The Influences of Multiple Factors in the Success of Strategic Planning in Project Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strategic planning is a process that involves informed dialog among the committee members over a period of time such that a consensus emerges as a natural outcome. In this paper, the multiple factors influencing success of strategic planning has been studied. Key success factors in strategic planning of project management contain such activities that must be performed if the organization intends to achieve its long-term targets. A large majority of enterprises only have a handful of key success factors. Nonetheless, even if one of these success factors is not executed accurately and precisely, the enterprises’ competitive strategy might be threatened. The key success factors in achieving project management excellence also apply to other types of organizations, including those which have not thoroughly implemented their project management systems. Though most organizations are sincere in their efforts to thoroughly implement their systems, stumbling stones are inevitable and have to be overcome. The statistical population of this research is composed of managers, consultants, and experts involved in the strategic planning in project management. According to the research results, the involvement of top management, involvement of team personnel, knowledge of the top management of strategic planning, and organizational culture are the most effective factors of strategic planning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".