Exploring processual and critical avenues at the crossroad of entrepreneurship and project management
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Exploring processual and critical avenues at the crossroad of entrepreneurship and project management Entrepreneurship and project management share lots of assumptions, concepts and practices even though they seem to relatively ignore each other as disciplines.Performing a project or a venture is a matter of time and duration: both disciplines seem concerned with the imperative of deadlines and the move from project to operations, but both also face the challenge of reconsidering their object as an ongoing phenomena in a more processual way (Hjorth et al., 2015;Sergi, 2012).Project management and entrepreneurship are also rooted in some strong mythological assumptions that should be challenged about the intentionality and the agentivity of the entrepreneur/project manager even though both fields increasingly highlight the significance of social contexts and collective forms of action.Both fields also face some stimulating challenges about unfolding the range of epistemological assumptions beyond a functionalist-positivist paradigm which over-estimated the place of tools, rational action and efficiency (Konstantinou and Müller, 2016).Making a project or a venture happen is about organizing the creation process of novelty, experiencing the ordinariness of practices and elaborating consistent narratives (Blomquist et al., 2010;Drouin et al., 2013).This special section explores processual and critical research avenues and considers opportunities to encourage a stimulating conversation between both fields.Here, we identify three theoretical movements:(1) From project management to entrepreneurship: venturing process might be considered in many aspects as an ongoing project, but very few scholars aim at comparing both processes and their potential cross-fertilization.The management of a project is based on a range of material practices, devices and tools that support and shape the process.Convincing stakeholders, unfolding a credible storytelling and finding legitimacy to gain resources are for instance one of the main tasks of project managers that entrepreneurs are used to coping with.More broadly, Lindgren and Packendorff (2003, p. 89) suggest the potentialities of a project-based approach to entrepreneurship based on three proximities: entrepreneurial acts are temporary collective experiences in different contexts; entrepreneurship can be studied in terms of people performing entrepreneurial acts in their everyday life; entrepreneurial acts are discontinuities in individual life paths that imply identity (re)constructions.Moreover, the project management may contribute to a de-mythologization of the heroic figure of the entrepreneur as project managers face a large range of constraints and tests in their everyday life and a universe of constraints that force them to create and unfold continuous practices of resistance and negotiation.(2) From entrepreneurship to project management: project management tends to focus on project as a tool for implementing strategy and ignore its creative or exploratory side.Projects are associated with changes.They consist of the efficient exploitation of a competitive advantage or in renewing the strategy through the exploration of margins.An entrepreneurial view of projects would offer some avenues in addressing the creation of novelty through projects.Considering the entrepreneurial dimension of project management suggests highlighting the importance of rules subversion and resistance in
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,030 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,027 |
| Communication savante | 0,016 | 0,019 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».