MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996255706 · doi:10.3233/jifs-179550

An intelligent decision support system for effective handling of IT projects

2019· article· en· W2996255706 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Hamid, Furkh Zeshan, Adnan Ahmad, Saima Munawar, Esma Aı̈meur, Sohaib Ahmed, Mohamed Abu ElSoud, Mohammed Yousif

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDecision support systemIntelligent decision support systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Software projects are failing for several decades due to multiple reasons. In this regard a lot of research has been done to investigate the reasons behind the failure. However, most of this research was executed in developed countries while under-developed and developing countries got little attention. The main objective of this study is to assess the impact of critical factors on the success of software projects for under-developed countries (like Pakistan), because enterprise environmental factors along with staff working habits, their experience and expertise level also have an impact on the success of a project. To accomplish this, a survey was conducted through the Pakistan Software Export Board (PSEB), and logistic regression enquiry was executed to measure the relationship between various factors affecting software. The results reflect that improper planning along with wrong cost and time estimation are positively and significantly associated with software failure. Based on the finding of the survey, a model is proposed for intelligent decision support system (IDSs). The proposed model keeps track of the previous knowledge and behavior in a well-structured manner that might be helpful for project managers in the estimation and decision-making process of upcoming software projects. This research adds new knowledge from an under-developed country which will open new dimensions for the IT industry and project manager working under similar circumstances.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intelligent & Fuzzy SystemsSame topicInformation Technology Governance and StrategyFrench-language works237,207