The Dynamics of Actors' and Stakeholders' Participation: An Approach of Management by Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Design thinking (Owen, 2005), articulated around systems thinking, facilitates the definition of complex issues in a sustainable way, in which all actors and stakeholders (AS) play a predominant role. Innovative procedures, such as ‘management by design’, highlight the role of AS in structuring the project from and through the design process. Consequently, management by design requires revision of the dynamics of actors' and stakeholders' participation (ASP). Comparing the differences between the traditional approach to project development (which focuses on the organized project) and the project as an organizing process (which focuses on the organizing project) shows the advantages of design thinking for improving the ASP. This comparison requires the review of common theories, such as the organization as a dynamic process and the notion of project itself. However, despite all the advantages of ASP, this comparison demonstrates that their involvement includes multiple, unstable, evolving and potentially conflicting roles throughout the project process. The introduced notion of the ‘organizing project’ is conceived as a ‘social actions construct’. It allows for a complementary and more global vision of the project. It highlights elements and stakes otherwise hidden in the traditional ‘organized project’ perspective.
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 | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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".