Speaking of the automation of processes within an organization, Gartner (2022) asserts that one of the misconceptions business leaders have about automation is the belief that it can “ cover gaps in a poorly designed process”. While rigid process automation is a crucial consideration, the failure of an IT project can jeopardize an entire organization, both in the short and long term.

The concept of rigidification, also referred to as ossification by Reix (1999), is often discussed in the context of insufficient consideration of the cognitive architecture by Information Systems (IS). This concept is prominently explored in the work of Ciborra *et al.* (2000) on infrastructure. Drawing on network theory and the research of Callon (1999), the propagation and implementation of IS are viewed as a process of standardization (Hanseth *et al.*, 2006) within a complex socio-technical framework. Over time, this standardization process, following a phase of change, can contribute to organizational rigidity (Hanseth & Braa, 1999). In this line of thinking, IS is conceptualized as infrastructures that encompass not only data, networks, and hardware but also emerging work methods and convey new cognitive representations of tasks, institutional processes, and practices.

Huber (1991) explores the cognitive basis of rigid and non rigid IS and identifies multiple levels of interaction between the information system and existing knowledge. Regarding Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Besson (1999) argues that the holistic nature of IS enables the convergence of tools and organizational processes, shedding light on the underlying “laws” of the organization. IS reveals the fundamental determinants of the organization and aids its stakeholders in envisioning new evolutionary patterns.

In turbulent contexts, a new Information System (IS) or Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) plays a supportive role in the progressive construction of shared representations, thus constituting a powerful lever for organizational learning. However, a new IS often induces integration that can be constraining and sometimes rigid (Boudreau & Robey, 2005; Reix, 1999). It serves as a source of interdependence (Kallinikos, 2004; Davenport, 2000), decompartmentalization (El Amrani *et al.*, 2006), and the establishment of a common language or metanorms (Carbonel, 2001). It also brings about transversality, albeit to a lesser extent, and in some cases, resounding failures (Hershey Food lost $122****million following the failed implementation of an SAP integrated software package, according to Poston and Grabsky, 2001).

However, the underlying mechanisms at play in these processes remain largely unknown (Beretta, 2002). According to Markus and Tanis (2000), the transformative process that an organization undergoes through an information system project can be likened to a Simonian process of problem formulation, engineering, deployment, use, and impact (1959). In this regard, ERP must strive to consider the cognitive architecture of the firm (Cohendet, 2003; Wenger, 1999; Brown and Duguid, 1991), which is primarily based on the interconnected mesh of intermediate cognitive structures.

Ambidexterity involves the simultaneous consideration of exploration and exploitation logics by actors, project managers, users, and consultants, which has historically been seen as a solution to these rigidities. Ambidexterity refers to the synchronous pursuit of both exploration and exploitation through loosely coupled and differentiated subunits or individuals, with each specializing in either exploration or exploitation (Gupta *et al.*, 2006; Gregory *et al.*, 2016; Cao, Gedajlovic & Zhang, 2009).

Increasing external variety to control environmental variety involves exploration (March, 1991; Ashby, 1957). This process is based on regenerating Information Systems (IS) and necessitates the discovery of new technologies or processes. It requires sourcing new knowledge and transferring it to users. Exploratory learning is crucial for organizations to generate variety and adapt effectively. According to March (1991), exploration encompasses search, variation, risk-taking, experimentation (Yoo *et al.*, 2010), play, flexibility, discovery, and innovation. On the other hand, exploitation is associated with refinement, choice, production, efficiency, implementation, execution, and an overall simplistic ‘mechanical’ view of the organization. Exploitation focuses on leveraging past experiences and competencies, favoring the improvement of familiar technologies rather than exploring and piloting new ones (Lenfle, 2008; Levinthal & March, 1993; March, 1991).

However, in turbulent environments, design organizations rely on their ability to explore capabilities for survival. The literature provides limited guidance on the pace at which IS exploration needs to replace exploitation, especially in companies where exploration is a fundamental aspect and needs to be combined with another type of exploration, namely that of the IS. Adhocratic firms, characterized by scarce resources, find it challenging to implement both exploration and exploitation, as this approach requires a stability typically found in mechanistic and professional bureaucracies. If exploitation is the core purpose of organizations, it may seem counterintuitive for them to allocate resources to exploration.

The literature associates alignment, adaptation (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), and ambidexterity with IS resources. These concepts bear a close resemblance to the notion of switch. In the context of IS, the “switch” phenomenon challenges the traditional trade-off between flexibility and efficiency. We define the switch as the moment of transition from an exploration logic to an exploitation phase (Swift, 2016; Azan *et al.*, 2017). The ERP system appears to be an ideal tool for ensuring process transversality within an organization (El Amrani *et al.*, 2006; Park *et al.*, 2020). However, its weakness lies in its lack of flexibility. In highly turbulent situations, the timing of the switch from exploration to exploitation in IS projects becomes crucial. Our research focuses on two key questions:

To address the aforementioned questions, we present the findings of a clinical study conducted at the automotive integrator Gigatech. The study focused on the deployment of a new Information Systems (IS) project, GALOP, which aimed to tackle the growing turbulence in the market and supply chain. Initially, the participants adopted a strategy that aligned with rational exploitation versus exploration approaches implemented in an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system. However, they encountered a cycle (Karimi & Walter, 2015) that necessitated exploration (Wagner & Newell, 2007; Wagner *et al.*, 2011).

Answering these questions requires identifying a window of opportunity, as ambidexterity is rarely observed in IS projects. Gigatech, an organization dedicated to exploring technical solutions, offers an opportunity to examine this concept in practice, akin to clinical sociology. Moreover, it is worth considering that focusing solely on technical exploration in the automotive domain can limit employees’ opportunities unless IS exploration projects are halted. This consideration leads us to introduce the concept of a “switch,” whereby employees shift their mindset from exploration to exploitation, from AIEP exploration to IS exploration, or from AIEP exploitation to IS exploitation.

Our report is based on the practice of reengineering aimed at adapting the AIEP process to the information system, and vice versa, aligning the IS with the AIEP. This phase of the IS project involves the explicitation of AIEP processes to enhance productivity, cost savings, and quality. It begins with a blank sheet of paper, where (AIEP) experts engage in discussions to determine how the enterprise system can better meet Gigatech’s customer needs. On September 12, 1997, an initial meeting was held, attended by automotive technical experts, management, and the IS manager. The objective of the meeting was to automate complex engineering tasks and integrate them into the IS. The management and information department expressed significant concerns regarding the pricing of the technical solution and the outsourcing of sub-(AIEP)s. They explored new computer-supported solutions.

The role of Information Systems (IS) in the success of firms cannot be underestimated (Bughin *et al.*, 2010; Xue *et al.*, 2012; Nambisan *et al.*, 2017). IS development programs are typically perceived as a collection of projects aimed at achieving a common goal (Chang & Gurbaxani, 2012; Alnuaim *et al.*, 2010; Cho *et al.*, 2011). In the case of Gigatech, the goals of their IS evolved in a rapidly changing environment. We had the opportunity to participate in these meetings in the role of clinicians. Instead of applying a methodology dating back to the early days of IS research, our research design took a highly forward-looking approach, which we will demonstrate by examining the case of this automotive integrator. The automotive industry is well-known to the general public. Despite the frequent successes of global players like Volvo, Peugeot, and Renault, European automotive integrators like Gigatech face intense and regular cycles. Gigatech’s IS goes through exploration and exploitation phases, while their automotive projects (AIEPs) need to adapt and compensate for changes in both the external and internal environments. (AIEP)s can bring about changes in the internal environment.

The literature presents several limitations regarding the role of ambidexterity and the practices of experts in these adhocratic organizations. This practice holds a central role for the Information System (IS) as it serves as a connection between the Gigatech group of engineering experts involved in both simple and complex AIEPs and the ERP project. One of the authors of this article was responsible for the implementation of the ERP and had extensive experience working with automotive projects, including both complex and simple ones (148 projects). Additionally, they served as the head of the ERP user project. The group of engineering experts facilitates the transfer of knowledge from the Gigatech group to the ERP system. The author is also a clinician and, in the words of Schein (1995, p.****19), argues that “clinical model is the more appropriate one for consultation and organization development projects because its assumptions fit better the realities of organizational life and are more likely to reveal important organizational dynamics.”

The contribution of this research is to propose a new form of ambidexterity within a specific context. In this paper, we will demonstrate that a company’s ability to effectively manage its knowledge, which undergoes periodic changes, greatly impacts its performance (Azan *et al.*, 2017). The exploration phase in both IS and cyclical automotive projects is crucial in the long run. Our research addresses a gap in the existing literature, as it does not sufficiently address how cycles influence the conception and implementation of IS. IS and automotive engineering projects are often characterized by an exploration rationale (Xue *et al.*, 2012).

This study is original because it advances practice-based research by introducing clinical research as a new genre that allows practitioner-researchers to contribute their experiences and insights to the field of information systems knowledge. Our motivation stems from the fact that we previously reported on the Gigatech case, but since then, the situation has undergone radical changes. Another aspect of originality in this paper is the presentation of an empirical case that spans several cycles, drawing on over 20 years of continuous work. We discuss the implications of the switch and explore how adopting a cyclical perspective can be advantageous in managing large-scale IS projects within highly turbulent and innovative industry contexts. Moreover, this research holds significant importance due to the critical gap in the literature on management information systems (MIS) research. Existing studies often fail to consider the cyclical nature of activities involved in design and equipment projects. Furthermore, they rarely acknowledge the specificity of these activities, where operational staff, rather than management, possess the necessary knowledge to explore solutions (Lindgren *et al.*, 2004).

In the first section, we provide an explanation of the rationale behind exploitation and exploration in the literature on IS projects. The second section presents our research design, and the third section is dedicated to discussing our results.
# Rationale for Exploitation and Exploration in the IS Project Literature

In this section, we provide a detailed list of the most relevant articles in the IS literature on ambidexterity, exploration, and exploitation (see Table****1). IT project myopia regarding knowledge transfer results from poor exploration and increases the inherent risks of this kind of activity (Alhawari *et al.*, 2012; De Bakker *et al.*, 2010; Đurković & Raković, 2009).

The literature review was conducted after reaching a saturation point in the case (2013) and observing that our first research results were incorrect. We define the saturation point as the moment at which a Darwinist elimination of rival theories comes to a stop. The clinical inquiry revealed that the initial theory used was not relevant to explain the fluctuation of financial performance after 2006. Below, we present non-exhaustive references regarding MIS, exploration, exploitation, and the selected theory to evaluate the actions of the clinician (Popper, 1973). see Figure 1

Since ambidexterity is a cognitive matter, information systems and organizations must reconcile internal tensions, paradoxes, and conflicting demands within their task environments. The aforementioned papers highlight the close connection between IS and the cognitive dimensions of firms, demonstrating that this link contributes to increased rigidity and selection among organizations (Xue *et al.*, 2012; Aaltonen & Kallinikos, 2013; Gregory *et al.*, 2016; Tiwana, 2010; Montelagre *et al.*, 2019; Ciborra, 1996). According to the organizational literature, there are three types of ambidexterity: contextual, structural, and network. However, the literature also acknowledges that pure forms of ambidexterity are often overshadowed by the emergence of “mixed” ambidexterity, which combines structural (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008), contextual (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004), and network forms (Kauppila, 2010). Ambidexterity is characterized by alignment, as exemplified in the literature through the alignment between IT project clients and suppliers. A study analyzing 120 outsourced IT application development projects examined the alignment of shared values. Data were collected from two project members: the lead project manager and a client firm manager responsible for the project (Tiwana, 2010).

<table><caption>Table 1</caption><tr><td>Literature OverviewSourcesExploration/Exploitation
                        MethodologyConstructsTheoryAaltonen & Kallinikos (2013)Wikipedia
                        presents an increasing reliance on policies and guidelines, thus signalling
                        a certain stabilization in the knowledge making processes underlying the
                        encyclopaedia (exploitation).1. The authors carried out an analysis of the
                        ratio of discussion page activities to encyclopaedia articles and to
                        policy/guideline contributions and the ratio of talk page activities to
                        encyclopaedia articles and to policy/guideline contributions.2. There was
                        also analysis of the gap between the number of monthly content contributors
                        and total contributors in English Wikipedia.CoordinationCritical social
                        theoryXue, Ray, & Sambamurthy (2012)Exploration: In environments with
                        higher levels of complexity, IT asset portfolios are associated with a
                        greater increase in innovation (i.e., the development of new products and
                        processes, and the exploration of growth opportunities). These results
                        provide insights about how firms could realize strategic alignment by
                        tailoring their IT asset portfolios towards an efficiency or innovation
                        focus.The study operationalized an IT asset portfolio. The author apply the
                        mainframe price index across all types of IT hardware, including
                        non-mainframe technology. For the authors, regarding software, the IT
                        productivity literature uses three times the IT labour expenses as a proxy
                        for the IT capital related to software, training, and labour expenses.IT
                        asset portfolios, IT programmesTheory of adaptation, Contingency theory,
                        Strategic choiceTiwana (2010)The study opposes the clan control to the
                        formal control. It relies on the values and beliefs shared between customers
                        and suppliers to align their interests and objectives in the context of a
                        project.120 outsourced IT application development projects were analysed.
                        The data are collected from two informants, the lead project manager and a
                        client firm manager responsible for the project.Ambidexterity in IS projects
                        Clan control, formal control, informal controlSidhu, Volberda, &
                        Commandeur (2004)There are three intrinsic dimensions in the exploitation
                        and in the exploration that involve both science and technology.Data were
                        collected in two waves from publicly and privately held companies in the
                        metal and electrical engineering sector.DimensionContingency
                        TheoryMontelagre et al. (2019)There is a contradictory tension between
                        exploration and exploitation that affects digital infrastructure29
                        interviewsCase studyInnovation theoryCiborra (1998)IS project is emergent
                        (‘bricolage process’)Case studies (e.g., Olivetti)BricolageActor network
                        theory,Sensemaking, EthnologyAzan, Bootz, & Rolland (2017)IS project is
                        a combination of cognitive architecture and hierarchical architectureCase
                        studySwitch offCommunity of praticePark, Y. Paul A. Pavlou, Saraf N.
                        (2020).This study investigates the role of digitization in achieving
                        organizational structural ambidexterity by undertaking both exploitation and
                        exploration simultaneously.This study applies fuzzy-set qualitative
                        comparative analysis to 1,325 Canadian firms that invested in new
                        information technology system implementationConfigurationsOrganizational
                        theoryGregory et al. (2016)The authors theorize that ambidexterity is a
                        dynamic capability that rests on the abilities of its leaders to articulate
                        an IT strategic intent and vision and—more importantly—to manage the
                        inherent tensions associated with incompatible organizational
                        architectures.Case studyExploration, ambidexterityInnovation theory</td></tr></table>

Thus, some authors have introduced the concept of adaptive ambidexterity, which refers to the ability of organizations to dynamically adjust the balance between exploration and exploitation over time in response to changes. For instance, Sidhu, Volberda and Commandeur (2004) suggest that depending on the variety of the external information environment, an organization may switch from exploitation to exploration, with the contingency theory guiding their actions. On the other hand, Jansen *et al.* (2006) observed that organizations operating in dynamic competitive environments primarily rely on contextual ambidexterity rather than structural separation between units. Structural ambidexterity involves physically separating exploration and exploitation activities. Network ambidexterity is also relevant for IS specialists. According to Rogan and Mors (2014), network ambidexterity is an organizational skill that entails balancing the trade-off between seeking new business and exploiting existing business. The authors examined 1,449 nodes in the internal and external networks of 79 senior managers in a management consulting firm.

Some organizations operating in turbulent environments find it beneficial to update their information systems as needed. In a longitudinal study of a large telecommunications company that had to adapt its business model in response to the emergence of cloud computing, Khanagha *et al.* (2014) demonstrated that strategy formation is a collective and experimental learning process involving multiple alternative strategic intentions. The authors argued that due to the fundamental differences in nature and requirements of these alternative intentions, iterative exploration of different structural modes and combinations was crucial for facilitating the organization’s transition to the new business model. They considered this transition to be irreversible. According to Gregory *et al.* (2016), ambidexterity is a dynamic capability that relies on the leaders’ ability to articulate a strategic IT intent and vision and, more importantly, to manage the inherent tensions arising from incompatible organizational architectures. To achieve ambidexterity, organizations must effectively reconcile internal tensions and conflicting demands in their task environments.

Ambidexterity facilitates interactions within the context of Digital Transformation Initiatives (DTI). The article analyzes three company case studies and concludes that organizational, structural, and contextual ambidexterity alone do not sufficiently explain the success of DTIs. Jöhnk *et al.* (2022) introduce the concept of hybrid ambidexterity, which balances exploration and exploitation efforts during phases of digital transformation. This observation is consistent with the findings of Park *et al.* (2020), who link the digital transition to organizational ambidexterity. From this association arise configurations of factors. The study posits that ambidexterity is better understood through a configuration of both internal factors (e.g., centralization of information) and external factors to the company (e.g., inter-firm relationships). The methodology employed is a comparative qualitative analysis of 1,325 Canadian companies that have invested in the implementation of a new information system (Park *et al.*, 2020).

In another study, organizational ambidexterity is linked with absorptive capacities. With the widespread diffusion of SaaS (Software as a Service) applications, there are significant challenges in adapting to established business models. The study highlights the role of absorptive capacity and organizational ambidexterity in the business model change process due to the emergence of a disruptive innovation. Drawing upon case studies of six legacy enterprise resource planning software providers and related secondary data, the authors put forth a theoretical model that refines previous literature on absorptive capacity and organizational ambidexterity, identifying additional technological factors that determine how and why incumbent firms shift their business models (Kranz *et al.*, 2016). This discussion will only briefly touch on certain forms of ambidexterity spawned by organizational forms such as networked companies, characteristics of which are unique to these structures (Callon, 1999; Kauppila *et al.*, 2010).
# Clinical Inquiry: From a Fruitful IS Transformation for Gigatech to the
                End of the AIEP Dream

In this section, we outline the research methods employed in our study: clinical research. The utilization of an enterprise system, specifically an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, is expected to enhance the exploitation of resources and foster trust within industrial firms. The implementation of the ERP system aimed to improve the exploration phases in automotive projects. We will present two intervention cycles (Davison *et al.*, 2004) and one evaluation cycle that took place during the intervention phase. The results obtained after the intervention were highly successful, with a cost reduction of over 20% and a significant decrease in design times, thanks to the implementation of the ERP system. However, following this initial success, the phenomenon of IS project myopia emerged (Alhawari *et al.*, 2012; De Bakker *et al.*, 2010; Đurković & Raković, 2009). Given the central role played by the reengineering practice in Gigatech’s case, which involved a collaboration between IS experts and AIEP experts, we selected it as the primary focus of our research. Throughout the years, we maintained contact with all these experts to gather valuable insights and data.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1 — Evaluation of the IS (2002 – 2021) by the experts</figcaption></figure>

## Cycle 1 (1997 – 1999) and Cycle 2 (1999–2001)

The context of the initial action cycle pertains to the automotive equipment market, driven by simultaneous engineering (Clark & Fujimoto, 1991) and the emergence of global players such as IWKA in the French market. The theoretical framework employed in the Gigatech case study was approved through an agreement with the National Association for Technological Research (ANRT), as depicted in Figure****1 under the stages of “initial contact” and “formal and psychological contract.” The uniqueness of this study lies in its examination of research questions spanning over two decades. The first research project, named SICPARI (Simultaneous engineering In Car Production And Related Industries), was conducted from 1993 to 1996. It focused on analyzing the potential of simultaneous engineering in the automotive industry and its impact on competitiveness. The project was a collaboration between the University of Strasbourg, France, and notable companies such as BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Industriewerke Karlsruhe Augsburg (IWKA). The SICPARI project aimed to identify optimization opportunities for various stakeholders within the automotive industry. Two of the authors of this paper were members of the SICPARI project team, with one of them leading the IT aspect of the project, which involved multi-project integration, interaction design, and simulation.

<table><caption>Table 2 — Clinical research - Project Groups and Summaries from 1997 to 2000</caption><tr><td>Project categoryProjects of low and medium complexityHighly complex
                        projectsR&D sub-projectsTotal time spent in project meetings 70 hours78
                        hours51 hoursPart of total time spent (%)19%53%28%Number of evaluated
                        projects982644Part of total of evaluated projects (%)58%15%26%Total budget
                        for projects (euros)6 million74 million15 millionTotal budget for projects
                        (%)35%39%26%Average project team size 5–1030–12010–30</td></tr></table>

The data gathering focuses on the IS project. During a complex project meeting on April 24, 1999 (Citroen), a mechanical engineer (referred to as R4) shared the following information:

> “The ERP doesn’t differentiate the budget line charges from bought hours and other types of purchases on projects.”

> “One week after the big bang, the situation for the simple project was apocalyptic. R5 expressed that he couldn’t launch Mercedes Benz nomenclatures in the IS and had to resort to using Excel instead. He also mentioned having to manually produce estimates due to incorrect prices in the IS. He expressed doubts about being able to continue in this manner for much longer.”

In the second action cycle (1999–2001), the context is one of consolidation in the operation of IS. The bricolage process is particularly evident between 1997 and 1999, forming the first cycle. After 2000, the situation finally stabilized. In March 2000, the launch and schedule manager stated:

> “All launches are now performed in the ERP, precisely linked to the right budget codes and dates.”

From 2002 onwards, the Gigatech Company began experiencing significant profitability. In the long run, between 2002 and 2013, the implementation of AIEP revealed a tension between exploration and exploitation project types. The ERP implementation process highlighted fundamental differences between small and mid-sized projects and complex projects. Complex projects, such as welding and assembly installations, required more project meetings and involved more than ten project members. On the other hand, simple projects only involved three actors: a factory manager, a sales manager, and a business manager. The GALOP project is closely linked to AIEP projects within Gigatech, focusing on addressing the challenges and objectives associated with managing and implementing automotive and industrial projects.

Regarding our research, between 1997 and 2001, we dedicated 78 hours to formal and informal meetings on complex projects, accounting for 39% of the total time spent in project meetings. This pertained to a profit center that represented 77% of the activity.

Due to the increasing uncertainty of the complex project (exploration), small projects played a crucial role in guaranteeing or recovering lost margins during those turbulent times. By the end of the third phase, the ERP project was successfully implemented from a technical standpoint, but it did not deliver the expected results from a management perspective. Gigatech’s employees strongly resisted using the new system, and the lack of financial transparency hindered the management’s ability to make informed decisions and adapt the company to rapidly changing requirements from carmakers.

The external validity of clinical research, similar to action research, pertains to the diversity of statements. The process of eliminating rival theories and favoring confirmed theories through Darwinian selection contributes to external validity. However, external validity raises the issue of generalizing results obtained from a single case or a small number of cases.

From 2000 onward, for simple projects, the new IS allows for resource planning, listing of deviating tasks, modification of bill of materials launches, and the pre-setting of cost estimates for calls for tenders. For complex projects, the system enables the calculation of physical and financial progress on schedules encompassing several thousand tasks, the initiation and inter-firm and intra-group steering of multiple assemblies, and tools for work breakdown structures (WBS). At the strategic level, the IS provides iterative summary indicators for alignment meetings on complex projects.

In conclusion, following the two action cycles, the automotive integrator appears to have overcome its structural challenges. Methodical opportunism allows the theory to be completed, rather than refuted. The conversation with reality is permanent for the researcher (Martinet, 1990). Hence the use of a lexicometric methodology, mobilizing an interpretative and qualitative epistemology.

Between 2000 and 2005, the group was profitable. The professional skills of engineers and business actors were not regularly utilized enough to prepare for the upcoming generation of information systems and facilitate knowledge transfer from experts to the IS. In reality, project members relied on the existing IS, which was suitable for simple projects but not for complex projects. The analysis is based on interviews, e-mails and social network exchanges between 2002 and 2023. The corpus was analyzed using Reinert’s algorithm, Alceste software. After lemmatization, as shown below, 67% of the textual units in the corpus were classified (the relevance level is medium), and 34% were rejected from the analysis. The classified units are divided into 3 groups, which we call classes. Each class is numbered and colored according to the order of appearance in the classification. We note that class****1 is the most specific, the first to stand out in the classification tree, its vocabulary is the most homogeneous, representing 26.44% of classified textual units and characterized by words such as R2, R8. Next in line is class****2, which accounts for 39.08% of classified text units: its significant words are tasks, budgetary codes, projects. This is followed by class****3, which accounts for 34.48% of classified text units: The significant words are invoice, supplier, account. detailed reading of this report highlights the guidelines of the corpus analyzed. What’s interesting in the analysis is the link between automotive projects and ERP projects. We also find the link between simple and complex projects. Class****1 includes SAP ERP, the excerpts from quotations from complex project managers R2, R8, and the car manufacturer Renault. The second class includes simple projects and ERP Galop and R5 resource. Finally, class****3 covers ERP project management, and associates R1 resource.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2</figcaption></figure>

We infer that the practices of the business expert project group for complex AIEP should be adjusted to the cyclical nature of the activity. Once a first integrated technology is in place, it should be implemented and then dissected by business experts at the complex project level (operation). Subsequently, after the phase of defining complex AIEP is completed, business experts should return to exploring the next integrated technology solution to prevent learning myopia and process ossification. In the Gigatech case, this sequence should have been implemented as early as 2003 (switch), after the engineering studies for the Skoda, Peugeot, and Renault projects were concluded (30% project advancement).

Clinical inquiry has proven to be highly effective in fostering dialogue between IS researchers and practitioners. In this case, the controlling body is the ANRT, which operates under the French Ministry for Industry, while the steering body is the university laboratory that initiated an action with discernible consequences. The company welcomed researchers into its domain in 1997, and in response, the researchers demonstrated methodological opportunism (Girin, 1989), meaning they were adept at seizing opportunities and employing appropriate methodologies for observation. The primary objective of the clinician remained scientific production. While IS proved to be a suitable tool for the company from 1998 to 2006, it became insufficient for its survival beyond 2010. We engaged with the actors based on the initial request made by the company, applying the principle of asymmetrical knowledge between the clinician and the field, which is also a characteristic of clinical sociology.

Between 2002 and 2021, we sought evaluations from Gigatech’s experts in both simple and complex AIEP (codified as Ri) regarding the actions undertaken from 1997 to 2002. It is worth noting that information systems have long-lasting effects during post-implementation phases. This research combines elements of both clinical research and clinical inquiry, highlighting the application of controlled methodological pluralism. To enrich our clinical research, we gathered data on expert opinions from participants involved in Gigatech’s ERP project. Additionally, the research embraces methodological opportunism, recognizing that no single research method dominates in terms of relevance. The selection of different Ri individuals was based on their significance in the implementation phase of the new IS between 1997 and 2001.

<table><caption>Table 3 — Criterion of Internal Validity of the Clinical Research (1998 – 2001), Azan, 2004</caption><tr><td>EffectivenessThe members of the steering committee focus on the effects
                        of the research, i.e. the results of the intervention in relation to the
                        objectives defined ex ante.EfficiencyIt is about appreciating the results of
                        the research in relation to their cost. This control is double. On the one
                        hand, in the case of a contracted and funded research, the company wonders
                        if it got value for money. On the other hand, the efficiency is measured
                        according to the respects of the deadlines on which the researcher is
                        committed at the beginning of the intervention. However, this may reveal new
                        research tracks that are more relevant than those originally planned. The
                        delay then increases because the objectives have been redefined.RelevanceThe
                        relevance relates to the object and the field of research. Are they relevant
                        ex ante? More specifically, the control of the relevance will be exercised
                        on: The accuracy of the initial diagnosis co-constructed by practitioners
                        and researchers. What is its relevance to the subject, the field and the
                        research process? Are the objectives of the research adapted to the subject
                        and field during the course of the work? Intervention devices are also
                        critically examined: are they adapted to the purpose and scope of the
                        research? Are the staked deadlines not too far away or too close? Are the
                        indicators in place relevant?ConsistencyThe control of coherence results
                        from the absence of contradictions and impossibilities in the results
                        produced by the research</td></tr></table>

This phase was not initially included in the clinical inquiry research design. However, the interviews of experts results obtained during this phase offer valuable insights into how firms operating in turbulent environments can achieve strategic alignment by customizing their IT asset portfolios with a focus on efficiency or innovation. It is important to acknowledge that these interviews are biased, as the interviewees perceive us as the leaders of the ERP project (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Nevertheless, the opinions provided by these experts are valuable due to their extensive experience in evaluating highly technologically complex projects within a short timeframe. This can be attributed to the concept of clan control (Tiwana, 2010; Ouchi****1979, 1980). As observed by Bootz *et al.* (2019), expertise serves as the essential mediation to address complex problems. In the case of Gigatech, they combine both AIEP and the IS).

<table><caption>Table 4 — Our clinical research — Adapted from Lindgren *et al*., 2004; Schein, 2010; Azan, 2010</caption><tr><td>EffectivenessClinical research (1998–2001)Expert advices (2002–2021)Did
                        both the researcher and client agree that clinical research was the
                        appropriate approach for the organizational situation? Did the client make
                        an explicit commitment to the project? Were the roles and responsibilities
                        of the researcher and client organization members specified explicitly?The
                        IS project participants signed an agreement in 1998 specifying their roles
                        and responsibilities. This agreement included resource allocations and
                        regulations for the possible commercial utilization of the research results.
                        The first redundancy plan triggered the need for expert advices, even though
                        contact with the company has been maintained since 2001, when clinical
                        research came to an end.. The company’s bankruptcy means the end of field
                        visits, but not necessarily the end of data collection, since contact with
                        ex-employees is maintained.The previous phase enables the researcher to
                        avoid lengthy qualitative studies. He draws his legitimacy from the field,
                        and in an adhocratic mode of operation, has access to the key knowledge held
                        by the organization’s members. Efficiency comes from the “delivery” of a
                        management control system, a functioning ERP and an automotive project
                        management process, with the performance analysis that goes with it.Were
                        project objectives and evaluation measures specified explicitly? Were the
                        data collection and analysis methods specified explicitly?Between 1998 and
                        2000, the project description specified objectives and evaluation measures
                        for both theory and practice.Targets are met for simple projects. For
                        complex automotive projects, yes, for 4 years, then no longer (according to
                        experts)In 1998, methods for data collection and analysis, including
                        prototype development and evaluation, were outlined in the project
                        description and specified during the initial project phase.EfficiencyDid the
                        researcher conduct an independent diagnosis of the organizational
                        situation?We relied on a model of IS project contribution to the performance
                        of the organization (March and al., 1992). We also relied on Clark and
                        Fujimoto (1991) work about simultaneous engineering. The research objectives
                        were developed in collaboration with practitioners.The epistemology changed
                        but not the actors. The observer is external to the observed reality. A
                        lexicometric method is used to codify the data. Biases are naturally dealt
                        with by players who are used to situations in which they have to give their
                        opinion objectively, while maintaining a quality relationship with project
                        teams.Did the researcher reflect on the outcomes of the intervention? In
                        collaboration with practitioners from the participating organizations, we
                        evaluated and reflected on the outcomes of our interventions.The asymmetry
                        changes sides. Hitherto, the clinician has come to help the organization,
                        and the practitioners; his diagnosis is listened to from the first social
                        plan onwards, and the practitioners are forced to carry out their
                        examination. Biases exist in the discourse, but overall, it is possible to
                        reconstruct failures fairly quickly and analyze what differs from the first
                        publications.Were the timing and nature of the actions taken clearly and
                        completely documented?Throughout the complete clinical research project, all
                        activities were documented and compiled as progress reports to the research
                        funding agency.The first redundancy plan triggered the need for expert
                        advices, even though contact with the company has been maintained since
                        2001, when clinical research came to an end.Relevance: Did the planned
                        intervention follow from this theoretically based model?We relied on our
                        initial theoretical framework to assess the effectiveness of our
                        intervention in the second clinical research cycle. In the expert advice
                        phase, we extent the scope of the theory.Was the guiding theory, or any
                        other theory, used to evaluate the outcomes of the intervention?The initial
                        theory combines reengineering, organizational change, performance and
                        intervention research in the field of management tools. The modified theory
                        takes into account recent advances in ambidexterity.Did the client approve
                        the planned actions before they were implemented? Actions were discussed,
                        planned, and approved at regular project meetings involving both the
                        researchers and the participating organizations (steering committee)Not
                        applicableConsistencyResearch papers were written and published after the
                        duration of the project. In addition to scholarly publications, progress
                        reports were regularly delivered to the clinical research funding agency.
                        Not achieved in the long run for complex automotive projects and achieved in
                        the long run for simple automotive projects.</td></tr></table>
# Ambidexterity and turbulent environments

The IS project initially involved the participation of expert automobile engineers who shared their professional expertise and project-specific knowledge. Contrary to what is mentioned in the literature, these engineers actively engaged in the exploration of the IS to make complex organizational processes explicit. However, in the context of automobile projects, it is not feasible to combine this role with exploration simultaneously. In 2010, a senior manager at Gigatech reported: “Very early on, we should have started thinking about what changes to make to our information system so that we could adapt to the developments taking place in the automotive industry” (codified as R7). From 2006, there were an increasing number of warning signs at Gigatech.

To explain the short-term success of the information system on AIEP and the long-term failure of projects on complex AIEP, two of the experts consulted attributed the cause to the lack of preparation for a new technological cycle. In the case of complex AIEP, it would have been necessary to revisit IS exploration, whereas for simple AIEP, deepening exploitation was sufficient. Timing was a determining factor, as it was necessary to prepare for the new generation of complex AIEP and this required resizing the IS. The clinician’s client was subject to the ambidexterity and timing of the switch between exploration and exploitation in the case of complex AIEP. According to R8 (2021), “In the early 2000s, our activity changed significantly, and carmakers asked us to relocate. We had to include an outsourcing rate towards low-cost countries in our commercial offers. Our IS was no longer suitable. The transition to an SAP system did not reverse the trend. It was too late”. In the case of simple AIEPs, the construction of the IS is informed by the structural ambidexterity of Gupta *et al.* (2006) and the synchronous pursuit of both activities. Both concurrent ambidexterity and sequential ambidexterity, which aim to resolve the paradox between exploration and exploitation through separation within distinct divisions, are present (O’Reilly & Tushman, 2008; Tushman & O’Reilly, 2011). For simple projects, the project is built upon what Kranz *et al.* (2016) term “impure ambidexterity” and those identified in other research, such as the impact of digitization on organizational ambidexterity (Montealegre *et al.*, 2019; Gregory *et al.*, 2016).

This is not the case for complex AIEPs in the construction of the IS. In 2004, R3 stated, “The problem now lies with the complex projects.” This observation sheds light on these rapid inversion phenomena, independent of the IS, wherein complex projects abruptly shift from profit to loss. It is not about the “refinement” of ambidexterity (Kranz *et al.*, 2016) or hybridization (Park *et al.*; Jöhnk *et al.*, 2022). Instead, it pertains to a new form of ambidexterity that is indexed to the cycle.

In the long-run, there was a myopia concerning the lessons from IS that led to underestimating the impacts of the project’s interdependencies and the effects on programs, especially for complex exploration projects. For instance, the mechanistic perspective resulted in underestimating the significance of the cyclical renewal of an ideal organization and its IS implementation The mechanical governance structures were neither appropriate nor effective for adapting the IS to increasingly global markets and supply chains. The effects of cycles are highly significant for complex AIEPs, such that they do not impact the ambidexterity of project actors in the construction of the IS, which is subject to external regulation. In the case of complex projects, the exploration and exploitation by experts must adapt to the automotive cycles. The risks were undervalued because Gigatech underestimated the burden of large programs. For example, the company’s IT programs were disconnected from its parent organization, KUKA, thereby losing advantages that should have been natural to the emerging ecology of the organization.

As a result, the project organization did not anticipate the strategic changes (exploration), the evolution of the automotive market (e.g., China, emergent markets, and rigid IS Architecture, IoT, servitization), and the evolution of carmakers’ sourcing strategy from simple commodity projects to complex strategic partnerships based on contracting. The program’s design and outcome were initially successful, but they subsequently failed because the mechanical structures (that were well-suited to simple projects) that resulted from exploration could not adapt to the rapidly emerging ecology (i.e., no period of exploitation followed), where far more complex projects constituted the major part of the business (Bughin *et al.*, 2010).

According to R2 (2021), “then there was the 2008–2010 crisis, and the shrinking of the ‘Renault’ share of sales.” Although strongly anchored in the published theory fueled by the SICPARI research project in 1993, the program design (i.e., the project organization) sought to form a decentralized developmental organization. Despite the confidence of the clinician, these projects continued to evolve and affect both their environment and other projects. On the contrary, for the simple project starting from 2000, we observed a stabilization process (Aaltonen & Kallinikos, 2013). In 2010, R2 stated, “The shift to SAP came too late, we had already lost Peugeot Citroen.” Peugeot Citroen was the biggest client for the complex project activity. Gigatech could not survive with the loss of it.

To conclude this section, the reengineering practice produced similar outcomes in the organization for simple AIEPs and complex AIEPs until 2002. The big bang rapidly resulted in total disorganization, and internal contradictions were numerous. The exploration of IS was over, but the organization was not in normal exploitation mode. The exploration of incremental IS innovations was the object of several meetings concerning simple AIEPs. Contradictions emerged from 2004 for complex AIEPs, with experts initially attributing malfunctions to the rigidity of the IS.

A limit of the research design is that the expert phase (2002–2021) is about 2O h of expert interviewing and a visit in 19 ans. A second clinical study would have been preferable. But the initial version of the article was validated by several experts. 20 hours of interviewing in a situation you know perfectly well, in a company where you’ve restructured processes, set up an ERP or implemented project management control, is not the same as 20 hours in an organization you know nothing about. Expert opinions can indeed complement empirical studies, especially when the experts provide insights based on their experience and expertise.
# Lessons from the practices at Gigatech over a 20-year period between 1997 and
                2015

The reflective learning process is based on lessons learned from research and identifies implications for other situations and contexts. Based on progress reports and research documents throughout a clinical research project, this principle maintains that studying the efforts of research over time is essential (Lindgren *et al.*, 2004). The objective is to develop a realistic theory, which is not specific to clinical approaches (Nambisan *et al.*, 2017). A realistic theory is an attempt to mirror a portion of reality. The goal is to select theories with greater fidelity and improve the fidelity of existing theory (Te’eni, Seidel, vom Brocke, 2017).

## Myopia in Learning, Practice, and the Shift between Exploration and Exploitation
                in the IS

While the company was generating profits, the business environment was rapidly changing for complex projects. In addition to clinical inquiry, this research follows an iterative process that goes through multiple phases and cycles (Baskerville *et al.*, 2020; Baskerville & Pries-Heje, 2004; Davison *et al.*, 2004). The ability to exploit opportunities is determined by the management of complexity. The acquisition of Gigatech served as a clear indication of a turbulent environment and further intensified our keen interest in studying the research case over an extended period. The connection between complex AIEP experts and the evolution of the information system was severed for several years between 2002 and 2006. Using the terminology employed by Levinthal and March (1993), there was a myopic focus in the management learning process concerning complex projects. The learning myopia was exacerbated by unforeseen events such as the 2008 crisis (which impacted complex AIEP but not simple AIEP).

The literature on ambidexterity in IS projects acknowledges the tensions between exploration and exploitation (Lee *et al.*, 2015; Gregory *et al.*, 2016). The emergence of evidence highlights the balance between strategic objectives and the conflicting requirements of exploration and exploitation projects. The transition between exploitation and exploration serves as a regulator for achieving the necessary equilibrium between the two phases (Mizik & Jacobson, 2003). Companies must strive for a balance between exploration and exploitation to attain superior performance. However, in our case, structural ambidexterity resulted in entrenched practices, and the limitations of the IS system contributed to learning myopia and an inability to adapt and anticipate the emergence of a new exploration paradigm. Henfridsson and Yoo (2014, p.****932) note that “little is known about the underlying mechanisms of how entrepreneurs reflectively deal with liminality to conceive and bring forth new innovation trajectories.” From 93% to 95% of the cost of a vehicle is attributed to subcontractor companies like Gigatech rather than the global carmaker. The knowledge formerly possessed by automobile manufacturers now resides within companies like Gigatech. Technical and scientific expertise in mechanics, robotics, and pneumatics evolves rapidly. Therefore, practices such as process reengineering must take this constraint into account. Working practices face challenges due to advancements in product codification, technologies, and scientific knowledge, although to a lesser extent in the case of simple projects. In disrupted and hypercompetitive environments, ambidexterity is closely tied to combining IS exploitation and evolution. In 2004, we initially concluded that exploitation resulted from choices made between experts and the mutual dependence of the IS and complex projects. However, we were mistaken (highlighting the significance of making mistakes, as emphasized in Bernard’s introduction to the experimental method). Consequently, we, in agreement with the experts, deduced that the solution lay in revisiting IS exploration to allow the reengineering process group to identify recent developments among experts. Therefore, employing structural ambidexterity is not feasible. The practice necessitates the assembly of a reasonable number of experts. If these experts are engaged in projects, it is crucial to wait until they have completed the study phases of the project since this activity is inherently intense and requires their undivided attention. They do not possess sufficient hindsight on AIEPs to engage in exploring future IS. Drawing on the work of Aaltonen & Kallinikos (2013), it is akin to technology such as Wikipedia radically changing every three years. The notion of alignment must be approached differently, as the adhocracy hierarchy is reversed, with knowledge residing at the organizational base rather than the strategic summit (in contrast to Tiwana, 2010). Ambidexterity, particularly contextual ambidexterity, thus necessitates aligning the strategic summit with the organization’s base.

In this research, the IS switch should not be synchronous but, on the contrary, asynchronous between the complex and simple AIEP and PERP. Therefore, we propose an improved practical industrial complex IS project management model based on an ambidextrous shifting by key business experts (Figure****3) from exploitation to exploration projects on demand for a two- to three-month period. This would provide the required company adaptability to meet the project owner’s expectations, quality, and requirements on time using relevant technologies, such as PLM, Big Data, and Analytics (Chen *et al.*, 2012; Goes, 2014).

In Figure****3, the environmental changes of the IS (e.g., customer scope changing from local to global, regulation changes, large projects, and mergers) drive new demands for the ERP development project. The project owner’s expectations are met during each complex project due to the adequate IT environment that supports the increasingly challenging environmental complexity. As shown in Figure****3, the environmental changes of the complex project owner were not effectively managed on time by Gigatech, leading to the company’s failure in meeting the targets of the subsequent complex project due to an inadequate ERP environment. Figure****3 clearly emphasizes the importance of proactively adjusting a company’s ERP environment as soon as major environmental changes arise (Goes, 2014; Lavie *et al.*, 2009).

This trade-off requires skills among and between the AIEPs and the IS. As pointed out by O’Reilly and Tushman (2011), ambidexterity (Karimi & Walter, 2015) relies on the ability to articulate a strategic intent and vision that justifies exploration and exploitation, as well as managing the inherent tensions associated with incompatible organizational architectures. Nevertheless, this tension necessitates a ‘switch’ mechanism (Azan *et al.*, 2017) that links the IS and the organization to rapidly adapt to the changing environment by allocating engineering resources (especially knowledge) to exploitation and then to exploration. The IS literature introduces a projective dimension and a dialectic of change (e.g., Boudreau & Robey, 2005; Azan *et al.*, 2017). Ciborra and Hanseth (1998) even discuss the ‘boomerang’ effect of IS projects, which, through the formalization of data, reduces the future interpretative capacities of an organization. The dialectic of change has been extensively discussed in the literature. According to Gattiker and Goodhue (2005), the ERP system introduces interdependence among the units within the organization where it is implemented. Their research analyzes the impact of differentiation and interdependence between units in an organization that implements an ERP. The ERP project is dual according to Azan, Bootz, and Rolland (2017). This research provides insights into understanding or anticipating the point at which an organization facilitates the exploitation and exploration of both simple and complex projects.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3 — AIEP, IS project and phase switch</figcaption></figure>

The implementation of the ERP system between 1998 and 2000 for simple projects is based on the literature. It supports various research articles (initial theory) on the contingency theory of organizational change, evolutionary theory, and IS performance models during the study period (1998–2020) (Gattiker & Goodhue, 2005;Wagner, 2007; Wagner and al., 2011). However, for complex projects, as indicated by the case study, the IS operations phase is relatively short. Waves of IS changes occur successively, with mechanical and robotic engineers playing a crucial role in transferring codified knowledge to the IS infrastructure. They function as boundary spanners (Henfridsson & Yoo, 2014; Levina & Vaast, 2005; Azan *et al.*, 2017).

The cyclic ambidexterity of IS for complex AIEPs differs from that of simple AIEPs, which continued for one year after the exploitatio big bang.

<table><caption>Table 5 — Expert advices and evaluation of the actions</caption><tr><td>Interviews inTitleLength of the interviewsProjects1998–20012002, 2005,
                        2010R1: Head of CAD, CIO, ERP project manager, member of the steering
                        committee, member of the reengineering group5 hoursIS projects, ERP
                        projectMember of the reengineering group, of the ERP project2002, 2004,
                        2010, 2013R2: Project manager and then project director (Peugeot, Renault) –
                        Member of the reengineering group, Member of the steering committee4
                        hoursComplex projectsMember of the reengineering group2010R3: Automation
                        engineer and then Project manager for Skoda 1 hourComplex projects2001,
                        2004, 2010R4: Peugeot Project manager and project director5 hoursComplex
                        projectsMember of the reengineering group2004R5: Mercedes Benz, Ford, Kuka3
                        hoursSimple projects2010R6: Head of site managers, 1 hourSimple and complex
                        projectsMember of the reengineering group2002R7: Head of planning manager1
                        hourComplex and simple projectMember of the reengineering group2021R8: Volvo
                        Project manager for ABB, Farman and CEO 2 hoursGigatech</td></tr></table>

## Establishing a dialogue between IS practitioners and clinicians

According to Schein (1995), “Consultant and client must work as a team and validate all interventions together while being aware of all possible consequences” (p. 11–12). In the context of organizational consultancy, clinicians, whether internal or external, act as consultants who design interventions to influence the evolution of projects, whether in IT or automotive domains. The advantage of clinical research is that it provides the researcher with full access to the project, ensuring legitimacy. The following section details the characteristics of the dialogue established between IS practitioners and clinicians.

In being so closely involved, the researcher obtains detailed knowledge of the project. Schein (1995) considers, however, that clinical and action research are “fundamentally different” (p.****3). The process of action research is driven by the researcher’s research agenda and goals, whereas clinical research is driven by the client’s needs. However, the drawback is that he or she may color the object of study with his or her own opinions and conflicting incentives; this is because a clinical researcher has an incentive to ensure the success of the project that a passive qualitative researcher does not have. Demand or process consultation is involved in accessing data and the field. It is characterized by a “distant familiarity” that, in our case, was only achieved by distancing ourselves from the field for twenty years. While “problems” condition access to the field, as the epistemologist Bachelard (2002) puts it, “problems do not come about by themselves. It is precisely this sense of a problem that indicates a true scientific mind. For a scientific mind, all research is the answer to a question. Without a question, scientific knowledge cannot exist. Nothing occurs on its own, everything is constructed”. It is impossible to solve all problems, but having the legitimacy to solve some of them guarantees access to the field, such as the IS field. Gigatech’s case is unusual since in this type of company, problems are shared with the team to minimize response times.

The place occupied here depends on our capacity to successfully leave the field. Affiliation mechanisms between clinicians and managers are a source of knowledge. In the case of Gigatech, this conversation involved acquiring the metalanguage of the steel industry, which needed to be made understandable to the academic world without deforming it. Legitimacy in the field makes it possible to organize for the long term. The conversation with the situation extends over time, and useless theories can thus be eliminated. In this way, clinical research is particularly suitable for evaluating action over very long periods.

Regarding the process reengineering practice, the “big bang” took place in 1999, and the exploration of the new information system for complex AIEPs was scheduled for 2002, three years later.
# Conclusion

The primary findings of this research suggest that the timing of the switch between exploration and exploitation in complex IS projects and the automotive project is a critical success factor. The switch should occur in a countercyclical manner: when complex projects are in the exploration phase, the IS project should be in the exploitation phase. Conversely, when one or more projects are in exploitation, the IS should be in exploration. The switch embodies a form of ambidexterity unique to project regulation, termed “cyclical ambidexterity,” which is time-driven, synchronous, and compatible with project regulations.

The consultation process has exerted an “immense and positive impact on the field of organizational consulting” (p.****93). The Gigatech case study demonstrated success in both simple and complex AIEPs until 2005; however, it manifested failures in complex AIEPs from 2006 onward. This clinical research underscores the importance of ambidexterity and posits that the exploration-versus-exploitation strategies embody a mechanistic dimension, which may become dysfunctional when steering expansive programs that involve AIEPs within highly volatile environments, characterized by perceived inflexibility. Over time, in such contexts, IS projects necessitate an organic managerial approach to address escalating environmental instability. The preliminary perspective was myopic and empirically rooted, lacking the foresight to track the case over two decades. In clinical research, exploration and exploitation necessitate markedly distinct structures, processes, strategies, capabilities, and organizational cultures for their enactment and may produce varied effects on organizational adaptation and performance (He & Wong, 2004). Specifically, exploration correlates with organic structures, decentralized systems, groundbreaking endeavors, and spontaneity (Ciborra & Hanseth, 1998).

The implications for both theory and practice are significant. As noted by Baskerville and Wood-Harper (1998), action research methods are highly clinical in nature and place IS researchers in a “helping role” within the organizations that are being studied, and this consultancy includes the information system.

According to the experts, the next steps in the 2000s should have been to anticipate the PLM wave, the cloud wave, and Big Data, and to transfer resources and top European complex AIEP experts in preparation. In this clinical research, the timing of the switch between exploration and exploitation of complex IS projects and the automotive project is a key success factor. The application of this type of clinical research could be interesting to understand other contexts, such as pandemics. Similar to the work of Bernard (2013), empiricism, observation, and a statistical approach contribute to striking a balance in scientific production and the establishment of practices. The clinical research phase lasts 4 years (2001). The paradox between simple and complex projects occurred 5 years later (Refutation of the theory in 2006), after the first results were published. It took another 6 years to arrive at a diagnosis. The division between action and collection of expert opinions is therefore balanced in terms of time. The points discussed only concern the introduction of the switch to complete the theory produced, by proposing cyclic ambidexterity.

The limitations of this study are highlighted by existing literature. Clinical research demands considerable time and substantial resource commitments, and it is often viewed as less scientific compared to other methodologies (Avison *et al.*, 2018). Based on a data-driven approach, clinicians recommend IS exploration during the exploitation phase for complex AIEPs and exploitation for simple AIEPs (Schein, 1969, 1996). The external validity presents a constraint, which is offset by the extended duration of the study. An initial theory, that the new IS is a factor in performance, by improving the information (Goodhue and Gattiker, 2005) decision making and, in the context of an adhocracy, the transfer of complex knowledge into the IS, has been completed with the notion of *switch*.

## Références

Aaltonen, A. & Kallinikos, J. (2013). Coordination and learning in Wikipedia:
                Revisiting the dynamics of exploitation and exploration. *Research in the
                Sociology of Organizations*, 37, 161–192. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0000037010

S.,
                Karadsheh, L., Talet, A. N. & Mansour, E. (2012). Knowledge-based risk
                management framework for information technology project. *International Journal
                of Information Management*, *32*(1), 50-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.07.002

O. A.,
                Robert, L. P. & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social
                loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral
                disengagement. *Journal of Management Information Systems*, *27*(1),
                203–230. https://doi.org/ 10.2753/MIS0742-1222270109

R. W.
                (1957). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall LTD, second edition,
                London.

D. E., Davison, R. M. & Malaurent, J. (2018). Information systems
                action research: Debunking myths and overcoming barriers. *Information &
                Management*, *55*(2), 177-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2017.05.004

Azan W. & Beldi
                A. (2010), “De la cybernétique à la théorie de la human agency : vers un management
                des SI centré sur les utilisateurs “, *Management & Avenir*, décembre, 9,
                39, p. 192-212. https://doi.org/ 10.3917/mav.039.0192

W., Bootz, J.
                P. & Rolland, O. (2017). Community of practices, knowledge transfer, and ERP
                project (ERPP). *Knowledge management research & practice*,
                *15*(2), 238–256. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/s41275-017-0047-9

Azan W. (2011),
                Organisation projet et performance, Contribution d’’une étude clinique dans le
                milieu de l’’intégration automobile, Editions universitaires européennes

Azan W., Lapoutte
                A., Delorme F (2022), Exploration de six communautés épistémiques mobilisant le
                concept de blockchain: une approche lexicométrique sur 125 articles scientifiques.
                *Revue Management et Avenir*, (N° 127), 1, pp. 15-34. https://doi.org/ 10.3917/mav.127.0015

Bachelard G.
                (2002). The Formation of the Scientific Mind A Contribution to a Psychoanalysis of
                Objective Knowledge, introd. Mary McAlester Jones, Clinamen Press, London

R.
                & Pries-Heje, J. (2004). Short cycle time systems development. *Information
                Systems Journal*, *14*(3), 237-264. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00171.x

R.
                & Wood-Harper A.T. (1998). Diversity in information systems action research
                methods. *European Journal of Information Systems, 7*(2), 90–107. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00171.x

R. L.,
                Myers, M. D., & Yoo, Y. (2020). Digital First: The Ontological Reversal and New
                Challenges for Information Systems Research. *Management Information Systems
                Quarterly, 44(*2), 509–523. https://doi.org/ 10.25300/MISQ/2020/14418

S. (2002).
                Unleashing the integration potential of ERP systems. The role of process-based
                performance measurement systems. *Business Process Management Journal, 8*(3),
                254–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/14637150210428961

Bernard C. (2013).
                Introduction à la médecine expérimentale, collection poche, ed. De Principes de
                Médecine expérimentale, Flamarion, pp. 3-18.

P. (1999).
                Les ERP à l’épreuve de l’organisation. *Systèmes d’information et
                Management*, *4*(4), 2. https://doi.org/10.3917/sim.162.0017.

Bootz, J. P.,
                Lièvre, P., & Schenk, E. (2019). L’expert au sein des organisations : définition
                et cadrage théorique. *Revue internationale de psychosociologie et de gestion des
                comportements organisationnels*, *25*(63), 11-25. 10.3917/rips1.063.0011

M. C.,
                & Robey, D. (2005). Enacting integrated information technology: A human agency
                perspective. *Organization science*, *16*(1), 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0103

J. S., &
                Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a
                unified view of working, learning, and innovation. *Organization
                science*, *2*(1), 40–57. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.40

Q.,
                Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity:
                Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. *Organization
                science*, *20*(4), 781–796. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/orsc.1090.0426

Carbonel, M.
                (2001). Dérives organisationnelles dans les projets ERP: les cas de Guerbet et
                Gaumont. *Systèmes d’Information et Management*, *6*(1), 4.

Y. B. &
                Gurbaxani, V. (2012). Information technology outsourcing, knowledge transfer, and
                firm productivity: an empirical analysis. *MIS quarterly*, *36*(4),
                1043–1063. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/41703497

H., Chiang,
                R. H. & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data
                to big impact. *MIS quarterly*, *36*(4), 1165–1188. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/41703503

J., Park, I.
                & Michel, J. W. (2011). How does leadership affect information systems success?
                The role of transformational leadership. *Information &
                Management*, *48*(7), 270–277. 10.1016/j.im.2011.07.003

C. U.
                & Hanseth, O. (1998). From tool to Gestell: Agendas for managing the information
                infrastructure. *Information Technology & People*, *11*(4),
                305–327. 10.1108/09593849810246129

C., Braa,
                K., Cordella, A., Dahlbom, B., Hepsø, V., Failla, A., & Hanseth, O.
                (2000). *From control to drift: the dynamics of corporate information
                infastructures*. Oxford University Press on Demand.

Clark, K. &
                Fujimoto T. (1991). Product development performance. Strategy, organization and
                management in the world auto industry. Harvard Business School Press: Boston,
                MA.

R., Martinsons, M. G., & Kock, N. (2004). Principles of canonical action
                research. *Information systems journal*, *14*(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00162.x

Amrani, R.,
                Rowe, F., & Geffroy-Maronnat, B. (2006). The effects of enterprise resource
                planning implementation strategy on cross-functionality. *Information Systems
                Journal, 16*(1), 79-104. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2006.00206.x

Garel, G., Giard,
                V.et C.Midler (2004), Faire de la recherche en management de projet, Ouvrage
                collectif, Paris.

Gartner. (2022,
                April 19). 10 Automation Mistakes to Avoid. https://www.gartner.com/en/articles/10-automation-mistakes-to-avoid

T. F.
                & Goodhue, D. L. (2005). What happens after ERP implementation: understanding
                the impact of interdependence and differentiation on plant-level outcomes. *MIS
                quarterly*, *9*(3), 559–585. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/25148695

C. B.,
                & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of
                organizational ambidexterity. *Academy of management Journal, 47*(2),
                209–226. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/20159573

Girin, J. (1989).
                L’opportunisme méthodique dans les recherches sur la gestion des organisations.
                Communication à la journée d’étude la recherche action en action et en question,
                AFCET, collège de systémique, Ecole centrale de Paris.

Goes, P. B.
                (2014). Editor’s comments: big data and IS research. *MIS Quarterly*, 38(3),
                iii-viii.

C. & Lebraty, J.F. (2013), “Improving decision-making in extreme
                environment: The case of a military Decision Support System”, *The International
                Journal of Technology and Human Interaction**, Vol.****9, N°1, pp.
                1–17. https://doi.org/
                10.4018/IJTHI

Wr.,
                Keil, M., Muntermann, J. & Mähring, M. (2016). Managerial View, ambidexterity,
                leadership, paradoxes Case study Production of ambidextrous IT transformation
                program Management including leadership. *Information Systems Research*,
                *26*(1), 57–80. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/isre.2014.0554

Guichardaz R.,
                Pénin J., Schenk E. (2023), Blockchain and Open Innovation for SMEs: Analytical
                framework and decision model Systèmes d’Information et Management, 28(2),
                61–85*.* https://doi.org/ 10.3917/sim.232.0061

A. K.,
                Smith, K. G. & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and
                exploitation. *Academy of management journal*, *49*(4), 693–706. https://doi.org/ 10.5465/AMJ.2006.22083026

Hanseth, O.,
                & Braa, K. (1999). SAP as emergent infrastructure in a global
                organization. *Systèmes d’Information et Management*, *4*(4), 53–70.
                https://doi.org/ 10.1145/353053.353069

O.,
                Jacucci, E., Grisot, M., & Aanestad, M. (2006). Reflexive standardization: Side
                effects and complexity in standard making. *MIS Quarterly*, *30*(1),
                563–581. 10.1007/s10606-012-9167-1. 10.1007/s10606-012-9167-1

He, Z. L. &
                Wong, P. K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the
                ambidexterity hypothesis. *Organization science*, *15*(4), 481–494. 10.1287/orsc.1040.0078

O.
                & Yoo, Y. (2014). The liminality of trajectory shifts in institutional
                entrepreneurship. *Organization Science*, *25*(3), 932–950. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0883

G. (1991).
                Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the
                literatures. *Organization Science*, *2(1)*, 88–115. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/orsc.2.1.88

J., Ollig,
                P., Rövekamp, P., & Oesterle, S. (2022). Managing the complexity of digital
                transformation—How multiple concurrent initiatives foster hybrid
                ambidexterity. *Electronic Markets*, *32*(2), 547–569. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s12525-021-00510-2

J. &
                Walter Z. (2015). The role of dynamic capabilities in responding to digital
                disruption: A factor-based study of the newspaper industry. *Journal of
                Management Information Systems*, *32*(1), 39–81. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07421222.2015.1029380

O. P.
                (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate
                interorganizational partnerships. *Strategic organization*, *8*(4),
                283–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1897-2

S.,
                Volberda, H., & Oshri, I. (2014). Business model renewal and ambidexterity:
                structural alteration and strategy formation process during transition to a C loud
                business model. *R&D Management, 44*(3), 322–340. 10.5465/AMBPP.2013.15162abstract

J. J.,
                Hanelt, A., & Kolbe, L. M. (2016). Understanding the influence of absorptive
                capacity and ambidexterity on the process of business model change–the case of
                on-premise and cloud-computing software. *Information systems journal,
                26*(5), 477–517. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/isj.12102

D., Kang,
                J., & Rosenkopf, L. (2009, August). The Performance Effects Of Balancing
                Exploration And Exploitation Within And Across Alliance Domains, In *Academy of
                management proceedings,* *4*(1), 1–6. 10.5465/ambpp.2009.44228410

Lee, O. K.,
                Sambamurthy, V., Lim, K. H., & Wei, K. K. (2015). How does IT ambidexterity
                impact organizational agility? *Information Systems
                Research*, *26*(2), 398–417. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/isre.2015.0577

S.
                (2008). Exploration and Project Management. *International Journal of Project
                Management,* *26*(5), 469–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.017

N., &
                Vaast, E. (2005). The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice:
                Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems. *Management
                Information Systems Quarterly*, *29*(2), 335–363. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/25148682

D. A.,
                & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. *Strategic management
                journal*, *14*(2), 95–112. 10.1002/smj.4250141009

R.,
                Henfridsson, O., & Schultze, U. (2004). Design Principles for Competence
                Management Systems: A Synthesis of an Action Research Study. *Management
                Information Systems Quarterly*, *28*(3), 435–472. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/25148646

Linhart R. (1978),
                L’Établi, Paris, Les Éditions de minuit, Paris

J. G.
                (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. *Organization
                science*, *2*(1), 71-87. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71

Markus, M.-L.,
                & Tanis, C. (2000). The Enterprise System Experience: From adoption to success.
                In R. Zmud (Ed.), Framing the domains of IT management (pp. 173–208). Cincinnati:
                Pinnaflex.

Martinet A.C. (1990), Epistémologies et Sciences de Gestion, ouv. coll. coordonné
                par A.C. Martinet, Economica, Paris.

Miles, M. B., &
                Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
                Sage.

N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value
                appropriation: The financial implications of shifts in strategic
                emphasis. *Journal of marketing*, *67*(1), 63–76. 10.1509/jmkg.67.1.63.18595

R.,
                Iyengar, K., & Sweeney, J. (2019). Understanding Ambidexterity: Managing
                Contradictory Tensions Between Exploration and Exploitation in the Evolution of
                Digital Infrastructure. *Journal of the Association for Information
                Systems*, *20*(5), 647–680. https://doi.org/ 10.17705/1jais.00547

S.,
                Lyytinen, K., Majchrzak, A., & Song, M. (2017). Digital Innovation Management:
                Reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. *Mis
                Quarterly*, *41*(1), 223–238. https://doi.org/ 10.25300/MISQ/2017/41:1.03

S., Huang,
                J. C., Galliers, R. D., & Pan, S. L. (2003). Implementing enterprise resource
                planning and knowledge management systems in tandem: fostering efficiency and
                innovation complementarity. *Information and organization*, *13*(1),
                25-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1471-7727(02)00007-6

C. A.,
                & Tushman, M. L. (2008). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the
                innovator’s dilemma. *Research in Organizational Behavior,* (28), 185-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.06.002

C. A.,
                & Tushman, M. L. (2011). Organizational ambidexterity in action: How managers
                explore and exploit. *California management review*, *53*(4), 5–22. 10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5

W. G.
                (1978). The transmission of control through organizational hierarchy. *Academy of
                management Journal*, *21*(2), 173–192. 10.2307/255753

W. G.
                (1979). A Conceptual Framework for the Design of Organizational Control
                Mechanisms. *Management Science*, *25*(9), 833–848. 10.1525/cmr.2011.53.4.5

W. G.
                (1980). Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans. *Administrative Science Quarterly,
                25*(1), 129–141. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2392231

Y., Pavlou,
                P. A., & Saraf, N. (2020). Configurations for achieving organizational
                ambidexterity with digitization. *Information Systems
                Research*, *31*(4), 1376–1397. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/isre.2020.0950

Popper K. (1973).
                “La logique de la découverte scientifique”. Traduit de l’anglais par : Nicole
                Thyssen-Rutten et Philippe Devaux. Préface de Jacques Monod, Prix Nobel. Editions
                Payot, Paris.

R., & Grabski, S. (2001). Financial impacts of enterprise resource
                planning implementations. *International Journal of Accounting Information
                Systems*, *2*(4), 271–294. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/S1467-0895(01)00024-0

Reix, R. (1999).
                Les technologies de l’information, facteurs de flexibilité. *Revue française de
                gestion*, (123), 111-119.

M., &
                Mors, M. L. (2014). A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in
                organizations. *Organization Science*, *25*(6), 1860–1877. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/orsc.2014.0901

Schein E. H.
                (1995). Process Consultation, Action Research, and Clinical Inquiry: Are They the
                Same*? MIT Working Paper*****3833 https://doi.org/ 10.1108/02683949510093830

Schein, E. H.
                (1969). Process Consultation: Its Role in Organization Development. Reading, MA:
                Addison-Wesley.

E. H.
                (1996). Kurt Lewin’s change theory in the field and in the classroom: Notes toward a
                model of managed learning. *Systems practice*, *9*(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/
                10.1007/BF02173417

Schein, E. H.
                (2010). *Organizational culture and leadership*****(Vol. 2).
                San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

J. S.,
                Volberda, H. W., & Commandeur, H. R. (2004). Exploring exploration orientation
                and its determinants: Some empirical evidence. *Journal of Management
                Studies*, *41*(6), 913–932. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2004.00460.x

Simon H.A. (1959),
                Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science, *American
                Economic Review*, 49, n<sup>o</sup> 1, p. 253–283

T. (2016).
                The perilous leap between exploration and exploitation. *Strategic Management
                Journal*, *37*(8), 1688-1698. https://doi.org/ 10.1002/smj.2423

D, Seidel,
                S. & vom Brocke, J. (2017). Stimulating dialog between information systems
                research and practice. *European Journal of Information Systems, 26*(6),
                541–545. 10.1057/s41303-017-0067-9

Tiwana, A. (2010).
                Systems development ambidexterity: Explaining the complementary and substitutive
                roles of formal and informal controls. *Journal of Management Information
                Systems*, *27*(2), 87–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/29780172

E. L.,
                Moll, J., & Newell, S. (2011). Accounting logics, reconfiguration of ERP systems
                and the emergence of new accounting practices: A sociomaterial
                perspective. *Management accounting research*, *22*(3), 181-197. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.mar.2011.03.001

E.L., and
                S. Newell. 2007. Exploring the importance of participation in the
                post-implementation period of an ES project: a neglected area. *Journal of the
                AIS,* *8*(10), 508–524. https://doi.org/ 10.17705/1jais.00142

Wenger, E.
                (1999). *Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity*. Cambridge
                university press.

Xue, L., Ray, G.,
                & Sambamurthy, V. (2012). Efficiency or Innovation: Efficiency or Innovation:
                How Do Industry Environments Moderate the Effects of Firms’ IT Asset Portfolios?
                *MIS Quarterly, 36*(2), 509–528. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/41703465

Y.,
                Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—the new organizing
                logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems
                research. *Information systems research*, *21*(4), 724–735. https://doi.org/ 10.1287/isre.1100.0322