Performance evaluation of project management system based on combination of EFQM and QFD
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
Project management system (PMS) is broadly recognized as the effective management tool for several organizations. European Foundation of Quality Management (EFQM) model provides some advantages for companies to be successful in current competitive environment. This paper is based on the combination of EFQM and Quality function deployment (QFD) in order to evaluate a PMS in an aviation organization. Although, an integration of these models increases the system complexity, the implementation of EFQM-QFD helps us identify all noteworthy success factors of PMS within the organization. In addition, the current status of PMS performance is evaluated based on these factors. This study attempts to find out how organizations ought to be managed to take full advantage of PMS tools. This study uses a comprehensive questionnaire to find all critical factors influencing on the success of the organization. The method of this paper is implemented in an organization in aviation industry with several management departments.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it