Crisis management process for project-based organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to study the crisis management process for project-based organizations (PBOs) by developing a comprehensive model and propositions. Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a conceptual study. A literature review is considered a primary source for studying contemporary research, including 171 publications in total, which embody qualitative, quantitative, conceptual and theoretical studies. For data analysis, content analysis is used, which is comprised of descriptive and thematic analysis. Findings This study identifies five imperative elements of crisis management for PBOs which include (1) sense-making (information gathering and crisis interpretation), (2) decision-making (accurate and timely decision), (3) response (reactive response), (4) outcome (success/failure) and (5) learning. Based on these findings, this study proposes an integrative model of the interplay between sense-making, decision-making, response, outcome and learning. Furthermore, the findings lead to propositions for each of the elements. The paper contributes to the literature on dynamic capability theory. Originality/value This paper explores the crisis management process for PBOs. The proposed model deepens the understanding of the practices and processes of project-based crisis management.
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 | 0.009 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".