【文章內(nèi)容簡(jiǎn)介】 oise [20] and is different from a periodic pattern. In conclusion, technology and anisation are parts of a mon social system in which innovation breaks a temporary equilibrium and launches an unpredictable journey through a process of variation–selection–retention. Some criticisms have been aimed at the evolutionary theory in relation to its inability to provide an appropriate analysis of the context of technological evolution. De Bresson [27] suggests we turn to the historical perspective in order to get the broader picture of 山東建筑大學(xué)畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)外文文獻(xiàn)及譯文 6 technological evolution. This implies that researchers have to look at processes rather than ad hoc events. One good example of looking at the innovation process is Van de Ven [28] who concluded that what is encountered in the life of an anisation does not match any regular pattern. . Institutional isomorphism Institutionalism theories propose to understand changes at the anisational field level where the evolution of a population of anisations can be observe [29,30]. In this perspective, anisational survival is based upon the capacity to adapt to the environment through the evolutionary process of variation–selection–retention forming what has been called the Population Ecology of Organisations [30]. Some authors have worked to explain the diversity of anisations and to identify criteria that make some survive while others disappeared [1]. Based on this biological metaphor, DiMaggio and Powell observe instead a tendency toward greater homogeneity and ask a basic question from this perspective: ‘‘What makes anisations so similar?” [29, p. 147]. Their research leads to a questioning of rationality in decision making process on anisational structure. They argue that market petition and efficiency has not so much to do with the resulting anisational structure. They found instead that institutional isomorphism can better explain the form anisations take on. The level of analysis is situated at the anisational field defined as a dynamic work of anisations that is recognized as having an institutional life. DiMaggio and Powell [29] identified three mechanisms of institutional isomorphic change: coercive isomorphism, mimetic processes and normative pressures. In their seminal work, they also propose hypothesis to predict which anisational fields will be most homogeneous in structure, process and behaviour. . Organisational innovation in the project management literature Innovation in the project management literature refers most often to product and process innovation and is often classified using the bipolar model of radical and incremental [31,32] using the typology from Nelson and Winter [33]. Turner and Keegan [34] suggest that product and process innovations require a creative environment with specific characteristics. Elsewhere, Duggal [35] proposes a next generation PMO where a Ramp。D function exists for specific purposes of project management innovation. 山東建筑大學(xué)畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)外文文獻(xiàn)及譯文 7 We argue that anisation itself is worth considering as the object of innovation and not only a means for product or process innovation (Schumpeter 1934 cited in [36]. Organisational innovation has been explored in the field of project management [37]. Building on institutional isomorphism, Martinsuo et al. [37] explore projectbased management as an anisational innovation. The aim of their research was to understand the adoption of projectbased management as an anisational innovation. More specifically it aims to identify the drivers that lead to adoption of projectbased management and the results from adopting it in terms of changes and benefits. Their research on 111 panies from different industries reveals that contextrelated elements, such as external pressure and internal plexity, play a role as drivers for introducing projectbased management. For the purpose of this research, anisational innovation is defined as a new, nonobvious and useful set of rules, processes and structure that has found viable application in anisations. 4. Implementing or reconfiguring a PMO as an anisational change Implementing a PMO or reconfiguring an existing PMO is an important anisational change. This change is often part of a wider anisational reconfiguration. A methodology and an interpretive framework is needed that can capture the dynamic plexity of anisational change. The approach that has been adopted investigates the PMO embedded in its anisational context. The approach can be related to a long tradition of contextual studies in the literature on project anisations from Midler [7] to Pellegrinelli et al. [38]. History and context are essential to the understanding of what is observed at any one point in space and time in plex systems such as anisations [39]. The theoretical foundations of the social innovation system framework take into account the context in which such anisational innovations take place [40]. Social innovation builds also on a bidirectional relation that conceives of anisational innovations as sociallyconstructed and societyshaping [41]. Organisational innovations are produced by the interplay between actors in structures and the anisation as a whole. The PMO is a socially constructed entity that in turn shapes the anisation. The PMO and its host anisation coevolve. Organisational change occurs in a political environment. Changes to PMOs are both caused by political forces and shape a new political environment. Tensions within the 山東建筑大學(xué)畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)外文文獻(xiàn)及譯文 8 anisation play an important role in determining the path that an anisation’s development will follow. In turn, each new structural arrangement realigns the power structure and creates new tensions. The investigation of the creation or restructuring of PMOs will need to integrate the political dimension of anisational change. 5. Th