Project management elements as strategic assets: preliminary findings
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
Purpose To examine project management assets and to explore the link between these and the achievement of competitive advantage from the project management process through it being valuable, rare, inimitable, and having organizational support. Design/methodology/approach An online survey with North American Project Management Institute ® members was conducted. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify tangible and intangible elements of project management and the achievement of competitive characteristics of the project management process. Findings Six factors were extracted that comprised project management assets and three factors that comprised the competitive characteristics of the project management process. Research limitations/implications This was an exploratory study. It is expected to further develop the instrument, refine the model and constructs, and test it with a larger sample. Practical implications This study highlights the importance of developing intangible project management assets to achieve competitive advantage from the process. Originality/value Few papers have used the resource based view lens and applied it to project management. This paper contributes to the literature on the resource based view of the firm and to an improved understanding of project management as a source of competitive advantage.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
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