L'adoption du Project Management Office en France : un retard à déplorer, une incompatibilité culturelle ou une résistance à la mode managériale ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article s’intéresse au décalage quant à la diffusion de la notion de PMO (Project Management Office) en France et aux Etats-Unis. Le PMO se présente comme une partie de l’organisation qui vise à centraliser tout ou partie du pilotage et du suivi des projets d’une entreprise, comme le soulignent Rad et Levin (2002) : “The PMO is referred to by different titles such as Project Office, Project support Office, Project Management Office, Project Management Group, Project Management Center of Excellence, or Directorate of Project Management. Independent of the operational title, a PMO is the organizational entity with full-time personnel to provide a focal point for the discipline of project management”. Après avoir dressé un état de l’art de la notion de PMO, cet article dresse une typologie des PMOs à partir d’une enquête auprès de 10 entreprises ayant une expérience dans le domaine. Il explore ensuite trois pistes d’explications du décalage de diffusion du concept entre la France et les Etats-Unis.
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 | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".