MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770526023 · doi:10.1177/875697281604700405

The Impact of Residual Risk and Resultant Problems on Information Systems Development Project Performance

2016· article· en· W2770526023 on OpenAlexaff
Russell Purvis, Raymond M. Henry, Stefan Tams, Varun Grover, John D. McGregor, Steve Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueProject Management Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidualMediationResidual riskTask (project management)Project managementProject risk managementProcess managementCategorical variableComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Risk managementRisk assessmentProject management triangleEngineeringBusinessSystems engineeringReliability engineeringPolitical scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research presented in this article considers how residual risk impacts project performance and: (1) evaluates the impact of specific categories of residual risks (actor, technology, task, and structure) on project performance; and (2) demonstrates the mediation role of categorical problems caused by residual risk on project performance. Data from 92 projects analyzed using partial least squares found support for mediation, and not direct effects between: (1) actor project problems and the effects of actor residual risk; (2) task project problems and the effects of task residual risk; and (3) technology project problems and the effects of technology residual risk on information systems development (ISD) project performance.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.221
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.221
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProject Management JournalSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207