The impact of project portfolio management practices on the relationship between organizational ambidexterity and project performance success
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some studies suggest that organizational ambidexterity is best orchestrated through individual projects. However, stand-alone individual projects are relatively limited in scope, while suffering from susceptibilities to horizontal and vertical segmentation. This may render them poorly suited to serve as conduits for organizational ambidexterity. By contrast, organizations which deliver projects in portfolios, often in order to maximize resource utilization, may discern that these also provide better conduits for organizational ambidexterity. This study examines not only the extent to which project portfolio management (PPM) practices impact orchestrations of organizational ambidexterity, but also whether these orchestrated PPM practices impact further lead to superior project performance. Data were collected from one hundred and sixty PPM stakeholders spread across eight countries in the Middle East November 2016 to January 2017. The study finds portfolios performance to be strongly and highly correlated with organizational ambidexterity. Furthermore, the more organizations exhibited efficient project-portfolio-management practice, the more they were found to develop ambidextrous capabilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".