The intervening role of ambidexterity in the knowledge management project success connection
-
DOIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(3).2020.05
-
Article InfoVolume 18 2020, Issue #3, pp. 56-66
- Cited by
- 981 Views
-
157 Downloads
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Enhanced positive outcomes and benefits require project management to be integrated with knowledge management (KM) to induce ambidexterity and project success. To offer an empirical insight into this issue and advance the field of knowledge further, this research studies the mediating role of ambidexterity within the KM project success connection. The data collected from a sample of 350 senior people who have familiarity with relevant capital projects in the manufacturing companies in Jordan were analyzed using the algorithm of partial least squares (PLS) and bootstrapping techniques. The findings of the study show that KM is an integral aspect of project success, and it has a significant positive effect on project success, but KM, which does not induce ambidexterity, could not significantly enhance project success. KM can induce and stimulate enhanced project performance and benefits only when it induces ambidexterity. This implies that project success requires KM, given that KM allows organizations to possess exploitative and explorative capabilities simultaneously to tackle issues arising from the external environment. That this study covers only the manufacturing sector in Jordan, the research model can be replicated in other contexts to solidify the findings of the current study.
- Keywords
-
JEL Classification (Paper profile tab)M10, O22, L10
-
References60
-
Tables3
-
Figures3
-
- Figure 1. Research model
- Figure 2. Research measurement model
- Figure 3. Structural model
-
- Table 1. Internal consistency and convergent validity
- Table 2. Discriminant Validity Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT)
- Table 3. Hypotheses testing
-
- Ajmal, M. M., Sandhu, M. A., & Jabeen, F. (2013). Assessment of knowledge management practices in project-oriented business. International Journal of Project Organization and Management, 5(3), 279-292.
- Aktar, S., D’Ambra, J., & Ray, P. (2011). An evaluation of PLS based complex models: the roles of power analysis, predictive relevance and GoF index. In Proceedings of the 17th American Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS2011) (pp. 1-7). Detroit, USA: Association for Information Systems.
- Al-Hawary, S. I. S., & Alwan, A. M. (2016). Knowledge Management and Its Effect on Strategic Decisions of Jordanian Public Universities. Journal of Accounting, Business & Management, 23(2), 21-41.
- Al-Zayyat, A. N., Al-Khaldi, F., Tadros, I., & Al-Edwan, G. (2010). The effect of knowledge management processes on project management. Journal of IBIMA Business Review, 1-6.
- Anderson, J., & Gerbing, D. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
- Arthur, M. B., DeFillippi, R. J., & Jones, C. (2001). Project-based learning as the interplay of career and company non-financial capital. Management Learning, 32(1), 99-117.
- Candi, M., Van den Ende, J., & Gemser, G. (2013). Organizing innovation projects under technological turbulence. Technovation, 33(4), 133-141.
- Chen, C. J., & Huang, J. W. (2009). Strategic human resource practices and innovation performance – the mediating role of knowledge management capacity. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 104-114.
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Fedor, D. B., Ghosh, S., Caldwell, S. D., Maurer, T. J., & Singhal, V. R. (2003). The effects of knowledge management on team members’ ratings of project success and impact. Decision Sciences, 34(3), 513-539.
- Fornell, C., & Yi, Y. (1992). Assumptions of the two-step approach: reply to Anderson and Gebing. Sociological Methods and Research, 20(3), 334-339.
- Gelbard, R., & Carmeli, A. (2009). The interactive effect of team dynamics and organizational support on ICT project success. International Journal of Project Management, 27(5), 464-470.
- Gibson, C., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.
- GlobalEDGE. (2018). Jordan: Economy 2018.
- Güttel, W., & Konlechner, S. (2007). Dynamic capabilities and competence obsolescence: empirical data from research-intensive firms. In Proceedings of OLKC – “Learning Fusion” (pp. 357-374).
- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A Global Perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
- Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
- Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications, Inc.
- Hanisch, B., Lindner, F., Mueller, A., & Wald, A. (2009). Knowledge management in project environments. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 148-160.
- He, Z., & Wong, P. (2004). Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481-496.
- Henseler, J., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135.
- Huang, J. W., & Li, Y. H. (2009). The mediating effect of knowledge management on social interaction and innovation performance. International Journal of Manpower, 30(3), 285-301.
- Hussain, S., Fangwei, Z., Siddiqi, A., Ali, Z., & Shabbir, M. (2018). Structural equation model for evaluation factors affecting quality for social infrastructure projects. Sustainability, 10(5), 1415, 1-25.
- Johari, J., Yahya, K., & Omar, A. (2011). The construct validity of organizational structure scale: evidence from Malaysia. World Journal of Management, 3(2), 131-152.
- Jurksiene, L., & Pundziene, A. (2016). The relationship between dynamic capabilities and firm competitive advantage: The mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. European Business Review, 28(4), 431-448.
- Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2002). Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1183-1194.
- Keeter, S. (2005). Survey Research. In D. Druckman (Ed.), Doing research: Methods of Inquiry for conflict analysis (pp. 123-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
- Kerzner, H. (2011). Project Management Metrics, KPIs and Dashboards. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.
- Kim, C. Y., Lim, M. S., & Yoo, J. W. (2019). Ambidexterity in external knowledge search strategies and innovation performance: mediating role of balanced innovation and moderating role of absorptive capacity. Sustainability, 11(5111), 1-23.
- Kotlarsky, J., & Oshri, I. (2005). Social ties, knowledge sharing and successful collaboration in globally distributed system development projects. European Journal of Informational Systems, 14(1), 37-48.
- Lenfle, S., & Loch, C. (2010). Lost roots: How project management came to emphasize control over flexibility and novelty. California Management Review, 53(1), 32-55.
- Lis, A., Józefowics, B., Tomanek, M., & Gulak-Lipka, P. (2018). The concept of the ambidextrous organizations: systematic literature review. International Journal of Contemporary Management, 17(1), 77-79.
- Liu, P. L., Chen, W. C., & Tsai, C. H. (2005). An empirical study on the correlation between the knowledge management method and new product development strategy on product performance in Taiwan’s industries. Technovation, 25(6), 637-644.
- March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-86.
- Nasiruzzaman, Md., Qudaih, H. A., & Dahlan, A. R. A. (2013). Project Success and Knowledge Management (KM) Practices in Malaysian Institution of Higher Learning (IHL). Journal of Education and Vocational Research, 4(5), 159-164.
- O’Reily, C., & Tushman, M. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: how managers explore and exploit. California Management Review, 35(4), 1-18.
- Petro, Y. (2017). Ambidexterity through Project Portfolio Management Resolving paradoxes in organizations (Doctoral dissertation). The British University in Dubai (BUiD).
- Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project success: definitions and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67-72.
- Prabhakar, P. G. (2008). What is project success: a literature review. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(9), 3-10.
- Raisch, S., & Birkinshaw, J. (2008). Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of Management, 34(3), 375-409.
- Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685-695.
- Revilla, E., Prieto, I., & Rodríguez, B. (2011). Information technology and the ambidexterity hypothesis: an analysis in product development. Journal of Operations and Supply Chain Management, 4(2), 1-18.
- Robinson, H., Carrillo, P., Anumba, C., & Al-Ghassani, A. (2005). Knowledge management practices in large construction organizations. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 12(5), 431-445.
- Sage, D. J., Dainty, A. R., & Brookes, N. J. (2010). Who reads the project file? Exploring the power effects of knowledge tools in construction project management. Construction Management and Economics, 28(6), 629-639.
- Santo, S. A. (2005). Knowledge management: An imperative for schools of education. TechTrends, 49(6), 42-49.
- Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill building approach (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (5th ed.). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
- Styhre, A., & Gluch, P. (2010). Managing knowledge in platforms: boundary objects and stocks and flows of knowledge. Construction Management and Economics, 28(6), 589-599.
- Szulanski, G. (1996). Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(2), 27-43.
- Tamayo-Torres, J., Roehrich, J., & Lewis, M. (2017). Organizational ambidexterity, manufacturing performance and environmental dynamism. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 37(3), 282-299.
- Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility. California Management Review, 58(4), 13-35.
- Todorović, M. L., Petrović, D. Č., Mihić, M. M., Obradović, V. L., & Bushuyev, S. D. (2015). Project success analysis framework: A knowledge-based approach in project management. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 772-783.
- Turner, J. (2009). The Handbook of Project-Based Management. London: Mc-Graw Hill.
- Turner, J. R., Keegan, A., & Crawford, L. (2004). Learning by experience in the project-based organization. Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference 2004. Project Management Institute, PA: Newtown Square.
- Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.
- Wilson, J. (2010). Essentials of business research – A guide to doing your research project. New Delhi: SAGE Publications India.
- Yahya, S., & Goh, W. K. (2002). Managing human resources toward achieving knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(5), 457-468.
- Yang, L. R., Chen, J. H., & Wang, H. W. (2012). Assessing impacts of information technology on project success through knowledge management practice. Automation in Construction, 22, 182-191.
- Yun, G., Shin, D., Kim, H., & Lee, S. (2011). Knowledge-mapping model for construction project organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(3), 528-548.
- Zhang, Y., Wei, F., & Constance, V. (2019). Individual ambidexterity and antecedents in a changing context. International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(3), 1-25.