Organizational Agility, Project management and Healthcare Reorganization: A case study in organizational change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s healthcare system, like those of other countries, needs to make organizational changes to keep up with our growing understanding of the environment and needs of an aging population. The number, frequency, pace, and kinds of changes are challenging the capacity of decision-makers to deliver effective solutions in which the reorganization of work plays a critical role. The effectiveness of change hinges largely on its psychological acceptance by the people it targets, acceptance that is furthered by their role in defining said change and by the recognition they are given for their contributions at each stage of its implementation. It is therefore reasonable to assert that change implementation can be facilitated through an agile type project approach insofar as its iterative development, validation, and adjustment process enable stakeholders to systematically consider the required adjustments. The use of an agile project management approach that systematically integrates stakeholder concerns and takes into consideration the inherent complexity of the healthcare system when defining and introducing new solutions appears more likely to result in successful organizational change when the focus is on managing the capacity of actors to change, rather than on managing an imposed change. Unlike traditional top-down approaches to organizational change, this kind of approach can come up against a certain resistance to change strategy by managers themselves. This case study will be of value to project sponsors, project managers as well as change managers by inviting them to clearly identify their various responsibilities, to consider a more inclusive and agile project management approach, and by taking account of the psychological acceptance of change by those it impacts.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".