Comparative Study of Methodologies for Schedule Management in an Environment of Multiple Simultaneous Projects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A project is a unique event that has an established deadline and with a purpose to meet a specific need of the team interested in the project. The objective of this work was to identify which method would be the most adequate for the reality of the studied environment and to show the benefits and losses in the adoption of each one of these methods. To achieve this objective, an analysis of 25 projects was carried out between the years of July 2019 and June 2019 to obtain a sufficient database and with these data to carry out a comparative study between three different methods of estimating deadlines in relation to what was actually practiced. The projects were divided into six main stages, the opening of the project, approval of the purchase order, delivery, confirmation of the start of operations, capitalization of assets and closing of the project. The first stage of data collection was to capture the number of days required to complete each stage in each of the 25 projects analyzed and thereby calculate minimum, maximum and average points of execution. With the data obtained from these projects, a simulation was made for the case of using the adapted media, Pert and Pert methodology. The studied environment has as a singularity the occurrence of multiple simultaneous projects and taking place in different stages. After comparative analyzes, it was Pert for presenting a greater balance between the metrics "projects within the deadline" and "variation of project X actual," however, the study also showed a lot of instability in the processes studied, so future studies to understand the discrepancy for the amount of days needed to perform a similar activity on different projects.
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it