Exploring the Impact of Agile Project Management on Cost and Project Performance on Construction Engineering in Iraq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper examines the significant impact agile project management (APM) has had on the time and cost spent on building engineering projects in Iraq.Using the results of a large-scale study, we look into how different measures of project efficacy are linked to APM's prevalence and success.The findings demonstrate the significance of APM in boosting project results.The research shows that there is a substantial connection between APM Effect and Overall Outcomes, with a robust positive correlation of 0.79.This study indicates that the quality of project outcomes significantly improves as the perceived value of APM in project management rises.In addition, the positive correlations between APM Effect and other important criteria like Cost prediction Accuracy (0.72) and Reducing Delays (0.68) highlight the fact that APM is closely connected with improved project cost prediction and a reduction in project delays.As a result, the efficiency of the project improves.Altogether, our results illuminate the significant benefits of implementing APM practices in building engineering projects in Iraq.The potential for APM to move forward venture comes about whereas bringing down costs is highlighted by these rising joins, highlighting the developing importance of APM in modern extend administration hones.The discoveries of this investigate give vital understanding into the work of APM within the setting of Iraqi development ventures.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".