Concurrent engineering in Brazilian construction companies: Maturity assessment
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 purpose of this paper is to identify the maturity level of concurrent engineering in Brazilian construction companies in the Great Vitoria region – Espirito Santo. This is a qualitative research study, which proposes a methodology based on semi-structured and structured interviews applied in Brazilian construction companies, using nine case studies in construction companies of Great Vitoria (Espirito Santo, Brazil). The results confirm the appropriate methodology and confirm that the companies that were analyzed have, in general, a good and managed maturity level. The research also shows that the quality search initiated in the 1990’s in Brazil is valid, since quality was concurrent engineering’s most developed element in construction firms. However, there is still a lack of stakeholders’ integration and understanding of what a multidisciplinary team is and how it should work, which suggests that companies need to work harder in training and coordinating their teams. As the results show, it is also noticeable that certain firms’ characteristics, such as size, time in the market, centralization of decisions, among others, interfere in the level of maturity of concurrent engineering.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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