Compromise between creative activities and project management activities: a contingency factor
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creative organizations are characterized by project management and struggle with a tension between their creative activities and their project management activities. They must reach a compromise allowing the management of this tension. This research’s objective is to explore this compromise as a contingency factor in the competitive positioning of these organizations in the creative market. Therefore, this research supports existing project management literature on contingency. To do so, we conducted a multiple correspondence analysis with data collected (semi-structured interviews) from 35 creative workers, artistic directors and project managers working in 11 advertising agencies. The theoretical framework of justification of Boltanski and Thevenot (1991, 2006) was used to explore the compromise as a contingency factor. This research proposes a practical and a theoretical contribution. On the one hand, it guides creative organizations wanting to modify their competitive positioning based on managing the compromise of the tension between creative activities and project management activities. On the second hand, it uses an original analysis technique to study the contingency in the management of 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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 it