This article analyzes the management of project portfolios that encompass both exploratory and implementation projects under the denomination of ambidextrous program management. We build on the project/program and ambidexterity literature to characterize such programs. Based on an in-depth three-year study, we apply this analytical framework to an emblematic case: the Autonomous Mobility (AM) initiative of a major automotive firm. We characterize the coordination challenges of such ambidextrous program management, and propose a coordination concept to deal with them, which we term the program hub.
Our contribution to the project management field is to extend the scope of analysis to a new type of program that simultaneously coordinates both exploratory and implementation projects. We also advance the ambidexterity field by demonstrating how ambidextrous program management can orchestrate different types of ambidextrous organizational patterns within the firm. For practitioners, we illustrate the multibillion-dollar innovation initiative focused on autonomous mobility that is ongoing within the auto industry.
ArttoK.MartinsuoM.GemündenH. G.MurtoaroJ. (2009). Foundations of program management: A bibliometric view. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 1–18.
2.
Ben Mahmoud-JouiniS. (2015). Innovation units within established firms. Towards a cartography. IPDMC Proceedings. Copenhagen, Denmark, June 2015.
3.
Ben Mahmoud-JouiniS.Charue-DubocF.FourcadeF. (2007). Multilevel integration of exploration units: Beyond the ambidextrous organization. In SolomonG. T. (Ed.), Best paper proceedings of the 66th annual meeting of the Academy of Management (Vol. 1, pp. 1–6). Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management.
4.
Ben Mahmoud-JouiniS.MidlerC.CruzV.GaudronN. (2013). Creative artefacts: How stimulators, demonstrators and prototypes contribute to the creative processes. 20th International Product Development Management Conference, Paris, France.
5.
BradyT.DaviesA. (2004). Building project capabilities: From exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization Studies, 25, 1601–1621.
6.
BrownT.KatzB. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 381–383.
7.
BurgelmanR.SaylesL. (1986). Inside corporate innovation: Strategy, structure and managerial skills. New York, NY: The Free Press.
8.
CapronL.MitchellW. (2012). Build, borrow, or buy: Solving the growth dilemma. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Press.
9.
ChesbroughH.VanhaverbekeW.WestJ. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press on Demand.
10.
ChristensenC. (2013). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
11.
ChristensenC.RaynorM. (2013). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Brighton, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
12.
ClarkK. B.FujimotoT. (1991). Product development performance: Strategy, organization and management in the world auto industry. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
13.
CooperR. G.EdgettS. J.KleinschmidtE. J. (1998). Portfolio management for new products. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
14.
CusumanoM. A.NobeokaK.KentaroN. (1998). Thinking beyond lean: How multi-project management is transforming product development at Toyota and other companies. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
15.
DuncanR. B. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: Designing dual structures for innovation. In KilmanR.PondyL. (Eds.), The management of organizational design (pp. 167–188). New York, NY: North Holland.
16.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
17.
EisenhardtK. M.BrownS. L. (1998). Competing on the edge: Strategy as structured chaos. Long Range Planning, 31(5), 786–789.
18.
EnbergC.LindkvistL.TellF. (2006). Exploring the dynamics of knowledge integration: Acting and interacting in project teams. Management Learning, 37(2), 143–165.
19.
GastaldiL.MidlerC. (2005). Exploration concourante et pilotage de la recherche. Une entreprise de specialites chimiques. Revue Française de Gestion, 31(155), 173–189.
20.
GibsonC. B.BirkinshawJ. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 209–226.
21.
HannahD.EisenhardtK. M. (2018). How firms navigate cooperation and competition in nascent ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(12), 3163–3192.
22.
JacobidesM.TaeC. (2015). Kingpins, bottlenecks and value dynamics within a sector. Organisation Science, 26(3), 889–907.
23.
JenkinsD. R. (2001). Lockheed secret projects: Inside the skunk works. Berlin, Germany: Zenith Imprint.
24.
JullienB.LungY.MidlerC. (2013). The Logan epic: New trajectories for innovation. Paris, France: Dunod.
25.
JunniP.SaralaR. M.TarasV.TarbaS. Y. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312.
26.
KockA.GemündenH. (2018). The project-oriented organization and its contribution to innovation. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 147–160.
27.
LavieD.RosenkopfL. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 797–818.
28.
LenfleS. (2008). Exploration and project management. International Journal of Project Management, 26, 469–478.
29.
LenfleS. (2016). Floating in space—On the strangeness of exploratory projects. Project Management Journal, 47, 47–61.
30.
LochC. H.DeMeyerA.PichM. (2011). Managing the unknown: A new approach to managing high uncertainty and risk in projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
31.
LundinR. A.ArvidssonN.BradyT.EkstedtE.MidlerC.SidowJ. (2015). Managing and working in project society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
ManiakR.MidlerC. (2014). Multiproject lineage management: Bridging project management and design-based innovation strategy. International Journal of Project Management, 32, 1146–1156.
33.
ManiakR.MidlerC.BeaumeR.von PechmannF. (2014). Featuring capability: How carmakers organize to deploy innovative features across products. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(1), 114–127.
34.
MarchJ. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.
35.
MidlerC. (1993). L’Auto qui n’existait pas: Management des projets et transformation de l’entreprise InterEditions (The car that did not exist: Project management and the dynamics of the firm)réédition Dunod 2012, Paris.
36.
MidlerC. (1995). Organisational innovation in project management: The Renault Twingo case. In AndreasenL. E.CoriatB.den HertogF.KaplinskyR. (Eds.), Europe’s next step—Organisational innovation, competition and employment (pp. 131–150). London, UK: Frank Cass & Co.
37.
MidlerC. (2013). Implementing a low-end disruption strategy through multiproject lineage management: The Logan case. Project Management Journal, 44(5), 24–35.
38.
MintzbergH.WatersJ. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic Management Journal, 6(3), 257–272.
O’ReillyC. A.TushmanM. L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Business Review, 82, 74–83.
41.
OrtonJ. D.WeickK. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 203–223.
42.
PellegrinelliS.Murray-WebsterR.TurnerN. (2015). Facilitating organizational ambidexterity through the complementary use of projects and programs. International Journal of Project Management, 33, 153–164.
43.
RosingK.FreseM.BauschA. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974.
44.
SethiR.IqbalZ. (2008). Stage-gate controls, learning failure, and adverse effect on novel new products. Journal of Marketing, 72(1), 118–134.
45.
SydowJ.LindkvistL.DeFillippiR. (2004). Project-based organizations, embeddedness and repositories of knowledge. Organization Studies, 25(8), 1475–1489.
46.
TellerJ.UngerB. N.KockA.GemündenH. G. (2012). Formalization of project portfolio management: The moderating role of project portfolio complexity. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 596–607.
47.
ThomkeS. (2003). Experimentation matters. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
48.
TurnerN.SwartJ.MaylorH. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management. Review, 15(3), 317–332.
49.
TushmanM.O’ReillyC. A. (1996). Evolution and revolution: Mastering the dynamics of innovation and change. California Management Review, 38, 8–30.
50.
TushmanM.O’ReillyC. A. (1997). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.
51.
Van de VenA. H. (1992). Suggestions for studying strategy process: A research note. Strategic Management Journal, 13, 169–188.
52.
WengerE. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
WheelwrightS. C.ClarkK. B. (1992). Revolutionizing product development: Quantum leaps in speed, efficiency and quality. New York, NY: The Free Press.
54.
WomackJ. P.JonesD. T.RoosD. (1991). The machine that changed the world: The story of lean production. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
55.
YinR. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
56.
ZimmermannA.RaischS.CardinalL. B. (2018). Managing persistent tensions on the frontline: A configurational perspective on ambidexterity. Journal of Management Studies, 55(5), 739–769.
