Bibliographic record
Abstract
National Organization The Project Management Institute (PMI) was established in 1969 when Georgia Tech University invited PMI's five founders to co-sponsor a seminar in Advanced Project Management Concepts. The proposal to initiate a permanent organization and offer membership was well received, and thus, PMI became a reality. That initial membership has since grown to more than 70,000 worldwide, with 270 local Chapters, 34 Specific Interest Groups (SIG's) and 1 College in 110 countries, each of which engages in programs, meetings, regional workshops, and area seminars. Over 25,000 members have been certified as Project Management Professionals (PMP's). PMI growth over the past five years has been in excess of 30% per year. An annual membership meeting, referred to as the PMI Seminar Symposium, has been held in the United States every year since 1970 with the exception of the 1994 meeting in Vancouver, Canada. Over 4,000 members from around the world attend the annual Seminar/Symposium. PMI Objectives Foster professionalism, and advance the quality and range of Project Management. Identify and promote Project Management fundamentals, and advance the body of knowledge for managing projects successfully. Provide a recognized forum for free exchange of ideas, applications, and solutions to Project Management challenges. Stimulate Project Management application to the benefit of industry and the public. Work with universities and other educational institutions to encourage Project Management education and career development. Encourage academic and industrial research. Foster contacts internationally with other organizations relating to Project Management, and cooperate in matters of common interest. Ends Policies Professionalism in project management for the global community through practices that address appropriate local, national and global requirements. Project management is recognized as a profession for project management practitioners at a reasonable investment. Project management contributes to social good and achievement for business, industry, governments, academia and society-at-large through economical and planned use of resources. Professionals in project management are knowledgeable and skilled for a reasonable investment. People in project management who participate in or use PMI offerings enjoy a supportive community. PMI's Ends are assertively pursued globally for the profession and PMI members by volunteer leadership through policy, and by HQ staff through their planned and deliberate commitment of headquarter resources. PMI programs, products and services are available for appropriate members of the project management community at reasonable costs. Project management is globally recognized and valued for a reasonable investment. Organizational Effectiveness Almost since its conception, PMI has undertaken active programs to implement and further its goals. Among these programs, the following illustrate PMI's commitment of actively pursuing a role as the premier, most effective organization serving the entire Project Management field - across multiple aspects and multiple industries and sections:Research and Standards. PMI conducts research and standards development projects on behalf of the project management community.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".