Schiphol Airport, a critical hub for international travel, operates in a highly unpredictable environment, influenced by economic instability, changing regulations, resource shortages, and geopolitical tensions. Despite these challenges, Schiphol remains one of the world’s leading airports, with plans for continued growth, including a six-billion-euro investment in future maintenance and projects. Managing this dynamic landscape requires a resilient approach to project portfolio management (PPM), which has traditionally focused on aligning projects with broader organizational goals. However, increasing uncertainty poses significant challenges. Traditional PPM can be extended through the application of two types of capabilities: Dynamic and Ad-hoc. Dynamic capabilities are structured, formalized capabilities that enable organizations to sense uncertainties, seize opportunities, and reconfigure portfolios to adapt to disruptions. In contrast, ad-hoc capabilities provide flexible, improvised responses grounded in situational judgment to address unforeseen challenges. By integrating these capabilities, a hybrid approach could balance different responses, enhancing resilience in dynamic environments. Therefore, this research explores the hybrid application of dynamic capabilities (DCs) and ad-hoc capabilities (AHCs) to manage disruptions within Schiphol’s project portfolio.

Using Schiphol Airport as a case study, the research investigates when and how dynamic capabilities are complemented by ad-hoc capabilities to manage disruptions. The study aims to answer the main research question: In what context can ad-hoc and dynamic capabilities complement each other to manage disruptions in project portfolios?

This question is addressed through a comprehensive literature review, document analysis, interviews with 11 decision-makers, and an expert judgment session with seven professionals. The research explores how these capabilities are applied in practice and offers recommendations for managing uncertainty in complex environments.

The case study of Schiphol Airport identified 13 disruptions, stemming from different sources of uncertainty, namely single-project (e.g., unexpected weather), organizational complexity (e.g., resource shortages), and environmental (e.g., COVID-19 impacts) disruptions. The analysis revealed 24 capabilities employed to manage these disruptions. Dynamic capabilities included sensing capabilities (e.g., resource monitoring), seizing capabilities (e.g., prioritization, escalation), and reconfiguration capabilities (e.g., workforce adjustments, project postponements). Ad-hoc capabilities comprised situational data gathering and improvised problem-solving, which addressed immediate challenges when structured approaches were insufficient.

The findings illustrate how a hybrid approach integrates ad-hoc and dynamic capabilities to manage both foreseen and unforeseen disruptions through two types of hybrid approaches. Type 1 involves ad-hoc data gathering complementing dynamic sensing and seizing by providing situational insights during critical decision-making. Type 2 involves ad-hoc problem-solving, offering immediate responses to challenges such as resource shortages and severe weather impacts, filling gaps when dynamic capabilities alone are inadequate.

Schiphol Airport’s hybrid approach to managing disruptions also demonstrates the complementary roles of dynamic capabilities (DCs) and ad-hoc capabilities (AHCs) under different conditions:

Impact and Capabilities: AHCs are used for localized disruptions, like security lane shortages or weather-related issues, where quick adjustments are needed without portfolio-wide coordination. In contrast, when disruptions affect broader operations, DCs are essential for coordinated, strategic responses, as seen with the pandemic or security personnel shortages.

Response Time and Capabilities: Delayed responses limit the applicability of DCs, leading to an increased reliance on AHCs. For example, delays in addressing security personnel shortages or weather conditions required Schiphol to use reactive, ad-hoc measures. Timely identification of disruptions is crucial to fully leverage DCs, while delays necessitate improvised solutions.

The expert judgment session reinforced these findings, suggesting the need to integrate lessons from AHCs into structured decision-making at the portfolio level. This integration could strengthen the hybrid approach, offering a more cohesive strategy for managing disruptions across both project and portfolio levels.