Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to suggest a situated conception of projects, in order develop finer understanding of how these endeavors emerge and unfold over time. The author proposes that these understandings should be rooted in a process ontology, conceive action as situated and focus on actual practices as they are performed by all project actors. Taken together, these dimensions can renew how one views and approaches projects and their management. Design/methodology/approach The paper is illustrated with examples taken out of a study of a software development project, conducted in the ethnographic tradition. Findings The examples expose how a specific practice, planning, was accomplished differently depending on the moment and was affected by different circumstances and constraints. The paper also discusses how preferring a processual worldview is especially befitting projects. As endeavors instigated to create or to make something happen, projects are perpetually changing and in movement; it is therefore relevant that their conceptualization takes fully into consideration their intimate nature. Originality/value The originality and value of the paper lie in the combination of perspectives, which can be both useful in theorizing projects differently, and in enhancing practitioners' reflexivity. This combination, it is argued, can address a wide array of issues in the context of projects, can favor localized reflection on project management prescriptions and tools, and can help practitioners to sharpen their sensitivity to their own practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".