Enriching project organizations with formal change agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Project success requires effective and efficient cooperation between the project organization and the permanent organization in which the project takes place. The purpose of this paper is to discuss potentials and pitfalls from enriching project organizations by appointing peers as formal change agents. Design/methodology/approach The paper is based on a literature review and a multiple-case study in which six organizations participated in an action-oriented research project. The aim for the organizations was to obtain a better health status among the employees by accomplishing an internal change project that enhanced physical activity at the workplace and in leisure time. Change agents in the form of peer health ambassadors were selected by middle management and hereafter trained by the project representatives. Findings The findings suggest that the selection of change agents and middle and top management support are major determinants of success within change projects. To select change agents that the employees respect and can identify with, combined with top management prioritization, is important in order for the project organization to benefit from the additional role. Practical implications Selecting the “wrong” change agents can jeopardize a change project, even when the project is supported by top management and the target group members at the starting point are highly motivated to change. Originality/value The research contributes to the understanding of project organizing by building theory on how formal peer change agents can enhance project success in change projects.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".