IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/respol/v47y2018i4p717-734.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Polycentric organizing and performance: A contingency model and evidence from megaproject planning in the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Gil, Nuno
  • Pinto, Jeffrey K.

Abstract

This study sheds light on polycentric forms of organizing and corresponding performance implications. Organizations with a polycentric architecture supplement their internal hierarchical decision-making structures with egalitarian, local structures in order to encourage collaboration with legally independent stakeholders. We ground our study on the planning stage for four capital-intensive infrastructure development projects (megaprojects) in the UK. We first establish that megaproject planning is carried on by polycentric organizations. We show that in this form of organizing the promoter has decision-making authority over the high-order choices, but shares the authority over the local choices with groups of autonomous stakeholders. We also show how this organizational architecture addresses local disputes and pressures to relax performance targets. Our main contribution is a contingency model that proposes four conditions linking performance to polycentric organizing, whether or not: i) the institutional environment empowers an ‘umpire’ to referee disputes; and ii) the system leader can mobilize substantial slack resources to reconcile conflicting interests. We argue that the four conditions reveal very different classes of managerial problems, and draw implications for practice and policy including but not limited to megaprojects.

Suggested Citation

  • Gil, Nuno & Pinto, Jeffrey K., 2018. "Polycentric organizing and performance: A contingency model and evidence from megaproject planning in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 717-734.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:4:p:717-734
    DOI: 10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004873331830026X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.respol.2018.02.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dvir, Dov & Lechler, Thomas, 2004. "Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: the impact of changes on project success," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. Jürgen Mihm & Christoph H. Loch & Dennis Wilkinson & Bernardo A. Huberman, 2010. "Hierarchical Structure and Search in Complex Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 831-848, May.
    3. Lyra J. Colfer & Carliss Y. Baldwin, 2016. "The mirroring hypothesis: theory, evidence, and exceptions," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 25(5), pages 709-738.
    4. Tammy E. Beck & Donde Ashmos Plowman, 2014. "Temporary, Emergent Interorganizational Collaboration in Unexpected Circumstances: A Study of the Columbia Space Shuttle Response Effort," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(4), pages 1234-1252, August.
    5. Fabrice Lumineau & Joanne E. Oxley, 2012. "Let's Work It Out (or We'll See You in Court): Litigation and Private Dispute Resolution in Vertical Exchange Relationships," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 820-834, June.
    6. Eppinger, Steven D. & Browning, Tyson R., 2012. "Design Structure Matrix Methods and Applications," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262017520, December.
    7. Manuel E. Sosa & Steven D. Eppinger & Craig M. Rowles, 2004. "The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(12), pages 1674-1689, December.
    8. Flyvbjerg,Bent & Bruzelius,Nils & Rothengatter,Werner, 2003. "Megaprojects and Risk," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521009461.
    9. Patrick Biernacki & Dan Waldorf, 1981. "Snowball Sampling: Problems and Techniques of Chain Referral Sampling," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 10(2), pages 141-163, November.
    10. Engwall, Mats, 2003. "No project is an island: linking projects to history and context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 789-808, May.
    11. Lobo, Sunila & Whyte, Jennifer, 2017. "Aligning and Reconciling: Building project capabilities for digital delivery," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 93-107.
    12. Gil, Nuno & Tether, Bruce S., 2011. "Project risk management and design flexibility: Analysing a case and conditions of complementarity," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 415-428, April.
    13. Philipp Tuertscher & Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy, 2014. "Justification and Interlaced Knowledge at ATLAS, CERN," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(6), pages 1579-1608, December.
    14. MacCormack, Alan & Baldwin, Carliss & Rusnak, John, 2012. "Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: A test of the “mirroring” hypothesis," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1309-1324.
    15. Gil, Nuno & Miozzo, Marcela & Massini, Silvia, 2012. "The innovation potential of new infrastructure development: An empirical study of Heathrow airport's T5 project," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 452-466.
    16. Aija Elina Leiponen, 2008. "Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting in Wireless Telecommunications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1904-1919, November.
    17. Jean-Louis Denis & Geneviève Dompierre & Ann Langley & Linda Rouleau, 2011. "Escalating Indecision: Between Reification and Strategic Ambiguity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 225-244, February.
    18. Ranjay Gulati & Phanish Puranam, 2009. "Renewal Through Reorganization: The Value of Inconsistencies Between Formal and Informal Organization," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 422-440, April.
    19. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & Sinziana Dorobantu & Aseem Kaul & Bennet Zelner, 2017. "Nonmarket strategy research through the lens of new institutional economics: An integrative review and future directions," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 114-140, January.
    20. Thorbjørn Knudsen & Daniel A. Levinthal, 2007. "Two Faces of Search: Alternative Generation and Alternative Evaluation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(1), pages 39-54, February.
    21. James G. March & Robert I. Sutton, 1997. "Crossroads---Organizational Performance as a Dependent Variable," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 8(6), pages 698-706, December.
    22. Klaus Heine & Maximilian Kerk, 2017. "Conflict resolution in meta-organizations: the peculiar role of arbitration," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 6(1), pages 1-20, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A. & Matthews, Jane & Li, Xinjian & Fang, Weili, 2021. "A procurement policy-making pathway to future-proof large-scale transport infrastructure assets," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Tom Ogwang & Frank Vanclay, 2021. "Resource-Financed Infrastructure: Thoughts on Four Chinese-Financed Projects in Uganda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.
    3. David Eggleton, 2020. "Tailoring Leadership to the Phase-Specific Needs of Large Scale Research Infrastructures," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-15, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    4. Love, Peter E.D. & Ika, Lavagnon A., 2021. "The ‘context’ of transport project cost performance: Insights from contract award to final construction costs," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dirk Martignoni & Thomas Keil & Markus Lang, 2020. "Focus in Searching Core–Periphery Structures," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(2), pages 266-286, March.
    2. Mohsen Jafari Songhori & Javad Nasiry, 2020. "Organizational Structure, Subsystem Interaction Pattern, and Misalignments in Complex NPD Projects," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 29(1), pages 214-231, January.
    3. Félicia Saïah & Diego Vega & Harwin de Vries & Joakim Kembro, 2023. "Process modularity, supply chain responsiveness, and moderators: The Médecins Sans Frontières response to the Covid‐19 pandemic," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(5), pages 1490-1511, May.
    4. Samina Karim & Chi‐Hyon Lee & Manuela N. Hoehn‐Weiss, 2023. "Task bottlenecks and resource bottlenecks: A holistic examination of task systems through an organization design lens," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(8), pages 1839-1878, August.
    5. Christopher M. Schlick & Soenke Duckwitz & Sebastian Schneider, 2013. "Project dynamics and emergent complexity," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 480-515, December.
    6. Mohsen Jafari Songhori & Madjid Tavana & Takao Terano, 2020. "Product development team formation: effects of organizational- and product-related factors," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 88-122, March.
    7. Ebrahim, Alnoor & Brown, L. David & Batliwala, Srilatha, 2022. "Governance for global integration: Designing structure and authority in international advocacy NGOs," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    8. Bodas Freitas, Isabel Maria & Gonçalves, Ricardo & Sousa, Rui, 2023. "Governance of new product design: The influence of national institutions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    9. Burton, Nicholas & Galvin, Peter, 2022. "Modularity, value and exceptions to the mirroring hypothesis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 635-650.
    10. Manuel E. Sosa & Jürgen Mihm & Tyson R. Browning, 2013. "Linking Cyclicality and Product Quality," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 15(3), pages 473-491, July.
    11. Gil, Nuno & Miozzo, Marcela & Massini, Silvia, 2012. "The innovation potential of new infrastructure development: An empirical study of Heathrow airport's T5 project," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 452-466.
    12. M. Eisenman & S. Paruchuri & P. Puranam, 2020. "The design of emergence in organizations," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 9(1), pages 1-6, December.
    13. Hugo Priemus & Marian Bosch-Rekveldt & Mendel Giezen, 2013. "Dealing with the complexity, uncertainties and risk of megaprojects: redundancy, resilience and adaptivity," Chapters, in: Hugo Priemus & Bert van Wee (ed.), International Handbook on Mega-Projects, chapter 5, pages 83-110, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    14. Daniel A. Levinthal & Maciej Workiewicz, 2018. "When Two Bosses Are Better Than One: Nearly Decomposable Systems and Organizational Adaptation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 207-224, April.
    15. Simge Tuna & Stefano Brusoni & Anja Schulze, 2019. "Architectural knowledge generation: evidence from a field study," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 28(5), pages 977-1009.
    16. Sylvain Lenfle & Jonas Söderlund, 2019. "Large-Scale Innovative Projects as Temporary Trading Zones: Toward an Interlanguage Theory," Post-Print hal-02390158, HAL.
    17. Oliver Baumann & Nicolaj Siggelkow, 2013. "Dealing with Complexity: Integrated vs. Chunky Search Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(1), pages 116-132, February.
    18. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy & Anna Roberts & Le Xu, 2022. "Liminal movement by digital platform‐based sharing economy ventures: The case of Uber Technologies," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 447-475, March.
    19. Rebecca Vine, 2020. "Riskwork in the construction of Heathrow Terminal 2," SPRU Working Paper Series 2020-20, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    20. Vikas A. Aggarwal & Brian Wu, 2015. "Organizational Constraints to Adaptation: Intrafirm Asymmetry in the Locus of Coordination," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 218-238, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:respol:v:47:y:2018:i:4:p:717-734. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/respol .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.