Project Management Maturity Models for Construction Firms
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
This paper aims to identify and analyze project management maturity models in order to identify those best suited to be adopted in construction firms. To do so, models from papers available in academic repositories were analyzed. To be successful, the construction business deeply depends on projects outcomes; thus, the implementation of project management maturity models is important for this sector. A maturity model is a valuable technique to assess project management capabilities within a single part of an organization or to assess an organization as a whole. Its main purpose is to provide a means to create a more organized and predictable way for organizations to achieve their goals, increasing their chances of success regarding the outputs, outcomes, and benefits. In this paper, documentary research was performed to identify available project management maturity models and togather information about their performance. The information gathered was used to find elements to be compared with the identified models. Reviewing the literature, 39 project management maturity models were identified. The authors selected two PMMMs that were well fitted to assess the project management capabilities in construction firms: OPM3 and MMGP Prado.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it