Advancing project and portfolio management research: applying strategic management theories
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
This paper focuses on the application of strategic management theories to Project Management and Project Portfolio Management research, specifically the Resource-Based View, Dynamic Capabilities, and Absorptive Capacity. A literature review and four research experiences illustrate the advances achieved through the use of these three theoretical perspectives, and contribute to the development of this field by providing examples and guidance for theory development and future research. Commonalities between the research examples include a strong strategic focus, recognition of the importance of knowledge and learning, and research questions seeking understanding and explanation. These research experiences outline the successful application of strategic management theories to a wide range of contexts, using diverse methodologies at a variety of levels of analysis. The findings indicate a broad potential for further fruitful research stemming from the relatively recent application of strategic management theories to Project Management and Project Portfolio Management research. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. APM and IPMA. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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