Information Systems Project Management in PMJ: A Brief History
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Project Management Institute (PMI) plays an important role in the training, career development, and recognition of information systems (IS) project managers. Indeed, not only do IS professionals account for a large proportion of the PMI constituency, but PMI is also influential in the training of IS project managers. This study explores further the contribution of PMI to IS project management by means of its main publication outlet, the Project Management Journal (PMJ). To do so, the contents of the 39 IS project management articles published in PMJ during 1988-2005 were analyzed. The article focuses on the following dimensions: the relative importance of IS project management articles published by PMJ; the profile of the authors of IS project management articles in PMJ; the main issues, in terms of IS project management, covered by PMJ; and the major gaps, in terms of IS project management, in the coverage of this domain by PMJ.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".