外文翻译The project management office as an improvisational innovation.doc

1、The project management office as an improvisational innovationAbstract The paper presents an investigation of the creation and the reconfiguration of project management offices (PMOs) as an organizational innovation. The analysis of 11 organisational transformations centred on the implementation or

2、reconfiguration of PMOs is presented. The objective of the paper is to contribute to a better understanding of PMOs and of the dynamic relationship between project management and the organisational context. The aim is also to integrate the examination of PMOs as an organisational innovation into the

3、 mainstream of research on the place of project management in organisations and more widely to the rethinking of project management.”1. Introduction Quite often over the last decade, the observation has been made that organisations are facing a new context characterized by increased competition, inc

4、reased rates of product, service and process innovation and an increasing emphasis on time to market. Organisations have responded to these challenges by developing new, more flexible organisational forms 1 in which projects are both more numerous and more strategically important 2. As part of the r

5、esponse to these new challenges and as part of the movement to increase both the number and the strategic importanceof projects many organisations have implemented a new organisational entity the most common name for which is the project management office or PMO. The PMO has been addressed extensive

6、ly in the professional literature 35. However, there has been very little theoretical or empirical research on the topic. In addition, this organisational innovation has not been examined extensively within the literature stream described above.2. Recent survey-based research on PMOs Arecent survey-

7、based on the synchronic description of a large number of PMOs and their organisational contexts has shown extreme variety in both the form and function of PMOs 6. Attempts to date to reduce this variety to a limited number of models have failed. In addition, the research showed that in the majority

8、of cases PMOs are unstable structures, organisations often reconfigure their PMOs every few years. This instability can be interpreted as both an illustration of structuring as an ongoing organisational process 1 and as an illustration of organisational experimentation as organisations search for an

9、 adequate structural arrangement 7. Half of the respondents to the survey report that the legitimacy of their PMO in its present form is being questioned. This is consistent with both the interpretation in terms of experimentation and a search for best practices and with the interpretation as an ins

10、tance of the inherent instability of an ongoing process of structuring. In the survey-based research cited above, correlation analysis found no systematic relationships between the external context in terms of economic sector or geographic region or internal organisational context, on the one hand,

11、and the structural characteristics of PMOs on the other. None of the classic contingency factors from organisational theory correlated strongly with the form or function of the PMOs. A positivist, synchronic approach has provided a rich description of the great variety found in the population but ha

12、s failed, so far, to provide an adequate understanding of PMOs. The present paper reports the result of an effort to come to a better understanding of PMOs as an organisational innovation based on the in-depth investigation of eleven cases.3. The literature on organisational innovation Four subsets

13、of the literature on innovation are examined to identify alternative approaches relevant to the examination of PMOs as organizational innovations. First, the general literature on innovation is examined. This is followed by an examination of the literature based on evolutionary, co-evolutionary and

14、institutional isomorphism approaches. All are sensitive to evolution over time.3.1. The general literature on innovation Early research on innovation had operated mostly from an economic perspective and a general assumption of growth 8. The interdisciplinary curriculum has developed over time with t

15、he contribution of new knowledge stemming from a variety of sources: economics 911, organisational management 12, sociology 13 and social ecology 14. Others provide a categorization of innovation based on product, process or architecture 15,16.In this perspective, organisations are considered to be

16、very similar, responding to the same incentives. The objectives of research are often to provide organisations with practical solutions determining factors to innovative success. Innovation theory is now shifting to a social innovation approach, broadening the concept of technological innovation to

17、a social system. .the sociological crucial point is that organisations have not only become prominent actors in society, they may have become the only kind of actor with significant cultural and political influence. Yet, recent organisation theory has surprisingly little to say about how organisatio

18、ns affect the society.” 13, p. 148 New questions have emerged which lead to motivation theory and to the context of innovation that rehabilitates history along with innovation, thus introducing the temporal element to the social innovation system 17,18. This historical perspective was a natural step

19、 after the ecological model which demonstrated the usefulness of the biological metaphor with the concepts of evolution and co-evolution 19. This social approach paved the way for looking at organisations as part of the social innovation system and new forms of structure as innovations. Along this l

20、ine of thought, innovation is viewed as an art or, more exactly, as a craft 18. Innovation then becomes a creative act, the dynamic construction of something new in which it can be difficult to discern any regular pattern 1 20.3.2. From evolutionary theory to co-evolution The evolutionary theory was

21、 developed in the theory of organizations based on a biological metaphor. A basic evolutionary model of an organisation envisions it as a collection of routines or stable bundles of activities. With time, variation occurs within these routines with the result that any given set of routines evolves,

22、whether intentionally or not. A certain number of new routines are then adopted as temporarily permanent practices. This simple variationselectionretention repeats continuously 21, p. 76. Evolutionary theories are made up of two major groups: contingency theories and social theories. Contingency the

23、ories consider technological change as an exogenous phenomenon which triggers organisational evolution 8,22. This deterministic approach makes structural arrangements predictable from variables such as complexity, uncertainty and interdependency, which can be integrated into a single dimension the a

24、bility to treat information 23. Social theories view organisations as technological social constructions in which the community of organisations determines the nature of technological evolution 22. In this approach, organisational structures are seen as processes in action which are continuously bui

25、lt and rebuilt 23. Scott argues that these approaches are two sides of the same coin 23. On the one hand, technology can be considered the causal agent which shapes the structure of organisations; while on the other hand, to reverse this causal effect, organisations influence the innovation process

26、with either the creation of a new technology or its early adoption 23. This complementarity is recognized in the co-evolution theory in which technological innovations are believed to give the impetus that initiates new cycles of variationselectionretention and in which a dynamic process of evolutio

27、n with innovation constantly feeds organisation 22,24. Massini et al. 19 confirm that evolutionary theory is capable of explaining changes in organisational structures and routines. They conclude that organisational adaptation is a consequence of changes related to the adoption of technological inno

28、vations. Looking at large Western and Japanese firms at two different periods in time (1992, 1996), their research confirms both the progressive adaptation over time and the tendency to adopt organisational routines associated with a higher capacity for flexibility. This also confirms the selection

29、and emergence of dominant routines suggested by the evolutionary theory. They also confirm that these changes are context-dependant: the institutional context in which organisations are embedded defines patterns of organisational structures and strategies.3.3. Co-evolution In biology, co-evolution i

30、s defined as evolution involving successive changes in two or more ecologically interdependent species (as of a plant and its pollinators) that affect their interactions. (Merriam-Webster, 11th Collegiate Dictionary) The relation could be of a predator-prey nature or of a symbiotic nature. Co-evolut

31、ion is also used in a narrower context when it refers to a specific form of relation (inside or outside of a company) adopted for short term results. Eisenhardt and Galunic 25 refer to co-evolution (of a symbiotic nature) when they argue that multi-business corporations are co-evolving ecosystems. F

32、rom that viewpoint, collaboration occurs only when it gives a positive performance result in terms of growth, shares and profits. Co-evolution helps us understand the evolution of complex systems. At a macro-level2, Rosenkopf and Tushman 22 propose a framework to examine various stages of co-evoluti

33、on of organisational and technological forms. These authors argue that there are two different interlinked processes the evolution of community organization and the evolution of technology within one cycle of variationselectionretention. Organisations are part of their community and they contribute

34、to the evolutionary process of community organisation which simultaneously drives and is driven by cyclical technological progress through eras of ferment followed by eras of incremental change. At a micro level, there are numerous technological (variation) events, rule-making (selection) events, an

35、d institutional rule-following (retention) events that occurred and co-evolved over time to facilitate and to constrain the development and commercialization of an innovation. Van de Ven and Garud 24 analyzed the case of cochlear implant development within this perspective. They scrutinized this inn

36、ovation for a period of 35 years to identify events and found that they can be grouped in three time periods: initiation, expansion and stabilization. The initiation period was marked by technological events originating in basic research, while both rule-making and rule-following events were importa

37、nt in the expansion period. Not surprisingly, during the stabilization period, rule-following events were dominant. It is also worthwhile noting that the evolutionary theory suggests a progression towards some more evolved state. Evolution provides regularity and a certain form of predictability. In

38、 complexity theory, this could be associated with random time series of longitudinal data in which there is no pattern such as life cycle, but rather a tendency to follow itself”, to repeat a movement towards the same direction, for example. This randomness is associated with brown noise 20 and is d

39、ifferent from a periodic pattern. In conclusion, technology and organisation are parts of a common social system in which innovation breaks a temporary equilibrium and launches an unpredictable journey through a process of variationselectionretention. Some criticisms have been aimed at the evolution

40、ary theory in relation to its inability to provide an appropriate analysis of the context of technological evolution. De Bresson 27 suggests we turn to the historical perspective in order to get the broader picture of technological evolution. This implies that researchers have to look at processes r

41、ather than ad hoc events. One good example of looking at the innovation process is Van de Ven 28 who concluded that what is encountered in the life of an organisation does not match any regular pattern.3.4. Institutional isomorphism Institutionalism theories propose to understand changes at the orga

42、nisational field level where the evolution of a population of organisations can be observe 29,30. In this perspective, organisational survival is based upon the capacity to adapt to the environment through the evolutionary process of variationselectionretention forming what has been called the Popul

43、ation Ecology of Organisations 30. Some authors have worked to explain the diversity of organisations and to identify criteria that make some survive while others disappeared 1. Based on this biological metaphor, DiMaggio and Powell observe instead a tendency toward greater homogeneity and ask a bas

44、ic question from this perspective: What makes organisations so similar?” 29, p. 147. Their research leads to a questioning of rationality in decision making process on organisational structure. They argue that market competition and efficiency has not so much to do with the resulting organisational

45、structure. They found instead that institutional isomorphism can better explain the form organisations take on. The level of analysis is situated at the organisational field defined as a dynamic network of organisations that is recognized as having an institutional life. DiMaggio and Powell 29 ident

46、ified three mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change: coercive isomorphism, mimetic processes and normative pressures. In their seminal work, they also propose hypothesis to predict which organisational fields will be most homogeneous in structure, process and behaviour.3.5. Organisational inno

47、vation in the project management literature Innovation in the project management literature refers most often to product and process innovation and is often classified using the bipolar model of radical and incremental 31,32 using the typology from Nelson and Winter 33. Turner and Keegan 34 suggest

48、that product and process innovations require a creative environment with specific characteristics. Elsewhere, Duggal 35 proposes a next generation PMO where a R&D function exists for specific purposes of project management innovation. We argue that organisation itself is worth considering as the obj

49、ect of innovation and not only a means for product or process innovation (Schumpeter 1934 cited in 36. Organisational innovation has been explored in the field of project management 37. Building on institutional isomorphism, Martinsuo et al. 37 explore project-based management as an organisational innovation. The aim of their research was to understand