Ambidexterity is of central importance to the competitive advantage of the firm, yet to date there is limited understanding of how it is managed. The theorization of ambidexterity is inadequate for complex, practical realities and, in turn, this hinders the way in which it can aid the management of ambidexterity in practice. This paper asks: What are the mechanisms for achieving ambidexterity? The authors use a systematic review to develop a research framework which integrates intellectual capital resources (organizational, social and human capital) across various levels of analysis (organization, group and individual). This review extends understanding of the generic mechanisms (i.e. temporal, structural and contextual ambidexterity) that dominate the literature. This allows for a more fine‐grained understanding of how ambidexterity is achieved and enables avenues for further research to be identified.

No abstract

This paper contributes to the understanding of complexity and its management from an OM perspective, building on and extending the systematic literature review published in this journal in 2011, and provides a foundation for exploring the interactions between complexities and responses.

This article reports an investigation into project managers’ perceptions of managerial complexity. Based on a multistage empirical study, elements of “what makes a project complex to manage” were identified and classified under the dimensions of mission, organization, delivery, stakeholder, or team—the MODeST model. Further, the data showed that these elements had both structural and dynamic qualities and that the elements are interdependent. Project managers are shown to be embedded in this complexity. The practical implications of the research include the ability to describe managerial complexity in a manner consistent with the actuality of the lived project environment. This provides a framework for the description of the level of managerial challenge or difficulty, which will allow the assessment of individual and organizational responses to it in the future. Further, the opportunity exists for active management of complexity.

The subject of management is renowned for its addiction to fads and fashions. Project Management is no exception. The issue of interest for this paper is the establishment of standards in the area, specifically the 'College of Complex Project Managers' and their 'competency standard for complex project managers.' Both the college and the standard have generated significant interest in the Project Management community. Whilst the need for development of the means to manage complex projects is acknowledged, a critical evaluation show significant flaws in the definition of complex in this case, the process by which the College and its standard have emerged, and the content of the standard. If Project Management is to continue to develop as a profession, it will need an evidence-based approach to the generation of knowledge and standards. The issues raised by the evaluation provide the case for a portfolio of research that extends the existing bodies of knowledge into large-scale complicated (or major) projects. We propose that it would be owned by the practitioner community, rather than focused on one organization. Research questions are proposed that would commence this stream of activity towards an intelligent synthesis of what is required to manage in both complicated and truly complex environments. This is a revised paper previously presented at the 21st IPMA World Congress on Project Management Cracow, Poland.Keywords: complex project management, competency standards, major projects,

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to contribute to operations management (OM) practice contingency research by describing the complexity of projects. Complexity is recognised as a key independent (contingent) variable that impacts on many subsequent decisions in the practice of managing projects.Design/methodology/approachThis paper presents a systematic review of relevant literature and synthesises an integrated framework for assessing the complexities of managing projects.FindingsThis framework comprises five dimensions of complexity – structural, uncertainty, dynamics, pace and socio‐political complexity. These five dimensions present individuals and organisations with choices about how they respond to each type of complexity, in terms of business case, strategic choice, process choice, managerial capacity and competencies.Originality/valueThe contribution of this paper is to provide a clarification to the epistemology of complexity, to demonstrate complexity as a lived experience for project managers, and offer a common language for both practitioners and future empirical studies considering the individual or organisational response to project complexities. The work also demonstrates an application of systematic review in OM research.

We identify the desirability of simultaneously using knowledge assets both to exploit and explore (ambidexterity) and highlight the significance of this for the project context. We use an intellectual capital perspective and theorise that managing projects draws upon human, social and organisational capital. We examine how this is used by managers, in a qualitative study in technology projects, to explain better how ambidexterity is achieved.Ambidexterity in the use of knowledge assets is shown to exist in the practices of managers but without them necessarily having a conscious strategy for it. We identify the mechanisms by which this happens and note the distinctive role of social capital. We demonstrate the integrative nature of the mechanisms, and how each mechanism can involve the deployment of either single or multiple elements of intellectual capital. In so doing we extend the existing theory to the operational level and demonstrate the utility of this approach.

No abstract