A Qualitative Enquiry into Professional Project Management Practices in the Ghanaian Construction Industry
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
Professional Project Management Practice (PPMP) has become a resource tool in the 21stcentury in diverse discipline, especially the construction industry where the genesis of the concept and its theory began. To this extent, Ghana has recently added an impetus to this popularity for the first time specifically mentioning and recognizing the title project managers (PMs) in the condition of contract for medium-sized works. PPMP continues to grow in the construction industry. However, there is lack of consensus and controversyamong practitioners and researchers onthe concept. This paper elicits the views of twenty major stakeholders in establishing a common mechanism in understanding the concept. The methodology was based on schedule interview with identified stakeholders and qualitative approach was used in the discussion. The findings of this study indicate that while theoretical knowledge exists, there is a lack of practical knowledge of the Professional Project Management among construction stakeholders. The implication of the findings is for the future development of the project management profession in Ghana and developing countries facing similar challenges as the industry advances.
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 | 0.028 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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