Conceptual framework for lean construction ambidexterity in project-based organizations

References

• Abdel-Razek, R.H., Abd Elshakour M, H., and Abdel-Hamid, M., 2007. Labor productivity: benchmarking and variability in Egyptian projects. International journal of project management, 25 (2), 189–197.
   Google Scholar
• Adler, P.S., 1999. Building better bureaucracies. Academy of management perspectives, 13 (4), 36.
   Google Scholar
• Adler, P.S., Goldoftas, B., and Levine, D.I., 1999. Flexibility versus efficiency? A case study of model changeovers in the Toyota production system. Organization science, 10 (1), 43–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akella, D., 2007. Learning organizations: managerial control systems? Global business review, 8 (1), 13–28.
   Google Scholar
• Alarcón, L.F., et al., 2008. Assessing the impacts of implementing lean construction. Revista ingenieria de construccion, 23 (1), 26–33.
   Google Scholar
• Alarcón, L.F., Mesa, H., and Howell, G., 2013. Characterization of lean project delivery. In: 21st annual conference of the international group for lean construction 2013, Fortaleza, Brazil, 247–255.
   Google Scholar
• Alshawi, M. and Ingirige, B., 2003. Web-enabled project management: an emerging paradigm in construction. Automation in construction, 12 (4), 349–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alves, T. and Tommelein, I., 2004. Simulation of buffering and batching practices in the interface detailing-fabrication-installation of HVAC ductwork. In: 12th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Helsingør, Denmark.
   Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M., 2010. Managing Innovation paradoxes: ambidexterity lessons from leading product design companies. Long range planning, 43, 104–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos, C. and Lewis, M.W., 2009. Exploitation-exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: managing paradoxes of innovation. Organization science, 20 (4), 696–717.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• APM. 2012. Association for project management body of knowledge. APM Body Of Knowledge.
   Google Scholar
• Arashpour, M. and Arashpour, M., 2015. Analysis of workflow variability and its impacts on productivity and performance in construction of multistory buildings. Journal of management in engineering, 31 (6), 04015001–04015006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ardila, F. and Francis, A., 2020. Spatiotemporal planning of construction projects: a literature review and assessment of the state of the art. Frontiers in built environment, 6, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Awojide, O., Hodgkinson, I.R., and Ravishankar, M.N., 2018. Managerial ambidexterity and the cultural toolkit in project delivery. International journal of project management, 36 (8), 1019–1033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballard, G. and Vaagen, H., 2017. Project flexibility and lean construction. In: IGLC 2017 – Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Heraklion, Greece, 589–596.
   Google Scholar
• Ballard, G., 1997. Lean construction and EPC performance improvement. In: L. Alarcón, ed. Lean construction. London: Taylor & Francis, 79–92.
   Google Scholar
• Ballard, G., 2000. The last planner system of production control. University of Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Ballard, G., 2008. The lean project delivery system: an update. Lean construction journal, 2008, 1–19.
   Google Scholar
• Ballard, G. and Howell, G.A., 2003. Lean project management. Building research & information, 31 (2), 119–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I., 2012. Lean management methods for complex projects. Engineering project organization journal, 2 (1–2), 85–96.
   Google Scholar
• Bascoul, A.M., Tommelein, I.D., and Douthett, D., 2020. Visual management of daily construction site space use. Frontiers in built environment, 6, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Bataglin, F.S., et al., 2020. Model for planning and controlling the delivery and assembly of engineer-to-order prefabricated building systems: exploring synergies between lean and BIM. Canadian journal of civil engineering, 47 (2), 165–177.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beech, N., et al., 2004. Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human relations, 57 (10), 1313–1332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell, E., Bryman, A., and Harley, B., 2018. Business research methods. 5th ed. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Benner, M.J. and Tushman, M.L., 2003. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of management review, 28 (2), 238–256.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birkinshaw, J. and Gibson, C., 2004. Building ambidexterity into an organization. MIT sloan management review, 45 (4), 47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bølviken, T., Rooke, J., and Koskela, L., 2014. The wastes of production in construction – a TFV based taxonomy. In: 22nd annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Oslo, Norway, 811–822.
   Google Scholar
• Brodetskaia, I., Sacks, R., and Shapira, A., 2013. Stabilizing production flow of interior and finishing works with reentrant flow in building construction. Journal of construction engineering and management, 139 (6), 665–674.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cottyn, J., et al., 2011. A method to align a manufacturing execution system with Lean objectives. International journal of production research, 49 (14), 4397–4413.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel, E.I. and Pasquire, C., 2019. Creating social value within the delivery of construction projects: the role of lean approach. Engineering, construction and architectural management, 26 (6), 1105–1128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniel, E.I., Pasquire, C., and Dickens, G., 2019. Development of approach to support construction stakeholders in implementation of the last planner system. Journal of management in engineering, 35 (5), 04019018.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncan, R. B., 1976. The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for innovation. In: R.H. Kilmann, L.R. Pondy, and D. Slevin, eds. The management of organization. New York, NY: North-Holland, 167–188.
   Google Scholar
• Eaton, B., et al., 2015. Distributed tuning of boundary resources: the case of Apple’s iOS service system. MIS quarterly, 39 (1), 217–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenhardt, K.M., 2000. Paradox, spirals, ambivalence: the new language of change and pluralism. Academy of management review, 25 (4), 703–705.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, P.E., 2010. Improving construction supply chain collaboration and performance: a lean construction pilot project. Supply chain management, 15 (5), 394–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson, P.E., 2013. Exploration and exploitation in project-based organizations: development and diffusion of knowledge at different organizational levels in construction companies. International journal of project management, 31 (3), 333–341.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, M., et al., 2021. Critical success factors for adopting building information modelling (BIM) and lean construction practices on construction mega-projects: a Delphi survey. Journal of engineering, design and technology, 19 (2), 537–556.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farjoun, M., 2010. Beyond dualism: stability and change as a duality. Academy of management review, 35 (2), 202–225.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Filho, A.N. de M., Costa, J.M. da, and Heineck, L.F.M., 2007. Assessing the effects of structural differences on action, reaction and conformation in construction projects. In: 15th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Michigan, USA, 380–389.
   Google Scholar
• Formoso, C., Bølviken, T., Rooke, J., and Koskela, L., 2015. A conceptual framework for the prescriptive causal analysis of construction waste. In: Proceedings of IGLC 23 – 23rd annual conference of the international group for lean construction: global knowledge – global solutions, Perth, Australia, 454–462.
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, C.B. and Birkinshaw, J., 2004. The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of management journal, 47 (2), 209–226.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gonzalez, V., Alarcon, L.F., and Mundaca, F., 2008. Investigating the relationship between planning reliability and project performance. Production planning & control, 19 (5), 461–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grant, M.J. and Booth, A., 2009. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information and libraries journal, 26 (2), 91–108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, S.D. and May, S.C., 2005. Lean construction: arenas of enactment, models of diffusion and the meaning of ‘leanness’. Building research & information, 33 (6), 498–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamzeh, F.R., Tommelein, I.D., Ballard, G., and Kaminsky, P.M., 2007. Logistics centers to support project-based production in the construction industry. In: 15th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, USA, 181–191.
   Google Scholar
• Han, M., 2007. Achieving superior internationalization through strategic ambidexterity. Journal of enterprising culture, 15 (1), 43.
   Google Scholar
• Hansen, G.K. and Olsson, N.O., 2011. Layered project–layered process: lean thinking and flexible solutions. Architectural engineering and design management, 7 (2), 70–84.
   Google Scholar
• He, Z.-L. and Wong, P.-K., 2004. Exploration vs. exploitation: an empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization science, 15 (4), 481–494.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Helfat, C.E. and Raubitschek, R.S., 2000. Product sequencing: co-evolution of knowledge, capabilities and products. Strategic management journal, 21 (10/11), 961–979.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrera, R.F., et al., 2021. Analyzing the association between lean design management practices and BIM uses in the design of construction projects. Journal of construction engineering and management, 147 (4), 04021010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobday, M., 2000. The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research policy, 29 (7–8), 871–893.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmqvist, M., 2004. Experiential learning processes of exploitation and exploration within and between organizations: an empirical study of product development. Organization science, 15 (1), 70–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopp, W.J., Spearman, M.L., and Woodruff, D.L., 1990. Practical strategies for lead time reduction. Manufacturing review, 3 (2), 78–84.
   Google Scholar
• Horman, M.J., 2001. Modeling the effects of lean capacity strategies on project performance. In: G. Ballard and D. Chua, eds. 9th annual conference of the international group for lean construction. Singapore.
   Google Scholar
• Husin, A.E., et al., 2019. M-PERT and lean construction integration on steel construction works of warehouse buildings. International journal of engineering and advanced technology, 8 (4), 696–702.
   Google Scholar
• Jiménez-Jiménez, D. and Sanz-Valle, R., 2011. Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of business research, 64 (4), 408–417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katila, R. and 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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohtamäki, M., Einola, S., and Rabetino, R., 2020. Exploring servitization through the paradox lens: coping practices in servitization. International journal of production economics, 226, 107619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Korczynski, M., 1996. The low-trust route to economic development: interfirm relations in the UK engineering construction industry in the 1980s and 1990s. Journal of management studies, 33 (6), 787–808.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., 1992. Application of the new production philosophy to construction. CA.
   Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., 2000. An exploration towards a production theory and its application to construction. VTT Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., et al., 2019a. Epistemological explanation of lean construction. Journal of construction engineering and management, 145 (2), 04018131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskela, L., Tezel, A., and Patel, V., 2019b. Theory of quality management: its origins and history. In: Proceedings of 27th annual conference of the international group for lean construction (IGLC). Dublin, Ireland, 1381–1390.
   Google Scholar
• Kwak, Y.H., et al., 2015. Evolution of project based organization: a case study. International journal of project management, 33 (8), 1652–1664.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lagos, C.I. and Alarcón, L.F., 2021. Assessing the relationship between constraint management and schedule performance in Chilean and Colombian construction projects. Journal of management in engineering, 37 (5), 04021046.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, M.W., 2000. Exploring paradox: toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of management review, 25 (4), 760–776.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, S., Fang, Y., and Wu, X., 2020. A systematic review of lean construction in Mainland China. Journal of cleaner production, 257, 120581.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liker, J., 2004. The Toyota way: fourteen management principles from the world’s greatest manufacturer. McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, L., Wang, X., and Sheng, Z., 2012. Achieving ambidexterity in large, complex engineering projects: a case study of the Sutong Bridge project. Construction management and economics, 30 (5), 399–409.
   Google Scholar
• Lu, W., Olofsson, T., and Stehn, L., 2011. A lean-agile model of homebuilders’ production systems. Construction management and economics, 29 (1), 25–35.
   Google Scholar
• Luger, J., Raisch, S., and Schimmer, M., 2018. Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: the contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization science, 29 (3), 449–470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maalouf, M. and Gammelgaard, B., 2016. Managing paradoxical tensions during the implementation of lean capabilities for improvement. International journal of operations & production management, 36 (6), 687–709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maradzano, I., Dondofema, R.A., and Matope, S., 2019. Application of lean principles in the South African construction industry. South African journal of industrial engineering, 30 (3), 210–223.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• March, J.G., 1991. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2 (1), 71–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaud, M., Forgues, D., Meyer, J., and Ouellet-Plamondon, C., 2019. A case study on improving standardization in the conception phase by developing tools and protocols. In: 27th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Dublin, Ireland, 927–936.
   Google Scholar
• Miron-Sspektor, E., Erez, M., and Naveh, E., 2011. The effect of conformist and attentive-to-detail members on team innovation: reconciling the innovation paradox. Academy of management journal, 54 (4), 740–760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitropoulos, P. and Nichita, T., 2010. Critical concerns of production control system on projects with labor constraints: lessons from a residential case study. Journal of management in engineering, 26 (3), 153–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohammadi, A., et al., 2020. Applying lean construction principles in road maintenance planning and scheduling. International journal of construction management, 1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mom, T.J.M., van den Bosch, F.A.J., and Volberda, H.W., 2009. Understanding variation in managers’ ambidexterity: investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization science, 20 (4), 812–828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy, L.R. and Sauter, S.L., 2004. Work organization interventions: state of knowledge and future directions. Sozial- und praventivmedizin, 49 (2), 79–86.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Naim, M. and Barlow, J., 2003. An innovative supply chain strategy for customized housing. Construction management and economics, 21 (6), 593–602.
   Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L., 2004. The ambidextrous organization. Harvard business review, 74–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, C.A. and Tushman, M.L., 2008. Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving the innovator's dilemma. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 185–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Owen, R., Koskela, L., Henrich, G., and Codinhoto, R., 2006. Is agile project management applicable to construction? In: 14th annual conference of the international group for lean construction. Santiago, Chile, 51–66.
   Google Scholar
• Oxford English Dictionary. 2020. Available from: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/221513?redirectedFrom=variability#eid [Accessed 24 March 2021].
   Google Scholar
• Pan, W. and Ning, Y., 2015. A socio-technical framework of zero-carbon building policies. Building research & information, 43 (1), 94–110.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qamar, A., Hall, M.A., and Collinson, S., 2018. Lean versus agile production: flexibility trade-offs within the automotive supply chain. International journal of production research, 56 (11), 3974–3993.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raisch, S. and Birkinshaw, J., 2008. Organizational ambidexterity: antecedents, outcomes, and moderators. Journal of management, 34 (3), 375–409.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raisch, S., et al., 2009. Organizational ambidexterity: balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization science, 20, 685–695.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rothaermel, F.T. and Deeds, D.L., 2004. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: a system of new product development. Strategic management journal, 25 (3), 201–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, R., 2016. What constitutes good production flow in construction? Construction management and economics, 34 (9), 641–656.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sacks, R., et al., 2009. Analysis framework for the interaction between lean construction and building information modelling. In: 17th IGLC conference, Taipei, 221–234.
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, R., et al., 2010. Interaction of lean and building information modeling in construction. Journal of construction engineering and management, 136 (9), 968–980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saini, M., Arif, M., and Kulonda, D.J., 2018. Critical factors for transferring and sharing tacit knowledge within lean and agile construction processes. Construction innovation, 18 (1), 64–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salem, O., et al., 2006. Lean construction: from theory to implementation. Journal of management in engineering, 22 (4), 168–175.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Samset, K. and Volden, G.H., 2016. Front-end definition of projects: ten paradoxes and some reflections regarding project management and project governance. International journal of project management, 34 (2), 297–313.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saurin, T. and Rooke, J., 2020. The Last Planner® System as an approach for coping with the complexity of construction projects. In: P. Tzortzopoulos, M. Kagioglou, and L. Koskela, eds. Lean construction: core concepts and new frontiers. London: Routledge, 325–340.
   Google Scholar
• Saurin, T.A., 2016. The FRAM as a tool for modelling variability propagation in lean construction. In: 24th annual conference of the international group for lean construction. Boston, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Saurin, T.A., 2017. Removing waste while preserving slack: the lean and complexity perspectives. In: Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Heraklion, Greece, 209–216.
   Google Scholar
• Saurin, T.A. and Sanches, R.C., 2014. Lean construction and resilience engineering – complementary perspectives of variability. In: 22nd annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Oslo, Norway, 61–71.
   Google Scholar
• Saurin, T.A., Rooke, J., Koskela, L., and Kemmer, S., 2013. Guidelines for the management of complex socio technical systems. In: 21th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Fortaleza, Brazil, 13–22.
   Google Scholar
• Seppänen, O., Ballard, G., and Pesonen, S., 2010. The combination of last planner system and location-based management system. Lean construction journal, 43–54.
   Google Scholar
• Simsek, Z., et al., 2009. A typology for aligning organizational ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes. Journal of management studies, 46 (5), 864–894.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, W. and Lewis, M., 2011. Toward a theory of paradox: a dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of management review, 36 (2), 381–403.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, W.K. and Tushman, M.L., 2005. Managing strategic contradictions: a top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16 (5), 522–536.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Soliman, M., Saurin, T.A., and Anzanello, M.J., 2018. The impacts of lean production on the complexity of socio-technical systems. International journal of production economics, 197, 342–357.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Storey, J. and Salaman, G., 2009. Managerial dilemmas. Exploiting paradox for strategic leadership. 1st ed. Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Tarafdar, M. and Gordon, S.R., 2007. Understanding the influence of information systems competencies on process innovation: a resource-based view. The journal of strategic information systems, 16 (4), 353–392.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tezel, A., Koskela, L., and Aziz, Z., 2018. Current condition and future directions for lean construction in highways projects: a small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) perspective. International journal of project management, 36 (2), 267–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thayer, A.L., Petruzzelli, A., and McClurg, C.E., 2018. Addressing the paradox of the team innovation process: a review and practical considerations. The American psychologist, 73 (4), 363–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, H.R., et al., 2002. Reducing variability to improve performance as a lean construction principle. Journal of construction engineering and management, 128 (2), 144–154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tillmann, P., Ballard, G., Tzortzopolous, P., and Formoso, C., 2012. How integrated governance contributes to value generation – insights from an IPD case study. In: 20th Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, San Diego, California, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Tillmann, P.A. and Formoso, C.T., 2008. Opportunities to adopt mass customisation – a case study in the Brazilian house building sector. In: 16th Annual Conference of the International Group for Lean Construction, Manchester, UK, 447–458.
   Google Scholar
• Tiwana, A., 2008. Do bridging ties complement strong ties? An empirical examination of alliance ambidexterity. Strategic management journal, 29 (3), 251–272.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tommelein, I.D., 1998. Pull-driven scheduling for pipe-spool installation: simulation of lean construction technique. Journal of construction engineering and management, 124 (4), 279–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tommelein, I.D., 2015. Journey toward lean construction: pursuing a paradigm shift in the AEC industry. Journal of construction engineering and management, 141 (6), 04015005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tommelein, I.D., 2020. Taking the parade of trades: use of capacity buffers to gain work flow reliability. In: 28th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Berkeley, USA, 421–432.
   Google Scholar
• Tommelein, I.D. and Weissenberger, M., 1999. More just-in-time: location of buffers in structural steel supply and construction processes. In: 7th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Berkeley, USA, 109–120.
   Google Scholar
• Turner, N., Maylor, H., and Swart, J., 2015. Ambidexterity in projects: an intellectual capital perspective. International journal of project management, 33 (1), 177–188.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viana, D.D., Formoso, C.T., and Isatto, E.L., 2011. Modelling the network of commitments in the last planner system. Lean construction journal, 2011 (Special Issue), 55–67.
   Google Scholar
• Whelton, M. and Ballard, G., 2002. Project definition and wicked problems. In: Carlos T. Formoso and G. Ballard, eds. 10th annual conference of the international group for lean construction, Gramado, Brazil, 375–387.
   Google Scholar
• Xing, W., et al., 2021. Implementing lean construction techniques and management methods in Chinese projects: a case study in Suzhou. Journal of cleaner production, 286, 124944.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zegarra, O. and Alarcón, L.F., 2019. Coordination of teams, meetings, and managerial processes in construction projects: using a lean and complex adaptive mechanism. Production planning & control, 30 (9), 736–763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zimina, D., Ballard, G., and Pasquire, C., 2012. Target value design: using collaboration and a lean approach to reduce construction cost. Construction management and economics, 30 (5), 383–398.
   Google Scholar