اکتشاف و بهره برداری در سازمان های مبتنی بر پروژه: توسعه و انتشار دانش در سطوح مختلف سازمانی در شرکت های ساخت و ساز
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|20169||2013||9 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||6767 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : International Journal of Project Management, Volume 31, Issue 3, April 2013, Pages 333–341
Management studies highlight the importance of an organization's capability to both exploit existing knowledge and technologies for short-term profits and also explore new knowledge and technologies to enhance long-term innovation. Although this paradox recently has received escalating interest in management research, studies dealing with project-levels and project-based organizations (PBOs) are scarce. This conceptual paper discusses how PBOs in the construction industry can manage the exploration/exploitation paradox at different organizational levels. Short-term project focus and decentralization inhibits learning from one point in time and space to another, making it easier to reap the benefits of exploitation than of exploration. Current structural and sequential separation of exploration and exploitation activities at business unit, project portfolio, and project levels do not solve the paradox, due to lack of integrating mechanisms. Hence, PBOs in the construction industry may suffer from inadequate extent of exploration, while the extent of exploitation is not reaching its potential. Cooperative procurement procedures can serve as a basis for facilitating both exploration and exploitation of knowledge and technologies in construction projects.
A frequently discussed theme in organizational research is the paradox of short-term focus on efficiency, based on exploitation of existing knowledge and technologies, and long-term focus on innovation and strategic development, based on exploration of new knowledge and technologies (Benner and Tushman, 2003 and Raisch et al., 2009). Since both elements are critical for sustainable competitive advantage, firms need to explicitly manage both exploration and exploitation (Gupta et al., 2006 and March, 1991). Earlier research has mostly studied the tension between exploration and exploitation on firm-level (Katila and Ahuja, 2002, O´Reilly and Tushman, 2011 and Uotila et al., 2009) or strategic business unit (SBU) level (Gibson and Birkinshaw, 2004 and Jansen et al., 2006), but it is relevant at other organizational levels as well (e.g. alliance, project, team, and individual). Koza and Lewin (1998) were first to address the exploration/exploitation paradox in an inter-organizational context when investigating strategic alliances. Although recent studies have contributed to this knowledge (Lavie and Rosenkopf, 2006, Lin et al., 2007 and Tiwana, 2008), there is still limited understanding of how exploration and exploitation can be facilitated in inter-organizational relationships through different organization designs and contractual arrangements (Im and Rai, 2008). A few studies have investigated exploration and exploitation at a project portfolio level (Andriopoulos and Lewis, 2009, Lavie and Rosenkopf, 2006 and O´Reilly and Tushman, 2004), by differentiating between projects for radical innovation and projects for continuous improvements or implementation projects. However, Tiwana (2008) argues that pure project-level investigations, in which the paradox and its effects on performance are studied within projects, are very few. This gap may be due to that exploration/exploitation studies have focused mainly on various manufacturing industries (Adler et al., 1999 and Katila and Ahuja, 2002) rather than project-based industries, such as the construction industry (Eriksson and Westerberg, 2011). Companies whose work is predominantly or entirely performed in projects are commonly referred to as project-based organizations (PBOs) (Hobday, 2000). This paper discusses how PBOs in the construction industry can manage the exploration/exploitation paradox. The construction industry, which in many ways is the epitome of a project-based industry, is an interesting and relevant context in this matter due to its size and importance and the complex and often unique nature of the projects. The construction industry is one of the backbones of the economy in most countries (6-10% of GDP in most OECD countries) (Gann and Salter, 2000 and Widén and Hansson, 2007). Furthermore, its products (e.g. buildings and infrastructures) and processes chiefly impact our modern society in terms of “quality of life”, and it is responsible for high energy-consumption, waste generation, and pollutions (Ortiz et al., 2009). An innovative and efficient construction industry is therefore of high societal relevance. Although sometimes challenged, the conventional view is that the construction industry lacks innovation (Barlow, 2000 and Widén and Hansson, 2007). However, the suggested improvement agenda fails to account for the specificities of innovating within the project-based context (Dubois and Gadde, 2002 and Harty, 2008). In prior project management literature the need to break down barriers to innovation and the need to resolve conflicts between project actors are generally revealed as conclusions rather than starting points (Harty, 2008). In other words, previous research has focused on what should be done, not how it could be done. Hence, it is vital to start developing a complete yet detailed understanding of how exploration and exploitation can be achieved in PBOs. Earlier investigations that focus on how to achieve exploration and exploitation at various organizational levels have found that it is heavily affected both by formal organizational and contractual aspects (e.g. hierarchical structures, control mechanisms, formalization, partner selection procedures, forms of payment) (Jansen et al., 2006, Jansen et al., 2008, Koza and Lewin, 1998 and Lavie and Rosenkopf, 2006) and informal social aspects (e.g. culture, cooperation, shared vision) (Jansen et al., 2008, Lin and McDonough, 2011 and Tiwana, 2008). However, there is a lack of multi-level models studying a broad set of independent variables, in terms of antecedents of exploration and exploitation (Simsek, 2009). The main literature gaps, which are lack of project and multi-level studies, are addressed in this paper by examining how PBOs in the construction industry can manage the exploration/exploitation paradox at SBU, project portfolio, and project levels. At the project level, procurement procedures affect both formal aspects (e.g. responsibilities and authorities) and informal aspects (e.g. the degree of integration and cooperation among project participants) (Eriksson and Westerberg, 2011). Hence, it seems useful to utilize procurement literature as a reflective frame for understanding how to facilitate exploration and exploitation at the project level. This paper contributes to project management literature by serving as a starting point of a discussion of how PBOs can achieve both exploration and exploitation at different organizational levels.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
There is a lack of project-level focus in prior research on organizational ambidexterity. There is also a lack of acknowledging the tensions between short-term efficiency and long-term innovation in project management literature. By focusing on the tension between exploration and exploitation in the project-based construction industry this paper contributes to both project management literature and ambidexterity literature in organizational theory. Due to the project-based nature of the construction industry, many structural and temporal solutions to ambidexterity, which have been found successful in other industries, are not working satisfactorily. Hence, they need to be modified and complemented with contextual ambidexterity in order to reap the benefits of achieving both exploration and exploitation, not only at SBU and project portfolio levels but also within single projects. The main theoretical contribution of the paper is that PBOs need to manage ambidexterity by applying different ambidexterity solutions at different organizational levels. Although the paper focuses on PBOs in the construction industry, the discussions and conclusions are relevant for and applicable to other project-based industries with similar industrial characteristics. This paper can hopefully serve as a starting point for discussing organizational ambidexterity in PBOs and as inspiration for further research on ambidextrous project management. The discussion has been limited to how organizational and procurement related aspects affect the exploration/exploitation paradox. In future studies also cultural aspects should be investigated in order to analyze how attitudes and values both at industry, firm and project levels affect the possibilities to achieve ambidexterity. Empirical research should be encouraged in order to study how to measure exploration and exploitation and how ambidexterity affects project performance.