Zhang, X; Le, Y; Liu, Y and Liu, M (2021) Fostering ambidextrous innovation in infrastructure projects: Differentiation and integration tactics of cross-functional teams. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(6): 2060, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
In infrastructure project practice, balancing and maximizing the combined effect of exploratory and exploitative innovation have attracted increasing attention, but it is still unclear how to foster ambidextrous innovation in infrastructure projects. To address this gap, we draw on the differentiation-integration framework of ambidexterity theory to deconstruct tactics for fostering ambidextrous innovation in infrastructure projects. A total of 313 observations were collected from infrastructure under construction, and the path hypotheses were tested by hierarchical regression. The findings suggest that in infrastructure projects, task conflict and expertise integration of diverse cross-functional teams provide powerful and complementary tactics for fostering ambidextrous innovation. The moderating effect of team autonomy support on the impact of team diversity on differentiation and integration tactics presents three different results. This study not only enriches the literature on how to foster ambidextrous innovation in infrastructure projects but also expands the ambidexterity research at the cross-functional team level and in infrastructure project contexts.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ambidextrous innovation; cross-functional team; expertise integration; task conflict; team autonomy support; team diversity |
| Index terms: | ambidexterity, infrastructure project, differentiation, integration |
| Subjects: | organizational analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, organization, strategic management |
| Topics: | Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here