Segmenting the customers of system delivery projects based on data heterogeneity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to examine project management segments based on customer satisfaction drivers and loyalty rather than traditional demographic or behavioural variables. Design/methodology/approach Data were gathered over 18 consecutive months, and 3,129 surveys were completed using a questionnaire. The statistical methods included partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modelling, finite mixture segmentation, prediction-oriented segmentation (PLS-POS) and multi-group analysis (PLS-MGA). Findings The findings indicate the existence of three segments among system delivery project customers based on the differences in the strengths of the path coefficients in the customer-centric structural model. In Segment 1, satisfaction based on the proposal was crucial for loyalty, with the value-for-money construct negatively impacting the repurchase intent construct. Segment 2 had a solid value-for-money orientation. In Segment 3, the critical path indicated that satisfaction drove repurchase intention, with satisfaction based mainly on the installation. Originality/value The research contributes to the segmentation theory by introducing a new way to segment the systems delivery projects customers based on the perceived strength of the relationships in a customer-centric structural model, which aligns with traditional segmentation theory in a way that most segmentation analyses do not. A new segmentation approach to the domain of project management theory is presented. Based on the results, treating the system delivery project customer base as a single homogenous group can lead to managerially misleading conclusions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".