The Tension Between Flexible Goals and Managerial Control in Exploratory Projects

Abstract

Over the last 20 years, research on the management of exploratory projects has shown the need for flexible execution methods. However, while the managers involved in such projects recognize the need for flexibility in the means, supervising managers are reluctant to provide flexibility in evolving project goals. Indeed, supervising managers tighten control rather than loosen it when projects become more uncertain. We show empirical evidence of how this resistance emerges in the gray area between “being flexible on the means” and “losing control.” We also offer proposals on how to make exploration projects more acceptable to top management.

Facilitating Contextual Ambidexterity in a Global Operations Expansion Program

“…The findings highlight the role of the context. Moreover, the findings would likely be different if we had also included the very first attempts to develop the technology in the early 1990s (i.e., purely exploratory projects; Lenfle et al, 2019;Loch & Sommer, 2019). This, however, is outside the global operations expansion program.…”

“…Recently, Tillement et al (2019) provide a complementary view by introducing the concept of hybrid project (i.e., project-level coexistence of exploration and exploitation), illustrating also how hybridization evolves in time through deliberate exploration and emerging exploration and how it can be managed. Linking to the notions of structural and temporal ambidexterity, research has also assessed exploratory projects (see Lenfle et al, 2019), for example, by studying the tension between flexibility and control in such projects (Loch & Sommer, 2019).…”

“…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).…”

Foco no cliente em times de desenvolvimento de software: um estudo quantitativo

“…cliente quando comparados aos tradicionais, em ambientes de maior complexidade ou incerteza(Loch & Sommer, 2019). Startups se beneficiam dos métodos ágeis, pois trabalham normalmente em um ambiente de grande incerteza por conta de investidores que mudam de atitude repentinamente, por mudanças regulatórias, por mudança no comportamento de seus clientes ou até mesmo pela complexidade de seus produtos que até então não existiam(Loch & Sommer, 2019).…”