MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W106206689

Factors Influencing IT Project Performance

2006· article· en· W106206689 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrew Gemino, Blaize Horner Reich, Chris Sauer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProject managementProject risk managementProject management triangleRisk managementSoftware project managementRisk management planComputer scienceProcess managementOPM3Project planningProject portfolio managementKnowledge managementEngineering managementEngineeringSoftware developmentBusinessSoftwareSystems engineeringIT risk management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The challenge of understanding IT project performance is examined by consolidating literature on software development risk, extending the concept of risk management process and including the notion of project volatility.An integrated project performance model (PPM) including constructs of a-priori risk, risk management process, project volatility, project process performance and project product performance is proposed.Hypotheses surrounding the relationships between these constructs are provided.A survey of IT project managers in five Project Management Institute (PMI) chapters in Ohio has been collected to test these hypotheses but results are not discussed in this paper.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207