Improving business process management for product-centric service organization: the case of aerospace maintenance project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides discussion and analysis of the successful deployment by a university-based project management office (PMO) of the balanced scorecard as a performance measurement tool. The research study builds on a supporting literature review on the balanced scorecard along with background material on collaborative research projects. This is followed by a case study investigation of the design and implementation of the scorecard for a university PMO over a 4-year period. Various managerial insights have been generated that have value to project management professionals engaged in the roll-out of a performance measurement system to support the management of research projects. There is a need to carefully adapt scorecard metrics to the academic requirements in regard to the management of a portfolio of research projects. Furthermore, although data collection is necessary for the sustained use of the scorecard to support team operations, it is also important to consider the people or social dimensions when utilizing the scorecard approach. The article also includes specific details on how scorecard’s key performance indicators have been derived through distilling strategic objectives into operational requirements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".