意义的类型学:实践者对“程序”的看法

S. Mcgrath, S. Whitty
{"title":"意义的类型学:实践者对“程序”的看法","authors":"S. Mcgrath, S. Whitty","doi":"10.19255/JMPM02011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Previous published work has identified confusion in the definition of the term program. This paper reports on a study investigating the understanding of program terminology within a sample of experienced management and project management practitioners across a range of industries and disciplines. The study was conducted in Australia which is subject to influence by both USA and British practice, without being constrained to favour either, but where any inconsistencies between these influences are potentially problematic. The outcome was that confusion on this issue was found within the practitioner community. Furthermore, this confusion had developed into competition between fields over exclusive usage of the term to the extent that one organization had even attempted to resolve it by attributing different meanings to the two different nationality spellings of the term. No common understanding or definition of the term was articulated and there was contention over whether a program has to be transformational to be labelled as such. The boundaries with the terms project and portfolio were also unclear. The existence of these inconsistencies indicates there is a need for an internally consistent set of definitions of project, program and portfolio to be agreed and adopted across the whole project management field.","PeriodicalId":320094,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Modern Project Management","volume":"87 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A typology of meanings: practitioners views of ‘program'\",\"authors\":\"S. Mcgrath, S. Whitty\",\"doi\":\"10.19255/JMPM02011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Previous published work has identified confusion in the definition of the term program. This paper reports on a study investigating the understanding of program terminology within a sample of experienced management and project management practitioners across a range of industries and disciplines. The study was conducted in Australia which is subject to influence by both USA and British practice, without being constrained to favour either, but where any inconsistencies between these influences are potentially problematic. The outcome was that confusion on this issue was found within the practitioner community. Furthermore, this confusion had developed into competition between fields over exclusive usage of the term to the extent that one organization had even attempted to resolve it by attributing different meanings to the two different nationality spellings of the term. No common understanding or definition of the term was articulated and there was contention over whether a program has to be transformational to be labelled as such. The boundaries with the terms project and portfolio were also unclear. The existence of these inconsistencies indicates there is a need for an internally consistent set of definitions of project, program and portfolio to be agreed and adopted across the whole project management field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":320094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Modern Project Management\",\"volume\":\"87 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Modern Project Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19255/JMPM02011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Modern Project Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19255/JMPM02011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

先前发表的工作已经确定了术语“程序”定义中的混淆。本文报告了一项研究,调查了一系列行业和学科中经验丰富的管理和项目管理从业人员对计划术语的理解。这项研究是在澳大利亚进行的,它受到美国和英国实践的影响,并不局限于支持任何一方,但这些影响之间的任何不一致都是潜在的问题。结果是在从业者社区中发现了对这个问题的混淆。此外,这种混淆已发展成为各领域之间对该术语专有用法的竞争,以至于有一个组织甚至试图通过赋予该术语的两种不同国籍拼写不同的含义来解决这一问题。对这个术语没有共同的理解或定义,而且对于一个项目是否必须是转型的才被贴上这样的标签存在争议。术语“项目”和“投资组合”之间的界限也不清楚。这些不一致的存在表明需要一套内部一致的项目、规划和组合的定义,以便在整个项目管理领域中得到一致同意和采用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A typology of meanings: practitioners views of ‘program'
Previous published work has identified confusion in the definition of the term program. This paper reports on a study investigating the understanding of program terminology within a sample of experienced management and project management practitioners across a range of industries and disciplines. The study was conducted in Australia which is subject to influence by both USA and British practice, without being constrained to favour either, but where any inconsistencies between these influences are potentially problematic. The outcome was that confusion on this issue was found within the practitioner community. Furthermore, this confusion had developed into competition between fields over exclusive usage of the term to the extent that one organization had even attempted to resolve it by attributing different meanings to the two different nationality spellings of the term. No common understanding or definition of the term was articulated and there was contention over whether a program has to be transformational to be labelled as such. The boundaries with the terms project and portfolio were also unclear. The existence of these inconsistencies indicates there is a need for an internally consistent set of definitions of project, program and portfolio to be agreed and adopted across the whole project management field.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信