Measuring strengths, weaknesses, and the value of project management in construction projects : a project management assessment tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research is to develop a project management (PM) assessment tool that incorporates the following characteristics: 1) the unit of study is an individual construction project, it measures the degree to which various PM practices were implemented on a specific project; 2) project outcomes are also assessed, allowing the relationship between PM practices and project outcomes—and thereby the value of PM—to be explored; 3) project context is also assessed, allowing relevant comparisons between different projects and the opportunity for benchmarking and identification of best practices, 4) it is not tied into one particular PM standard, but draws content from a range of several leading PM standards; and 5) it uses an evidence-based approach to rate the relative importance of different PM practices to aggregate each individual PM practice into an overall PM performance indicator. This research implemented a combination of qualitative and quantitative research methods using multiple project cases, interviews, and archival methods. One of the most important contributions was to find a different way to measure the value of PM, which was from the perspective of the actual PM implementations in a project and the respective project outcomes. A second contribution is that the PM assessment tool can be used to benchmark PM best practices in construction organizations, based on the fact that the assessment tool is built on the foundation of the most accepted and used international standards in North America and in the construction industry. A third contribution of this study is that an integrated framework of PM best practices was created. The new framework was built based on the mapping and integration of four international PM standards. Following a process and a methodology, the assessment tool used the critical success factors (CSFs) to weight the survey questions. One final relevant contribution of this study was that the results corroborated the general assumption that PM practices are strongly positively correlated with the outcomes of the projects of cost, time, and client satisfaction, among others.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".