The Relationship between Coordination Mechanisms and Communication Efficiency in Projects Involving Marketing Managers: Quantitative Findings from Moroccan SMEs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Project coordination is recognized as one of the most important aspects that should be integrated effectively in project management to guarantee project success. In fact, coordination provides organization the ability to integrate heterogeneous activities for achieving specific targets. In project, when teams are built according to cross-functional approach, coordination is required to enhance communication between all project stakeholders. This article is in search of the relationship between specific project coordination mechanisms, adopted by marketing managers to integrate other functional activities, and project communication efficiency. Methodologically, our research was based on a quantitative questionnaire distributed to 107 functional managers involved in cross-funtional project team in Moroccan SMEs. An appropriate statistical analysis was deployed to examine data collected. Findings show the existence of a positive correlation between project coordination mechanisms and project communication efficiency. Besides, the importance given to marketing managers’ participation in project meetings was found as a factor impacting the amount of time devoted to. Therefore some insights are emphasized to develop research in this field.</p>
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 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 | 0.024 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".