The high wire balancing act of the IS project director
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The implementation of a cross-functional enterprise system requires a more sustained and comprehensive change management program than does classical Information System (IS) application development. The tools and techniques used in such projects will presumably differ accordingly, as will the roles and responsibilities of each project contributor. The objective of this exploratory research is to elucidate the main managerial roles played by internal project directors in the implementation of a cross-functional enterprise system. To this effect, we will compare the roles of project directors involved in high organizational transformation projects with project directors participating in IS projects involving little transformation.We found that in order to comply with the allotted budget and schedule, project directors alternately adopt transactional and transformational management styles. In an IS project marked by a high level of organizational change, the transformational roles of the internal project director are more prevalent than in IS projects that entail modest organizational transformation. The impact of this type of project on the organizational culture requires a new breed of project director, capable of mastering both the technological and the organizational complexity of such projects, while at the same time coordinating the involvement of numerous contributors such as end-users, functional managers, software package suppliers and integrators. Conversely, within a low organizational transformation project, the internal project director plays both transformational and transactional roles to differing degrees, yet transactional roles prevail. Contrary to our expectations, however, in high organizational transformation projects, the transactional roles and the transformational roles were manifested to a comparable extent.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.005 |
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".