O corpo de conhecimentos do Project Management Institute-PMBOK® Guide, e as especificidades da gestão de projetos: uma revisão crítica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
O mais difundido e consolidado Corpo do Conhecimento em Gereneia de Projetos, O Guia PMBOK®, do PMI, fai reconhecido como limitado ante as realidades dos projetos. Este artigo recorre a "analise do discurso" como metodo de estudo de suas bases paradigmaticas e supostas subjacentes a luz das exigencias de gestao da pratica atual. Particularmente, em relaçao com os aspectos denominados "suaves" e seus niveis de campo ex idade associados. O articulo poe em evidencia a visao positivista subjacente nos grupos de processos do PMBOK®, e sua preocupaçao pela planejamento e controIe do trabalho predefinido, deixanda de lado a gestao de muitos aspectos desestruturados ou suaves. Propoe-se uma perspectiva para a atualizaçao do PMBOK® sobre a base de superar a dicotomia projetos duros vs. projetos suaves, que privilegie uma concepçao da gestao em condiçoes de incerteza e ambigüidade, tal como exige o mundo real.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".