Bibliographic record
Abstract
Managing large software project in general, and the implementation of ERPs in particular, entails several risks. Such was project Harmonie the implementation of SAP R/3 in support of the human resources, finance, and materials management processes at Hydro-Quebec. The size of the project, along with its technological newness, its complexity, the importance of the changes it was bringing to the organization, and a tight schedule. This report describes the management of project Harmonie, focusing on two aspects: (1) the0501n mechanisms Hydro-Quebec management put into place so as to ensure project success, and (2) the project management tools used by Serge Piotte, director of project Harmonie, along with the leadership principles that guided him. La conduite de grands projets de technologie de l'information en general, et d'implantation de progiciels integres en particulier, comporte souvent elements de risque important pour les organisations. Ainsi en etait-il pour le projet Harmonie de Hydro-Quebec, nom donne au projet d'implantation du progiciel R/3 de SAP en support aux processus de gestion des ressources humaines, materielles et financieres. Les elements de risque du projet etaient principalement relies a son envergure, a la nouveaute et a la complexite technologiques, a l'ampleur des changements et aux exigences d'un echeancier serre. Ce texte decrit la gestion du projet Harmonie, d'une part en presentant les principaux mecanismes mis en place par la direction de Hydro-Quebec pour en assurer le succes et d'autre part en decrivant certains des principaux outils de gestion adoptes par Serge Piotte, directeur du projet Harmonie, et en presentant les principes d'exercice du leadership qui l'ont guide tout au long du projet.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".