MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405397884 · doi:10.5267/j.jpm.2024.10.001

Influence of information technology on project risk management: The mediating role of risk identification

2024· article· en· W4405397884 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qais Hammouri, Mohammad Alfraheed, Belal Mahmoud AlWadi, Amani Osman Sulieman Abdelrahman, Priti Mishra, Kais Khrouf, Mohamad Ahmad Saleem Khasawneh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Project Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicConstruction Project Management and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Khalid University
KeywordsIdentification (biology)Risk managementRisk analysis (engineering)Knowledge managementBusinessProcess managementComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the critical role of information technology integration in enhancing project risk management, specifically examining the mediating effect of risk identification effectiveness. Based on a quantitative approach, the study collected data from 173 respondents working in the construction, engineering, and telecommunication sectors using a comprehensive questionnaire. We employed Smart PLS-SEM for data analysis to test the study hypotheses. Our findings reveal that IT integration significantly and positively influences both risk identification effectiveness and overall project risk management. Importantly, the study confirms the mediating role of risk identification effectiveness, indicating that IT's contribution to successful project risk management is significantly enhanced when it empowers teams to identify potential risks early and accurately. These findings indicate the strategic importance for organizations in these sectors to prioritize investments in IT solutions that not only streamline project management processes but also specifically enhance risk identification capabilities. Discussion and conclusion were depicted at the end of work.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Project ManagementSame topicConstruction Project Management and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207