Governance challenges in temporary organizations: a case of evolution and representations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the literature, formal project governance often stops at the steering committee, which is also identified as the main link between the permanent and temporary organizations. Generally, top managers play an active role as sponsors in this committee until the project is approved and launched. Afterwards, the project execution is usually delegated, enabling middle managers to participate in strategy operationalization. As such, they are likely to take part in the project governance and its operationalization. In this study, we are especially interested in the governance zone reporting to the steering committee. Within this zone, formal and informal governance is intertwined, and there is likely to be considerable overlap with the permanent organization. Our study focuses on a specific liaison device within this zone: the Project Coordination Committee, which has rarely been studied. We explore how project governance evolves and is represented by project participants. Our results show a surprising diversity in participants’ representations. This allows us to identify a number of conclusions that go beyond the governance form issues and relate to the complexity of this governance zone and its influence on the disruptions between permanent and temporary governance structures within a large organization.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".