Pluralism in PMO Performance: The Case of a PMO Dedicated to a Major Organizational Transformation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this article is on the contribution made by the project management office (PMO) to organizational performance. It explores the particular case of a PMO dedicated to a major organizational transformation within a Canadian university hospital. The national government has asked hospitals to provide strict control over their budgets through implementing strong governance mechanisms. How can PMO performance be assessed within this context? Perception of two different groups has been analyzed within a competing values framework, allowing for a combination of four different performance conceptions. Results show certain similarities in the barriers to PMO performance but, most importantly, they reveal that between the two groups a paradox exists regarding what is valued in PMO performance. Results bring empirical evidence of the application of the competing values framework to the health care sector, but also to a wide variety of industries, public or private.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it