...
首页> 外文期刊>British Journal of Management >Success and Failure in Professional Projects: The Nature, Contours and Limits of Consulting Professionalism
【24h】

Success and Failure in Professional Projects: The Nature, Contours and Limits of Consulting Professionalism

机译:专业项目的成功和失败:咨询专业性的性质,轮廓和限制

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This paper offers an analysis of the professional project that was pursued by the Institute of Management Consultants (IMC) on behalf of its members. The paper builds on Sturdy's (2011) call to develop empirically grounded accounts of the ways and means of consulting. In addition, it responds to the analysis of the Association of Project Management (APM) developed by Hodgson, Paton and Muzio (2015), which invited further comparative study of professional projects. Drawing on archive data, this paper develops a comparative analysis that considers four key themes: (1) the professionalization strategies developed by the IMC and the APM; (2) jurisdictional issues and shifts in the fields of consulting and project management; (3) the structure of credentials developed for practitioners in both arenas; and (4) the attitudes and actions of key stakeholders shaping policy in the APM and the IMC. The paper examines the contrasting fortunes of the APM and the IMC, yet observes similarities in working practices across these apparently distinct settings. Reflecting on this comparison, the authors consider the nature, contours and limits of consulting professionalism and conclude with the suggestion that, within the analysis of professional projects, conventional conceptualizations of 'success' and 'failure' should be considered as 'impostors'.
机译:本文为代表其成员提供了管理顾问(IMC)追求的专业项目分析。本文在Sturdy(2011)呼吁上建立了咨询方式和手段的经验接地账户。此外,它还响应了Hodgson,Paton和Muzio(2015年)开发的项目管理协会(APM)的分析,这涉及对专业项目的进一步比较研究。绘制存档数据,本文开发了一个比较分析,考虑了四个关键主题:(1)IMC和APM开发的专业化策略; (2)咨询和项目管理领域的司法问题和转变; (3)竞技场中为从业者开发的凭证结构; (4)在APM和IMC中塑造政策的主要利益攸关方的态度和行动。本文审查了APM和IMC的对比度,但在这些明显明显的环境中观察了工作实践中的相似之处。反映了这一比较,提交人认为咨询专业性的性质,轮廓和限制,并结束了建议,即在专业项目的分析中,“成功”和“失败”的传统概念化应该被视为“冒名转向者”。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号