MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053885828 · doi:10.1108/17538370910971072

New approaches in project performance evaluation techniques

2009· article· en· W2053885828 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas C. Bower, Andrew Finegan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Managing Projects in Business · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityGovernment of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementProcess managementProject managementComputer scienceOriginalityEarned value managementEngineering managementManagement scienceCompetence (human resources)Project planningSystems engineeringProject charterEngineeringBusinessQualitative researchManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a Doctor of Project Management research study including summary of the literature review, the application of the combination of case study, survey and theory building research methodologies, key research findings and potential areas for future research. Design/methodology/approach The research investigates the reasons for the limited adoption of earned value management (EVM) as a project performance evaluation technique. It proposes new extensions to this technique that will be beneficial to project management practitioners. The multifaceted research approach incorporates the following elements: a review of previous and current literature on EVM; a survey of project management practitioners on their practices and attitudes towards EVM; analysis of the known challenges of the EVM technique; development of techniques to address and resolve the EVM challenges; consolidation of those techniques into a single framework and implementation model; and validation of that framework and model through multiple methods. Findings The research confirms that EVM can be greatly enhanced and simplified though three key initiatives: include the cost assurance (i.e. risk transfer) provided by procurement contracts; measure project achievement and progress on the completion of each phase, rather than monthly; and combine the above into a simplified, single model. Originality/value This paper provides practitioners with an insight into how EVM can be enhanced and applied in project management organisations. In particular, the integrated PAVA technique should be particularly useful to projects using the rolling wave approach, as its recognition of phases provides a framework for short‐ and long‐term planning.

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 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.206
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Managing Projects in BusinessSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207