Pluralism in PMO Performance: The Case of a PMO Dedicated to a Major Organizational Transformation
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.
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 | 0.021 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".