Development of a crisis in a project: a process perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the development and outbreak of a crisis in a high-priority project within a large organization. Design/methodology/approach Single-case study using extreme case sampling, a type of purposeful sampling, because this case provides rich information on a rare research opportunity: a project crisis that emerged during the fieldwork. Research data are semi-structured interviews, observations, project and organization documentation, logbook, notes and memos. Findings The paper shows the relevance of notions from organizational crisis management to an internal crisis in a temporary setting. This allowed a deeper understanding of crisis development. The paper reveals the wealth of meaningful, transparent data that can be collected when a crisis emerges. It highlights the high potential of project crises to reveal parent organizations’ dysfunctions. Indeed, findings suggest that the parent organization’s usual project management practices greatly contributed to the crisis affecting this project, which was unusually large and complex. Research limitations/implications The main potential limitation relates to transferability. However, a single-case study is appropriate when it represents a rare phenomenon that is not easily accessible for researchers – a crisis outbreak. Practical implications Results can provide insights enabling practitioners to improve their understanding of the ambiguous, stressful situations created by a crisis. Originality/value The results show the relevance of notions from organizational crisis management to the development of a project crisis and demonstrate the potentially harmful impact of a parent organization’s “usual” practices, especially on “unusually” large and complex 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".