MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966230106 · doi:10.4236/ti.2012.31007

Risk Management of IT Service Management Project Implementation with Killer Assumptions

2012· article· en· W1966230106 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jiangping Wan, Lianyu Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology and Investment · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess managementKnowledge managementService (business)Order (exchange)Process (computing)Risk managementProject risk managementRisk analysis (engineering)Project managementBusinessProject management triangleMarketingSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large IT service management (ITSM) project has high complexity and low success in implementation. Five common killer assumptions are selected from Warfield’s 17 Killer Assumptions through empirical analysis. Enterprise interview and questionnaire survey are used to establish and verify the relational model between the root risk factors of implementation of the ITSM project and the six complexity propositions based grounded theory. Finally, risk-averse strate-gies are put forward to meet the demand for complexity: 1) Identify the individual and pay attention to complexity; 2) Select process carefully; 3) Develop innovative language; 4) Personalized the workspace according to the demand; 5) Enhance the role of senior executives; 6) Appropriate communication. The research goal is to reduce the complexity of ITSM project’s implementation in order to manage the risks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.877
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology and InvestmentSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207