Project Management Practices in Small Projects: 5 cases in a Canadian Hospital Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare is continuously changing through means of project work. Small projects in healthcare settings are of particular interest since they are usually not adequately supported by the health institution, and present many challenges of their own. However, collective successful completion of small projects has the potential to significantly impact and improve health service delivery. This thesis examined the common and successful project management practices in small projects in Canadian hospital settings to acquire new knowledge on this understudied kind of project and propose basic project management practice guidelines for future small projects conducted within these settings. Data collection was conducted in two hospitals in the form of 23 semi-structured interviews with five interprofessional project teams composed of 4-10 healthcare professionals. Each project was considered as the unit of analysis. Qualitative within-case and cross-case inferential processes were applied and a consolidated list of 43 project management practices deemed important by the majority of participants from all cases was revealed and could serve as basic project management practice guidelines for future small projects conducted in hospitals. Findings also shed light on the beneficial value of adapting principles of project management to small projects in hospital settings. Given the bottom-up nature of small projects, results suggest it is of significant importance to clearly define and understand the small project, as well as perform a thorough stakeholder analysis to be able to gain the right approvals. Insufficient time dedicated to small project management governed these shortcomings, thus team members need to regularly allot time to managing their small project. Lastly, the presence of a team leader was a significant factor influencing continuous project execution. Future studies should take into consideration allied disciplines’ contributions such as organizational behaviour to help explain the interplay between group dynamics and small project outcome.
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".