MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087639512 · doi:10.1002/pmj.20165

Measuring Portfolio Strategic Performance Using Key Performance Indicators

2010· article· en· W2087639512 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

VenueProject Management Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioKey (lock)Performance indicatorProcess managementApplication portfolio managementPerformance measurementProject portfolio managementRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessComputer scienceManagement scienceSystems engineeringEngineeringProject managementFinanceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is difficult to find indicators for measuring the achievement of objectives during the progress of project portfolios. This article presents an approach for developing key strategic performance indicators considering this limitation. The indicators proposed help measure the achievement of a portfolio's strategic objectives taking into account the realization of key benefits. This approach helps identify strategic interdependences between projects that the portfolio is composed of, facilitating the understanding of how the performance of a single project affects the overall performance of a portfolio. The key performance indicators can also be used for monitoring the materialization of risks and opportunities influencing the strategic performance of a portfolio.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.181 · 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