La gestion de projet hors des sentiers battus: l’éclairage des perspectives politique et psychosociale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans l'ensemble, la gestion de projet souscrit à une perspective rationnelle et objective selon laquelle l’organisation est relativement libre de tensions politiques, psychosociales, et culturelles. Si ces hypothèses semblent être adéquates dans le cadre de la gestion quotidienne et routinière de l'organisation, elles peuvent être irréalistes et mêmes trompeuses dans le contexte de projets où les enjeux sont multiples et complexes et dans lesquels des individus et des organisations provenant de disciplines et d'horizons très divers sont appelés à travailler ensemble. En sortant ainsi des sentiers battus, cet article fait ressortir certaines insuffisances de l’approche rationnelle qui domine en gestion de projet et propose une lecture plurielle à travers le prisme orthodoxe rationnel du mandat, le prisme politique du mandant et le prisme psychosocial du mandataire. Nous illustrons ces perspectives et leur apports distinctifs en examinant des faits saillants qui ont marqué les jeux olympiques d’hiver de Vancouver en 2010, un projet connu et de grande envergure. Il en ressort que la perspective rationnelle du mandat ne s’avère appropriée que lorsque les critères d’efficience prévalent ex ante dans les organisations parente et cliente. Par contre, le gestionnaire aura plutôt intérêt à prendre en considération la perspective politique axée sur les mandants, lorsque les organisations sont elles-mêmes très politisées et ont des attentes divergentes à l’égard du projet; et, finalement, une perspective psychosociale axée sur les mandataires, lorsque les membres qui participent au projet jouissent de beaucoup d’autonomie et peuvent exercer un certain pouvoir discrétionnaire, sans craintes de représailles. In the main, project management subscribes to a rational and objective view of the organization, relatively free of political, psychosocial and cultural tensions. While these assumptions may be adequate for the day-to- day routine management of the organization, they may be unrealistic and misleading in the context of projects where the stakes are numerous and complex, and in which individuals and organizations from various disciplines and backgrounds are thrust together. On these unchartered paths, some of the shortcomings of the rational approach that prevails in project management come to light, as this paper takes successive outlooks on the project, viewed through the traditional prism of the rational mandate, the political prism of the principals and, finally, through the socio- psychological prism of the agents. We illustrate these three perspectives and their distinctive contributions by revisiting some controversial events that marred the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, a large and well- known project. What emerges is that a rational mandate perspective is appropriate when the criterion of efficiency prevails in both the parent and the client organizations. However, the project manager would be better served to take into consideration the political perspective —based on the principals— when the parent organizations are themselves highly politicized and have differing expectations regarding the project; and finally, a psychosocial perspective —based on the agents— should be undertaken when members participating in the project enjoy a great deal of autonomy and can exercise some discretionary power, without fear of reprisal.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".