Paradoxes and the Nature of Ambidexterity in IT Transformation Programs
- 1 March 2015
- journal article
- Published by Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) in Information Systems Research
- Vol. 26 (1), 57-80
- https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2014.0554
Abstract
Though information technology (IT) transformation programs are gaining in importance, we know little about the nature of the challenges involved in such programs and how to manage them. Using grounded theory methodology, we conducted a multiyear case study of a large IT transformation program in a major commercial bank, during which we encountered the interrelated themes of paradoxes and ambidexterity. Grounded in our case, we construct a substantive theory of ambidexterity in IT transformation programs that identifies and explains the paradoxes that managers need to resolve in IT transformation programs. The ambidexterity areas we identified are (1) IT portfolio decisions (i.e., IT efficiency versus IT innovation), (2) IT platform design (i.e., IT standardization versus IT differentiation), (3) IT architecture change (i.e., IT integration versus IT replacement), (4) IT program planning (i.e., IT program agility versus IT project stability), (5) IT program governance (i.e., IT program control versus IT project autonomy), and (6) IT program delivery (i.e., IT program coordination versus IT project isolation). What weaves these six areas together is the combined need for IT managers to employ ambidextrous resolution strategies to ensure short-term IT contributions and continuous progress of IT projects while simultaneously working toward IT transformation program success as a foundation for IT-enabled business transformation. However, in addition to this commonality, we find that the nature of paradoxical tensions differs across the six areas and requires slightly different management strategies for paradox resolution. Ambidexterity areas (1), (2), and (3) are associated with IT transformation strategizing and, in addition to balancing short- and long-term goals, require the mutual accommodation and blending of business and IT interests in the spirit of IT-business partnering to achieve IT-enabled business change and IT-based competitiveness. Ambidexterity areas (4), (5), and (6) are associated with IT program and project execution and, in addition to balancing short- and long-term requirements, require a recurrent and dynamic act of balancing “local” needs at the IT project level and “global” needs at the IT program level.Keywords
This publication has 40 references indexed in Scilit:
- Grounded theory method in information systems research: its nature, diversity and opportunitiesEuropean Journal of Information Systems, 2013
- TOWARD A THEORY OF PARADOX: A DYNAMIC EQUILIBRIUM MODEL OF ORGANIZING.Academy of Management Review, 2011
- Systems Development Ambidexterity: Explaining the Complementary and Substitutive Roles of Formal and Informal ControlsJournal of Management Information Systems, 2010
- Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator's dilemmaResearch in Organizational Behavior, 2008
- IT Alignment: What Have We Learned?Journal of Information Technology, 2007
- Postcards from the Edge: Local Communities, Global Programs and Boundary ObjectsOrganization Studies, 2004
- A Resource-Based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An Empirical InvestigationMIS Quarterly, 2000
- Information Technology and Sustained Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based AnalysisMIS Quarterly, 1995
- The myopia of learningStrategic Management Journal, 1993
- What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?Academy of Management Review, 1989