We develop a framework to analyze the multilevel knowledge requirements of complex, major projects in terms of ambidexterity–-the ability to exploit (refine existing knowledge) and explore (develop new knowledge). This is an important theme within the wider literature, yet practical operationalization methods for managers and researchers are not evident. We demonstrate the ambidexterity view through an illustrative case study of telecommunications delivery for the London 2012 Olympic Games and show how these concepts can be used to create an effective knowledge strategy. We offer a structure for the analysis of knowledge utilization in projects.
AubryM., & LièvreP. (2010). Ambidexterity as a competence of project leaders: A case study from two polar expeditions.Project Management Journal, 41(3), 32–44.
2.
BirkinshawJ., & GuptaK. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies.Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298.
3.
BradyT., & DaviesA. (2004). Building project capabilities: From exploratory to exploitative learning.Organization Studies, 25(9), 1601–1621.
4.
BradyT., DaviesA., & NightingaleP. (2012). Dealing with uncertainty in complex projects: Revisiting Klein and Meckling.International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 661–679.
5.
BurnsT., & StalkerG. (1961). The management of innovation.London, UK: Tavistock.
CasselmanR. M., & SamsonD. (2007). Aligning knowledge strategy and knowledge capabilities.Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(1), 69–81.
8.
CooperK., LyneisJ., & BryantB. (2002). Learning to learn, from past to future.International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 213–219.
9.
DavenportT., & PrusakL. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
10.
DoverP. A., & DierkU. (2010). The ambidextrous organization: Integrating managers, entrepreneurs and leaders.Journal of Business Strategy, 31(5), 49–58.
11.
DuttonC., TurnerN., & Lee-KelleyL. (2014). Learning in a programme context: An exploratory investigation of drivers and constraints.International Journal of Project Management, 32(5), 719–892.
12.
Easterby-SmithM., & PrietoI.M. (2008). Dynamic capabilities and knowledge management: An integrative role for learning?British Journal of Management, 19(3), 235–249.
13.
EdmondsonA.C. (2008). The competitive imperative of learning.Harvard Business Review, 86(7), 60–67.
14.
ErikssonP-E (2013). Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations: Development and diffusion of knowledge at different organizational levels in construction companies.International Journal of Project Management, 31(3), 333–341.
15.
GeraldiJ. G., KutschE., & TurnerN. (2011). Towards a conceptualisation of quality in information technology projects.International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 557–567.
16.
GeraldiJ., MaylorH., & WilliamsT. (2011). Now let's make it really complex (complicated): A systematic review of the complexities of projects.International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 31(9), 966–990.
17.
GibsonC. B., & BirkinshawJ. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity.Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.
18.
GrantR.M. (1996). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm.Strategic Management Journal, 17, 109–122.
19.
GuptaA. K., SmithK. G., & ShalleyC.E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation.Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.
20.
HansenM. T., & von OetingerB. (2001). Introducing T-shaped managers.Harvard Business Review, 79(3), 106–116.
21.
HeZ., & WongP. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis.Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.
22.
HedbergB. (1981). How organisations learn and unlearn. In NystromP.C., & StarbuckW.H. (Eds.), Handbook of organisational design (p. 3). London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
HsuL., & WangC. (2012). Clarifying the effect of intellectual capital on performance: The mediating role of dynamic capability.British Journal of Management, 23(2), 179–205.
25.
HuberG.P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures.Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.
26.
JunniP., SaralaR.M., TarasV., & TarbaS.Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity and performance: A meta-analysis.Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312.
27.
KangS., & SnellS.A. (2009). Intellectual capital architectures and ambidextrous learning: A framework for human resource management.Journal of Management Studies, 46(1), 65–92.
28.
KatilaR., & AhujaG. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction.Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183–1194.
29.
KleinB., & MecklingW. (1958). Application of operations research to development decisions.Operations Research, 6(3), 352.
30.
LenfleS., & LochC. (2010). Lost roots: How project management came to emphasize control over flexibility and Novelty.California Management Review, 53(1), 32–55.
31.
LeybourneS. A., & SainterP. (2012). Advancing project management: Authenticating the shift from process to ‘nuanced’ project-based management in the ambidextrous organization.Project Management Journal, 43(6), 5–15.
32.
LiuL., & LeitnerD. (2012). Simultaneous pursuit of innovation and efficiency in complex engineering projects: A study of the antecedents and impacts of ambidexterity in project teams.Project Management Journal, 43(6), 97–110.
33.
LópezL., & SuneA. (2013). Turnover-induced forgetting and its impact on productivity.British Journal of Management, 24(1), 38–53.
34.
LubatkinM. H., SimsekZ., LingY., & VeigaJ.F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small- to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration.Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.
35.
MacCormackA., CrandallW., HendersonP., & ToftP. (2012). Do you need a new product-development strategy?Research Technology Management, 55(1), 34–43.
36.
MarchJ.G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.
37.
MatthewsR.L., & MarzecP.E. (2013). Social capital, a theory for operations management: A systematic review of the evidence.International Journal of Production Research, 50(24), 7081–7099.
38.
MaylorH. R., TurnerN. W., & Murray-WebsterR. (2013). How hard can it be?Research Technology Management, 56(4), 45–51.
39.
MomT. J. M., Van den BoschF., & VolberdaH.W. (2007). Investigating managers' exploration and exploitation activities: The influence of top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal knowledge inflows.Journal of Management Studies, 44(6), 910–931.
40.
MomT. J. M., Van den BoschF., & VolberdaH.W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers' ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms.Organization Science, 20(4), 812–828.
41.
MorganR. E., & BerthonP. (2008). Market orientation, generative learning, innovation strategy and business performance inter-relationships in bioscience firms.Journal of Management Studies, 45(8), 1329–1353.
42.
NemanichL. A., & VeraD. (2009). Transformational leadership and ambidexterity in the context of an acquisition.Leadership Quarterly, 20(1), 19–33.
43.
NightingaleP., & BradyT. (2011). Projects, paradigms and predictability, in Project-based organizing and strategic management: Advances in strategic management, 28, 83–112, edited by CattaniG., FerrianiS., FrederiksenL., and TäubeF.
44.
NonakaI. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.
45.
O'ReillyC. A., & TushmanM.L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization.Harvard Business Review, 82(4), 74–81.
46.
O'ReillyC. A., & TushmanM.L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers explore and exploit.California Management Review, 53(4), 5–22.
47.
O'ReillyC.A., & TushmanM.L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future.Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.
48.
PolanyiM. (1967). The tacit dimension.Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
49.
PrencipeA., & TellF. (2001). Inter-project learning: Processes and outcomes of knowledge codification in project-based firms.Research Policy, 30(9), 1373–1394.
50.
RaischS., BirkinshawJ., ProbstG., & TushmanM.L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance.Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.
51.
SchmittA., BorzilloS., & ProbstG. (2012). Don't let knowledge walk away: Knowledge retention during employee downsizing.Management Learning, 43(1), 53–74.
52.
SwartJ. (2006). Intellectual capital: Disentangling an enigmatic Concept.Journal of Intellectual Capital, 7(2), 136.
TiwanaA. (2008). Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity.Strategic Management Journal, 29(3), 251–272.
55.
TsangE. W. K., & ZahraS.A. (2008). Organizational unlearning.Human Relations, 61(10), 1435–1462.
56.
TurnerJ. R., & CochraneR.A. (1993). Goals-and-methods matrix: Coping with projects with ill defined goals and/or methods of achieving them.International Journal of Project Management, 11(2), 93–102.
57.
TurnerN., & Lee-KelleyL. (2013). Unpacking the theory on ambidexterity: An illustrative case on the managerial architectures, mechanisms and dynamics.Management Learning, 44(2), 179–196.
58.
TurnerN., SwartJ., & MaylorH. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda.International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(3), 317–332.
