strategizing areas for achieving ambidexterity, i.e., balancing short-term and long-term demands (), our findings highlight the specific characteristics of paradox management across the three different areas (Table 5). In particular, our case analysis (see sections 4.8. 4.11.) illustrates an overarching pattern that is – associated with IT program and project execution: they require a recurrent and dynamic act of balancing between operational needs at the IT project and sub-project levels and (or systemic) needs at local global the strategic IT program level (Table 5). Our findings illustrate that the IT project manager typically operates under the mindset of leading an autonomous, temporary organizational unit and group of people focused on systems development to address the needs of a certain business domain or unit (Table 3, IT program governance) (). With a focus on time-consuming systems development work that is highly sensitive to changes in requirements, IT projects need stability for project execution (Table 3, IT program planning), and IT teams working on short-term releases and complex IT problem-solving work must be sufficiently isolated from the rest of the organization to avoid being overwhelmed with interdependencies (Table 3, IT program delivery) (). Our analysis shows that these local demands at the project level contrast with the overarching demands at the global program level and, in some cases, can even lead to conflicts within the program’s work organization (see section 4.10.) (cf. ; ). There are multiple reasons for the observed shift toward the short-term execution of individual IT projects. One reason is related to how IT projects typically view themselves (i.e., as autonomous, temporary units). Another reason is the complexity involved in IT projects (Table 1) (). For example, the uncertainty that is typically involved leads IT project teams to focus on short-term results and increase their chances of (see section 4.11.). Through our on-site field research activities, we witnessed organizational survival several instances in which IT projects were cancelled and IT resources were redirected (see section 4.9.), illustrating the uncertainty involved in IT project execution. This led IT project managers to begin delivering on a project’s goals and objectives as quickly as possible. Fighting this tendency toward a focus on IT projects requires a delicate balancing act (). This can be achieved by implementing coordination mechanisms and roles that recurrently devise compromises and by
strategizing areas for achieving ambidexterity, i.e., balancing short-term and long-term demands (), our findings highlight the specific characteristics of paradox management across the three different areas (Table 5). In particular, our case analysis (see sections 4.8. – 4.11.) illustrates an overarching pattern that is associated with IT program and project execution: they require a recurrent and dynamic act of balancing between local operational needs at the IT project and sub-project levels and global (or systemic) needs at the strategic IT program level (Table 5). Our findings illustrate that the IT project manager typically operates under the mindset of leading an autonomous, temporary organizational unit and group of people focused on systems development to address the needs of a certain business domain or unit (Table 3, IT program governance) (). With a focus on time-consuming systems development work that is highly sensitive to changes in requirements, IT projects need stability for project execution (Table 3, IT program planning), and IT teams working on short-term releases and complex IT problem-solving work must be sufficiently isolated from the rest of the organization to avoid being overwhelmed with interdependencies (Table 3, IT program delivery) (). Our analysis shows that these local demands at the project level contrast with the overarching demands at the global program level and, in some cases, can even lead to conflicts within the program’s work organization (see section 4.10.) (cf. ; ). There are multiple reasons for the observed shift toward the short-term execution of individual IT projects. One reason is related to how IT projects typically view themselves (i.e., as autonomous, temporary units). Another reason is the complexity involved in IT projects (Table 1) (). For example, the uncertainty that is typically involved leads IT project teams to focus on short-term results and increase their chances of organizational survival (see section 4.11.). Through our on-site field research activities, we witnessed several instances in which IT projects were cancelled and IT resources were redirected (see section 4.9.), illustrating the uncertainty involved in IT project execution. This led IT project managers to begin delivering on a project’s goals and objectives as quickly as possible. Fighting this tendency toward a focus on IT projects requires a delicate balancing act (). This can be achieved by implementing coordination mechanisms and roles that recurrently devise compromises and by
IT-Transformation-working-paper.docx