MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008868354 · doi:10.1109/esem.2009.5316014

Software risk management barriers: An empirical study

2009· article· en· W2008868354 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk managementRisk perceptionRisk analysis (engineering)PerceptionIT risk managementIdentification (biology)Factor analysis of information riskSample (material)Empirical researchRisk management planComputer scienceProject risk managementRisk management information systemsKnowledge managementBusinessProject managementPsychologyProgram managementEngineeringFinanceInformation systemManagement information systems

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports results from a survey of experienced project managers on their perception of software risk management. From a sample of 18 experienced project managers, we have found good awareness of risk management, but low tool usage. We offer evidence that the main barriers to performing risk management are related to its perceived high cost and comparative low value. Psychological issues are also important, but less so. Risk identification and monitoring, in particular, are perceived as effort intensive and costly. The perception is that risk management is not prioritised highly enough. Our conclusion is that more must be done to visibly prove the value : cost ratio for risk management activities.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.296 · 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