Paradoxes and the Nature of Ambidexterity in IT Transformation Programs

References

• Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ. Sci. 20(4):696–717.Link, Google Scholar
• Baker J, Jones D, Cao Q, Song J (2011) Conceptualizing the dynamic strategic alignment competency. J. Assoc. Inform. Systems 12(4):299–322.Google Scholar
• Besson P, Rowe F (2012) Strategizing information systems-enabled organizational transformation: A transdisciplinary review and new directions. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 21(2):103–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bharadwaj AS (2000) A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quart. 24(1):169–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Birks DF, Fernandez W, Levina N, Nasirin S (2013) Grounded theory method in information systems research: Its nature, diversity and opportunities. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 22(1):1–8.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chan YE, Reich BH (2007) IT alignment: What have we learned? J. Inform. Tech. 22(4):297–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charmaz K (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis (Sage Publications, London).Google Scholar
• Clark CE, Cavanaugh NC, Brown CV, Sambamurthy V (1997) Building change-readiness capabilities in the IS organization: Insights from the Bell Atlantic experience. MIS Quart. 21(4):425–455.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Martin JA (2000) Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management J. 21(10–11):1105–1121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt KM, Furr NR, Bingham CB (2010) Crossroads—Microfoundations of performance: Balancing efficiency and flexibility in dynamic environments. Organ. Sci. 21(6):1263–1273.Link, Google Scholar
• Gibson CB, Birkinshaw J (2004) The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Acad. Management J. 47(2):209–226.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Glaser B (1978) Theoretical Sensitivity: Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory (Sociology Press, Mill Valley, CA).Google Scholar
• Glaser BG, Strauss A (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research (Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Gregor S, Martin M, Fernandez W, Stern S, Vitale M (2006) The transformational dimension in the realization of business value from information technology. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 15(3):249–270.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gregory RW, Beck R, Keil M (2013) Control balancing in information systems development offshoring projects. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 37(4):1211–1232.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Guillemette MG, Paré G (2012) Toward a new theory of the contribution of the IT function in organizations. MIS Quart. 36(2):529–551.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson J, Venkatraman N (1992) Strategic alignment: A model for organizational transformation through information technology. Kochan TA, Useem M, eds. Transforming Organizations (Oxford University Press, New York), 97–117.Google Scholar
• Im G, Rai A (2008) Knowledge sharing ambidexterity in long-term interorganizational relationships. Management Sci. 54(7):1281–1296.Link, Google Scholar
• Jiang JJ, Chang JYT, Chen H-G, Wang ETG, Klein G (2014) Achieving IT program goals with integrative conflict management. J. Management Inform. Systems 31(1):79–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levina N, Vaast E (2008) Innovating or doing as told? Status differences and overlapping boundaries in offshore collaboration. Management Inform. Systems Quart. 32(2):307–332.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levinthal DA, March JG (1993) The myopia of learning. Strategic Management J. 14(S2):95–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lycett M, Rassau A, Danson J (2004) Programme management: A critical review. Internat. J. Project Management 22(4):289–299.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1991) Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 2(1):71–87.Link, Google Scholar
• Mata FJ, Fuerst WL, Barney JB (1995) Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based analysis. MIS Quart. 19(4):487–505.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Muhr T (2008) Atlas.Ti—The Knowledge Workbench (Scientific Software Development, Berlin).Google Scholar
• Napier NP, Mathiassen L, Robey D (2011) Building contextual ambidexterity in a software company to improve firm-level coordination. Eur. J. Inform. Systems 20(6):674–690.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2004) The ambidextrous organization. Harvard Bus. Rev. 82(4):74–81.Google Scholar
• O’Reilly CA, Tushman ML (2008) Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma. Res. Organ. Behav. 28:185–206.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pavlou PA, El Sawy OA (2010) The “third hand”: IT-enabled competitive advantage in turbulence through improvisational capabilities. Inform. Systems Res. 21(3):443–471.Link, Google Scholar
• Peppard J, Ward J (2004) Beyond strategic information systems: Towards an IS capability. J. Strategic Inform. Systems 13(2):167–194.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Piccoli G, Ives B (2005) IT-dependent strategic initiatives and sustained competitive advantage: A review and synthesis of the literature. MIS Quart. 29(4):747–776.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raisch S, Birkinshaw J, Probst G, Tushman ML (2009) Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organ. Sci. 20(4):685–695.Link, Google Scholar
• Ramesh B, Mohan K, Cao L (2012) Ambidexterity in agile distributed development: An empirical investigation. Inform. Systems Res. 23(2):323–339.Link, Google Scholar
• Ribbers PMA, Schoo K-C (2002) Program management and complexity of ERP implementations. Engrg. Management J. 14(2):45–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Robey D (1997) The paradoxes of transformation. Sauer C, Yetton PW, eds. Steps to the Future: Fresh Thinking on the Management of IT-Based Organizational Transformation (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 209–229.Google Scholar
• Robey D, Boudreau M-C (1999) Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology: Theoretical directions and methodological implications. Inform. Systems Res. 10(2):167–185.Link, Google Scholar
• Robey D, Ross JW, Boudreau M-C (2002) Learning to implement enterprise systems: An exploratory study of the dialectics of change. J. Management Inform. Systems 19(1):17–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ross JW, Beath CM, Goodhue DL (1996) Develop long-term competitiveness through IT assets. Sloan Management Rev. 38(1):31–42.Google Scholar
• Ross JW, Weill P, Robertson D (2006) Enterprise Architecture as Strategy: Creating a Foundation for Business Execution (Harvard Business Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Sambamurthy V (2000) Business strategy in hypercompetitive environments: Rethinking the logic of IT differentiation. Zmud RW, ed. Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future Through the Past (Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Cincinnati), 245–261.Google Scholar
• Sambamurthy V, Bharadwaj A, Grover V (2003) Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quart. 27(2):237–263.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sapsed J, Salter A (2004) Postcards from the edge: Local communities, global programs and boundary objects. Organ. Stud. 25(9):1515–1534.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sauer C, Yetton PW (1997) The right stuff: An introduction to new thinking about IT management. Sauer C, Yetton PW, eds. Steps to the Future: Fresh Thinking on the Management of IT-Based Organizational Transformation (Jossey-Bass, San Francisco), 1–25.Google Scholar
• Scott Morton MS (1991) The Corporation of the 1990s: Information Technology and Organizational Transformation (Oxford University Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Lewis MW (2011) Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Acad. Management Rev. 36(2):381–403.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Smith WK, Tushman ML (2005) Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organ. Sci. 16(5):522–536.Link, Google Scholar
• Tiwana A (2010) Systems development ambidexterity: Explaining the complementary and substitutive roles of formal and informal controls. J. Management Inform. Systems 27(2):87–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, O’Reilly CA (1996) Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Rev. 38(4):8–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tushman ML, Smith WK, Binns A (2011) The ambidextrous CEO. Harvard Bus. Rev. 89(6):74–80.Google Scholar
• Urquhart C (2013) Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar
• Van de Ven AH (2007) Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Social Research (Oxford University Press, New York).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatraman N (1994) IT-enabled business transformation: From automation to business scope redefinition. MIT Sloan Management Rev. 35(2):73–87.Google Scholar
• Venkatraman N (1997) Beyond outsourcing: Managing IT resources as a value center. Sloan Management Rev. 38(3):51–64.Google Scholar
• Weill P, Ross JW (2009) IT Savvy: What Top Executives Must Know to Go from Pain to Gain (Harvard Business Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Whetten DA (1989) What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Acad. Management Rev. 14(4):490–494.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xia W, Lee G (2005) Complexity of information systems development projects: Conceptualization and measurement development. J. Management Inform. Systems 22(1):45–83.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xue L, Ray G, Sambamurthy V (2012) Efficiency or innovation: How do industry environments moderate the effects of firms’ IT asset portfolios? MIS Quart. 36(2):509–528.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yin R (2009) Case Study Research—Design and Methods (Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA).Google Scholar