This article examines how governance mechanisms were put in place in three organizational transformation projects undertaken in university hospital centers. Our focus is guided by a theoretical discourse on the place of rational choices on organizational design versus the desire to imitate other organizations. The article presents two complementary points of view: a longitudinal study and a recent a posteriori reflection with five key players. A first result highlights efforts invested in the preparation stages and that these nevertheless resulted in comparable performances: hence, the concept of equifinality. However, a second result reveals complementarity between equifinality and institutional isomorphism.
AubryM.HobbsB.ThuillierD. (2007). A new framework for understanding organisational project management through PMO. International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 328–336.
2.
AubryM.Lavoie-TremblayM. (2018). Rethinking organizational design for managing multiple projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 12–26.
3.
AubryM.RicherM.-C.Lavoie-TremblayM. (2014). Governance performance in complex environment: The case of a major transformation in a university hospital. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1333–1345.
4.
AubryM.RicherM.-C.Lavoie-TremblayM.CyrG. (2011). Pluralism in PMO performance: The case of a PMO dedicated to a major organizational transformation. Project Management Journal, 42(6), 60–77.
BakkerR. M. (2010). Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 466–486.
7.
BattilanaJ.LecaB.BoxenbaumE. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65–107.
8.
BlauP. M. (1970). A formal theory of differentiation in organizations. American Sociological Review, 35(2), 201–218.
9.
BurnsT.StalkerG. M. (1961). The management of innovation. Tavistock Publications Limited.
10.
ChandlerA. D.Jr. (1962). Strategy and structure. MIT Press.
11.
CharmazK. (2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
12.
CirilloV.MartinelliA.NuvolariA.TrancheroM. (2019). Only one way to skin a cat? Heterogeneity and equifinality in European national innovation systems. Research Policy, 48(4), 905–922.
13.
CleggS. (2012). The end of bureaucracy? In DiefenbachT.ByR. T. (Eds.), Reinventing hierarchy and bureaucracy: From the bureau to network organizations (Vol. 35, pp. 59–84). Emerald.
14.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociology Review, 48(April), 147–160.
15.
DonaldsonL.JoffeG. (2014). Fit—The key to organizational design. Journal of Organization Design, 3(3), 38–45.
16.
EisenhardtK. M. (1988). Agency- and institutional-theory explanations: The case of retail sales compensation. The Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 488–511.
17.
EngwallM. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy, 32(5), 789–808.
18.
FlyvbjergB. (2001). Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press.
19.
FlyvbjergB.LandmanT.SchramS. (2012). Introduction: New directions in social science. In FlyvbjergB.LandmanT.SchramS. (Eds.), Real social science: Applied phronesis (pp. 1–14). Cambridge University Press.
20.
GalbraithJ. R. (2014). Designing organizations: Strategy, structure and process at the business unit and enterprise levels. John Wiley & Sons.
21.
GalbraithJ. R. (1977). Organization design. Addison-Wesley.
22.
GemündenH. G.AubryM. (2017). From the editors—Isomorphism: A challenge for the project-based organization. Project Management Journal, 48(5), 3–8.
23.
GeraldiJ. G. (2008). The balance between order and chaos in multi-project firms: A conceptual model. International Journal of Project Management, 26(4), 348–356.
24.
GrayW. (1972). In memoriam: Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1901-1972). The Academy of Management Journal, 15(4), 403–404.
25.
GresovC.DrazinR. (1997). Equifinality: Functional equivalence in organization design. The Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 403–428.
26.
GrünO. (2004). Taming giant projects: Management of multi-organization enterprises. Springer.
27.
HanischB.WaldA. (2012). A bibliometric view on the use of contingency theory in project management research. Project Management Journal, 43(3), 4–23.
28.
HernesT. (2014). A process theory of organization. Oxford University Press.
29.
HobbsB.AubryM. (2008). An empirically grounded search for a typology of project management offices. Project Management Journal, 39(Supplement), S69–S82.
30.
HobbsB.AubryM. (2010). The project management office: A quest for understanding. Project Management Institute.
31.
HobbsB.AubryM. (2011, June 19–22). A typology of PMOs derived using cluster analysis and the relationship with performance. IRNOP, Montréal, Canada.
32.
HobdayM. (2000). The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems?Research Policy, 29(7–8), 871–893.
33.
HodgsonD. E.CicmilS. (Eds.). (2006). Making projects critical. Palgrave Macmillan.
34.
HuemannM. (2010). Considering human resource management when developing a project-oriented company: Case study of a telecommunication company. International Journal of Project Management, 28(4), 361–369.
35.
HughesT. P. (1987). The evolution of large technological systems. In BijkerW. E.HughesT. P.PinchT. J. (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 51–81). MIT Press.
36.
KapsaliM. (2013). Equifinality in project management exploring causal complexity in projects. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 30(1), 2–14.
37.
KatzD.KahnR. L. (1967). The social psychology of organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
38.
LacroixR.MaheuL. (2010). Le CHUM: Une tragédie québécoise. Boréal.
39.
LangleyA. (1999). Strategies for theorizing from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691–710.
40.
LangleyA.SmallmanC.TsoukasH.Van De VenA. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13.
41.
LarsonE. (2004). Project management structures. In MorrisP. W. G.PintoJ. K. (Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects (pp. 48–66). John Wiley & Sons.
42.
MarchJ. G.SimonH. A. (1958). Organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
43.
MintzbergH. (2017). Managing the myths of health care: Bridging care, cure, control, and community. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
44.
MintzbergH. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Prentice-Hall.
45.
MiterevM.EngwallM.JerbrantA. (2017). Mechanisms of isomorphism in project-based organizations. Project Management Journal, 48(5), 9–24.
46.
MiterevM.JerbrantA.FeldmannA. (2020). Exploring the alignment between organization designs and value processes over the program lifecycle. International Journal of Project Management, 38(2), 112–123.
47.
MiterevM.ManciniM.TurnerR. (2017). Towards a design for the project-based organization. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), 479–491.
48.
MüllerR. (2017). Governance and governmentality for projects: Enablers, practices, and consequences. Routledge.
49.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. SAGE Publications.
QuinnR. E.RohrbaughJ. (1983). A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: Towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis. Management Science, 29(3), 363–377.
52.
RondeauA. (2008). L’évolution de la pensée en gestion de changement: Leçons pour la mise en œuvre de changements complexes. Téléscope, 14(3), 1–12.
53.
SchramS. (2012). Phronetic social science: An idea whose time has come. In FlyvbjergB.LandmanT.SchramS. (Eds.), Real social science: Applied phronesis (pp. 15–26). Cambridge University Press.
54.
SergiV.CrevaniL.AubryM. (2020). Special issue on process studies of project organizing. Project Management Journal, 51(1), 3–10.
55.
ShenharA. J.DvirD. (2004). How projects differ, and what to do about it. In MorrisP. W. G.PintoJ. K. (Eds.), The Wiley guide to managing projects (pp. 1265–1286). John Wiley & Sons.
56.
SmithW. K. (2014). Dynamic decision making: A model of senior leaders managing strategic paradoxes. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1592–1623.
57.
SmithW. K.LewisM. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.
58.
SnowdenD. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 100–111.
59.
SöderlundJ.TellF. (2009). The P-form organization and the dynamics of project competence: Project epochs in Asea/ABB, 1950–2000. International Journal of Project Management, 27(2), 101–112.
60.
StraussA. L.CorbinJ. (1990). Basics of qualitative research grounded theory procedures and techniques. SAGE.
61.
TurnerR. & KeeganJ., A. E. (2001, November 1–10). Mechanisms of governance in the project-based organization. Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposium, Nashville, USA.
62.
Van de VenA. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: Creating knowledge for science and practice. Oxford University Press.
63.
Van de VenA. H.GancoM.HiningsC. R. (2013). Returning to the frontier of contingency theory of organizational and institutional designs. Academy of Management Annals, 7(1), 393–440.
64.
Von BertalanffyL. (1968). General system theory. Braziller.
65.
WalkerD.Lloyd-WalkerB. (2015). Collaborative project procurement arrangements. Project Management Institute.
66.
WangK.KeY.LiuT.SankaranS. (In press). Social sustainability in public–private partnership projects: Case study of the Northern Beaches Hospital in Sydney. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
67.
WeberM. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. The Free Press.
68.
WeickK. E. (2009). Making sense of the organization: The impermanent organization (Vol. 2). Wiley.
69.
YinR. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). SAGE.
