Project, program and portfolio management as modes of organizing: Theorising at the intersection between mergers and acquisitions and project studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the management of mergers and acquisitions (M&As) and of projects are connected in practice, they remain disjoined in academia. In this paper, we conceptually bridge the literature on projects and M&As to discuss the transitory nature of organisations by mobilising the concepts of project, programme, and portfolio as alternative modes of organising M&As. As a project, the managerial effort in M&A focuses on completion on time and budget. As a programme, M&As are managed as complex processes of convergence between organisations. As a portfolio, M&A management is part of the ongoing integration efforts within organisations that have grown via M&As. Our contribution to project studies is to position projects, programmes, and portfolios as modes of organising, hence, not as phenomena but as managerial choices used to shape strategic change initiatives, such as M&As. We conclude with implications beyond project studies, thereby drafting a project-based theory of the firm.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".