687


0.593


0.840


0.575


0.530


0.577


0.468


0.535


0.580

851 for example, upon measuring two very similar variables. For 909
2

852 instance, one could be the ‘age’ of a respondent and another 910
PR –
–

853 could be their ‘year of birth’. Collinearity, in such cases, can 911
Bivariate correlation analysis using the Pearson correlation method.

854 912
easily inflate regression values (Dormann et al. 2013).
855 913
0.539


0.501


0.450


0.498


0.333


0.444


0.391


0.494


0.447

The correlation model shows ‘Exploration’, ‘Exploitation’

0.863
1.000
1

856 914
and ‘Ambidexterity’ as highly correlated. This, however, has


Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

857 915
already been assumed from widespread literature, reviewed
858 916
earlier, which identified ‘Exploration’ and ‘Exploitation’ as the
859 917
Average project portfolio success

two ambidexterity constructs. The same applies for the other

860 918
PPM performance and success
Project portfolio performance

constructs ‘PPM effectiveness’, ‘PPM performance’ and ‘PPM

861 919
success’. However, since their correlation was close to 0.8,
862 920
our study was particularly interested in the relationship
Future preparedness

863 921
PPM effectiveness

between ‘PPM effectiveness’ and ‘Ambidexterity’.

Table 6. Correlation analysis.

Portfolio balance
Use of synergies

864 922
Ambidexterity

Collinearity between those factors was checked using the

865 923
Exploitation
Strategic fit

Exploration

Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) measure (Field 2009). This

866 924
measure shows whether a variable or a predictor has a
867 925
strong linear relationship with the other variables(s) or pre-
868 926
dictor(s). It is based on Myers (1990) (see also Dormann et al.
869 927
2013), who suggests that VIF values above 10.0 may be
870 928
Row

10
11

problematic. However, it is worth noting that the guide for

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 9

929 Table 7. Results of regression analysis for organizations. 987

930 Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 988
Dependent variable Dependent variable Dependent variable Dependent variable
931 Performance Ambidexterity Performance Performance 989
932 a. Results of regression analysis for organizations with 0–20 employees. 990
933 (b) 991
934 Ambidexterity 0.326 0.069 992
PPM effectiveness 0.687
0.556 0.604
935 R2 0.106 0.472 0.309 0.312 993
936 Adjusted R2 0.017 0.406 0.223 0.115 994
937 ANOVA F 1.186 7.157
3.583 1.586 995
VIF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.895 for all
938 b. Results of regression analysis for organizations with 20–75 employees 996
939 0.525

0.445
997
940 (b) 998
Ambidexterity 0.674

0.480
0.545
941 PPM effectiveness 999
942 R2 0.276 0.454 0.231 0.284 1000
943 Adjusted R2 0.254 0.438 0.208 0.239 1001
12.559

28.283

10.186
6.347

LY
ANOVA F
944 VIF 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.774 for all 1002
945 c. Results of regression analysis for organizations with 75–150 employees. 1003
946 (b) 1004
Ambidexterity 0.584
0.016
947 PPM effectiveness 0.827

0.700

0.687
1005
948 R2 0.341 0.684 0.490 0.490 1006
949 Adjusted R2 0.308 0.668 0.466 0.437 1007

N
ANOVA F 10.361
43.288

20.163

9.140

950 VIF 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.164 for all 1008
951 d. Results of regression analysis for organizations with 150–300 employees 1009
952 (b) 1010
953
954
955
956
957
Ambidexterity
PPM effectiveness
R 2

Adjusted R2
ANOVA F
VIF
0.146

0.021
0.033
0.392
1.000
O 0.588

0.345
0.307
8.964

1.000
e. Results of regression analysis for organizations with 300 and more employees
0.207
0.043
0.013
0.764
1.000
0.143
0.124
0.056
0.062
0.478
1.527 for all
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
F
958 (b) 1016
Ambidexterity 0.544

0.205
959 PPM effectiveness 0.820

0.582

0.413
1017
960 R2 0.296 0.672 0.339 0.352 1018
O

961 Adjusted R2 0.285 0.667 0.328 0.331 1019

ANOVA F 26.465

128.962

33.277

16.830


962 VIF 1.000 1.000 1.000 3.047 for all 1020
963
Significance <0.05 level;

Significance <0.01 level. 1021
964 1022
O

965 1023
966 1024
967 IBM SPSS Statistics software version 22 (IBM SPSS Statistics, capabilities significantly contribute to the performance of 1025
968 Armonk, NY) suggests that any value above 2.0 is of concern. projects (H2b), but also that PPM capabilities do moderate 1026
PR

969 Based on this, several scenarios for the two constructs and the relationship between organizational ambidexterity and 1027
970 their constituent variables were performed. The VIF for all PPM success. Our findings thus support earlier literature 1028
971 variables can be seen in Table 7 to be less than 2.0, indicat- suggesting that more ambidextrous capabilities will lead to 1029
972 ing that collinearity or multi-collinearity was not an issue. higher levels of business and operational performance. As 1030
973 shown in Table 5, the coefficient b (i.e. the slope of the 1031
974 regressed line) for ambidexterity in Model 1 was positive 1032
975 4.3. Regression analysis and test for mediation 1033
and highly significant (b ¼0.525 at sig < 0.01), therefore, sup-
976 The previous section presented a correlation analysis porting this finding. Our proposition that the more an 1034
977 between all the model variables. This section takes the ana- organization or its business units exhibit an effective appli- 1035
978 lysis one step further using the Ordinary Least Square (OLS) 1036
cation of PPM practice (measured by PPM effectiveness), the
979 regression method. OLS regression tends to be used to pre- 1037
higher the level of ambidexterity (as presented in Model 2),
980 1038
dict the behaviour of relationships and how they could act is supported by the highly significant positive b coefficient
981 1039
in future events (Field 2009). Regression was carried out to (b ¼ 0.674 at sig < 0.01) (H1b).
982 1040
explore whether PPM practices mediate the relationship To further explore whether PPM mediates the relationship
983 1041
between ambidexterity and an organization’s performance between ambidexterity and an organization’s performance,
984 1042
(Table 7). three steps were followed. First, we established that the
985 1043
In effect, our findings confirmed the general hypothesis independent variable (i.e. ‘PPM effectiveness’) influences the
986 1044
that not only does the existence of ambidextrous mediator (i.e. ‘Ambidexterity’). This was established and
 10 U. OJIAKO ET AL.

1045 supported in Model 2, where b ¼0.674 at sig < 0.01. Second, platform, each project maintains consistent and 1103
1046 we established that the independent variable (‘PPM effective- focussed processes. 1104
1047 ness’) influences the dependent variable (performance). This 1105
1048 was established in Model 3 at b i0.480 and sig < 0.05, as 5.2. PPM’s ability to drive project performance through 1106
1049 shown in Table 5. In the last step, the challenge was to dem- enhanced ambidextrous capabilities 1107
1050 onstrate that the mediator (ambidexterity) influences the 1108
As relates to the second part of the research question (Do
1051 dependent variable (performance) with the independent vari- 1109
PPM practices impact upon an organization’s ability to channel
1052 able (‘PPM effectiveness’) controlled. If, in this last step, the 1110
its ambidextrous capabilities towards superior project perform-
1053 effect of PPM effectiveness on performance is found to be 1111
ance?), we found that greater (both effective and efficient)
1054 no longer significant when the mediator ‘ambidexterity’ is in 1112
use and application of PPM practices led to enhanced
1055 the model, then full mediation can be indicated – depending 1113
orchestration of higher levels of ambidexterity (further entail-
1056 on how significant the model was. 1114
ing that the more an organization would be able to channel
1057 Recognizing the above, and as shown in Model 4 (Table 1115
ambidextrous capabilities towards positive project perform-
1058 10) , a multiple regression analysis was performed using the 1116
Q5 ance). The literature suggests that project portfolios which
1059 two variables as independent variables – ‘PPM effectiveness’ 1117

LY
1060 ensure tight resource-based, contextual and structural syner- 1118
and ‘Ambidexterity’. The b coefficient for ambidexterity was gies between their individual constituent projects are,
1061 found to be positive and significant at b ¼ 0.445 and 1119
1062 because of their improved process and practices integration 1120
sig < 0.05. The VIF for all variables in the four models was and complementarity (see Sun and Lo 2014), better able to
1063 measured and found to be less than 2.0, indicating that collin- 1121
1064 develop expertise for delivering overall PPM effectiveness 1122
earity or multi-collinearity did not exist in these models, entail- (Tiwana 2008). This suggests that an ‘exploitative’ perspective
1065 1123

N
ing their results are acceptable (Myers 1990; Field 2009). of PPM may outperform ‘explorative’ perspectives. The
1066 1124
1067 underlying explanation, here, is that an organization’s PPM 1125
5. Discussions expertise may become more efficient and effective with
1068 1126
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
The study set out to explore to what extent PPM practices
impact orchestrations of ambidexterity, and whether these
practices further impact the abilities of organizations to
O
channel their ambidextrous capabilities towards superior pro-
ject performance. Generally speaking, these relationships
iterative use for the same PPM delivery processes. In sug-
gesting this, Bierly and Daly (2007) noted that despite its
relatively low optimal level, exploitation, compared to explor-
ation, tends to be the stronger performance driver.
Furthermore, we also reflect critically on our general find-
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
F
1074 ing that ambidextrous competencies and capabilities may 1132
were found to exist. However, our findings do also bring to
1075 increase the performance of an individual operating entity. 1133
the fore a number of discussion points which we theorize
1076 This may happen, Cao, Gedajlovic, and Zhang (2009) con- 1134
below in the light of concepts drawn from organizational
O

1077 tend, because at the core of ambidexterity is the capability 1135

ambidexterity theory.
1078 developed by an operating entity to innovate while retaining 1136
1079 long developed efficiency competencies. There is, however, a 1137
5.1. PPM practices and the successful orchestration of weakness to this argument. The weakness stems from our
1080 1138
organizational ambidexterity
O

1081 recognition that in seeking to increase performance, projects 1139

1082 As relates to the first part of the research question (To what may draw on complementary benefits from being part of a 1140
1083 extent do PPM practices impact upon the orchestration of portfolio, in that they are able to draw upon and develop 1141
1084 ambidexterity?), we found higher levels of organizational expertise which is either outside their pre-existing project 1142
PR

1085 ambidexterity strongly and highly correlated with higher lev- boundary, or more specifically, outside pre-existing portfolio 1143
1086 els of PPM performance (PPM effectiveness and PPM suc- boundaries (as in the case of organizational participants in 1144
1087 cess). Also pertinent here is literature espousing strong ties strategic alliances). Under such circumstances, project per- 1145
1088 between collaborating projects within a portfolio and formance (assessed as PPM effectiveness and PPM success) 1146
1089 enhanced ambidexterity (Tiwana 2008). On this view, will depend on how well projects balance resource con- 1147
1090 ‘portfolios’, because of their boundary-spanning leveraging
straints against the ability to draw on complementary 1148
1091 competencies, are more able to cater for those inconsistent
strengths from outside traditional portfolio networks. This is 1149
1092 routines that are a hallmark of organizational ambidexterity
because during intense competition within internal environ- 1150
1093 (see Stettner and Lavie 2014). In other words, by using a
ments, it is unlikely that other portfolios will be particularly 1151
1094 portfolio of projects, organizations may sidestep tensions
willing to share scarce resources (Tsai 2002). To conclude, it 1152
1095 may be surmised that project portfolios are only able to 1153
which would be harder to overlook should they arise within
1096 serve as mechanisms for orchestrating ambidexterity and at 1154
a single project; moreover, portfolios allow for concurrent
1097 the same time, for enhancing performance, when their activ- 1155
pursuit of project delivery strategies that employ both
1098 ities are robustly coordinated at project level. 1156
exploitative competencies (focussed on increasing existing
1099 1157
market share) and explorative competencies (focussed on
1100 6. Conclusions 1158
new revenue streams). When ambidexterity is orchestrated
1101 1159
through portfolios, the organization can better ensure that The study undertook to ascertain whether effects of organ-
1102 1160
with each project representing an alternative implementation izational ambidexterity on project performance are stronger
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 11

1161 for orchestration of ambidexterity at portfolio level. Its strong present research through more granular studies of portfolio 1219
1162 positive finding, specifically that PPM practice does indeed effects and optimization. Understanding the nature of inter- 1220
1163 enhance prospects for ambidextrous management practice project variation and integration should enable more value 1221
1164 to contribute to project success, clearly underscores the creation for the organization through enhanced understand- 1222
1165 need for project portfolios to be designed and operated with ing of how best to combine insights from not only other 1223
1166 such enhancement in mind. And yet it also clarifies that projects but also the wider organization, as a means to cre- 1224
1167 future studies require more theoretical nuance to tease out ate the conditions for enhanced performance. 1225
1168 the specific portfolio effects at issue, being mindful in par- 1226
1169 ticular to recognize that positive and negative effects may 1227
Disclosure statement
1170 occasionally be bundled together. This further entails, we 1228
1171 would suggest, that practitioners conceive of portfolio design No potential conflict of interest was by reported the author(s). Q7 1229
1172 with some openness to the possibility that there is always a 1230
1173 calculus of positives and negatives to consider for purposes 1231
Notes on contributors
1174 of design optimization. 1232
1175 In enabling us to conclude with the above recommenda- 1233

LY
1176 tion, our research has been deeply concerned with the Udechukwu (Udi) Ojiako is Professor of Engineering 1234
1177 actuality of practice in both project and operations manage- Management at the University of Sharjah, United 1235
1178 ment. We designed our studies in a manner consistent with Arab Emirates. He is also Visiting Professor in 1236
1179 Management at the Risk Institute, University of Hull 1237
quantitative studies, recognizing in particular persistent and
and Visiting Professor in Business at UNIZIK Business
1180 ongoing calls for more empirical research in operations man- School, Nnamdi Azikiwe University (Nigeria). Udi has
1238
1181 1239

N
agement (Fisher, Olivares, and Staats 2020; Terwiesch 2019; held prior academic positions in the UK, South Africa
1182 Q6 Terwiesch et al. 2020) and project management (Geraldi and and now the United Arab Emirates. He holds a PhD 1240
1183 So€derlund 2016, 2018). We also acknowledge that there is in Project Management obtained from the University 1241
1184 also, currently, very little empirical research that has so far of Northumbria (2005), a PhD in Business obtained from University of 1242
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
revealed core project-related interdependencies engaged in

esses (mechanisms) by which PPM practices can mediate the

relationship between organizational ambidexterity and pro-
O
orchestrating organizational ambidexterity, or, indeed, proc-

ject performance. Petro et al. (2020) observe that despite the

Hull (2015). He also holds an LLB (Laws) obtained from the University of
London (2017), and an MPhil (Laws) from Aberystwyth University (2019).
He recently completed his PhD thesis in Law at Aberystwyth University
(2021). His articles have been accepted and published in journals such
as International Journal of Project Management, Project Management
Journal, Production Planning & Control and the Journal of
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
F
1190 Business Ethics. 1248
growth in ambidexterity research over the years, a number
1191 of practical questions about the precise mechanisms 1249
1192 involved remain unanswered. Therefore, our study construed 1250
O

1193 Yacoub Petro is the project management and com- 1251

PPM as a standalone construct measured against a combin- mercial leader for Stantec, Ontario West (Canada)
1194 ation of scales. Ambidexterity was operationalized as a meas- having previously served for over five years as
1252
1195 urable scale construct, although construed as a distinctive Stantec Director of Operations in the Middle East. In 1253
1196 variable encompassing the two paradoxical (but not neces- his position, he oversees project management and 1254
O

1197 sarily, polarized) constructs. Our study paid particular atten-

delivery, providing his team with clear and effective 1255
1198 tion to foundational characteristics of ambidexterity
strategic direction. A civil and chartered engineer 1256
(CEng), Yacoub’s background stems from structural
1199 mechanisms earlier identified as likely to impact orchestra- 1257
engineering. Yacoub holds a PhD in Project
1200 1258
PR

tions of ambidexterity through PPM practices, and we recom- Management obtained from the British University in Dubai (BUiD). His
1201 mend that future studies pay more attention to the specifics. articles have been accepted and published in journals such as the 1259
1202 As expected for studies of this nature, ours did have limi-
Chinese Business Review, International Journal of Project Management, 1260
1203 Production Planning & Control and the ASCE Journal of Management in 1261
tations, which provide a platform for future studies. First, Engineering. He is a recipient of the 2016 Project Management Institute
1204 1262
despite our recognition in the findings that management of Doctoral Research Grant.
1205 1263
the contradictions associated with ambidexterity could be
1206 1264
impacted by salient organizational-wide attributes, our study
1207 1265
specifically did not explore these attributes. Our second limi- Alasdair Marshall is currently Associate Professor of
1208 Risk Management having joined the Southampton
1266
tation relates to the recognition within literature that the
1209 Business School in September 2008. Both his MA 1267
relationship between organizational ambidexterity and per-
1210 (Hons) degree and PhD are in Social Science, from 1268
formance may vary not only across levels, but also under dif-
1211 the University of Glasgow. Between 2003 and 2008, 1269
ferent functional, structural and resource conditions.
1212 Alasdair worked at Glasgow Caledonian University, 1270
Accordingly, it can be argued that more detailed research is where he contributed to Risk Management teaching
1213 1271
necessary, pertaining to dynamics of inter-project variation within Caledonian Business School and was involved
1214 in a broad range of research and consultancy proj- 1272
and integration and how these may impact upon designing
1215 ects within the Cullen Centre for Risk and Governance. His articles have 1273
organizations for optimal interaction (between different proj-
1216 been accepted and published in journals such as International Journal of 1274
ects being pursued by the organization), and horizontal and
1217 Project Management, Il Pensiero Economico Italiano, Journal of Business 1275
vertical interaction with other areas of the organization. We Ethics and Production Planning & Control.
1276
1218
think this would be a good approach for improving on
 12 U. OJIAKO ET AL.

1277 Terry Williams is Director of the Risk Institute, Barney, J. 2001. “Resource-Based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A 1335
Ten-Year Retrospective on the Resource-Based View.” Journal of
1278 University of Hull. He previously served as Dean of 1336
Hull University Business School and before that, Management 27 (6): 643–650. doi:10.1177/014920630102700602.
1279 Barney, J., M. Wright, and D. Ketchen. 2001. “The Resource-Based View of 1337
Director of the School of Management, University of
1280 Southampton. Terry has worked in both the public the Firm: Ten Years after 1991.” Journal of Management 27 (6): 1338
1281 and private sector, beginning as a Lecturer in 625–641. doi:10.1177/014920630102700601. 1339
1282 Operational Research at the University of Bendoly, E., R. Croson, P. Goncalves, and K. Schultz. 2009. “Bodies of 1340
1283 Strathclyde, while completing his PhD research. He Knowledge for Research in Behavioral Operations.” Production and 1341
Operations Management 19 (4): 434–452. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.
1284 later became Professor and Department Head, where 1342
1285 he worked in research and consultancy, modelling project behaviour 2009.01108.x. Q8 1343
and supporting $1.5bn þ post-project claims. Terry is a Fellow of the Bendoly, E., K. Donohue, and K. Schultz. 2006. “Behavior in Operations
1286 Institute of Mathematics and its Applications, a Chartered Management: Assessing Recent Findings and Revisiting Old 1344
1287 Mathematician, a Fellow of the OR Society and a certified Project Assumptions.” Journal of Operations Management 24 (6): 737–752. doi: 1345
1288 Manager (PMP). 10.1016/j.jom.2005.10.001. Q8 1346
Bendoly, E., M. Swink, and W. Simpson. 2014. “Prioritizing and
1289 1347
Monitoring Concurrent Project Work: Effects on Switching Behavior.”
1290 ORCID Production and Operations Management 23 (5): 847–860. doi:10.1111/
1348
1291 1349
poms.12083. Q8

LY
Udechukwu Ojiako http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0506-2115
1292 Alasdair Marshall http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9789-8042 Bierly, P., and P. Daly. 2007. “Alternative Knowledge Strategies, 1350
1293 Competitive Environment, and Organizational Performance in Small 1351
1294 Manufacturing Firms.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 31 (4): 1352
493–516. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00185.x.
1295 References 1353
Bresciani, S., A. Ferraris, and M. Del Giudice. 2018. “The Management of
1296 Abebe, M., and A. Angriawan. 2014. “Organizational and Competitive Organizational Ambidexterity through Alliances in a New Context of 1354
1297 1355

N
Influences of Exploration and Exploitation Activities in Small Firms.” Analysis: Internet of Things (IoT) Smart City Projects.” Technological
1298 Journal of Business Research 67 (3): 339–345. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres. Forecasting and Social Change 136 (2018): 331–338. doi:10.1016/j.tech- 1356
1299 Q8 2013.01.015. fore.2017.03.002. 1357
1300 Alashwal, A., and P. Fong. 2015. “Empirical Study to Determine Cao, Q., E. Gedajlovic, and H. Zhang. 2009. “Unpacking Organizational 1358
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
Fragmentation of Construction Projects.” Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 141 (7): 04015016. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000986.
O
Andriopoulos, C., and M. Lewis. 2009. “Exploitation-Exploration Tensions
and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of
Innovation.” Organization Science 20 (4): 696–717. doi:10.1287/orsc.
Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects.”
Organization Science 20 (4): 781–796. doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0426.
Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., D. Jim enez-Jim
enez, and A. Garcia-Perez. 2019.
“An Integrative View of Knowledge Processes and a Learning Culture
for Ambidexterity: Towards Improved Organisational Performance in
the Banking Sector.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 68:
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
F
1306 408–417. doi:10.1109/TEM.2019.2917430. 1364
Q8 1080.0406.
Chandrasekaran, A., K. Linderman, and R. Schroeder. 2012. “Antecedents
1307 Antonacopoulou, E. 2001. “The Paradoxical Nature of the Relationship 1365
between Training and Learning.” Journal of Management Studies 38 to Ambidexterity Competency in High Technology Organizations.”
1308 Journal of Operations Management 30 (1–2): 134–151. doi:10.1016/j. 1366
Q8 (3): 327–350. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00239.
O

1309 Archer, N., and F. Ghasemzadeh. 1999. “An Integrated Framework for jom.2011.10.002. 1367
1310 Project Portfolio Selection.” International Journal of Project Chebbi, H., D. Yahiaoui, D. Vrontis, and A. Thrassou. 2015. “Building 1368
1311 Multiunit Ambidextrous organizations – A Transformative Framework.” 1369
Management 17 (4): 207–216. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00032-5.
Human Resource Management 54 (1): s155–s177. doi:10.1002/hrm.
1312 Ardito, L., E. Peruffo, and A. Natalicchio. 2019. “The Relationships 1370
O

1313 between the Internationalization of Alliance Portfolio Diversity,

21662. Q8 1371
Chipulu, M., U. Ojiako, P. Gardiner, T. Williams, C. Mota, S. Maguire, Y.
1314 Individual Incentives, and Innovation Ambidexterity: A
Shou, T. Stamati, and A. Marshall. 2014. “Exploring the Impact of 1372
Microfoundational Approach.” Technological Forecasting and Social
1315 Cultural Values on Project Performance: The Effects of Cultural Values, 1373
1316 Q8 Change 148: 119714. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119714.
Age and Gender on the Perceived Importance of Project Success/ 1374
PR

Association for Operations Management (APICS). 2011. Operations

1317 Management Body of Knowledge Framework (APICS OMBOK
Failure Factors.” International Journal of Operations & Production 1375
Management 34 (3): 364–389. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-04-2012-0156.
1318 Q8 Framework). Chicago, IL: APICS OMBOK. 1376
Chipulu, M., U. Ojiako, A. Marshall, T. Williams, U. Bititci, C. Mota, Y.
1319 Atkinson, R. 1999. “Project Management: Cost, Time and Quality, Two
Shou, et al. 2019. “A Dimensional Analysis of Stakeholder Assessment 1377
1320 Best Guesses and a Phenomenon, Its Time to Accept Other Success
of Project Outcomes.” Production Planning & Control 30 (13): 1378
1321 Criteria.” International Journal of Project Management 17 (6): 337–342. 1072–1090. doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.1567859. 1379
doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-6.
1322 Chipulu, M., U. Ojiako, A. Marshall, T. Williams, J. Neoh, C. Mota, and Y. 1380
Aubry, M., and P. Lievre. 2010. “Ambidexterity as a Competence of Shou. 2016. “Building Cultural Intelligence: Insights from Project
1323 Project Leaders: A Case Study from Two Polar Expeditions.” Project 1381
Management Job Advertisements.” Production Planning & Control 27
1324 Management Journal 41 (3): 32–44. doi:10.1002/pmj.20183. 1382
(3): 133–147. doi:10.1080/09537287.2015.1083623.
1325 Aubry, M., H. Sicotte, N. Drouin, H. Vidot-Delerue, and C. Besner. 2012. Cho, W., and M. Shaw. 2013. “Portfolio Selection Model for Enhancing 1383
1326 “Organisational Project Management as a Function within the Information Technology Synergy.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering 1384
1327 Organisation.” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 5 Management 60 (4): 739–749. doi:10.1109/TEM.2013.2248088. Q8 1385
1328 Q8 (2): 180–194. doi:10.1108/17538371211214897. Chou, C., K. Yang, and Y. Chiu. 2018. “Managing Sequential 1386
Bai, L., H. Chen, Q. Gao, and W. Luo. 2018. “Project Portfolio Selection Ambidexterity in the Electronics Industry: Roles of Temporal
1329 1387
Based on Synergy Degree of Composite System.” Soft Computing 22 Switching Capability and Contingent Factors.” Industry and Innovation
1330 1388
Q8 (16): 5535–5545. doi:10.1007/s00500-018-3277-8. 25 (8): 752–777. doi:10.1080/13662716.2017.1334538. Q8
1331 Barney, J. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.” Clegg, S., and D. Courpasson. 2004. “Political Hybrids: Tocquevillean 1389
1332 Journal of Management 17 (1): 99–120. doi:10.1177/ Views on Project Organizations.” Journal of Management Studies 41 1390
1333 014920639101700108. (4): 525–547. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00443.x. 1391
1334 Barney, J. 1996. “The Resource-Based Theory of the Firm.” Organization Closs, D., M. Jacobs, M. Swink, and G. Webb. 2008. “Toward a Theory of 1392
Science 7 (5): 469–469. doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.469. Competencies for the Management of Product Complexity: Six Case
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 13

1393 Studies.” Journal of Operations Management 26 (5): 590–610. doi:10. on Projects.” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 9 1451
1394 Q8 1016/j.jom.2007.10.003. (4): 767–797. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-02-2016-0016.
1452
Cooke-Davies, T. 2002. “The “Real” Success Factors on Projects.” Geraldi, J., and J. So€derlund. 2018. “Project Studies: What It is, Where It
1395 International Journal of Project Management 20 (3): 185–190. doi:10. is Going.” International Journal of Project Management 36 (1): 55–70. 1453
1396 1016/S0263-7863(01)00067-9. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.06.004. 1454
1397 Cooke-Davies, T. J., and A. Arzymanow. 2003. “The Maturity of Project Gino, F., and G. Pisano. 2008. “Toward a Theory of Behavioral 1455
1398 Management in Different Industries: An Investigation into Variations Operations.” Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 10 (4): 1456
1399 between Project Management Models.” International Journal of Project 676–691. doi:10.1287/msom.1070.0205. Q8 1457
€ro€g, M. 2011. “Translating Single Project Management Knowledge to
1400 Q8 Management 21 (6): 471–478. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00084-4. Go
1458
Croson, R., K. Schultz, E. Siemsen, and M. Yeo. 2013. “Behavioral Project Programs.” Project Management Journal 42 (2): 17–31. doi:10.
1401 Operations: The State of the Field.” Journal of Operations Management 1002/pmj.20222. 1459
1402 Q8 31 (1–2): 1–5. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2012.12.001. Grant, K., and J. Pennypacker. 2006. “Project Management Maturity: An 1460
1403 Dameron, S., and C. Torset. 2014. “The Discursive Construction of Assessment of Project Management Capabilities among and between 1461
Selected Industries.” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 53
1404 Strategists’ Subjectivities: Towards a Paradox Lens on Strategy.” 1462
1405 Journal of Management Studies 51 (2): 291–319. doi:10.1111/joms. (1): 59–68. doi:10.1109/TEM.2005.861802. Q8 1463
Gross, U. 2014. “Fighting the Fire: Improvisational Behaviour during the
1406 Q8 12072.
1464
De Clercq, D., N. Thongpapanl, and D. Dimov. 2014. “Contextual Production Launch of New Products.” International Journal of
1407 Ambidexterity in SMEs: The Roles of Internal and External Rivalry.” Operations & Production Management 34 (6): 722–749. doi:10.1108/ 1465

LY
1408 Small Business Economics 42 (1): 191–205. doi:10.1007/s11187-013- IJOPM-08-2012-0306. 1466
1409 Gupta, A., K. Smith, and C. Shalley. 2006. “The Interplay between 1467
Q8 9471-2.
Exploration and Exploitation.” Academy of Management Journal 49 (4):
1410 De Visser, M., P. de Weerd-Nederhof, D. Faems, M. Song, B. Van Looy, 1468
and K. Visscher. 2010. “Structural Ambidexterity in NPD Processes: A 693–706. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22083026. Q8
1411 G€uttel, W., and S. Konlechner. 2009. “Continuously Hanging by a Thread: 1469
Firm-Level Assessment of the Impact of Differentiated Structures on
1412 Innovation Performance.” Technovation 30 (5–6): 291–299. doi:10. Managing Contextually Ambidextrous Organizations.” Schmalenbach 1470
1413 Business Review 61 (2): 150–172. doi:10.1007/BF03396782. Q8 1471

N
1016/j.technovation.2009.09.008.
1414 Degener, P., I. Maurer, and S. Bort. 2018. “Alliance Portfolio Diversity and H€allgren, M. 2012. “The Construction of Research Questions in Project 1472
Management.” International Journal of Project Management 30 (7):
1415 Innovation: The Interplay of Portfolio Coordination Capability and
804–816. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.005.
1473
1416 Proactive Partner Selection Capability.” Journal of Management Studies
Handfield, R., and S. Melnyk. 1998. “The Scientific Theory-Building 1474
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
55 (8): 1386–1422. doi:10.1111/joms.12396.
O
Dezi, L., A. Ferraris, A. Papa, and D. Vrontis. 2019. “The Role of External
Embeddedness and Knowledge Management as Antecedents of
Ambidexterity and Performances in Italian SMEs.” IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management 68: 360–369. doi:10.1109/TEM.2019.2916378.
Dormann, C. F., J. Elith, S. Bacher, C. Buchmann, G. Carl, G. Carre, J. R. G.
Process: A Primer Using the Case of TQM.” Journal of Operations
Management 16 (4): 321–339. doi:10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00017-5.
Hayes, R. 2009. “Challenges Posed to Operations Management by the
“New Economy.” Production and Operations Management 11 (1):
21–32. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2002.tb00182.x.
He, Z., and P. Wong. 2004. “Exploration and Exploitation: An Empirical
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
Marquez, et al. 2013. “Collinearity: A Review of Methods to Deal with
F
1422 Test of the Ambidextrous Hypothesis.” Organization Science 15 (4): 1480
It and a Simulation Study Evaluating Their Performance.” Ecography
1423 481–496. doi:10.1287/orsc.1040.0078. 1481
36 (1): 27–46. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0587.2012.07348.x.
1424 Hoang, H., and F. Rothaermel. 2010. “Leveraging Internal and External 1482
Englund, R. 2008. “Control or Results? How to Manage the Paradox and
O

Experience: Exploration, Exploitation, and R&D Project Performance.”

1425 Achieve Greater Project Results.” Paper presented at PMI Global 1483
Strategic Management Journal 31 (7): 734–758. doi:10.1002/smj.834.
1426 Congress 2008 – North America, Denver, CO. Project Management
Hodgson, D., S. Paton, and S. Cicmil. 2011. “Great Expectations and Hard 1484
1427 Q8 Institute, Newtown Square, PA. Times: The Paradoxical Experience of the Engineer as Project 1485
Engwall, M. 2003. “No Project is an Island: Linking Projects to History
1428 Manager.” International Journal of Project Management 29 (4): 1486
O

and Context.” Research Policy 32 (5): 789–808. doi:10.1016/S0048-

1429 7333(02)00088-4.
374–382. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.01.005. Q8 1487
Hoegl, M., and K. Weinkauf. 2005. “Managing Task Interdependencies in
1430 Eriksson, P. 2013. “Exploration and Exploitation in Project-Based 1488
Multi-Team Projects: A Longitudinal Study.” Journal of Management
1431 Organizations: Development and Diffusion of Knowledge at Different 1489
Studies 42 (6): 1287–1308. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2005.00542.x. Q8
1432 Organizational Levels in Construction Companies.” International Huang, H., and S. Jong. 2019. “Public Funding for Science and the Value 1490
PR

1433 Journal of Project Management 31 (3): 333–341. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman. of Corporate R&D Projects; Evidence from Project Initiation and 1491
2012.07.005.
1434 Termination Decisions in Cell Therapy.” Journal of Management 1492
Fellows, R., and A. Liu. 2012. “Managing Organizational Interfaces in
1435 Engineering Construction Projects: Addressing Fragmentation and
Studies 56 (5): 1000–10039. doi:10.1111/joms.12423. Q8 1493
Hughes, M. 2018. “Organisational Ambidexterity and Firm Performance:
1436 Boundary Issues across Multiple Interfaces.” Construction Management Burning Research Questions for Marketing Scholars.” Journal of
1494
1437 and Economics 30 (8): 653–671. doi:10.1080/01446193.2012.668199. Marketing Management 34 (1–2): 178–229. doi:10.1080/0267257X. 1495
1438 Fernhaber, S., and P. Patel. 2012. “How Do Young Firms Manage Product 2018.1441175. 1496
1439 Portfolio Complexity? The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Hughes, M., M. Filser, R. Harms, S. Kraus, M. Chang, and C. Cheng. 2018. 1497
1440
Ambidexterity.” Strategic Management Journal 33 (13): 1516–1539. doi: “Family Firm Configurations for High Performance: The Role of 1498
1441 Q8 10.1002/smj.1994. Entrepreneurship and Ambidexterity.” British Journal of Management
1499
Field, A. 2009. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks,
1442
29 (4): 595–612. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12263. Q8 1500
CA: Sage Publications. Huq, J., T. Reay, and S. Chreim. 2017. “Protecting the Paradox of
1443 Fisher, M., M. Olivares, and B. Staats. 2020. “Why Empirical Research is Interprofessional Collaboration.” Organization Studies 38 (3–4): 1501
1444 Good for Operations Management, and What is Good Empirical 513–538. doi:10.1177/0170840616640847. Q8 1502
Operations Management?” Manufacturing & Service Operations
1445 Hutcheson, G., and N. Sofroniou. 1999. The Multivariate Social Scientist. 1503
Management 22 (1): 170–178. doi:10.1287/msom.2019.0812. London, England: Sage Publications.
1446 Geraldi, J., H. Maylor, and T. Williams. 2011. “Now, Let’s Make It Really
1504
Jansen, J., G. George, F. Van den Bosch, and H. Volberda. 2008. “Senior
1447 Complex (Complicated) a Systematic Review of the Complexities of Team Attributes and Organizational Ambidexterity: The Moderating 1505
1448 Projects.” International Journal of Operations & Production Role of Transformational Leadership.” Journal of Management Studies 1506
1449 Q8 Management 31 (9): 966–990. doi:10.1108/01443571111165848. 45 (5): 982–1007. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00775.x. Q8 1507
1450 Geraldi, J., and J. So €derlund. 2016. “Project Studies and Engaged Jansen, J., Z. Simsek, and Q. Cao. 2012. “Ambidexterity and Performance 1508
Scholarship: Directions towards Contextualized and Reflexive Research in Multiunit Contexts: Cross-Level Moderating Effects of Structural
 14 U. OJIAKO ET AL.

1509 and Resource Attributes.” Strategic Management Journal 33 (11): IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 58: 497–509. doi:10. 1567
1286–1303. doi:10.1002/smj.1977. 1109/TEM.2010.2092781.
1510 1568
Jansen, J., M. Tempelaar, F. Van den Bosch, and H. Volberda. 2009. Lin, Z., H. Yang, and I. Demirkan. 2007. “The Performance Consequences
1511 “Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of of Ambidexterity in Strategic Alliance Formations: Empirical 1569
1512 Integration Mechanisms.” Organization Science 20 (4): 797–811. doi:10. Investigation and Computational Theorizing.” Management Science 53 1570
1513 1287/orsc.1080.0415. (10): 1645–1658. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.0712. 1571
1514 Jansen, J., F. Van den Bosch, and H. Volberda. 2005. “Exploratory Liu, L., and D. Leitner. 2012. “Simultaneous Pursuit of Innovation and 1572
Innovation, Exploitative Innovation, and Ambidexterity: The Impact of Efficiency in Complex Engineering projects - A Study of the
1515 1573
Environmental and Organizational Antecedents.” Schmalenbach Antecedents and Impacts of Ambidexterity in Project Teams.” Project
1516 Management Journal 43 (6): 97–110. doi:10.1002/pmj.21301. 1574
1517 Q8 Business Review 57 (4): 351–363. doi:10.1007/BF03396721.
1575
Jarzabkowski, P., J. L^e, and A. Van de Ven. 2013. “Responding to Liu, L., X. Wang, and Z. Sheng. 2012. “Achieving Ambidexterity in Large,
1518 Competing Strategic Demands: How Organizing, Belonging, and Complex Engineering Projects: A Case Study of the Sutong Bridge 1576
1519 Performing Paradoxes Coevolve.” Strategic Organization 11 (3): Project.” Construction Management and Economics 30 (5): 399–409. 1577
1520 Q8 245–280. doi:10.1177/1476127013481016. doi:10.1080/01446193.2012.679948. Q8 1578
Jonas, D. 2010. “Empowering Project Portfolio Managers: How Lubatkin, Michael H., Zeki Simsek, Yan Ling, and J. Veiga. 2006.
1521 “Ambidexterity and Performance in Small-to Medium- Sized Firms: 1579
Management Involvement Impacts Project Portfolio Management
1522 Performance.” International Journal of Project Management 28 (8): The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioural Integration.” 1580
1523 818–831. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.07.002. Journal of Management 32 (5): 646–672. doi:10.1177/ 1581

LY
1524 Junni, P., R. Sarala, V. Taras, and S. Y. Tarba. 2013. “Organizational 0149206306290712. 1582
1525 Ambidexterity and Performance: A Meta-Analysis.” Academy of Luger, J., S. Raisch, and M. Schimmer. 2018. “Dynamic Balancing of 1583
Exploration and Exploitation: The Contingent Benefits of
1526 Management Perspectives 27 (4): 299–312. doi:10.5465/amp.2012.0015.
Ambidexterity.” Organization Science 29 (3): 449–470. doi:10.1287/orsc.
1584
Junni, P., R. Sarala, S. Tarba, Y. Liu, and C. Cooper. 2015. “The Role of
1527 2017.1189. 1585
Human Resources and Organizational Factors in Ambidexterity.”
1528 Human Resource Management 54 (S1): s1–s28. doi:10.1002/hrm.21772. Machado, C., E. de Lima, S. da Costa, J. Angelis, and R. Mattioda. 2017. 1586
1529 “Framing Maturity Based on Sustainable Operations Management 1587

N
Kaiser, H. 1970. “A Second Generation Little Jiffy.” Psychometrika 35 (4):
1530 401–415. doi:10.1007/BF02291817. Principles.” International Journal of Production Economics 190: 3–21. 1588
1531 Kauppila, O. 2010. “Creating Ambidexterity by Integrating and Balancing doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.01.020. Q8 1589
M€ahring, M., and M. Keil. 2008. “Information Technology Project
1532 Structurally Separate Interorganizational Partnerships.” Strategic
Escalation: A Process Model.” Decision Sciences 39 (2): 239–272. doi:10. 1590
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
Q8

Q8
Organization 8 (4): 283–312. doi:10.1177/1476127010387409.

Analysis & Strategic Management 21 (4): 547–564. doi:10.1080/

09537320902819296.
O
Kim, J., and D. Wilemon. 2009. “An Empirical Investigation of Complexity
and Its Management in New Product Development.” Technology

Klein, L., C. Biesenthal, and E. Dehlin. 2015. “Improvisation in Project

1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00191.x.
Manning, S. 2017. “The Rise of Project Network Organizations: Building
Core Teams and Flexible Partner Pools for Interorganizational
Projects.” Research Policy 46 (8): 1399–1415. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2017.
06.005.
March, J. 1991. “Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning.”
Q8 1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
F
1538 Management: A Praxeology.” International Journal of Project 1596
Organization Science 2 (1): 71–87. doi:10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.
Management 33 (2): 267–277. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.01.011.
1539 Kock, A., B. Schulz, J. Kopmann, and H. G. Gem€ unden. 2020. “Project
Martin, A., A. Keller, and J. Fortwengel. 2019. “Introducing Conflict as the 1597
1540 Portfolio Management Information Systems’ Positive Influence on
Microfoundation of Organizational Ambidexterity.” Strategic 1598
O

Organization 17 (1): 38–61. doi:10.1177/1476127017740262.

1541 Performance–the Importance of Process Maturity.” International 1599
Martinsuo, M. 2013. “Project Portfolio Management in Practice and in
1542 Journal of Project Management 38 (4): 229–241. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.
Context.” International Journal of Project Management 31 (6): 794–803. 1600
1543 2020.05.001. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.10.013. 1601
Kopmann, J., A. Kock, C. Killen, and H. Gem€ unden. 2017. “The Role of
1544 Martinsuo, M., and P. Lehtonen. 2007. “Role of Single-Project 1602
O

Project Portfolio Management in Fostering Both Deliberate and

1545 Emergent Strategy.” International Journal of Project Management 35
Management in Achieving Portfolio Management Efficiency.” 1603
International Journal of Project Management 25 (1): 56–65. doi:10.
1546 (4): 557–570. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.011. 1604
1016/j.ijproman.2006.04.002.
1547 Kornfeld, B., and S. Kara. 2011. “Project Portfolio Selection in Continuous Maylor, H., J. Meredith, J. So €derlund, and T. Browning. 2018. “Old 1605
1548 Improvement.” International Journal of Operations & Production 1606
PR

Theories, New Contexts: Extending Operations Management Theories

1549 Management 31 (10): 1071–1088. doi:10.1108/01443571111172435. to Projects.” International Journal of Operations & Production 1607
Koza, M., and A. Lewin. 1998. “The co-Evolution of Strategic Alliances.”
1550 Management 38 (6): 1274–1288. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-06-2018-781. 1608
1551 Q8 Organization Science 9 (3): 255–264. doi:10.1287/orsc.9.3.255. Meskendahl, S. 2010. “The Influence of Business Strategy on Project 1609
Le Roy, F., and A. Fernandez. 2015. “Managing Coopetitive Tensions at Portfolio Management and Its Success—a Conceptual Framework.”
1552 the Working-Group Level: The Rise of the Coopetitive Project Team.” International Journal of Project Management 28 (8): 807–817. doi:10.
1610
1553 British Journal of Management 26 (4): 671–688. doi:10.1111/1467-8551. 1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.007. 1611
1554 Q8 12095. Midler, C., R. Maniak, and T. de Campigneulles. 2019. “Ambidextrous 1612
1555 Lee, G., W. DeLone, and J. Espinosa. 2006. “Ambidextrous Coping Program Management: The Case of Autonomous Mobility.” Project 1613
Strategies in Globally Distributed Software Development Projects.” Management Journal 50 (5): 571–586. doi:10.1177/8756972819869091.
1556 1614
Communications of the ACM 49 (10): 35–40. doi:10.1145/1164394. Mihalache, O., J. Jansen, F. Van den Bosch, and H. Volberda. 2014. “Top
1557 1164417. Management Team Shared Leadership and Organizational
1615
1558 Levinthal, D., and J. March. 1993. “The Myopia of Learning.” Strategic Ambidexterity: A Moderated Mediation Framework.” Strategic 1616
1559 Management Journal 14 (S2): 95–112. doi:10.1002/smj.4250141009. Entrepreneurship Journal 8 (2): 128–148. doi:10.1002/sej.1168. Q8 1617
1560 Lewis, M. 2000. “Exploring Paradox: Toward a More Comprehensive Milosevic, D., and P. Patanakul. 2005. “Standardized Project Management 1618
Guide.” The Academy of Management Review 25 (4): 760–776. doi:10.
1561 May Increase Development Projects Success.” International Journal of 1619
1562 Q8 2307/259204. Project Management 23 (3): 181–192. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.11.
1620
Linhart, A., M. Ro €glinger, and K. Stelzl. 2020. “A Project Portfolio 002.
1563 Management Approach to Tackling the Exploration/Exploitation Mishra, A., and K. Sinha. 2016. “Work Design and Integration Glitches in 1621
1564 Trade-off.” Business & Information Systems Engineering 62 (2): 103–119. Globally Distributed Technology Projects.” Production and Operations 1622
1565 Q8 doi:10.1007/s12599-018-0564-y. Management 25 (2): 347–369. doi:10.1111/poms.12425. Q8 1623
1566 Lin, H., and E. McDonough. 2011. “Investigating the Role of Leadership Montibeller, G., L. Franco, E. Lord, and A. Iglesias. 2009. “Structuring 1624
and Organizational Culture in Fostering Innovation Ambidexterity.” Resource Allocation Decisions: A Framework for Building Multi-Criteria
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 15

1625 Portfolio Models with Area-Grouped Options.” European Journal of Projects and Programs.” International Journal of Project Management 1683
Operational Research 199 (3): 846–856. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.054. 33 (1): 153–164. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.04.008.
1626 1684
M€uller, R., M. Martinsuo, and T. Blomquist. 2008. “Project Portfolio Peterson, R., and Y. Kim. 2013. “On the Relationship between Coefficient
1627 Control and Portfolio Management Performance in Different Alpha and Composite Reliability.” The Journal of Applied Psychology 98 1685
1628 Contexts.” Project Management Journal 39 (3): 28–42. doi:10.1002/pmj. (1): 194–198. doi:10.1037/a0030767. 1686
1629 Q8 20053. Petro, Y. 2017. Ambidexterity through Project Portfolio Management: 1687
1630 Myers, R. 1990. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications. 2nd Resolving Paradoxes in Organizations. Newtown Square, PA: Project 1688
ed. Boston, MA: Duxbury. Management Institute.
1631 1689
Narayanan, S., S. Balasubramanian, and J. Swaminathan. 2011. “Managing Petro, Y., and P. Gardiner. 2015. “An Investigation of the Influence of
1632 Organizational Design on Project Portfolio Success, Effectiveness and 1690
Outsourced Software Projects: An Analysis of Project Performance and
1633 Customer Satisfaction.” Production and Operations Management 20 (4): Business Efficiency for Project-Based Organizations.” International 1691
1634 Q8 508–521. doi:10.1111/j.1937-5956.2010.01162.x. Journal of Project Management 33 (8): 1717–1729. doi:10.1016/j.ijpro- 1692
1635 Neely, A., M. Gregory, and K. Platts. 1995. “Performance Measurement man.2015.08.004. 1693
Petro, Y., U. Ojiako, T. Williams, and A. Marshall. 2020. “Organizational
1636 System Design: A Literature Review and Research Agenda.” 1694
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 15 (4): Ambidexterity: using Project Portfolio Management to Support
1637 Project-Level Ambidexterity.” Production Planning & Control 31 (4): 1695
80–116. doi:10.1108/01443579510083622.
1638 €lleke-Przybylski, P.,. M. von Rimscha, J. Mo
No €ller, D. Voci, K. Altmeppen, 287–307. doi:10.1080/09537287.2019.1630683. 1696
1639 and M. Karmasin. 2019. “Patterns of Structural and Sequential Petro, Y., U. Ojiako, T. Williams, and A. Marshall. 2019. “Organizational 1697

LY
1640 Ambidexterity in Cross-Border Media Management.” Journal of Media Ambidexterity: A Critical Review and Development of a Project 1698
1641 Focused Definition.” Journal of Management in Engineering 35 (3): 1699
Q8 Business Studies 16 (2): 126–152. doi:10.1080/16522354.2019.1619965.
03119001. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000685.
1642 Nunnally, J. 1978. Psychometric Methods. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Piao, M., and E. Zajac. 2016. “How Exploitation Impedes and Impels
1700
Ojiako, U., and C. Chipulu. 2014. “National Culture and Success/Failure
1643 Exploration: Theory and Evidence.” Strategic Management Journal 37 1701
Perceptions in Projects.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
1644 Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law 167 (4): 167–179. (7): 1431–1447. doi:10.1002/smj.2402. Q8 1702
1645 Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. 1703

N
Ojiako, U., M. Chipulu, P. Gardiner, T. Williams, C. Mota, S. Maguire, Y.
1646 Shou, and T. Stemanti. 2014. “Effect of Project Role, Age and Gender “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of 1704
the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” The Journal of Applied
1647 Differences on the Formation and Revision of Project Decision
Psychology 88 (5): 879–903. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
1705
1648 Judgements.” International Journal of Project Management 32 (4):
Ra Raza-Ullah, T., M. Bengtsson, and S. Kock. 2014. “The Coopetition 1706
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
556–567. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.09.001.

and L. Obokoh. 2015. “Heterogeneity and Perception Congruence of

Project Outcomes.” Production Planning & Control 26 (11): 858–873.
doi:10.1080/09537287.2014.994684.
Ojiako, U., E. Johansen, and D. Greenwood. 2008. “A Qualitative Re-
O
Ojiako, U., M. Chipulu, A. Marshall, M. Ashleigh, S. Maguire, T. Williams,
Paradox and Tension in Coopetition at Multiple Levels.” Industrial
Marketing Management 43 (2): 189–198. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.
2013.11.001.
Raisch, S., J. Birkinshaw, G. Probst, and M. Tushman. 2009.
“Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration
for Sustained Performance.” Organization Science 20 (4): 685–695. doi:
Q8
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
F
1654 Construction of Project Measurement Criteria.” Industrial Management 1712
& Data Systems 108 (3): 405–417. doi:10.1108/02635570810858796.
10.1287/orsc.1090.0428. Q8
1655 Ojiako, U., and S. Maguire. 2008. “Success Criteria for Systems Led
Raisch, S., and A. Zimmermann. 2017. “Pathways to Ambidexterity: A 1713
1656 Transformation in Organisations: Implications for Global Operations
Process Perspective on the Exploration - Exploitation Paradox.” In The 1714
O

Oxford Handbook of Organizational Paradox, edited by Smith Wendy,

1657 Management.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 108 (7): 1715
Lewis Marianne, Jarzabkowski Paula and Langley Ann, 315–332.
1658 Q8 887–908. doi:10.1108/02635570810897982. 1716
Ojiako, U., S. Maguire, and M. Chipulu. 2013. “Thematic Elements
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Q8
1659 Riis, J., and F. Pedersen. 2003. “Managing Organizational Development 1717
Underlying the Delivery of Services in High-Contact Public Service
1660 Projects by Paradoxes.” Production Planning & Control 14 (4): 349–360. 1718
O

Encounters.” Production Planning & Control 24 (6): 532–545. doi:10.

1661 doi:10.1080/0953728031000117940. 1719
Q8 1080/09537287.2011.642485. Roscoe, S., and C. Blome. 2019. “Understanding the Emergence of
1662 Ojiako, U., T. Papadopoulos, T. Stamati, D. Anagnostopoulos, and A. 1720
Redistributed Manufacturing: An Ambidexterity Perspective.”
1663 Marshall. 2015. “Collaborative Governance in Greek Infrastructure Production Planning & Control 30 (7): 496–509. doi:10.1080/09537287. 1721
1664 Projects.” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, 1722
PR

2018.1540051.
1665 Procurement and Law 168 (3): 135–145. doi:10.1680/mpal.1400037. Rossmannek, O., and O. Rank. 2019. “Internationalization of Exploitation 1723
O’Reilly, C., and M. Tushman. 2011. “Organizational Ambidexterity in
1666 Alliance Portfolios and Firm Performance.” Management Decision 57 1724
Action: How Managers Explore and Exploit.” California Management
1667 (1): 86–99. doi:10.1108/MD-11-2017-1105. Q8 1725
Review 53 (4): 5–22. doi:10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5. Sandberg, J., and M. Alvesson. 2011. “Ways of Constructing Research
1668 O’Reilly, C. A., and M. L. Tushman. 2013. “Organizational Ambidexterity: Questions: Gap-Spotting or Problematization?” Organization 18 (1):
1726
1669 Past, Present, and Future.” Academy of Management Perspectives 27 23–44. doi:10.1177/1350508410372151. 1727
1670 (4): 324–338. doi:10.5465/amp.2013.0025. Santoro, G., A. Thrassou, S. Bresciani, and M. Del Giudice. 2019. “Do 1728
1671 Papachroni, A., L. Heracleous, and S. Paroutis. 2015. “Organizational Knowledge Management and Dynamic Capabilities Affect 1729
Ambidexterity through the Lens of Paradox Theory: Building a Novel Ambidextrous Entrepreneurial Intensity and Firms’ Performance?” IEEE
1672 1730
Research Agenda.” The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 51 (1): Transactions on Engineering Management 68: 378–386. doi:10.1109/
1673 1731
Q8 71–93. doi:10.1177/0021886314553101. TEM.2019.2907874. Q8
1674 Parvan, K., H. Rahmandad, and A. Haghani. 2015. “Inter-Phase Feedbacks Sauro, J. 2010. “Should you use 5 or 7 point scales?” http://measuringu. 1732
1675 in Construction Projects.” Journal of Operations Management 39–40 com/scale-points. Q8 1733
1676 (1): 48–62. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2015.07.005. Schad, J., M. Lewis, S. Raisch, and W. Smith. 2016. “Paradox Research in 1734
Patanakul, P. 2015. “Key Attributes of Effectiveness in Managing Project
1677 Management Science: Looking Back to Move Forward.” Academy of 1735
1678
Portfolio.” International Journal of Project Management 33 (5): Management Annals 10 (1): 5–64. doi:10.5465/19416520.2016.1162422. Q8 1736
1084–1097. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.01.004. Schoenherr, T., E. Bendoly, D. Bachrach, and A. Hood. 2017. “Task
1679 Pellegrinelli, S. 2011. “What’s in a Name: Project or Programme?” Interdependence Impacts on Reciprocity in IT Implementation Teams: 1737
1680 International Journal of Project Management 29 (2): 232–240. doi:10. Bringing out the Worst in us, or Driving Responsibility?” Production 1738
1681 1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.009. and Operations Management 26 (4): 667–685. doi:10.1111/poms.12671. Q8 1739
1682 Pellegrinelli, S., R. Murray-Webster, and N. Turner. 2015. “Facilitating Scott-Young, C., and D. Samson. 2009. “Team Management for Fast 1740
Organizational Ambidexterity through the Complementary Use of Projects: An Empirical Study of Process Industries.” International
 16 U. OJIAKO ET AL.

1741 Journal of Operations & Production Management 29 (6): 612–635. doi: Journal of Managing Projects in Business 6 (1): 69–87. doi:10.1108/ 1799
10.1108/01443570910957582. 17538371311291035.
1742 1800
Simsek, Z. 2009. “Organizational Ambidexterity: Towards a Multilevel Tsai, W. 2002. “Social Structure of ‘Coopetition’ within a Multiunit
1743 Understanding.” Journal of Management Studies 46 (4): 597–624. doi: Organization: Coordination, Competition, and Intraorganizational 1801
1744 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00828.x. Knowledge Sharing.” Organization Science 13 (2): 179–190. doi:10. 1802
1745 Sinha, S. 2016. “Managing an Ambidextrous Organization: Balancing 1287/orsc.13.2.179.536. 1803
1746 Innovation and Efficiency.” Strategic Direction 32 (10): 35–37. doi:10. Turner, N., J. Aitken, and C. Bozarth. 2018. “A Framework for 1804
1747 Q8 1108/SD-05-2016-0061. Understanding Managerial Responses to Supply Chain Complexity.” 1805
Smith, W., M. Erez, S. Jarvenpaa, M. Lewis, and P. Tracey. 2017. “Adding International Journal of Operations & Production Management 38 (6):
1748 1806
1749
Complexity to Theories of Paradox, Tensions, and Dualities of 1433–1466. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-01-2017-0062. Q8 1807
Innovation and Change.” Organization Studies 38 (3–4): 303–317. doi: Turner, N., E. Kutsch, and S. Leybourne. 2016. “Rethinking Project
1750 Q8 10.1177/0170840617693560. Reliability Using the Ambidexterity and Mindfulness Perspectives.” 1808
1751 Smith, W., and M. Tushman. 2005. “Managing Strategic Contradictions: A International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 9 (4): 845–864. 1809
1752 Top Management Model for Managing Innovation Streams.” doi:10.1108/IJMPB-08-2015-0074. Q8 1810
Q8 Organization Science 16 (5): 522–536. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0134. Turner, N., and L. Lee-Kelley. 2013. “Unpacking the Theory on
1753 1811
€derlund, J. 2013. “Pluralistic and Processual Understandings of Projects
So Ambidexterity: An Illustrative Case on the Managerial Architectures,
1754 and Project Organizing: Towards Theories of Project Temporality.” In Mechanisms and Dynamics.” Management Learning 44 (2): 179–196.
1812
1755 Novel Approaches to Organizational Project Management Research: doi:10.1177/1350507612444074. 1813

LY
1756 Translational and Transformational, 117–135. Copenhagen, Denmark: Turner, N., H. Maylor, L. Lee-Kelley, T. Brady, E. Kutsch, and S. Carver. 1814
1757 Q9 Copenhagen Business School Press. 2014. “Ambidexterity and Knowledge Strategy in Major Projects: A 1815
1758 Sohani, S., and M. Singh. 2017. “Multilevel Analysis of Ambidexterity and Framework and Illustrative Study.” Project Management Journal 45 (5): 1816
1759 Tagging of Specialised Projects in Project-Based Information 44–55. doi:10.1002/pmj.21454. Q8 1817
Technology Firms.” International Journal of Operations & Production Turner, N., H. Maylor, and J. Swart. 2013. “Ambidexterity in Managing
1760 Management 37 (9): 1185–1206. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-04-2016-0212. Business Projects –an Intellectual Capital Perspective.” International 1818
1761 1819

N
Sørensen, J., and T. Stuart. 2000. “Aging, Obsolescence, and Journal of Managing Projects in Business 6 (2): 379–389. doi:10.1108/
1762 Organizational Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 45 (1): 17538371311319089. Q8 1820
1763 Q8 81–112. doi:10.2307/2666980. Turner, N., H. Maylor, and J. Swart. 2015. “Ambidexterity in Projects: An 1821
1764 Stadtler, L., A. Schmitt, P. Klarner, and T. Straub. 2010. More than Bricks Intellectual Capital Perspective.” International Journal of Project 1822
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
Q8 York, NY: Springer.

Structure to Reach Your Goals.” International Journal of Project

Management 24 (3): 226–233. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.10.002.
Stettner, U., and D. Lavie. 2014. “Ambidexterity under Scrutiny:
O
in the Wall: Organizational Perspectives for Sustainable Success. New

Stal-Le Cardinal, J., and F. Marle. 2006. “Project: The Just Necessary
Management 33 (1): 177–188. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.05.002.
Turner, N., J. Swart, and H. Maylor. 2013a. “Mechanisms for Managing
Ambidexterity: A Review and Research Agenda.” International Journal
of Management Reviews 15 (3): 317–332. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.
00343.x.
Turner, N., J. Swart, H. Maylor, and E. Antonacopoulou. 2016. “Making It
Q8
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
F
1770 Exploration and Exploitation via Internal Organization, Alliances, and Happen: How Managerial Actions Enable Project-Based 1828
Acquisitions.” Strategic Management Journal 35 (13): 1903–1929. doi: Ambidexterity.” Management Learning 47 (2): 199–222. doi:10.1177/
1771 10.1002/smj.2195.
1829
1350507615610028.
1772 Sun, B., and Y. Lo. 2014. “Achieving Alliance Ambidexterity through Tushman, M. L., and C. A. O’Reilly. 1996. “Ambidextrous Organizations: 1830
O

1773 Managing Paradoxes of Cooperation: A New Theoretical Framework.” Managing Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change.” California 1831
1774 European Journal of Innovation Management 17 (2): 144–165. doi:10. Management Review 38 (4): 8–30. doi:10.2307/41165852. 1832
1775 1108/EJIM-01-2013-0011. Van Marrewijk, A., S. Clegg, T. Pitsis, and M. Veenswijk. 2008. “Managing 1833
Suzuki, O. 2019. “Uncovering Moderators of Organisational Public–Private Megaprojects: Paradoxes, Complexity, and Project
1776 1834
O

Ambidexterity: Evidence from the Pharmaceutical Industry.” Industry Design.” International Journal of Project Management 26 (6): 591–600.
1777 1835
Q8 and Innovation 26 (4): 391–418. doi:10.1080/13662716.2018.1431525. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.09.007. Q8
1778 Tamayo-Torres, J., J. Roehrich, and M. Lewis. 2017. “Ambidexterity, Wassmer, U., S. Li, and A. Madhok. 2017. “Resource Ambidexterity 1836
1779 Performance and Environmental Dynamism.” International Journal of through Alliance Portfolios and Firm Performance.” Strategic 1837
1780 Operations & Production Management 37 (3): 282–299. doi:10.1108/ Management Journal 38 (2): 384–394. doi:10.1002/smj.2488. 1838
PR

1781 Q8 IJOPM-06-2015-0378. Wolf, T., U. Cantner, H. Graf, and M. Rothgang. 2019. “Cluster 1839
Taylor, A., and C. Helfat. 2009. “Organizational Linkages for Surviving Ambidexterity towards Exploration and Exploitation: Strategies and
1782 1840
Technological Change: Complementary Assets, Middle Management, Cluster Management.” The Journal of Technology Transfer 44 (6):
1783 and Ambidexterity.” Organization Science 20 (4): 718–739. doi:10.1287/ 1840–1866. doi:10.1007/s10961-017-9617-5. 1841
1784 Q8 orsc.1090.0429. Wu, Y., and S. Wu. 2016. “Managing Ambidexterity in Creative Industries: 1842
1785 Teller, J., B. Unger, A. Kock, and H. Gem€ unden. 2012. “Formalization of A Survey.” Journal of Business Research 69 (7): 2388–2396. doi:10.1016/ 1843
1786 Project Portfolio Management: The Moderating Role of Project j.jbusres.2015.10.008. Q8 1844
1787 Portfolio Complexity.” International Journal of Project Management 30 Yu, T., P. G. Patterson, and K. de Ruyter. 2013. “Achieving Service-Sales 1845
(5): 596–607. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.01.020. Ambidexterity.” Journal of Service Research 16 (1): 52–66. doi:10.1177/
1788 1846
Terwiesch, C. 2019. “Empirical Research in Operations Management: 1094670512453878.
1789 From Field Studies to Analyzing Digital Exhaust.” Manufacturing & Zang, J., and Y. Li. 2017. “Technology Capabilities, Marketing Capabilities 1847
1790 Service Operations Management 21 (4): 713–722. doi:10.1287/msom. and Innovation Ambidexterity.” Technology Analysis & Strategic 1848
1791 2018.0723. Management 29 (1): 23–37. doi:10.1080/09537325.2016.1194972. Q8 1849
1792 Terwiesch, C., M. Olivares, B. Staats, and V. Gaur. 2020. “A Review of Zhang, G., C. Tang, and Y. Qi. 2020. “Alliance Network Diversity and 1850
Empirical Operations Management over the Last Two Decades.” Innovation Ambidexterity: The Differential Roles of Industrial
1793 1851
1794
Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 22 (4): 656–668. doi: Diversity.” Sustainability 12 (3): 1041. doi:10.3390/su12031041. Q8 1852
10.1287/msom.2018.0755. Zhao, W., N. Hall, and Z. Liu. 2020. “Project Evaluation and Selection with
1795 Tiwana, A. 2008. “Do Bridging Ties Complement Strong Ties? An Task Failures.” Production and Operations Management 29 (2): 1853
1796 Empirical Examination of Alliance Ambidexterity.” Strategic 428–446. doi:10.1111/poms.13107. Q8 1854
1797 Management Journal 29 (3): 251–272. doi:10.1002/smj.666. Zimmermann, A., S. Raisch, and J. Birkinshaw. 2015. “How is 1855
1798 Tryggestad, K., L. Justesen, and J. Mouritsen. 2013. “Project Ambidexterity Initiated? The Emergent Charter Definition Process.” 1856
Temporalities: How Frogs Can Become Stakeholders.” International Organization Science 26 (4): 1119–1139. doi:10.1287/orsc.2015.0971. Q8
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL 17

1857 Appendix 1915

1858 1916
1859 Table A1. Scale measures. 1917
1860 Item Exploration items taken from Lubatkin et al. (2006) Exploration items (amended for our study) 1918
1861 1 Looks for novel technological ideas by thinking “outside Look for novel technological ideas by thinking 1919
1862 the box”. outside boundaries. 1920
1863 2 Bases its success on its ability to explore new technologies. Base success on its ability to explore new technologies. 1921
3 Creates products or services that are innovative to the firm. Create products or services that are innovative to the firm.
1864 4 Looks for creative ways to satisfy its customers’ needs. Look for creative ways to satisfy its customers’ needs. 1922
1865 5 Aggressively ventures into new market segments. Aggressively ventures into new market segments. 1923
1866 6 Actively targets new customer groups. Actively targets new customer groups. 1924
Exploitation items taken from Lubatkin et al. (2006) Exploitation items (amended for our study)
1867 7 Commits to improve quality and lower cost. Commitment to improve quality. 1925
1868 8 Continuously improves the reliability of its products Commitment to lower cost. 1926
1869 and services. 1927
9 Increases the levels of automation in its operations. Continuously improves the reliability of its products
1870 and services. 1928
1871 10 Constantly surveys existing customers’ satisfaction. Increases the levels of automation in our operations. 1929

LY
1872 11 Fine-tunes what it offers to keep its current Constantly survey existing customers for satisfaction. 1930
customers satisfied.
1873 12 Penetrates more deeply into its existing customer base. Enhance and improved what we offer to keep its current 1931
1874 customers satisfied. 1932

The changes made were – we separated quality and cost (item 7 of Lubatkin et al) and then dropped item 12 of Lubatkin et al’s Exploitation measures. No
1875 1933
changes in the Exploration items.
1876 1934
1877 1935

N
1878 1936
1879 1937
Appendix B. 11. There is a good balance of project focussed on new and existing
1880 1938
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
The questionnaire
First section: Respondents’ demographic information

O
‘Gender’; ‘Age’; ‘Educational Background’; ‘Professional Background’;
‘Professional Level’; ‘Industry Background’; ‘Number of years’ working
12.

13.
14.
areas of application
There is a good balance of project focussed on new and existing
technologies
There is a good management of risks in our projects
There is a good balance in our projects as relates to different
implementation phases (early/late phases)
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
15. There is a good balance in our projects to generate a constant
F
1886 experience’; ‘Industry sector’; ‘Number of employees in current 1944
cash flow
1887 organisation’. 1945
1888 1946
O

1889 Fourth section (assessment of ambidexterity over past 3 1947

Second section: (evaluation of organizational success
1890 years – ‘very low’, ‘low’, ‘medium/unsure’, ‘moderately’, 1948
over past 3 years – ‘very low’, ‘low’, ‘medium/unsure’,
1891 ‘high’, ‘very high’) 1949
‘moderately high’, ‘very high’)
1892 1950
O

1. Look for novel technological ideas by thinking outside boundaries

1893 1. Compared to competitors regarding the overall project
2. Base success on its ability to explore new technologies
1951
1894 performance?
3. Create products or services that are innovative to the firm 1952
2. Compared to competitors regarding the market share?
1895 4. Look for creative ways to satisfy its customers’ needs 1953
3. Compared to competitors in terms of revenue growth?
1896 5. Aggressively ventures into new market segments 1954
PR

4. Compared to competitors regarding profitability?

1897 6. Actively targets new customer groups 1955
7. Commitment to improve quality
1898 8. Commitment to lower cost
1956
1899 Third section: (assessment of projects over past 3 years 9. Continuously improves the reliability of its products and services 1957
1900 – ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neutral/unsure’, 10. Increases the levels of automation in our operations 1958
1901 ‘agree’, ‘strongly agree’) 11. Constantly survey existing customers for satisfaction 1959
1902 12. Enhance and improved what we offer to keep its current custom- 1960
1. Our projects achieve a high schedule adherence ers satisfied.
1903 2. Our projects achieve a high budget adherence 1961
1904 3. Our projects achieve a high quality adherence 1962
1905 4. Our projects are completed with a high degree of customer
Fifth section (assessment of synergies and collaboration 1963
satisfaction
1906 between projects within portfolios over past 3 years – 1964
5. We sufficiently develop new technologies and/or competencies in
1907 our projects ‘strongly disagree’, ‘disagree’, ‘neutral/unsure’, ‘agree’, 1965
1908 6. With our projects, we are a step ahead of our competition with ‘strongly agree’) 1966
1909 new products, technologies, or services 1967
1910 7. The projects enable us to shape the future of our industry 1. We are able to leverage synergies between projects in 1968
8. Our projects are consistently aligned with the future of our portfolio.
1911 1969
the company 2. We consistently make use of synergies (e.g. shared usage of mod-
1912 9. The corporate strategy is being implemented ideally through ules, platforms, technologies, etc.) between our projects. 1970
1913 our projects 3. We consistently make use of synergies (e.g. shared distribution 1971
1914 10. Resource allocation to projects reflects our strategic objectives channels, infrastructure, etc.) between our projects. 1972