KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 43

Geçici Organizasyonlarda Koordinasyonun Çok Boyutlu Yapısı: Yapısal, İlişkisel ve Dijital Modeller Üzerine Bir İnceleme

The Multidimensional Nature of Coordination in Temporary Organizations: An Examination of Structural, Relational, and Digital Models

Ali Görgün(ÇUKUROVA ÜNİVERSİTESİ, KOZAN MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU, YÖNETİM VE ORGANİZASYON BÖLÜMÜ)0009-0007-2888-9090
Sayfa
171–202
Yayın Tarihi
2026-10-15
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Bu çalışma, geçici organizasyonlarda koordinasyonun yapısal, ilişkisel, süreç, ağ ve dijital boyutlarını kuramsal olarak inceleyerek farklı modellerin hangi koşullarda daha etkili olabileceğini tartışmaktadır.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Örgütler, ortak hedeflere ulaşmak için bir araya gelen bireylerden oluşur; örgütsel yapı ise bu hedeflere yönelik faaliyetlerin uyum ve koordinasyonunu sağlamak üzere gelişir.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Yapı, iş bölümü ve uzmanlaşmayla verimliliği artırırken koordinasyon ihtiyacını da doğurur.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Bu çalışma, geçici organizasyonlarda koordinasyonun yapısal, ilişkisel, süreç, ağ ve dijital boyutlarını kuramsal olarak inceleyerek farklı modellerin hangi koşullarda daha etkili olabileceğini tartışmaktadır.
🔬Tür:Modelleme & Sayısal Simülasyon
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Örgütsel Tasarım · Örgütsel Davranış · İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi

Özet

Örgütler, ortak hedeflere ulaşmak için bir araya gelen bireylerden oluşur; örgütsel yapı ise bu hedeflere yönelik faaliyetlerin uyum ve koordinasyonunu sağlamak üzere gelişir. Yapı, iş bölümü ve uzmanlaşmayla verimliliği artırırken koordinasyon ihtiyacını da doğurur. Hiyerarşik yapılar bu dengeyi sağlayan klasik bir mekanizma olsa da günümüzde merkezileşme–merkezsizleşme ayrımını aşan hibrit ve esnek modeller öne çıkmaktadır. Günümüzde geçici organizasyonlar, kalıcı örgüt anlayışını dönüştürerek karmaşık görevleri sınırlı süreli iş birlikleriyle yerine getiren yapılar hâline gelmiştir. Bu yapılarda karşılıklı bağımlılık, eş zamanlı öğrenme ve koordinasyonu zorunlu kılar; etkin koordinasyon, yenilik ve adaptasyonun ön koşuludur. Geçici organizasyonlar özgün yapılar ve koordinasyon mekanizmaları geliştirirken, proje yönetim sistemleri bileşenler arası uyum ve etkileşimle değer üretir. Kurumlar arası projelerde merkezî veya ağ temelli yapılar öne çıkarken, profesyonel topluluklar ve sosyal ağlar koordinasyonu destekler. Geçici organizasyonların etkinliği; koordinasyon, motivasyon, çatışma yönetimi ve ortak hedeflere bütünleşme kapasitesine bağlıdır. Ancak farklı çıkarlar ve kurumsal geçmişler gerilim yaratarak koordinasyonu zorlaştırır. Bu çalışma, geçici organizasyonlarda koordinasyonun yapısal, ilişkisel, süreç, ağ ve dijital boyutlarını kuramsal olarak inceleyerek farklı modellerin hangi koşullarda daha etkili olabileceğini tartışmaktadır.

Abstract

Organisations consist of individuals who come together to achieve common goals; the organisational structure, meanwhile, evolves to ensure the harmony and coordination of activities aimed at these goals. Whilst the structure enhances efficiency through the division of labour and specialisation, it also gives rise to a need for coordination. Whilst hierarchical structures are a classic mechanism for maintaining this balance, hybrid and flexible models that transcend the centralisation–decentralisation dichotomy are now coming to the fore. Today, temporary organisations have transformed the concept of permanent organisations into structures that carry out complex tasks through time-limited collaborations. In these structures, mutual interdependence necessitates simultaneous learning and coordination; effective coordination is a prerequisite for innovation and adaptation. Whilst temporary organisations develop unique structures and coordination mechanisms, project management systems generate value through inter-component alignment and interaction. In cross-organisational projects, centralised or network-based structures take centre stage, whilst professional communities and social networks support coordination. The effectiveness of temporary organisations depends on their capacity for coordination, motivation, conflict management and integration around shared goals. However, differing interests and organisational histories create tensions that complicate coordination. This study theoretically examines the structural, relational, process, network and digital dimensions of coordination in temporary organisations, discussing under which conditions different models may be more effective.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Görgün, A. (2026). Geçici Organizasyonlarda Koordinasyonun Çok Boyutlu Yapısı: Yapısal, İlişkisel ve Dijital Modeller Üzerine Bir İnceleme. Iğdır Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı: 43, 171–202. https://doi.org/10.54600/igdirsosbilder.1921565

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (191)

  1. Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17–40.
  2. Agarwal, R., Croson, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (2010). The role of incentives and communication in strategic alliances: An experimental investigation. Strategic Management Journal, 31(4), 413-437.
  3. Aggarwal, V. A., Posen, H. E., & Workiewicz, M. (2017). Adaptive capacity to technological change: A microfoundational approach. Strategic Management Journal, 38(6), 1212-1231.
  4. Agostini, L., Nosella, A., Sarala, R., & Nkeng, C. (2025). Emerging trends around strategic flexibility: a systematic review supported by bibliometric techniques. Management Decision, 63(6), 1835-1881.
  5. Ahmad, M. O., Markkula, J., & Oivo, M. (2013). Kanban in software development: A systematic literature review.
  6. Ahola, T., Ruuska, I., Artto, K., & Kujala, J. (2014). What is project governance and what are its origins?. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), 1321-1332.
  7. Anantatmula, V. (2010). Evolution of project teams for Generation Y workforce. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 70–93
  8. Anderson, D. J. (2010). Kanban: Successful evolutionary change for your technology business.
  9. Anteby, M., Chan, C. K., & DiBenigno, J. (2016). Three lenses on occupations and professions in organizations: Becoming, doing, and relating. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 183-244.
  10. Argote, L., & Ingram, P. (2000). Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 150–169.
  11. Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0621
  12. Aubry, M., Hobbs, B., & Thuillier, D. (2007). A new framework for understanding organizational project management through the PMO. International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 328–336.
  13. Avery, G. C. (2005). Leadership for sustainable futures: Achieving success in a competitive world. In Leadership for Sustainable Futures. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  14. Bakker, R. M. (2010). Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: A systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), 466–486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00270.x
  15. Bakker, R. M., & Janowicz-Panjaitan, M. (2009). Time matters: The impact of ‘temporariness’ on the functioning and performance of organizations. In Temporary Organizations. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  16. Bakker, R. M., Cambré, B., Korlaar, L., & Raab, J. (2011). Managing the project learning paradox: A set-theoretic approach toward project knowledge transfer. International Journal of Project Management, 29(5), 494-503.
  17. Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainably: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26(3), 197-218.
  18. Baumgartner, R. J. (2009). Organizational culture and leadership: Preconditions for the development of a sustainable corporation. Sustainable Development, 17(2), 102-113.
  19. Bechky, B. A. (2006). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 3-21.
  20. Beck, K., et al. (2001). Manifesto for Agile Software Development.
  21. Beech, N., Burns, H., de Caestecker, L., MacIntosh, R., & MacLean, D. (2004). Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations. Human Relations, 57(10), 1313-1332.
  22. Benlian, A. (2019). Digital platforms and ecosystems. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 61(5), 637–643.
  23. Bento, F., & Garotti, L. (2019). Resilience beyond formal structures: A network perspective towards the challenges of an aging workforce in the oil and gas industry. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 5(1), 15.
  24. Bento, F., Tagliabue, M., & Lorenzo, F. (2020). Organizational silos: a scoping review informed by a behavioral perspective on systems and networks. Societies, 10(3), 56.
  25. Birnholtz, J. P., Cohen, M. D., & Hoch, S. V. (2007). Organizational character: On the regeneration of camp poplar grove. Organization Science, 18(2), 315-332.
  26. Borgatti, S. P., & Foster, P. C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991–1013.
  27. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks. SAGE.
  28. Bos-de Vos, M., Deken, F., & Kleinsmann, M. (2022). Navigating multiple contexts to integrate system transformation programs. International Journal of Project Management, 40(3), 290-311.
  29. Bradley, E. H. (2019). Relational coordination in organizational systems. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(3), 258–273.
  30. Braun, T., & Lampel, J. (2020). Introduction: tensions and paradoxes in temporary organising: mapping the field. In Tensions and paradoxes in temporary organizing. Emerald Publishing Limited, 1-13.
  31. Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., & Swan, J. (2005). Organizational routines, situated learning and processes of change in project-based organizations. Project Management Journal, 36(3), 27-41.
  32. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2017). Machine, platform, crowd: Harnessing our digital future. W. W. Norton & Company.
  33. Bucher, S. V., Chreim, S., Langley, A., & Reay, T. (2016). Contestation about collaboration: Discursive boundary work among professions. Organization Studies, 37(4), 497-522.
  34. Bunker, B., & Alban, B. (2006). Large group interventions and dynamics. Organization development: A Jossey-Bass Reader, 309-321.
  35. Burke, C. M., & Morley, M. J. (2016). On temporary organizations: A review, synthesis and research agenda. Human Relations, 69(6), 1235-1258.
  36. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349–399.
  37. Cacciatori, E., & Prencipe, A. (2021). Project‐based temporary organizing and routine dynamics. Cambridge Handbook of Routines Dynamics, 407-420.
  38. Caldas, M. P., & Wood, R. C. (1999). Patterns in interorganizational networks: The case of global production networks in the food industry. Journal of Management Studies, 36(6), 839–859.
  39. Carton, A. M., Murphy, C., & Clark, J. R. (2014). A (blurry) vision of the future: How leader rhetoric about ultimate goals influences performance. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1544-1570.
  40. Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., & Baden‑Fuller, C. (2011). Network ties and innovation: The role of bridging and cohesive social capital. Organization Science, 22(4), 1092–1111.
  41. Cattani, G., Ferriani, S., Frederiksen, L., & Täube, F. (2011). Project-based organizing and strategic management: A long-term research agenda on temporary organizational forms. Project-based organizing and strategic management, xv-xxxix.
  42. Centola, D. (2018). How behavior spreads: The science of complex contagions (Vol. 3). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  43. Cilliers, F., & Greyvenstein, H. (2012). The impact of silo mentality on team identity: An organisational case study. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 38(2), 1-9.
  44. Clegg, S. R., & Kornberger, M. (2006). Space, organization and management theory. Liber & Copenhagen Business School Press.
  45. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
  46. Comeau-Vallée, M., & Langley, A. (2020). The interplay of inter-and intraprofessional boundary work in multidisciplinary teams. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1649-1672.
  47. Conforto, E., Salum, F., Amaral, D. C., da Silva, S. L., & de Almeida, L. F. M. (2016). Can agile project management be adopted by industries other than software development?. Project Management Journal, 47(3), 21–34.
  48. Costanza, D. P., Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. R., Severt, J. B., & DeCostanza, A. H. (2016). The effect of adaptive organizational culture on long-term survival. Journal of Business and Psychology, 31, 361-381.
  49. Cromity, J., & De Stricker, U. (2011). Silo persistence: It's not the technology, it's the culture!. New Review of Information Networking, 16(2), 167-184.
  50. Davis, S. M., & Lawrence, P. R. (1977). Matrix. Addison‑Wesley.
  51. Dingsøyr, T., Nerur, S., Balijepally, V., & Moe, N. B. (2012). A decade of agile methodologies: Towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(6), 1213–1221.
  52. Dinsmore, P. C., & Wheeler, R. (2011). Project management: Achieving competitive advantage. Wiley.
  53. Dmytriyev, S. D., Freeman, R. E., & Hörisch, J. (2021). The relationship between stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility: Differences, similarities, and implications for social issues in management. Journal of Management Studies, 58(6), 1441-1470.
  54. Dumas, M., La Rosa, M., Mendling, J., & Reijers, H. A. (2018). Fundamentals of business process management (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-56509-4
  55. Edmondson, A. C. (2012). Teaming: How organizations learn, innovate, and compete in the knowledge economy. Jossey‑Bass.
  56. Felin, T., & Lakhani, K. R. (2018). What problems will platforms solve? MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(1), 42–49.
  57. Ferro-Soto, C., Macías-Quintana, L. A., & Vázquez-Rodríguez, P. (2018). Effect of stakeholders-oriented behavior on the performance of sustainable business. Sustainability, 10(12), 4724.
  58. Floricel, S., Bonneau, C., Aubry, M., & Sergi, V. (2014). Extending project management research: Insights from social theories. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1091-1107.
  59. Ford, D. N., Lander, D. M., & Voyer, J. J. (2002). A real options approach to valuing strategic flexibility in uncertain construction projects. Construction Management & Economics, 20(4), 343-351.
  60. Foss, N. J., & Lindenberg, S. (2013). Microfoundations for organizational strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 34(5), 569–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2133
  61. Galbraith, J. R. (2009). Designing matrix organizations that actually work. Jossey‑Bass.
  62. Galpin, T., Whitttington, J. L., & Bell, G. (2015). Is your sustainability strategy sustainable? Creating a culture of sustainability. Corporate Governance, 15(1), 1-17.
  63. Garicano, L. (2000). Hierarchies and the Organization of Knowledge in Production. Journal of Political Economy, 108(5), 874-904.
  64. Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an integrative framework. Research Policy, 43(7), 1239–1249.
  65. George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880-1895.
  66. Geraldi, J., Maylor, H., & Williams, T. (2011). Now, let’s talk about projects. Project Management Journal, 42(3), 5–7.
  67. Gerwin, D. (2004). Coordinating new product development in strategic alliances. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 241-257.
  68. Gibson, C. B., & Gibbs, J. L. (2006). Unpacking the concept of virtuality: The effects of geographic dispersion, electronic dependence, dynamic structure, and national diversity on team innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51(3), 451–495.
  69. Gittell, J. H. (2002). Relationships between service providers and their impact on performance. Harvard Kennedy School.
  70. Gittell, J. H. (2006). Relational coordination: Coordinating work through relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect. Yale University Press.
  71. Gittell, J. H. (2011). The residual impact of relational coordination. Health Care Management Review, 36(2), 130–135.
  72. Gittell, J. H. (2016). Transforming relationships for high performance: The power of relational coordination. Stanford University Press.
  73. Grabher, G. (2004). Learning in projects, remembering in networks? European Urban and Regional Studies, 11(2), 103–123.
  74. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
  75. Granovetter, M. S. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
  76. Gray, B., & Purdy, J. (2018). Collaborating for our future: Multistakeholder partnerships for solving complex problems. Oxford University Press.
  77. Grigsby, R. K. (2015). Enhancing the behavioral science knowledge and skills of 21st-century leaders in academic medicine and science. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35(1-2), 123-134.
  78. Grimes, M. G., Williams, T. A., & Zhao, E. Y. (2019). Anchors aweigh: The sources, variety, and challenges of mission drift. Academy of Management Review, 44(4), 819-845.
  79. Gulati, R., & Nickerson, J. A. (2008). Interorganizational trust, governance choice, and exchange performance. Organization Science, 19(5), 688-708.
  80. Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta‑organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 571–586.
  81. Hagen, B., Zucchella, A., & Ghauri, P. N. (2019). From fragile to agile: marketing as a key driver of entrepreneurial internationalization. International Marketing Review, 36(2), 260-288.
  82. Hanisch, B., & Wald, A. (2014). Effects of complexity on the success of temporary organizations: Relationship quality and transparency as substitutes for formal coordination mechanisms. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 30(2), 197-213.
  83. Helfen, M. (2015). Institutionalizing precariousness? The politics of boundary work in legalizing agency work in Germany, 1949–2004. Organization Studies, 36(10), 1387-1422.
  84. Hermann, M., Pentek, T., & Otto, B. (2016). Design principles for industrie 4.0 scenarios. System Sciences (HICSS).
  85. Hinds, P. J., & Mortensen, M. (2005). Understanding conflict in geographically distributed teams: The moderating effects of shared identity, shared context, and spontaneous communication. Organization Science, 16(3), 290–307.
  86. Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership, structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3), 390–403.
  87. Hoda, R., & Murugesan, S. (2016). Multi‑level agile project management challenges: A self‑organizing team perspective. Journal of Systems and Software, 117, 245–257.
  88. Hoda, R., Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2017). A decade of scaling agile software development: Insights from practice and research. IEEE Software, 34(6), 53–61.
  89. Hoegl, M., & Parboteeah, K. P. (2007). Shared leadership in innovative projects: An empirical study. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(1–2), 188–203.
  90. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge.
  91. Izaddoost, A., Naderpajouh, N., & Heravi, G. (2021). Integrating resilience into asset management of infrastructure systems with a focus on building facilities. Journal of Building Engineering, 44, 103304.
  92. Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276.
  93. Jacobsson, M., Lundin, R. A., & Söderholm, A. (2016). Towards a multi-perspective research program on projects and temporary organizations: Analyzing the Scandinavian turn and the rethinking effort. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 752-766.
  94. Johansson, S., Löfström, M., & Ohlsson, Ö. (2007). Separation or integration? A dilemma when organizing development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 457-464.
  95. Jones, G. R. (2013). Organizational theory, design, and change. 7th Edition, ISBN: 978-0-13-272994-9 by Gareth R. Jones, published by Pearson Education, Inc.
  96. Kantabutra, S. (2020). Toward an organizational theory of sustainability vision. Sustainability, 12(3), 1125.
  97. Keegan, A., & Turner, J. R. (2002). The management of innovation in project-based firms. Long Range Planning, 35(4), 367-388.
  98. Klessova, S., Thomas, C., & Engell, S. (2020). Structuring inter-organizational R&D projects: Towards a better understanding of the project architecture as an interplay between activity coordination and knowledge integration. International Journal of Project Management, 38(5), 291-306.
  99. Kniberg, H., & Skarin, M. (2010). Kanban and Scrum – making the most of both.
  100. Kock, N., Hovel, R., & Myers, M. (2020). Guidelines for (nearly) unobtrusive IT use measurement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 37(1), 18–45.
  101. Köhler, T., Pizzol, M., Howaldt, J., & Ratajczak‑Mrozek, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence and functional creativity: Synthesizing the humanities, social sciences, and interdisciplinary approaches. Creativity Research Journal, 32(2), 97–113.
  102. Lacity, M., & Willcocks, L. (2018). Robotic process automation and cognitive automation: The next phase. SB Publishing.
  103. Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(1), 167-195.
  104. Lampel, J. (2011). Institutional dynamics of project-based creative organizations: Irving Thalberg and the Hollywood studio system. In Project-Based Organizing and Strategic Management, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 445-466.
  105. Langfred, C. W. (2004). Too much of a good thing? Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 361–372.
  106. Lee, J., Bagheri, B., & Kao, H.‑A. (2018). A cyber‑physical systems architecture for industry 4.0‑based manufacturing systems. Manufacturing Letters, 3, 18–23.
  107. Leffingwell, D. (2018). SAFe 4.5 Reference Guide: Scaled Agile Framework for Lean Enterprises.
  108. Lehtonen, P., & Martinsuo, M. (2009). Integrating the change program with the parent organization. International Journal of Project Management, 27(2), 154-165.
  109. Lenfle, S., & Loch, C. (2010). Lost roots: How project management came to emphasize control over flexibility and novelty. California Management Review, 53(1), 32-55.
  110. Leufkens, A. S., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2011). Learning to collaborate in multi-organizational projects. International Journal of Project Management, 29(4), 432-441.
  111. Lewis, M. W., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Paradox as a metatheoretical perspective: Sharpening the focus and widening the scope. The Journal Of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(2), 127-149.
  112. Lindberg, K., Walter, L., & Raviola, E. (2017). Performing boundary work: The emergence of a new practice in a hybrid operating room. Social Science & Medicine, 182, 81-88.
  113. Lok, P., & Crawford, J. (2004). The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Journal of Management Development, 23(4), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710410529785
  114. Lorinkova, N. M., Pearsall, M. J., & Sims Jr, H. P. (2013). Examining the differential longitudinal performance of directive versus empowering leadership in teams. Academy of Management Journal, 56(2), 573-596.
  115. Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2013). Towards an information systems perspective and research agenda on crowdsourcing for innovation. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 22(4), 257–268.
  116. Majchrzak, A., Malhotra, A., Stohl, C., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2004). Can absence make a team grow stronger? Organization Science, 15(3), 255–276.
  117. Manning, S. (2010). The strategic formation of project networks: A relational practice perspective. Human Relations, 63(4), 551-573.
  118. Manning, S., & Sydow, J. (2011). Projects, paths, and practices: Sustaining and leveraging project-based relationships. Industrial and Corporate Change, 20(5), 1369-1402.
  119. Maoret, M., Massa, F. G., & Jones, C. (2011). Toward a projects as events perspective. In Project-Based Organizing and Strategic Management (pp. 427-444). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  120. Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., & Salas, E. (2017). Communication in virtual teams: A conceptual framework and research agenda. Human Resource Management Review, 27(4), 575–589.
  121. Marr, B. (2015). Key performance indicators: The 75 measures every manager needs to know. Pearson.
  122. Mathisen, G. E., & Arnulf, J. K. (2013). Mind the gap: A study of shared mental models and coordination in agile teams. Team Performance Management, 19(1/2), 70–86.
  123. Maylor, H., Vidgen, R., & Carver, S. (2006). Managerial complexity in project‑based operations. British Journal of Management, 17(4), 283–301.
  124. Micevski, M., Dewsnap, B., Cadogan, J. W., Kadic-Maglajlic, S., & Boso, N. (2019). Sales intra-functional flexibility: Its relationship to performance and moderating effects on role stressors. Journal of Business Research, 104, 552-562.
  125. Mills, P. K., & Ungson, G. R. (2003). Reassessing the limits of structural empowerment: Organizational constitution and trust as controls. Academy of Management Review, 28(1), 143-153.
  126. Mishra, A., Chandrasekaran, A., & MacCormack, A. (2015). Collaboration in multi-partner R&D projects: The impact of partnering scale and scope. Journal of Operations Management, 33, 1-14.
  127. Mishra, N., Schreiber, R., Stanton, I., & Tarjan, R. E. (2007). Clustering social networks. In International Workshop on Algorithms and Models for the Web-Graph (pp. 56-67). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  128. Musca, G. N., Mellet, C., Simoni, G., Sitri, F., & de Vogüé, S. (2014). “Drop your boat!”: The discursive co-construction of project renewal. The case of the Darwin mountaineering expedition in Patagonia. International Journal of Project Management, 32(7), 1157-1169.
  129. Musheke, M. M., & Phiri, J. (2021). The effects of effective communication on organizational performance based on the systems theory. Open Journal of Business and Management, 9(2), 659-671.
  130. Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2007). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21–32.
  131. Naderpajouh, N., Matinheikki, J., Keeys, L., Aldrich, D. P., & Linkov, I. (2020). An interdisciplinary crossroad: A framework for resilience research in project management. Project Leadership and Society, DOI: 10.1016/j.plas.2020.100001.
  132. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.
  133. Naqshbandi, M. M., & Jasimuddin, S. M. (2018). Knowledge-oriented leadership and open innovation: Role of knowledge management capability in France-based multinationals. International Business Review, 27(3), 701-713.
  134. Nuhn, H. F., Heidenreich, S., & Wald, A. (2019). Performance outcomes of turnover intentions in temporary organizations: A dyadic study on the effects at the individual, team, and organizational level. European Management Review, 16(2), 255-271.
  135. Oehmen, J., Seering, W., Pikkarainen, M., Turner, R., & Wohlin, C. (2019). Agile beyond software: Steering a project, portfolio, and organizational agility revolution. IEEE Software, 36(2), 76–82.
  136. Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. (2009). 10 coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 463-502.
  137. Olsson, N. O. (2006). Management of flexibility in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 66-74.
  138. O'Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324-338.
  139. Papachroni, A., Heracleous, L., & Paroutis, S. (2015). Organizational ambidexterity through the lens of paradox theory: Building a novel research agenda. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(1), 71-93.
  140. Parker, G. G., Van Alstyne, M., & Choudary, S. P. (2016). Platform revolution: How networked markets are transforming the economy. W. W. Norton & Company.
  141. Phillips, N., & Lawrence, T. B. (2012). The turn to work in organization and management theory: Some implications for strategic organization. Strategic Organization, 10(3), 223-230.
  142. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
  143. Quick, K. S., & Feldman, M. S. (2014). Boundaries as junctures: Collaborative boundary work for building efficient resilience. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(3), 673-695.
  144. Ransbotham, S., Kiron, D., Gerbert, P., & Reeves, M. (2021). Reshaping business with artificial intelligence. MIT Sloan Management Review, 62(1), 1–14.
  145. Reader, T. W., Flin, R., Mearns, K., Cuthbertson, B. H., & De Cruz, P. (2015). Teamwork and relational coordination in healthcare. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 29(5), 485–491.
  146. Reinecke, J., & Ansari, S. (2015). When times collide: Temporal brokerage at the intersection of markets and developments. Academy of Management Journal, 58(2), 618-648.
  147. Rigby, D. K., Sutherland, J., & Takeuchi, H. (2016). Embracing Agile. Harvard Business Review, 94(5), 40–50.
  148. Sampson, R. C. (2007). R&D alliances and firm performance: The impact of technological diversity and alliance organization on innovation. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2), 364-386.
  149. Schleimer, S. C., & Faems, D. (2016). Connecting interfirm and intrafirm collaboration in NPD projects: Does innovation context matter?. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 33(2), 154-165.
  150. Schultz, M., & Hernes, T. (2013). A temporal perspective on organizational identity. Organization Science, 24(1), 1-21.
  151. Schwaber, K., & Sutherland, J. (2020). The Scrum Guide.
  152. Schweitzer, F., & Duxbury, D. (2010). Does’ virtual’ matter? Coordination in virtual organizations. Journal of Business Research, 63(5), 489–495.
  153. Sen, S., Savitskie, K., Mahto, R.V., Kumar, S. and Khanin, D. (2023), “Strategic flexibility in small firms”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 31(5), 1053-1070, doi: 10.1080/0965254x.2022. 2036223.
  154. Shahu, R., Pundir, A. K., & Ganapathy, L. (2012). An empirical study on flexibility: A critical success factor of construction projects. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13, 123-128.
  155. Shipilov, A. V., Greve, H. R., & Rowley, T. J. (2010). When do interorganizational networks have brokers? Academy of Management Journal, 53(4), 1075–1090.
  156. Shrestha, Y. R., Ben‑Menahem, S. M., & von Krogh, G. (2019). Organizational decision‑making structures in the age of artificial intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 66–83.
  157. Sirmon, D. G., Hitt, M. A., & Ireland, R. D. (2007). Managing firm resources in dynamic environments to create value: Looking inside the black box. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 273–292.
  158. Smith, L., & Lewis, M. W. (2022). Relational coordination as a dynamic process: Implications for organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 47(1), 100–120.
  159. Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381-403.
  160. Smith, W. K., Binns, A., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Complex business models: Managing strategic paradoxes simultaneously. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 448-461.
  161. Srinivasan, R., & Swink, M. (2018). Relational coordination and supply chain resilience. Journal of Operations Management, 58–59, 3–21.
  162. Staples, D. S., & Webster, J. (2008). Exploring the effects of trust, task interdependence and virtualness on knowledge sharing in teams. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 617–640.
  163. Stingl, V., & Geraldi, J. (2023). Imagining futures: Cognitive processes of desirable or undesirable project prospections. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 194, 122701.
  164. Stjerne, I. S., & Svejenova, S. (2016). Connecting temporary and permanent organizing: Tensions and boundary work in sequential film projects. Organization Studies, 37(12), 1771-1792.
  165. Suriyankietkaew, S. (2019). Taking the long view on resilience and sustainability with 5Cs at B. Grimm. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 38(3), 11-17.
  166. Swan, J., Scarborough, H., & Robertson, M. (2010). The construction industry as a loosely coupled system. Construction Management and Economics, 28(6), 565–580. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446191003747648
  167. Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Newell, S. (2010). Why don’t (or do) organizations learn from projects?. Management Learning, 41(3), 325-344.
  168. Sy, T., Beach, L., & D’Annunzio, L. S. (2005). Challenges and strategies of matrix organizations. Human Resource Planning, 28(1), 39-48.
  169. Sydow, J., & Braun, T. (2018). Projects as temporary organizations: An agenda for further theorizing the interorganizational dimension. International Journal of Project Management, 36(1), 4-11.
  170. Sydow, J., & Windeler, A. (2020). Temporary organizing and permanent contexts. Current Sociology, 68(4), 480-498.
  171. Sydow, J., Schüßler, E., & Müller-Seitz, G. (2017). Managing inter-organizational relations: Debates and cases. Bloomsbury Publishing.
  172. Thorbjornsen, H., & Supphellen, M. (2011). Determinants of core value behavior in service brands. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(1), 68-76.
  173. Timmermans, S., & Epstein, S. (2010). A world of standards but not a standard world: Toward a sociology of standards and standardization. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 69-89.
  174. Tiwana, A. (2015). Platform ecosystems: Aligning architecture, governance, and strategy. Morgan Kaufmann.
  175. Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Research commentary platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675–687.
  176. Tourish, D., & Hargie, O. (2020). Communication and relational coordination in project teams. Project Management Journal, 51(2), 123–136.
  177. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.
  178. Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2003). On the nature of the project as a temporary organization. International Journal of Project Management, 21(1), 1-8.
  179. Turner, R., & Miterev, M. (2019). The organizational design of the project-based organization. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 487-498.
  180. Tuuli, M. M., Rowlinson, S., & Koh, T. Y. (2010). Dynamics of control in construction project teams. Construction Management and Economics, 28(2), 189-202.
  181. Ullah, I., Akhtar, K. M., Shahzadi, I., Farooq, M., & Yasmin, R. (2016). Encouraging knowledge sharing behavior through team innovation climate, altruistic intention and organizational culture. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 8(4), 628.
  182. van der Aalst, W. (2016). Process mining: Data science in action (2nd ed.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-49851-4
  183. Venus, M., Johnson, R. E., Zhang, S., Wang, X. H., & Lanaj, K. (2019). Seeing the big picture: A within-person examination of leader construal level and vision communication. Journal of Management, 45(7), 2666-2684.
  184. Vom Brocke, J., & Lippe, S. (2015). Managing collaborative research projects: A synthesis of project management literature and directives for future research. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1022-1039.
  185. Wamba‑Taguimdje, S.‑L., Fosso Wamba, S., Kala Kamdjoug, J. R., & Tchatchouang Wanko, C. (2020). Influence of artificial intelligence (AI) on firm performance: The business value of AI. Business Process Management Journal, 26(7), 1893–1924.
  186. Whitley, R. (2006). Project-based firms: new organizational form or variations on a theme?. Industrial and Corporate Change, 15(1), 77-99.
  187. Widener, S. K. (2007). An empirical analysis of the levers of control framework. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 32(7-8), 757-788.
  188. Yang, H., & Zhang, L. (2019). Communication and the Optimality of Hierarchy in Organizations. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 35(1), 154-191.
  189. Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Strategic Management Journal, 19(1), 9–45.
  190. Zhang, J., Zhao, K., & Kumar, A. (2021). Artificial intelligence in operations management: A review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 59(6), 1878–1901.
  191. Zuiderwijk, D. C. (2024). Reliable beyond Design: The Role of Operational Actors in Dealing with Increasing Uncertainty in Complex Temporary Technical Organizations.