SILESIAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY PUBLISHING HOUSE

SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF SILESIAN UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY 2023

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT SERIES NO. 177

STRATEGIC BALANCING OF EXPLOITATION AND EXPLORATION

IN A SHARED SERVICE CENTER: A RESEARCH STUDY
ON PROCESS-PROJECT ORGANIZATION RELATIONSHIP

Emilia DOBROWOLSKA1*, Piotr SLIŻ2

University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Management, Sopot; [email protected],
1

ORCID: 0000-0003-0792-7274
2
University of Gdańsk, Faculty of Management, Sopot; [email protected]; ORCID: 0000-0001-6776-3369
* Correspondence author

Purpose: This paper explores the challenge of balancing exploitation and exploration in finance
shared service center (SSC) from a process-project organization perspective. The study aims to
identify strategies for achieving ambidexterity in German SSC and emphasizes the role of
process-project oriented organization in facilitating this balance.
Design/methodology/approach: A case study approach was used to analyze SSC in a large
multinational organization employing over 600 people. Interviews with 10 managers, team
leaders and experts, as well as an analysis of organizational structures, process architecture and
projects documentation were conducted to gather data.
Findings: The study found that successful ambidexterity in SSC requires a contextual approach
that considers both process and project management, with an emphasis on collaboration and
knowledge sharing. Dynamic capabilities such as agility and adaptability were also found to be
crucial in achieving a balance between exploitation and exploration.
Research limitations: The study's findings are limited to a single SSC in a large multinational
organization, and the generalizability of the results may be constrained.
Practical implications: The paper provides insights into the challenges and opportunities for
achieving ambidexterity in SSC and offers practical recommendations for managers seeking to
achieve this balance in their organizations.
Originality/value: This study contributes to the literature on achieving ambidexterity in SSCs
by providing a process-project organization perspective and highlighting the importance of
dynamic capabilities in balancing exploitation and exploration. The results presented represent
a continuation of the study carried out at the same SSC in 2021.
Keywords: Ambidexterity, Shared Service Center, Ambidexterity, Process-Project
Organization, Strategic Balancing, Exploitation and Exploration, Contextual Ambidexterity.
Category of the paper: Research paper.

http://dx.doi.org/10.29119/1641-3466.2023.177.8 http://managementpapers.polsl.pl/
130 E. Dobrowolska, P. Sliż

1. Introduction

The turbulent nature of the of socio-economic changes in the market environment generates
a state, in which organizations focus their activity on the attempts to pursue highly flexible
systemic management formulas enabling dynamic response to exogenous (i.e., such external
factors as the processes taking place on a macro scale) and endogenous factors (the impulses
generated inside an organization) (Cf.: Zakrzewska-Bielawska, 2016). The digitization of
enterprises changes the nature of work in organizations into ever stronger cooperation with
technology, reducing manual work's workload towards interdisciplinary and creativity-based
work. Digital transformation constitutes one of the considerable faced by traditional companies,
affecting all corporate functions, procedures, processes, operations, services and products
(Bouncken et al., 2021; Dehnert, 2020). According to Afriliana and Ramadhan (2022),
implementation of digital transformation can help companies maintain their performance,
efficiency, and compliance. The nature of management is thus changing, due to the increase in
the level of employees' education, their greater empowerment, and the increased performance
of the repetitive and operational activities via technology, which means that people may be
shifted towards exploration activities, inter alia, aimed at processization through the use of
exploitation activity technology. A product as a service often becomes unique, while the
technology of Industry 4.0 enables mass adaptation, at a lower cost, to individual consumers’
requirements. As such, the process and design organizations generating value, based on
creativity - exploration, are becoming more and more suitable, while the process (exploitation)
layer becomes automated, as to reduce the costs of creative activities, e.g., the prospect of
developing individual patterns - cocreation of products by customers. It should be emphasized
here, that the assumptions of a process and project organization necessitate integration of the
concepts and methods of both business process management and project management (Cf. Sliż,
2021).
The article addresses the challenge of dynamic balancing the exploitation and exploration
spheres in finance shared service centers (SSCs), from the perspective of process-project
organization assumptions. The research problem has been centered around the question of how
SSCs can simultaneously optimize existing processes while also exploring new improvement
opportunities? The main aim of the paper is to exemplify a process and project mature
organization and characterize the exploitation and exploration activities, and, consequently,
reconstruct an organizational structure that allows discounting of the benefits resulting from the
dynamism of business processes and projects. Research methods such as literature review,
participant observation, as well as semi-structured interviews with managerial and expert
position employee were used to achieve the objective. The study is a continuation of the
empirical investigation carried out in 2021 (Sliż, 2021). The article attempts to identify and
assess the changes throughout the period of 18 months. The re-verification enables
a comparison of the state during COVID-19 with the post-pandemic conditions of 2023.
Strategic balancing of exploitation and exploration… 131

Overall, this article provides insights into the challenges and opportunities for achieving
ambidexterity in SSCs and presents practical recommendations for managers seeking to achieve
this balance in their organizations. In addition to the focus on SSC, this article offers a unique
contribution by examining the role of a process and project organization in facilitating
ambidexterity within service organizations. The study highlights the importance of balancing
exploitation and exploration in main service processes and offers insights into how
organizations can leverage technology, to optimize existing processes while also exploring new
opportunities for service innovation.
This study is organized into five sections. Section 1 provides an introduction to the research
problem and aims. Section 2 reviews the literature on ambidexterity, business process
management (BPM) and project management integration, with a focus on balancing
exploitation and exploration. In Section 3, the study provides an overview of a large
multinational organization with over 600 employees and its finance shared service center
(SSC). Research methods employed in this case study are also discussed in this section.
Section 4 presents the findings of the case study, particularly on strategies for achieving
ambidexterity in SSCs. Finally, Section 5 concludes the article by discussing its contribution to
scholarly knowledge and practical implications for managers seeking to achieve a balance
between exploitation and exploration in SSCs.

2. Theoretical background

2.1. Ambidexterity – exploration and exploitation dilemma

Ambidexterity is perceived as the ability of the firm to carry out exploration and
exploitation at the same time (Anzenbacher, Wagner, 2020). In the balanced perspective,
ambidexterity can be described as midpoint, or an optimal point on a continuum,
with exploitation and exploration lying at the two ends. While in the combined perspective,
exploitation and exploration are considered independent activities, where their maximized level
can produce a high degree of ambidexterity (Kassotaki, 2022). The implementation of
ambidexterity requires a combination of organizational routines, resources, or capabilities that,
to some extent, contradict each other: organizational efficiency (exploitation) and
organizational flexibility (exploration) (Raisch et al., 2009). The ambidexterity concept has
evolved since its emergence in scientific research from structural construct described by
Duncan (1976) and Tushman and O'Reilly (1996) to contextual ambidexterity - its focus is put
on the multitude of ways that organizations seek to manage the tensions involved in doing two
different things at the same time (Birkinshaw, Gupta, 2013). Initial scholar's efforts focused on
organising ambidexterity within a firm’s boundaries (Tushman, O’Reilly, 1996). In studies
132 E. Dobrowolska, P. Sliż

ambidexterity is considered as a source of sustainable competitive advantage (O’Reilly,

Tushman, 2008; Luo et al., 2018, Ragazou et al., 2022; Ashrafi, Zareravasan, 2022; Ed-Dafali
et al., 2023) or a strategy that enables companies simultaneously pursing differentiation and
cost advantages for achieving long-term success (Liu et al., 2020) and this leads researchers to
investigate how entrepreneurial orientation influences differentiation–cost advantage
ambidexterity (Chen et al., 2023). Over time researchers have introduced ambidexterity
research in a geographic context (Roth, Corsi, 2023). It may bring promising insights not only
into how a multinational ambidexterity strategy can provide organisations, that operate in
complex innovation networks, with a global competitive advantage (Ciasullo et al., 2020),
but also specifically into how international small and medium-sized enterprises (ISMEs)
improve adaptive marketing capabilities through ambidexterity (Su et al., 2022).
As Gulati and Puranam (2009) claim organizations are attempting to address many types
of dualities, such as efficiency and flexibility, adaptability and alignment, integration and
responsiveness, and exploration and exploitation. Raisch et al. (2009) perceive ambidexterity
as a new research paradigm in organization theory and try to explore four “central tensions”
that need to be addressed to enable further progress in research on ambidexterity. Scholars seek
answers to specific questions: Should organizations achieve ambidexterity through
differentiation or through integration? Does ambidexterity occur at the individual or
organizational level? Must organizations take a static or dynamic perspective on ambidexterity?
Can ambidexterity arise internally, or do firms have to externalize some processes?
As exploration helps a firm identify new market opportunities and build new capabilities,
exploitation allows a firm to utilize current market opportunities and improve its existing
capabilities (Benner, Tushman, 2003). He and Wong (2004) emphasize that exploration and
exploitation require substantially different structures, processes, strategies, capabilities,
and cultures to pursue and may have different impacts on firm adaptation and performance.
Scholars point that exploration is associated with organic structures, loosely coupled systems,
path breaking, improvisation, autonomy and chaos, and emerging markets and technologies.
While exploitation is associated with mechanistic structures, tightly coupled systems,
path dependence, routinization, control and bureaucracy, and stable markets and technologies
(Ancona et al., 2001). Different ambidextrous strategies may be distinguished in order to
manage different tensions. The first one is temporal separation or sequentional ambidexterity
(Benner, Tushman, 2003; Duncan, 1976) - it can be achieved through separating explorative
and exploitive in time. The second one is structural ambidexterity (O’Reilly, Tushman, 2004)
that aims at reaching such tensions simultaneously through the allocation of different processes
into separate sub-units or change management team, each with distinct cultures, structure,
control systems and incentives, by ensuring at a managerial level the synergic integration and
maximization of the economies of scale and scope of each unit. In other words structural
ambidexterity is achieved through a structural separation of exploration and exploitation
oriented work (Chen, 2017; O’Reilly, Tushman, 2013). Moreover, structural ambidexterity
Strategic balancing of exploitation and exploration… 133

places high demands on top management, where the integration is expected to take place (Chen,
2017). And the third one is contextual ambidexterity. It concentrate on both exploitive and
explorative tasks that are performed within the same organizational entity/structure – mainly
by the same people. The contextual ambidexterity can be reconceptualized into a productive
process for change, which can be beneficial in changing industries (Pregmark, 2019).
Strategic balancing between exploration and exploitation activities in turbulent and
unpredictable environment requires dynamic capabilities. Innovation capacity is one of the
main factors ensuring the survival of the organizations. The appropriate organization structure
for innovation is the organic structure. The innovation may be easily developed in ambidextrous
organization structures supporting both radical and incremental innovation (Gürkan, Tükeltürk,
2017). While technological capacity is one of the main antecedents in efforts to achieve the
organizational ambidexterity (Yunita et al., 2023). The authors of the article special focus lie
among others dynamic capabilities that affect ambidexterity, especially: collaboration
(Hoessler, Carbon, 2023) knowledge sharing (Haider et al., 2023; Yang, 2021), strategic agility
(Kowalik, Pleśniak, 2022; Alamsjah, Yunus, 2022; Liang et al., 2022), and adaptability (Lin,
2023; Bhatti et al., 2022). The impact of these dynamic capabilities on dealing with the tension
between exploitative and explorative activities will be further discussed in the empirical part of
the article.

2.2. From ambidextrous organization to process-project organization concept

The literature on the subject shows a growing number of publications devoted to process
organizations and project organizations. So far, these issues, just as BPM and project
management, have developed in parallel with the increasing voices of both researchers and
managerial personnel representatives, regarding the search for attempts to integrate the
concepts and methods of process and project management (Cf. Nowosielski, 2018). A process-
project organization is identified as a complex system based on a coexistence of processes and
projects within the exploitation and exploration layers of an organization, leading to synergies
between these operational categories. The essence of the described concept of a process-project
organization lies in the integration of process and project management concepts and methods
as well as in the implementation of the assumptions of organizational ambidexterity. This call
for an organization subdivision into the layers of exploitation (focused on increasing the added
value within genotypic activity) and exploration (focused on implementing innovative activity
in search for new areas of added value generation). Correspondingly, it necessitates
an extension of the process and project typology, to include the category of exploitative and
explorative processes and reactive and proactive projects. Particular attention should be paid to
explorative processes, which can be identified as carriers of improvement, optimization, and
innovation in an organization. Considering the current state of knowledge on explorative
business process management, the boundary between these categories is quite blurry and calls
134 E. Dobrowolska, P. Sliż

for determination of further research directions on the subject of the methods involving
identification, formalization, measurement of both categories and, as a result, the management
of explorative processes (Sliż, 2021). Implementation of the concept of ambidexterity, which
per the definition presented constitutes its foundation and directs management activities
towards balancing the organization's exploitative and explorative activities, in order to achieve
market supremacy, ought to be indicated as an important component of a process-project
organization. Tushman and O'Reilly (1995) define an ambidextrous organization as one
characterized by the ability to implement incremental (exploitative) and revolutionary
(explorative) changes. According to Lubatkin et al. (2006), it is an organization that is able to
use its existing competencies and new opportunities with equal (the same) agility.
This illuminates two dimensions of organizational ambidexterity (Bierly et al., 2009; Donate,
Guadamillas, 2011; Guisado-González et al., 2017; Caniëls et al., 2017). The former is aimed
at extending current knowledge, seeking greater efficiency, and implementing improvements
that enable incremental innovation, whereas the explorative dimension involves refinement of
new knowledge and search for variation and novelty, which are needed for more radical
innovation (Atuahene-Gima, 2005). Examples of such contradiction management include:
efficiency vs. flexibility, evolutionary vs. revolutionary change (Simons, 1991) or global
vs. local integration (Devinney et al., 2000).
Implementation process-project organization based on the ambidexterity concept requires
seeking integrative and holistic organization models. A systems-oriented view of environment,
organization and management regards an organization as a complex value creation system that
is embedded in a dynamic environment. Moreover systems-oriented view understand the
dynamics that appear in interdependences not only between the organization seen a complex
value creation system and it’s environment, but also among the organization’s elements.
On the basis of systems theory and cybernetics the St. Gallen Management Model (SGMM)
was developed to create an integral framework for explaining organizations and all their
complex interrelationships and diverse environments (Ruëg, Stürm, 2019). The basic
assumptions of the SGMM authors was to make business-science theory more relevant to
practitioners by integrating existing management practices into one model (Ulrich, Krieg,
1972). As Höhn (2012) notice subsequent additions to the model appear to have been inspired
more by changes in management theory than by practical observations. However,
the New St. Gallen Management Model is not simply a collection of conceptual frameworks
it comprises of two complementary perspectives on the interplay of environment, organization,
and management. The task perspective focuses on a business-oriented conceptualization of
organizational value creation as a key management task. The practice perspective complements
the task perspective by illuminating the basic resource-related, cultural, and communicative
prerequisites for management to become effective (https://www.sgmm.ch/en/) According to the
SGMM, the internal core of an organisation is structured by (Mock, Zipper, 2020):
Strategic balancing of exploitation and exploration… 135

 structuring forces: strategy, structures, culture,

 processes: management, business, support,
 modes of development: renewal, optimization.
This core is encapsulated in external (Mock, Zipper, 2020):
 interaction issues: strategy, norms and values, concerns and interests,
 environmental spheres: society, nature, technology, economy.
Taking above into account, authors consider the New St. Gallen Management Model as
a concept which allows integration of exploration and exploitation activities in the process –
project organization. In other words, integration of business process management and project
management is possible in accordance with the concept of an ambidextrous organization.
Expanding on the integrated process-project approach in organizational management
presented earlier in this article, it can be defined as a concept involving dynamic balancing of
exploitation and exploration, utilizing processes and projects in the implementation of
an organization's strategy, based on ambidexterity assumptions. The balancing of two layers
involves consideration of all subsystems of the organization, but also alignment of the
organizational structure with the type of approach in achieving ambidexterity. Thereby,
the assumptions of process-project organization (Sliż, 2021) are akin to the essence of
an ambidextrous organization. One can even claim that every process-project organization is
an ambidextrous organization, yet not every ambidextrous organization is a process-project
organization. Moreover, in the era of the digital economy, observing the complexity of
organizations and the growth of interest in Industry 4.0 and 5.0, it should be emphasized that
the core of this type of organization lies in modern ICT technologies. This research area needs
to be further explored, if only in the context of identifying the technologies supporting
achievement of ambidextrousness in an organization.

3. Materials and methods

The research carried out constitutes part of an ongoing project addressing the issues of
process and project management concept and method integration, extending it with components
pertaining to ambidexterity and ICT technology. The organization selected for examination and
described in this paper was qualified on the basis of a quantitative research carried out to assess
the degree of process and project maturity (See: Sliż, 2021). For this purpose, two maturity
assessment models - MMPM (process maturity) (Sliż, 2018) and H. Kerzner’s PMMM (project
maturity) (Kerzner, 2001; 2003) - were used. As per the measurement methodology adopted,
the entity described in this publication has been classified at level 4 of process maturity,
i.e., a state in which in the organization business processes are identified, formalized or
explored, measured and managed in accordance with BPM principles. In terms of project
136 E. Dobrowolska, P. Sliż

maturity, the organization was also qualified at level 4, i.e., a confirmed state of: quantitative
and qualitative analyses implementation, establishment of organizational roles and units
responsible for project implementation (e.g., project management office), as well as focus on
process improvement and knowledge diffusion in the organization, realized through training
(See: Kerzner, 2001).
The first study on this type of organizations was carried out in June 2021, based on
a quantitative survey, and described in the paper (Sliż, 2021). After over 18 months, an attempt
was made to continue the empirical investigation in the post-pandemic era (after the
COVID-19 pandemic). This enabled, in particular, the observation of the development or
regression of activities aimed at implementation of process-project organization assumptions,
but also outlines additional supporting potentials and limiting factors in the implementation of
this type of solution.
The organization examined is an international enterprise identified as a Finance Shared
Service Centre (SSC). It operates with German capital and is located in Poland. Currently,
the SSC under analysis employs more than 600 people, therefore, in terms of employment size
(number-of-employees criterion), it is identified in Poland as a large organization. Its core
activity entails provision of financial and accounting services for other branches of the
company. The organization’s functioning is oriented at delivering process results in accordance
with customer expectations, in external (main processes) and internal (sub-processes) terms.
Moreover, as per the information obtained from the managerial personnel, the organization is
certified for quality management ISO 22301 and 9001. unit of measurement.

4. Results

4.1. Exploitation activity in the SSC examined

Employing the assumptions of the MMPM descriptive model of organizational process

maturity assessment (See: Sliż, 2018), it has been confirmed, via semi-structured interviews
and a research questionnaire, that in the organization examined, processes are identified and
formalized in the form of descriptive documentation and a graphical process flow map.
This applies to core processes and sub-processes. Auxiliary processes are also explored using
process mining, based on the data generated in SAP. The survey interviews, conducted with the
organization's employees, provided information on and allowed familiarization with the
functioning of an INTRANET IT tool developed, which allows improvements to be read and
submitted in formalized process maps. All SSC employees have access to this tool, regardless
of their position. Throughout 2021-2023, no differences were discerned in this regard.
The organization remained at the same level 4 of process-project maturity (See: Sliż, 2021).
Strategic balancing of exploitation and exploration… 137

The division of processes in the SSC examined was made according to the hierarchy
criterion. This means that in the entity under analysis, processes are divided into managerial,
core and auxiliary processes. The SSC utilizes a system of process measures, with particular
emphasis on measuring the level of external and internal customer satisfaction. It should be
noted here that the incentive subsystem utilizes the data generated by the internal customer
satisfaction assessment system. The level of satisfaction determines the size of an employee's
annual bonus, which, according to managers, positively affects the management of relations
within the organization (between departments and teams). As of 2022, the external and internal
customer satisfaction evaluation system is being adapted to include cooperation with the
implementers of the processes that have been outsourced. According to the employees
surveyed, this is all the more important since some of the employees working in SSCs have
been transferred to external companies.
Processes are continuously monitored via dedicated IT solutions and analyzed with respect
to such parameters as: process execution time, process flexibility, the quality of the effect
generated, and the cost. When process analysis shows states that negatively affect the level of
customer satisfaction, corrective actions are initiated, which can be aimed at e.g., a change in
the course of action in a given process or correction of its level of autonomy. It is also worth
noting that, within the space of the SSC examined, processes are compared with one another in
terms of the parameters adopted, and inter-team transfer of good practices takes place on
internal benchmarking basis, via the use of workshops. The BPM process management method
has been implemented in the organization. This is primarily reflected in the identified,
formalized and measured process architecture, the implementation of a market relations
mechanism inside the organization, the implementation of modern information and
communication tools supporting process management, the implementation of a planned training
cycle on process management, the establishment of organizational roles characteristic of
a process organization, and the focus on generating process results consistent with customer
expectations.
In the last 2 years, efforts are being made to implement chatbots, enabling the
reconfiguration of the employee specialization dimensions towards activation of employees in
projects, through the use of their expertise, to enable process automation and robotization.
In summary, the interviews with employees did not reveal any differences in the functioning of
the exploitation layer in the period between the first (2021) and second surveys (2023),
as its implementation has been primarily driven by core activities. A dynamic increase in the
interest in assessing the potential of implementing such ICT technologies as Robotic Process
Automation, Artificial Intelligence, Process Automation, ChatBots to increase the performance
metrics studied by the systems has been observed. This is closely linked to the exploitation
layer assumptions in the organization under study. The exploitation processes carried out in the
138 E. Dobrowolska, P. Sliż

studied surveyed include order to cash, purchase to pay, hire to retire, accounting to report and
accounts payable. In the SSC examined, exploitation processes are characterized by a high
potential for standardization and robotization. These processes are also highly repetitive and
routine, with a high share of procedures.

4.2. Exploration activities in the SSC examined

In the context of exploitation and exploration layer functioning in an organization, it must

be stated that, these layers are neither identified nor formalized in the entity examined,
nevertheless, the implementation of operational categories (processes and projects) indicates
that the organizational part of the SSC under analysis is divided into a layer of genotypical
(exploitative) activities and a layer linked to innovation, research and improvement of the
sphere in which added value is hitherto generated. No differences have been noted in this regard
since 2021.
In 2023, process and project development in the exploratory layer has been noted, compared
to the survey conducted in 2021, to which such processes as Business Intelligence Process
(analysis of financial and operational data), Risk Management Process (enabling identification
and assessment as well as management of financial risks in the organization), Process
Improvement Process (enabling identification of processes or process steps with high potential
for optimization, with a focus on robotization and implementation of modern
ICT technologies), compliance management process (enabling monitoring and management of
process execution compliance with GPO assumptions) were qualified. The interview with
executives revealed that, at this stage, implementation of a new nomenclature could cause
misunderstanding among employees, therefore, exploration is equated with project activities,
and exploration activities are identified as projects. Likewise, no use of term exploration
process was observed.
In the sphere of operational category permeation within the exploratory layer, in contrast,
such new projects have been identified as financial processes standardization, outsourcing,
integration of process execution with external contractors, implementation of a chatbot to
handle internal email correspondence.
Based on the interviews with employees in 2021, a sample project of a new VAT
Operational Process (VTO) development was presented. The VTO process is meant to check
for legal and tax compliance of the accounting performed as part of the Accounts Payable
Process (AP). The VTO process is entails two stages. In the first stage, control activities are
carried out in terms of formal liability compliance, while in the second, liability compliance is
verified in terms of the tax specificity of the country in which it arose. In addition to operational
activities, VTO process executors also organize trainings for AP process executors, on the tax
law in force in particular countries, as well as on the requirements concerning the outputs
Strategic balancing of exploitation and exploration… 139

generated in the AP process, which constitute inputs to the VTO process. The main objective
of the project described was to design and implement a new VAT Operational Process, whereas
the sub-objectives included codification of knowledge on the legal conditions in the countries
serviced by the shared service center examined, identification of common elements in the legal
regulations, determination of the level of process standardization, design of process
documentation, design and implementation of a verification mechanism. To implement the
project described, competencies were reviewed across the organization. This means that,
in this regard, activity was undertaken to find the necessary competencies within the shared
service centers located in other countries but operating under the same organization.
The employee interviews indicated that an interdisciplinary project team was established for
this purpose, consisting of both project area (exploration layer) representatives and exploitation
process (exploitation layer) implementers. A project manager was appointed to lead the team.
The teams were membered by the employees appointed, based on their competence, knowledge
and language skills, to implement the process designed. Substantive support was provided by
accountants representing various countries. The team also included a trainer, whose task was to
manage the diffusion of knowledge on the legal and tax aspects. It should be emphasized that
the team's activities were supported by an expert employed through an external consulting
organization (e.g., EY or PwC). The example presented shows the so-called market of
competences functioning within the entire organization; in case of a lack of suitable
competences, they are obtained outside the organization. The project teams are of
interdisciplinary character and comprise employees who carry out both projects and processes
(Sliż, 2021).

4.3. Ambidextrous organizational structure in the SSC examined

The structural dimension has been widely described in the context of ambidexterity in the
works: (Stelzl et al., 2020; Güttel, Konlechner, 2009; Mirow et al., 2008). For the purpose of
this study, an attempt was made to reconstruct the organizational structure, based on the
available documentation and the interviews with managerial level and expert position
employees. As a result, functional areas (departments) were identified within the vertical layer,
and business processes and projects were identified within the horizontal layer. The SSC
analyzed is characterized by a matrix organizational structure, the assumptions of which are
presented in Figure 1.
140 E. Dobrowolska, P. Sliż

Figure 1. A conceptual diagram of organizational structure in the organization examined.

Source: Own research carried out in 2021-2022.
In the organization examined, it was assumed that the role of department managers is to
supply, on market terms, the resources needed for the processes and projects under
implementation. This in particular applies to human resources, material resources and the
resources generated in the organization and its environment. The role of process owners and
project managers, in turn, is to generate, respectively, process and project results, in accordance
with the adopted objectives, and to monitor the course of the implementation thereof. Process
owners and process experts also use process mining, importing data from Systems Applications
and Products (SAP), in order to generate process improvement and optimization. It is worth
emphasizing that within the structural dimension, the support potential is provided by the
organizational roles established, which are specific to the state in which the methods for
managing these operational categories have been implemented. The following such roles have
been identified: process owner for core processes and sub-processes, process expert, project
manager, and project coordinator. It should be noted that the role of an expert in the SSC
analyzed is oriented towards intra-team knowledge diffusion and trainings for process
implementers. What is more, within their prerogatives, experts are able to report improvements,
both in the process in the implementation of which they are involved, as well as in other
processes in the organization.
Strategic balancing of exploitation and exploration… 141

The survey carried out in 2023 revealed a flattening of the organizational structure,
in relation to 2021. The centralization and standardization dimensions are being leveled, which
favors the implementation of ambidexterity and process-project-organization assumptions.
It also results from the outsourcing of selected processes to external companies and SSCs
located in Asia. The structure increasingly targets projects (the exploration layer),
while exploitation activities are assessed from an economic perspective, as an outsourcing
potential. An additional factor affecting the focus on exploration in the SSC surveyed is the
increase in the implementation of ICT solutions in exploitation processes.

5. Conclusion, implications and limitation

5.1. Reserach conclusion

The study results presented provide evidence that the conceptual assumptions regarding the
integration of process and project management, described in the works (Reiss, 1992; Zehrer,
2002; Gareis, Stummer, 2006; Bitkowska, 2019; Nowosielski, 2017), are reflected in business
practice. Based on the study, three generalizing conclusions were formulated.
Based on the identification of the processes, activities and technologies employed in the
exploitation layer of the SSC under study, the concept of exploitative business process has been
defined as a planned sequence of activities carried out to ensure the operation of the
organization in the exploitative layer, focused on the performance of the core organization
(genotype business). In a service organization such as SSC, these include the day-to-day
operational activities of order processing, payment settlement, bookkeeping, preparation of
financial reports. The main metrics used to assess such processes involve parameters such as
efficiency, turnaround time and compliance with customer requirements, which provides high
application potential for the use of modern technologies and IT tools, with a particular focus on
process mining techniques. Explorative business process (ErBP), in turn, is an operational
category similar to exploitative business process (EiBP) identified with the classical meaning
of business process. In contrast to this conception, the purpose of ErBP entails implementation
of activities aimed at generation of a tangible or intangible effect (process result) in the form of
a new idea, opportunity, information, and knowledge for business activities.
The implementation of ErBPM takes place in an environment saturated with technology,
knowledge, research and development, experiments involving risk-taking to discover solutions
to existing problems in the organization, or transfer of generated knowledge to the exploitation
layer to improve and/or optimize the implementation of business processes. The differences
between the above described operational categories present in the organization examined are
summarized in Table 1.
142 E. Dobrowolska, P. Sliż

Table 1.
Differences between exploitative and explorative processes in the surveyed SSC
Differential criteria Exploitative process Exploratory process
Process Maintaining the organization's core Search for new areas to generate added value
implementation business, increasing the efficiency in the organization.
objective of genotype business execution.
Dimension Achievement of short-term goals. Achievement of long-term goals.
Level of High level of process repeatability. Low level of process repeatability.
standardization
Implementation time Cyclical. Occasionally one-off.
Type of activities in Routine. Highly repeatable. Creative, modified during implementation.
the process
Measures Efficiency Flexibility
Performance Level of innovation
Quality Assessment of ability to implement new ideas
Cost Risk assessment
Customer satisfaction Creating customer value
Innovativeness
Source: own elaboration based on the study carried out.
Compared to EiBPM, ErBPs are even more oriented at dynamic adaptation of the process
flow to the turbulent economic environment, so as to enable identification of the customer needs
and expectations, both externally and internally, in the shortest time possible. These processes
demand different skills and tools than traditional business processes, as they often require
a more open and experimental approach to problem solving. Successful exploratory business
processes call for a strong focus on innovation, creativity and flexibility, alongside a willingness
to take risks and learn from failures.

5.2. Managerial implications

The qualitative research carried out on the example of the organization described, which is
characterized by a high (4) level of process and project maturity, yielded existence of a potential
for the SSC under analysis to reach a higher (fifth) level of process and project maturity.
It should be stressed that the decision to undertake activity aimed at achievement of the highest,
fifth level should be preceded by analysis of the benefits for the organization and analysis of
the potential in terms of the resources necessary to reach that level and the availability thereof.
Based on the case studies carried out in 2021 and 2023, a set of recommendations supporting
the examined SSC’s achievement of the fifth level of process-project maturity was proposed.
First, the organization examined is currently employing a contextual approach to the
achievement of ambidexterity in the context of a dynamic balancing of exploitative
(exploitative processes and projects) and exploratory (exploratory processes and projects)
activities. Alas, the study carried out in 2021 and 2023 revealed fragmentary implementation
of the ambidexterity achievement strategy. In the Authors' opinion, a long-term strategy needs
to be developed to outline the target state of process-project maturity, taking the implementation
of ICT technologies into account, in both exploitation and exploration. It is worth emphasizing
here that, in addition to the system layer, it would be worthwhile to factor in flexibilization of
the organization's structure towards ambidextrous or process-project solutions.
Strategic balancing of exploitation and exploration… 143

Second, mechanisms should be put in place to enable knowledge management between

exploitation and exploration, particularly between explorative processes (highly saturated with
knowledge) and exploitative processes. The knowledge generated through the processes and
projects implemented in the organization was found to be codified and available to the
stakeholders within the organization, allowing the transfer thereof from projects to processes
and vice versa.

5.3. Research limitation

As any such study, this one also is subject to limitations associated with exemplifying
a process-project organization that is based on the ambidexterity concept assumptions.
These limitations apply to the focus on one organization, with a clear indication that the results
of research on process and project maturity indicate that most organizations in Poland are
classified at relatively low levels, which has been noted in various works (Sliż, 2021).
This also generates a state, in which directions for further research enabling construction of
theoretical and in-depth models allowing identification of an organization's maturity,
with regard to the degree of BPM, project management and ambidexterity concept
implementation have been set, and attempts to identify the factors supporting and limiting this
level of maturity by the degree of ICT implementation have been made.
Summing up, the study has outlined three cognitive gaps (L). L1: There are no studies
illustrating the use the technologies supporting big data exploration and analysis in the
exploitation and exploration layer of organizations (Cf. Dezi et al., 2018). L2: There is scarcity
of academic studies focusing on the so-called explorative BPM (Cf. Kohlborn et al., 2014) in
business process management.

References

1. Afriliana, N., Ramadhan, A. (2022). The Trends and Roles of Robotic Process Automation
Technology in Digital Transformation: A Literature. Journal of System and Management
Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 51-73, doi: 0.33168/JSMS.2022.0303.
2. Alamsjah, F., Yunus, E.N. (2022). Achieving supply chain 4.0 and the importance of agility,
ambidexterity, and organizational culture: A Case of Indonesia. Journal of Open
Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, Vol. 8, Iss. 2, doi: 10.3390/
joitmc8020083.
3. Ancona, D.G., Goodman, P.S., Lawrence, B.S., Tushman, M.L. (2001). Time: A new
research lens. Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 645-663, doi:
10.5465/amr.2001.5393903.
144 E. Dobrowolska, P. Sliż

4. Anzenbacher, A., Wagner, M. (2020). The role of exploration and exploitation for
innovation success: effects of business models on organizational ambidexterity in the
semiconductor industry. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 16,
No. 2, pp. 571-594, doi: 10.1007/s11365-019-00604-6.
5. Ashrafi, A., Zareravasan, A. (2022). An ambidextrous approach on the business analytics-
competitive advantage relationship: Exploring the moderating role of business analytics
strategy. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 179, doi: 10.1016/
j.techfore.2022.121665.
6. Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the Capability–Rigidity Paradox in New Product
Innovation. Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, pp. 61-83, doi: 10.1509/jmkg.2005.69.4.61.
7. Benner, M.J., Tushman, M.L. (2003). Exploitation, exploration, and process management:
the productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Perspectives Management,
Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 238-256, doi: 10.5465/amr.2003.9416096.
8. Bhatti, S.H., Hussain, W.M.H.W., Khan, J., Sultan, S., Ferraris, A. (2022). Exploring data-
driven innovation: What’s missing in the relationship between big data analytics capabilities
and supply chain innovation? Annals of Operations Research, pp. 1-26, doi:
10.1007/s10479-022-04772-7.
9. Bierly, P.E., Damanpour, F., Santoro, M.D. (2009). The Application of External
Knowledge: Organizational Conditions for Exploration and Exploitation. Journal of
Management Studies. Vol. 46, Iss. 3, pp. 481-509, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00829.x.
10. Birkinshaw, J., Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to
the field of organization studies. Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 27, No. 4,
pp. 287-298, doi: 10.5465/amp.2012.0167.
11. Bitkowska, A. (2019). Od klasycznego do zintegrowanego zarzadzania procesowego
w organizacjach. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
12. Bouncken, R.B., Kraus, S., Roig-Tierno, N. (2021). Knowledge-and innovation-based
business models for future growth: Digitalized business models and portfolio
considerations. Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 15, Iss. 1, pp. 1-14, doi:
10.1007/s11846-019-00366-z.
13. Caniëls, M.C.J., Neghina, C., Schaetsaert, N. (2017). Ambidexterity of employees: the role
of empowerment and knowledge sharing. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21,
Iss. 5, pp. 1098-1119, doi: 10.1108/JKM-10-2016-0440.
14. Chen, Y. (2017). Dynamic ambidexterity: how innovators manage exploration and
exploitation, Business Horizons, Vol. 60, Iss. 3, pp. 385-394, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.
2017.01.001.
15. Chen, Y.C., Arnold, T., Liu, P.Y., Huang, C.Y. (2023). Understanding the role of
entrepreneurial orientation in creating ambidextrous competitive advantage: a comparative-
design, longitudinal study. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, Iss. 1, pp. 89-124, doi:
10.1108/EJM-08-2021-0661.
Strategic balancing of exploitation and exploration… 145

16. Ciasullo, M.V., Montera, R., Cucari, N., Polese, F. (2020). How an international
ambidexterity strategy can address the paradox perspective on corporate sustainability:
evidence from Chinese emerging market multinationals. Business Strategy and the
Environment. Vol. 29, Iss. 5, pp. 2110-2129, doi: 10.1002/bse.2490.
17. Dehnert, M. (2020). Sustaining the current or pursuing the new: incumbent digital
transformation strategies in the financial service industry: A configurational perspective on
firm performance. Business Research, Vol. 13, Iss. 3, pp. 1071-1113, doi: 10.1007/s40685-
020-00136-8.
18. Devinney, T.M., Midgley, D.F., Venaik, S. (2000). The Optimal Performance of the Global
Firm: Formalizing and Extending the Integratio - Responsiveness Framework.
Organization Science. Vol. 11, No. 6, pp. 674-695, doi: 10.1287/orsc.11.6.674.12528.
19. Dezi, L., Santoro, G., Gabteni, H., Pellicelli, A.C. (2018). The role of big data in shaping
ambidextrous business process management: Case studies from the service industry.
Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 24, Iss. 5, pp. 1163-1175, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-
07-2017-0215.
20. Donate, M.J., Guadamillas, F. (2011). Organizational factors to support knowledge
management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15, Iss. 6, pp. 890-
914, doi: 10.1108/13673271111179271.
21. Duncan, R. (1976). The ambidextrous organization: designing dual structures for
innovation. In: R.H. Killman, L.R. Pondy, D.P. Sleven, (Eds.), The Management of
Organization Design: strategies and Implementation, Vol. 1. New York: Elsevier Science
Publishing.
22. Ed-Dafali, S., Al Azad, S., Mohiuddin, M., Reza, M.N.H. (2023). Strategic orientations,
organizational ambidexterity, and sustainable competitive advantage: Mediating role of
industry 4.0 readiness in emerging markets. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 401, doi:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136765.
23. Gareis, R., Stummer, M. (2006). Prozesse & Projekte. Wien: MANZ.
24. Guisado-González, M., González-Blanco, J., Coca-Pérez, J.L. (2017). Analyzing the
relationship between exploration, exploitation and organizational innovation. Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 21, Iss. 5, pp. 1142-1162, doi: 10.1108/JKM-01-2017-0039.
25. Gulati, R., Purctnam, P. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: The value of
inconsistencies between formal and informal organization. Organization Science, Vol. 20,
No. 2, pp. 422-440. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0421.
26. Gürkan, Ç.G., Tükeltürk, A.Ş. (2017). Strategies for innovative organization structure:
Innovative culture and open innovation. In: Ü. Hacioğlu, H. Dinçer, N. Alayoğlu (Eds.),
Global Business Strategies in Crisis. Contributions to Management Science (pp. 185-189).
Cham: Springer.
146 E. Dobrowolska, P. Sliż

27. Güttel, W.H., Konlechner, S.W. (2009). Continuously hanging by a thread: Managing
contextually ambidextrous organizations. Schmalenbach Business Review, Vol. 61, pp. 150-
172, doi: 10.1007/BF03396782.
28. He, Z., Wong, P. (2004), Exploration vs. Exploitation: An Empirical Test of the
Ambidexterity Hypothesis. Organization Science, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 481-494, doi:
10.1287/orsc.1040.0078.
29. Hoessler, S., Carbon, C. (2023). Digital Transformation And Ambidexterity: A Literature
Review On Exploration And Exploitation Activities in Companies’ Digital Transformation.
International Journal of Innovation Management, No. 2230003, doi:
10.1142/S1363919622300033.
30. Karhu, P., Ritala, P. (2020). The multiple faces of tension: dualities in decision-making.
Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 14, Iss. 3, pp. 485-518, doi: 10.1007/s11846-018-
0298-8.
31. Kassotaki, O. (2022). Review of organizational ambidexterity research. SAGE Open,
Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp. 1-22, doi: 10.1177/21582440221082127.
32. Kerzner, H. (2001). Strategic Planning for Project Management Using a Project
Management Maturity Model. New York: John Wiley.
33. Kerzner, H. (2004). Advanced Project Management: Best Practices on Implementation.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley.
34. Kohlborn, T., Mueller, O., Poeppelbuss, J., Roeglinger, M. (2014). Interview with Michael
Rosemann on ambidextrous business process management. Business Process Management
Journal, Vol. 20, Iss. 4, pp. 634-638, doi: 10.1108/BPMJ-02-2014-0012.
35. Kowalik, I., Pleśniak, A. (2022). Marketing determinants of innovation ambidexterity in
small and medium-sized manufacturers. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review,
Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 163-185, doi: 10.15678/EBER.2022.100210.
36. Liang, H., Wang, N., Xue, Y. (2022). Juggling information technology (IT) exploration and
exploitation: A proportional balance view of IT ambidexterity. Information Systems
Research, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 1386-1402, doi: 10.1287/isre.2022.1105.
37. Lin, T.C., Chang, C.L.H., Tseng, T.T. (2023). A study of knowledge use effectiveness
in IS department - A human agency perspective. Information Technology & People,
Vol. 36, Iss. 1, pp. 115-139, doi: 10.1108/ITP-06-2021-0479.
38. Liu, Y., Li, W., Li, Y. (2020). Ambidexterity between low cost strategy and CSR strategy:
contingencies of competition and regulation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 37,
Iss. 3, pp. 633-660, doi: 10.1007/s10490-019-09647-3.
39. Lubatkin, M.H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., Veiga, J.F. (2006). Ambidexterity and Performance
in Small-to Medium-Sized Firms: The Pivotal Role of Top Management Team Behavioral
Integration. Journal of Management Vol. 32, No. 5, pp. 646-672, doi: 10.1177/
0149206306290712.
Strategic balancing of exploitation and exploration… 147

40. Luo, B., Zheng, S., Ji, H., Liang, L. (2018). Ambidextrous leadership and TMT-member
ambidextrous behavior: The role of TMT behavioral integration and TMT risk propensity.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 29, Iss. 2, pp. 338-359,
doi: 10.1080/09585192. 2016.1194871.
41. Mirow, C., Hoelzle, K., Gemuenden, H.G. (2008). The Ambidextrous Organization in
Practice: Barriers To Innovation Within Research And Development. Academy of
Management Proceedings, Vol. 2008, No. 1, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2008.33717691.
42. Nowosielski, S. (2017). Procesy a projekty w organizacji. Ekonomika i Organizacja
Przedsiębiorstwa, Nr 12, pp. 140-150.
43. Nowosielski, S. (2018). Procesy i projekty w organizacji. O potrzebie i sposobach
współdziałania. Studia i Prace Kolegium Zarządzania i Finansów, Nr 169, pp. 109-129.
44. O’Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L. (2008), Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: resolving
the innovator’s dilemma. Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 28, pp. 185-206, doi:
10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002.
45. O’Reilly, C.A. III, Tushman, M.L. (2004). The ambidextrous organization. Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp.74-81.
46. O’Reilly, C.A., Tushman, M.L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: past, present, and
future. Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 324-338, doi:
10.5465/amp.2013.0025.
47. Pregmark, J.E. (2019). Mastering Change through Innovative Initiatives; Contextual
Ambidexterity as a Process. Gothenburg: Chalmers University of Technology, Department
of Technology Management and Economics.
48. Ragazou, K., Passas, I., Garefalakis, A., Dimou, I. (2022). Investigating the research trends
on strategic ambidexterity, agility, and open innovation in SMEs: perceptions from
bibliometric analysis. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity,
Vol. 8, Iss. 3, doi: 10.3390/joitmc8030118.
49. Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., Tushman, M.L. (2009). Organizational
ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance.
Organization Science, Vol. 20, Iss. 4, pp. 685-695, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1090.0428.
50. Reiß, M. (1991). Integriertes Projekt-, Produkt- und Prozeßmanagement. Zeitschrift
Führung + Organisation, Vol. 61, pp. 25-31.
51. Rosing, K., Frese, M., Bausch, A. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the
leadershipinnovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 22, Iss. 5, pp. 956-974, doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014.
52. Roth, L., Corsi, S. (2023). Ambidexterity in a geographic context: A systematic literature
review on international exploration and exploitation of knowledge. Technovation, Vol. 124,
No. 102744, doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102744.
53. Rüegg-Stürm, J., Grand, S. (2019). Managing in a Complex World. The St. Gallen
Management Model. Bern: Haupt, UTB.
148 E. Dobrowolska, P. Sliż

54. Simons, R. (1991). Strategic orientation and top management attention to control systems.
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, Iss. 1, pp. 49-62, doi: 10.1002/smj.4250120105.
55. Sliż, P. (2018). Concept of the organization process maturity assessment. Journal of
Economics and Management, Vol. 33, Iss. 3, pp. 80-95, doi: 10.22367/jem.2018.33.05.
56. Sliż, P. (2021). Organizacja procesowo-projektowa: istota, modelowanie, pomiar
dojrzałości. Warszawa: Difin.
57. Stelzl, K., Röglinger, M., Wyrtki, K. (2020). Building an ambidextrous organization:
a maturity model for organizational ambidexterity. Business Research, Vol. 13, Iss. 3,
pp. 1203-1230, doi: 10.1007/s40685-020-00117-x.
58. Su, L., Cui, A.P., Samiee, S., Zou, S. (2022). Exploration, exploitation, ambidexterity and
the performance of international SMEs. European Journal of Marketing, 56(5), pp. 1372-
1397, doi: 10.1108/EJM-03-2021-0153.
59. Turner, N., Swart, J., Maylor, H. (2013). Mechanisms for managing ambidexterity:
A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 15,
Iss. 3, pp. 317-332, doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2012.00343.x.
60. Tushman, M.L., O’Reilly, C.A. (1996). Ambidextrous Organizations: Managing
Evolutionary and Revolutionary Change. California Management Review, Vol. 38,
pp. 8-29, https://doi.org/10.2307/41165852.
61. Yang, J. (2021). Unleashing the dynamics of triple-A capabilities: a dynamic ambidexterity
view. Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 121, Iss. 12, pp. 2595-2613, doi:
10.1108/IMDS-02-2021-0086.
62. Yunita, T., Sasmoko, S., Bandur, A., Alamsjah, F. (2023). Organizational ambidexterity:
The role of technological capacity and dynamic capabilities in the face of environmental
dynamism. Heliyon, Vol. 9, doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e14817.
63. Zakrzewska-Bielawska, A. (2016). Ambidextrous organization jako przykład
przedsiębiorstwa inteligentnego. Studia i Prace Kolegium Zarządzania i Finansów,
Vol. 148, pp. 161-174.
64. Zehrer, G., Wagner, K. (2008). Projekte als Geschäftsprozesse: Zwei Welten miteinander
verbinden. ProjektMagazin Das Fachportal für Projektmanagement, Vol. 21.