Disentangling Exploitation and Exploration in Hybrid Projects: The Case of a New Nuclear Reactor Development

Abstract

Using a qualitative research approach, this article addresses a gap in the project management literature that is the coexistence of exploitation and exploration learning dynamics within a single large-scale and complex project. We investigate the case of the New Sodium Fast Reactor (NewSFR) project, a large-scale, complex, and multi-actor project aimed at designing a new technology of nuclear reactor. Through a grounded, interpretive, and multilevel methodological approach, we characterize NewSFR as a hybrid project that combines high exploration and exploitation goals. We investigate the hybridizing process, which takes into account long-term temporal dynamics and interactions between two levels of analysis: the knowledge domains within the project and the project itself. This enables us to report three major contributions. First, at a macro-level, we highlight the ambiguity related to the difficulty for project members to agree on either exploratory or exploitative NewSFR status, which leads us to qualify it as a hybrid project. We then investigate the case dynamically and at a micro-level (i.e., the level of knowledge domains within the project). We emphasize the temporal processes underlying the hybridization, and how this hybridization evolves in time through two data-based concepts: deliberate exploration and emerging exploration. We identify and categorize the main drivers of deliberate and emerging exploration throughout the project, and highlight how these drivers affect project management processes. Finally, we discuss the issue of managing such hybrid projects.

Facilitating Contextual Ambidexterity in a Global Operations Expansion Program

“…Project studies on ambidexterity have tended to focus on structural and temporal ambidexterities in a project. Research on ambidexterity in the project setting has mainly assumed that projects are either exploratory or exploitative in nature (e.g., Lenfle et al, 2019;Midler et al, 2019), addressing ambidexterity mainly at the levels of projects (e.g., Aubry & Lièvre, 2010;Tillement et al, 2019;Turner et al, 2014Turner et al, , 2015Turner et al, , 2016 and project-based organizations (e.g., Davies & Brady, 2016;Sailer, 2019). For example, Liu and Leitner (2012) studied the antecedents and project performance implications of exploration and exploitation in a complex infrastructure project, concluding that structural separation is ineffective due to the natural cycling between exploration and exploitation in the project setting.…”

“…Our findings indicate that managers pay significant attention to both alignment and adaptability in the global operations expansion program. Existing project studies on ambidexterity have tended to assume that a project is either exploratory or exploitative in nature (e.g., Lenfle et al, 2019;Loch & Sommer, 2019;Tillement et al, 2019) and have subsequently focused on addressing the structural or temporal forms of ambidexterity (e.g., Brady & Davies, 2004;Liu & Leitner, 2012;Pellegrinelli et al, 2015;Turner et al, 2014). A focal difference between contextual ambidexterity and the other ambidexterity modes relate to the locus of balance.…”

“…In addition, we provide further understanding of the roles of projects and programs in the context of internationalization involving innovation (Midler, 2019). We also complement the research on ambidextrous program management (Midler et al, 2019) as well as project studies on ambidexterity (e.g., Aubry & Lièvre, 2010; Davies & Brady, 2016; Ramesh et al, 2012; Tillement et al, 2019; Turner et al, 2014, 2015, 2016) and exploratory projects (e.g., Lenfle et al, 2019; Loch & Sommer, 2019). Moreover, we respond to the calls for research on programs (Artto et al, 2007) and on how to facilitate ambidexterity (Pellegrinelli et al, 2015; Turner & Lee-Kelley, 2012; Turner et al, 2015).…”

“…Research on ambidexterity in the project setting has mainly been built on the structural and temporal separation to approach ambidexterity (e.g., Liu & Leitner, 2012;Pellegrinelli et al, 2015;Turner et al, 2014), often assuming that a project is either exploratory or exploitative in nature (e.g., Lenfle et al, 2019;Tillement et al, 2019), while research on contextual ambidexterity tends to focus on the facilitating role of top managers rather than instrumental action variables, such as organizational arrangements creating the organizational context 2 . Moreover, this research has focused on project-based organizations (e.g., Davies & Brady, 2016;Sailer, 2019) or projects (e.g., Aubry & Lièvre, 2010;Tillement et al, 2019;Turner et al, 2014Turner et al, , 2015Turner et al, , 2016, paying less attention to ambidexterity at the program level (for an exception, see Midler et al, 2019). Programs, however, differ fundamentally from projects and subsequently require different management approaches (Thiry, 2002(Thiry, , 2004.…”

“…While ambidexterity has received significant attention in both organization studies (e.g., Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Junni et al, 2013; March, 1991; Wang & Rafiq, 2012) and project studies (e.g., Aubry & Lièvre, 2010; Davies & Brady, 2016; Midler et al, 2019; Turner et al, 2015), we still have a poor understanding of how ambidexterity is facilitated (Pellegrinelli et al, 2015). Research on ambidexterity in the project setting has mainly been built on the structural and temporal separation to approach ambidexterity (e.g., Liu & Leitner, 2012; Pellegrinelli et al, 2015; Turner et al, 2014), often assuming that a project is either exploratory or exploitative in nature (e.g., Lenfle et al, 2019; Tillement et al, 2019), while research on contextual ambidexterity tends to focus on the facilitating role of top managers rather than instrumental action variables, such as organizational arrangements creating the organizational context 2 . Moreover, this research has focused on project-based organizations (e.g., Davies & Brady, 2016; Sailer, 2019) or projects (e.g., Aubry & Lièvre, 2010; Tillement et al, 2019; Turner et al, 2014, 2015, 2016), paying less attention to ambidexterity at the program level (for an exception, see Midler et al, 2019).…”