The Interplay of Risk Management and Uncertainty: A Project Management Practice Perspective.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
THE PAPER EMPIRICALLY MEASURES THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN RISK MANAGEMENT AND UNCERTAINTY AND THE CONTEXTUAL VARIABILITY OF RISK MANAGEMENT PRACTICE. THE RESEARCH FIRST CLARIFIES THE CONCEPTS OF UNCERTAINTY, RISK AND RISK MANAGEMENT. THE RESEARCH DEFINES RISK MANAGEMENT FROM AN EMPIRICAL PERSPECTIVE I.E., FROM AN EMPIRICALLY IDENTIFIED SET OF TOOLS THAT IS ACTUALLY USED TO PERFORM RISK MANAGEMENT. THIS TOOLSET IS DERIVED FROM THE RESULTS OF AN ONGOING MAJOR WORLDWIDE SURVEY ON WHAT EXPERIENCED PRACTITIONERS ACTUALLY DO TO MANAGE THEIR PROJECTS. THIS PAPER USES A SAMPLE OF 1,296 RESPONSES FOR WHICH THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN RISK MANAGEMENT AND UNCERTAINTY COULD BE MEASURED. The results are very coherent. They verify and empirically validate many of the propositions drawn from a review of the literature. But results challenge some of the propositions found in the conventional project management literature and some commonly held views. The research shows that the use of risk management practices and tools is negatively related to the degree of project uncertainty. This somewhat counter-intuitive result is consistent with a general tendency for all project management tools and techniques to be used more intensively in better defined contexts. The dominant project management paradigm is oriented towards reducing or controlling uncertainty, but is less well adapted to unforeseeable events and high levels of uncertainty. A better understanding of the reality of the actual practice leads to a discussion about supplementing the current paradigm with new approaches to manage the uncertainty that cannot be removed or reduced by the conventional project management approach.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".