Project Quality Management Performance: An Insight to Sustainable Development Initiatives in Oil and Gas Host Communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental principle of project quality management is that quality is planned into project and not inspected through project. In the context of host communities in developing countries with mineral exploration activities construction projects and contracts generally is a key provider of employment in both short, medium and long term and particularly for the locals, therefore the incorporation of quality management systems in project life cycle is paramount for sustainable development. Ensuring project quality plays an important role in socio-economic development of people as it provides the most basic infrastructure that promotes economic activities. Quality management systems (QMS) has significant value relating to project quality and cost reduction and a comprehensive quality management culture can promote project success, mutual beneficial relationship and organisational sustainability. This study provides empirical findings emanating from local vendor(s) understanding, compliance and implementation of quality management systems in a multinational oil company (MNOC) community assisted projects. The study utilised SPSS version 22 for the statistical data analysis and Goodness-of-fit-test interrogated the assumption that contractors are not complying with quality management systems in project execution. The study found inter alia that 65% of the vendors are registered as closed corporation (sole proprietorship), 15% were limited liability companies, while 20% belong to other category such as subcontractors. Furthermore, 98% of the 222 respondent are yet to develop a quality manual and a conceptual nominated vendor system (NVS) project quality model was developed to improve the contract award and project management status quo, with emphasis on the need for integration of quality management systems in project life cycle for the oil and gas host communities.
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 | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".