【正文】 he contribution of new knowledge stemming from a variety of sources: economics [9–11], anisational 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, anisations are considered to be very similar, responding to the same incentives. The objectives of research are often to provide anisations 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 a social system. ‘‘[...]the sociological crucial point is that anisations have not only bee prominent actors in society, they may have bee the only kind of actor with significant cultural and political influence. Yet, recent anisation theory has surprisingly little to say about how anisations 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 after the ecological model which demonstrated the usefulness of the biological metaphor with the concepts of evolution and coevolution [19]. This social approach paved the way for looking at anisations as part of the social innovation system and new forms of structure as innovations. Along this line of thought, innovation is viewed as an art or, more exactly, as a craft [18]. Innovation then bees a creative act, the dynamic construction of something new in which it can be difficult to discern any regular pattern 1 [20]. . From evolutionary theory to coevolution The evolutionary theory was developed in the theory of anizations based on a biological metaphor. A basic evolutionary model of an anisation 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, whether intentionally or not. A certain number of new routines are then adopted as temporarily permanent practices. This simple variation–selection–retention repeats continuously [21, p. 76]. Evolutionary theories are made up of two major groups: contingency theories and social theories. Contingency theories consider technological change as an exogenous phenomenon which triggers anisational evolution [8,22]. This deterministic approach makes structural 山東建筑大學(xué)畢業(yè)設(shè)計外文文獻及譯文 4 arrangements predictable from variables such as plexity, uncertainty and interdependency, which can be integrated into a single dimension – the ability to treat information [23]. Social theories view anisations as technological social constructions in which the munity of anisations determines the nature of technological evolution [22]. In this approach, anisational structures are seen as processes in action which are continuously built 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 anisations。 nobody appreciates diffusion of bad news on his or her project. Judgement on the project’s health depends upon the perception and the position of the individual. People from the PMO or from the business unit do not have the same point of view as they are not pursuing the same objectives and do not have the same incentives. Each may have his or her own criteria for reporting the project status as green, yellow or red. Discussion on the colour of the project status is a widespread phenomenon and involves much debate and negotiation among people at all levels of the anisation. These discussions e back periodically, often monthly. They provide an opportunity to observe the tensions that emerge around the management of the project and its status. Another source of tension related to control of projects is the issue of transparency. Discussions on the colour of the project status may be avoided by giving inaccurate or inplete information. PMOs sometimes play a detective role to make sure that no information is hidden by other managers. In this situation, a climate of trust is difficult to establish and tensions can bee very apparent. . Client relationship tension From the PMO’s perspective there are two types of clients: their own clients for their deliverables and the clients of projects that are realised in the anisation. The tensions are related primarily to the second type of client usually represented internally by an anizational entity. This relationship seems sensitive as it provides legitimacy. Some business and IT entities attempt to retain exclusive responsibility for customer relationships and to push the PMO outside of this relationship. Not being in a close relationship with an internal client can have important consequences with respect to having knowledge of the projects. A PMO can easily be discredited when it has the wrong perception of projects. In one case in the research, a PMO was dismantled because of its inability to help project managers due to a misunderstanding of projects needs. 山東建筑大學(xué)畢業(yè)設(shè)計外文文獻及譯文 13 . Standardisation/flexibility tension or business versus process orientation The standardisation of project management methodology and process are often in opposition to the flexibility needed in the execution of a project in real life. On one side, PMOs often have the responsibility for developing and standardizing methodologies. The development of these tools is very often participative with contributions from all entities involved in project deliverables. But when it is time to put the methodology into application, confrontations are rather the norm. The