Paradoxes and the Nature of Ambidexterity in IT Transformation Programs

Abstract

T hough information technology (IT) transformation programs are gaining in importance, we know little about the nature of the challenges involved in such programs and how to manage them. Using grounded theory methodology, we conducted a multiyear case study of a large IT transformation program in a major commercial bank, during which we encountered the interrelated themes of paradoxes and ambidexterity. Grounded in our case, we construct a substantive theory of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs that identifies and explains the paradoxes that managers need to resolve in IT transformation programs. The ambidexterity areas we identified are (1) IT portfolio decisions (i.e., IT efficiency versus IT innovation), (2) IT platform design (i.e., IT standardization versus IT differentiation), (3) IT architecture change (i.e., IT integration versus IT replacement), (4) IT program planning (i.e., IT program agility versus IT project stability), (5) IT program governance (i.e., IT program control versus IT project autonomy), and (6) IT program delivery (i.e., IT program coordination versus IT project isolation). What weaves these six areas together is the combined need for IT managers to employ ambidextrous resolution strategies to ensure short-term IT contributions and continuous progress of IT projects while simultaneously working toward IT transformation program success as a foundation for IT-enabled business transformation. However, in addition to this commonality, we find that the nature of paradoxical tensions differs across the six areas and requires slightly different management strategies for paradox resolution. Ambidexterity areas (1), (2), and (3) are associated with IT transformation strategizing and, in addition to balancing short-and long-term goals, require the mutual accommodation and blending of business and IT interests in the spirit of IT-business partnering to achieve IT-enabled business change and IT-based competitiveness. Ambidexterity areas (4), (5), and (6) are associated with IT program and project execution and, in addition to balancing short-and long-term requirements, require a recurrent and dynamic act of balancing "local" needs at the IT project level and "global" needs at the IT program level.

IT Agility: Current State, Organizational Contingencies, and Future Research Avenues

“…Furthermore, we propose that these empirical findings should not be discussed and explained solely from the agility perspective (i.e. only agility vs. rigidity) but there is a need to consider the view that we outlined in the introduction of this paper, namely that the question of IT agility is to be studied and balanced together with other relevant and sometimes ambidextrous organizational perspectives such as efficiency, economies of scale, innovation ability, and others [5,11,15]. Hence, IT agility is not an isolated topic and these empirical results are to be seen as context-dependent, and even though we did not ask our survey respondents to position their organizations in terms of the mentioned perspectives, we think that the demographical construct of our respondent group covers indirectly some of these organizational perspectives plus a number of other relevant aspects.…”

“…As noted by Gregory, Keil, Muntermann and Mähring [11] in their study of a major IT transformation program in a Fortune 200 bank, this involves a turn towards an ambidextrous approach within IT Governance, i.e. an increased ability of supporting both exploration and exploitation [12,13].…”

Managing Innovation Paradox in the Sustainable Innovation Ecosystem: A Case Study of Ambidextrous Capability in a Focal Firm

“…The effective management of innovation paradoxes should be carried out in their sustainable ecosystems. Second, although ambidexterity is the most useful way of managing paradoxes [9], few works study the implications of ambidextrous capability in resolving innovation paradoxes. Managing innovation paradoxes from an ambidextrous capability perspective can achieve a balance between two paradoxical tasks, such as exploitative and exploratory innovations [33].…”

“…Although the topic of paradox is a well-researched area across different academic disciplines [9], related research only studies the influence and trigger factors of sustainable innovation paradoxes [10]. Further, most existing theories of managing sustainable innovation paradoxes are for individual organizations rather than the ecosystem context [11].…”

A New Dualistic Cio Toolbox: Towards Ambidexterity in the Digital Business Transformation

“…In this sense, studying the challenges, which the CIOs have in combining their IT organization's traditional gatekeeper role with the IT contributor role, is essential, as solving this paradox will boost the entire company's digital success. Therefore, the primary research objective of this study is to fill the gap of inadequate IS research on the CIO's dualistic role in the digital business transformation and also to contribute to the new IS research direction relating to the paradoxes of change and control (Gregory, Keil, & Muntermann, 2015) To answer to the research question, we construct a new management tool for CIOs. We select specific learning concepts derived from the organizational learning theory of Argyris and Schön (1974) and then convert these concepts into the IT context (as CIOs' operational targets and leadership principles).…”