Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal

Co-published with University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering

1 Issue per year

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Project ambidexterity: case of recovering schedule delay in a brownfield airport project in India

K. Chandrashekhar Iyer / Partha S. Banerjee
Published Online: 2017-03-14 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/otmcj-2016-0012


Planning deficiencies and consequent execution delays are likely to persist in infrastructure development projects. However, recovery of schedule delay is a less researched area. This case research, using a two-stage inquiry modeled on the grounded theory, studied the schedule delay recovery during the execution phase of a brownfield airport construction project. The analyses generated contextual evidence and ambidexterity was found to be the key underlying phenomenon for successful recovery measures. The empirical learning was validated with literature and can be used by practitioners looking to institute schedule recovery measures.

Keywords: grounded theory; project ambidexterity; brownfield project; schedule delay recovery; airport construction project


  • Airport Council International. (2013). ACI World Airport Development News. 02. Momberger Airport Information, Air Trans Source Inc. pp. 1-8Google Scholar

  • Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), pp. 337-342.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Barney, J. B., & Arikan, A. M. (2001). The resource-based view: Origins and implications. In: Hitt, M. A., Freeman, R. E., & Harrison, J. S (eds.). The Blackwell Handbook of Strategic Management. Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford, UK, pp. 124-188.Google Scholar

  • Barrett, P., & Sutrisna, M. (2009). Methodological strategies to gain insights into informality and emergence in construction project case studies. Construction Management and Economics, 27(10), pp. 935-948.Google Scholar

  • Bassioni, H., Price, A., & Hassan, T. M. (2004). Performance measurement in construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 20(2), pp. 42-50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., & Mead, M. (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(September), pp. 369-386.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2010). From hero to hubris - Reconsidering the project management of Heathrow’s Terminal 5. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), pp. 151-157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cao, Q., & Hoffman, J. J. (2011). A case study approach for developing a project performance evaluation system. International Journal of Project Management, 29(2), pp. 155-164.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, A. P. L. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(2), pp. 203-221.Google Scholar

  • Coakes, E., & Elliman, A. (2011). Developing organisational stories through grounded theory data analysis: A case example for studying is phenomena. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development, 3(2), p. 16.Google Scholar

  • Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), pp. 185-190.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A., & Tishler, A. (1998). In search of project classification: A non-universal approach to project success factors. Research Policy, 27(9), pp. 915-935.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dvir, D., Raz, T., & Shenhar, A. J. (2003). An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), pp. 89-95.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eden, C., Williams, T., Ackermann, F., & Howick, S. (2000). The role of feedback dynamics in disruption and delay on the nature of disruption and delay (D&D) in major projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(3), pp. 291-300.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532-550.Google Scholar

  • Flyvbjerg, B. (2008). Curbing optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in planning: Reference class forecasting in practice. European Planning Studies, 16(1), pp. 3-22.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M. K. S., & Buhl, S. L. (2003). How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects? Transport Reviews, 23(1), pp. 71-88. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10062493.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Frimpong, Y., Oluwoye, J., & Crawford, L. (2003). Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of groundwater projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study. International Journal of Project Management, 21(5), pp. 321-326.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Garvin, M. J. (2007). Rethinking mega-project development strategies: Case study of Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering, 3(2), pp. 147-157.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), pp. 209-226.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. AldineTransaction, A Division of Transaction Publishers, Rutgers, p. 271.Google Scholar

  • Goldkuhl, G., & Cronholm, S. (2003). Adding theoretical grounding to grounded theory: Toward multi-grounded theory. In: 2nd European Conference on Research Methods in Business and Management, Reading, UK.Google Scholar

  • Han, S., Love, P., & Peña-Mora, F. (2013). A system dynamics model for assessing the impacts of design errors in construction projects. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 57(9-10), pp. 2044-2053.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Harrell, C., Hendrix, K., Gremos, A., Coad, K., Arnold, J. (2004). Elements of a successful Brownfields redevelopment. In: Proceedings of the Air and Waste Management Association’s 97th Annual Meeting and Exhibition [June 22-25, 2004], Indianapolis, Indiana. pp. 5915-5924.Google Scholar

  • Hwang, B.-G., Thomas, S. R., & Caldas, C. H. (2010). Performance metric development for pharmaceutical construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), pp. 265-274.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Iyer, K. C., & Banerjee, P. S. (2015). Facilitators and inhibitors in sector wide technology transfer projects in developing economies: An empirical study. The Journal of Technology Transfer, p. 26. doi:CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Iyer, K. C., & Banerjee, P. S. (2016). Measuring and benchmarking managerial efficiency of project execution schedule performance. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), pp. 219-236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Iyer, K. C., & Jha, K. N. (2006). Critical factors affecting schedule performance: Evidence from Indian construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(8), pp. 871-881.Google Scholar

  • Jha, K. N., & Iyer, K. C. (2007). Commitment, coordination, competence and the iron triangle. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), pp. 527-540.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Killen, C. P., Jugdev, K., Drouin, N., & Petit, Y. (2012). Advancing project and portfolio management research: Applying strategic management theories. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), pp. 525-538.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Krueger, D. C., Parast, M. M., & Adams, S. (2014). Six Sigma implementation: A qualitative case study using grounded theory. Production Planning & Control: The Management of Operations, 25(10), pp. 873-889.Google Scholar

  • Laufer, A., Gordon, D. R., & Shenhar, A. J. (1996). Simultaneous management: The key to excellence in capital projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), pp. 189-199.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lehmann, H. (2010). Research method: Grounded theory for descriptive and exploratory case studies. In his book titled: “The Dynamics of International Information Systems, Anatomy of a Grounded Theory investigation”. Springer, pp. 53-65.Google Scholar

  • Liu, L., Wang, X., & Sheng, Z. (2012). Achieving ambidexterity in large, complex engineering projects: A case study of the Sutong Bridge project. Construction Management and Economics, 30(5), pp. 399-409.Google Scholar

  • Luu, V., Kim, S., & Huynh, T. (2008). Improving project management performance of large contractors using benchmarking approach. International Journal of Project Management, 26(7), pp. 758-769.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organizational Science, 2(1), pp. 71-87.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. (2014). Report on Central Sector Projects Rs. 150 Crore and Above, Fourth Quarter, Year 2013-14, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India. pp. 1-10.Google Scholar

  • Nyborg, A., & Bjorlo, A. (1997). Hibernia GBS: Construction schedule recovery applying total quality management principles. In: Proceedings of the 29th Annual Offshore Technology Conference [5-8 May, 1997], Texas, Houston, USA, Richardson, Tex. p. 8399.Google Scholar

  • Pinto, J., & Slevin, D. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-34(1), pp. 22-27.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Planning Commission, Government of India. (2012). Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012-2017) - Economic Sector, Vol II, Planning Commission, Government of India. pp. 1-438.Google Scholar

  • Project Management Institute. (2007). Construction Extension to the PMBOK Guide, 3rd edn. Project Management Institute, Pennsylvania, USA.Google Scholar

  • Project Management Institute. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK Guide), 5th edn. Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA.Google Scholar

  • Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Artto, K., Locatelli, G., Mancini, M. (2011). A new governance approach for multi-firm projects : Lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects. International Journal of Project Management, 29(6), pp. 647-660.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shami, M., & Kanafani, A. (1997). Coping with construction in operational airports : SFIA case study. ASCE Journal of Transportation Engineering, 123(6), pp. 417-428.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., Maltz, A. C. (2002). Project success : A multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34(2001), pp. 699-725.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Siemiatycki, M. (2008). Managing optimism biases in the delivery of large-infrastructure projects: A corporate performance benchmarking approach. In: First International Conference on Infrastructure Systems and Services: Building Networks for a Brighter Future. IEEE, Rotterdam, pp. 1-6.Google Scholar

  • Storvang, P., & Clarke, A. H. (2014). How to create a space for stakeholders’ involvement in construction. Construction Management and Economics, 32(12), pp. 1166-1182.Google Scholar

  • Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar

  • Tarafdar, M., & 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), pp. 353-392.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Toor, S.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2008). Problems causing delays in major construction projects in Thailand. Construction Management and Economics, 26(4), pp. 395-408.Google Scholar

  • Toor, S.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). Beyond the “iron triangle”: Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), pp. 228-236.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Walker, D. H. T., & Shen, Y. J. (2002). Project understanding, planning, flexibility of management action and construction time performance: Two Australian case studies. Construction Management and Economics, 20(November), pp. 31-44.Google Scholar

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar

  • Yin, Y., & Du, Y. (2008). Process evaluation of public project management performance based on benchmarking. In: 2008 4th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, Dalian, China, pp. 1-6.Google Scholar

  • Young, R., & Poon, S. (2013). Top management support - almost always necessary and sometimes sufficient for success: Findings from a fuzzy set analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 31(7), pp. 943-957.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zhu, G., Bard, J. F., & Yu, G. (2005). Disruption management for resource-constrained project scheduling. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 56(4), pp. 365-381.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zhu, Y., Su, H., & Guo, P. (2009). Factor analysis based buildup of index system for evaluation of Brownfield redevelopment project. In: International Conference on Management and Service Science, 20-22 Sept. 2009, Wuhan/Beijing, China DOI 10.1109/ICMSS.2009.5301300, p. 4.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Zwikael, O., & Globerson, S. (2006). Benchmarking of project planning and success in selected industries. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13(6), pp. 688-700.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2016-10-02

Accepted: 2016-11-23

Published Online: 2017-03-14

Published in Print: 2016-12-01

Citation Information: Organization, Technology and Management in Construction: an International Journal, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 1464–1481, ISSN (Online) 1847-6228, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/otmcj-2016-0012.

Export Citation

© 2017. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in