Project management approaches and their selection in the digital age: Overview, challenges and decision models
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
Digital transformation is a challenge that also impacts the selection of tools for implementing projects. Which tools are suitable for handling complex digital twins? Project management must respond to this with suitable approaches. The challenge for decision-makers is to choose the right one. Based on literature research and a case study, influencing factors are derived and practice-relevant project management approaches are collected. Furthermore, a decision model is developed that, on the one hand, supports the decision-maker in selecting tools before and during the project, and on the other hand makes empirical values from past projects usable for future decisions. The results show that the number of influencing factors is large, and the approaches are di-verse. In complex projects, this can lead to complex decision-making situations that require appropriate decision models. The developed “Supervised Decision Model – L5” is based on five levels (L): (L1) Building a database; (L2) Derivation of algorithms; (L3) Initial approach selection; (L4) Review of the initial selection; (L5) Using experiences for future decisions. In practice it turns out that complex projects – like Digital Twins - often fail. Modified decision models for selecting suitable approaches should therefore take the following as-pects into account: (a) decision-makers are actively supported in the initial decision phase; (b) initial decisions once made are checked in the early phase of the project and corrected if necessary; (c) the lessons learned are recorded in the database as empirical value and used for future decisions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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