The body of knowledge of the Project Management Institute-PMBOK® Guide, and the specificities of project management: a critical review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The PMBOK® Guide of the PMI, which is the most widely disseminated and consolidated body of knowledge on project management, has been recognized as of limited use in the context of the realities of projects. This article makes use of 'discourse analysis' as a method for studying its paradigmatic basis and underlying suppositions in the light of the demands of management under current practice; particularly, in relation to the socalled 'soft' aspects and their associated levels of complexity. The article reveals the positivist vision underlying the process groups of the PMBOK®, and its focus on planning and control of predefined work, leaving out the management of many destructured or soft aspects. It proposes a perspective for updating the PMBOK® based on going beyond the dichotomy of hard projects versus soft projects, which favors a conception of management under conditions of uncertainty and ambiguity, in accordance with the demands of the real world.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it