MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1759287410 · doi:10.1002/pmj.21521

Does Executive Sponsorship Matter for Realizing Project Management Value?

2015· article· en· W1759287410 on OpenAlexaff
Dawne E. Chandler, Janice Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Management Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityValue (mathematics)BusinessProject managementProject stakeholderExecutive summaryPerceptionProject sponsorshipEarned value managementOPM3Project management triangleSenior managementPublic relationsMarketingProcess managementKnowledge managementManagementPsychologyPolitical scienceComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Executive sponsorship is critical to project success; however, the impact of the sponsorship role on project management value and sustainability is not known. Using correlation analysis we examine survey responses from 91 U.S. executives. Formalizing and providing training on the sponsorship role and responsibilities are both significantly related to senior management's perception of the sustainability of project management value. Unexpectedly, no significant relationship exists between the prevalence of the sponsorship role and project management value outcomes. These results extend our understanding of the importance of the sponsorship role and provide practical guidance for those seeking to improve the sustainability of project management value.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.073
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.073
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Management JournalSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207