The Perceived Value and Potential Contribution of Project Management Practices to Project Success
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 contributes to the ongoing work and debate on the value of project management, accomplishing this through an empirical investigation of practitioner perceptions on the relative value of different project management practices and their potential to contribute to improved project performance. This investigation is based on a large-scale survey of 753 project management practitioners. This paper aims to answer four questions relating to the value of project management. By identifying the most valued practices, practitioners and organizations can identify their priorities when developing their project management competencies. This can also guide the profession in selecting priorities for future development. When choosing priorities to develop and implement, organizations can look to the tools that practitioners identify as most valuable, as having the most potential for increased contribution to project performance, and as presently under-utilized. In order to fully understand the nature of project management practices, and the mechanisms through which these create value, researchers must better clarify the distinction between the project phases and project processes. These findings can help project management professionals in selecting priorities for future development.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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