TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE USE OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT–ORIENTED DIGITAL COLLABORATION TOOLS AFFECT DELIVERY TIMELINES IN REMOTE TECH TEAMS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the impact of project management–oriented digital collaboration tools—specifically Asana, Trello, and Jira—on project delivery timelines in remote technology teams, with a particular focus on mid-sized firms (50–500 employees). Leveraging an exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach grounded in a pragmatic paradigm, the research integrates qualitative thematic analysis of secondary case studies with quantitative survey data from remote team professionals. Drawing on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Task-Technology Fit (TTF) framework, the study examines how tool usage intensity, organizational support, tool integration, and communication efficiency influence project delivery outcomes. Findings suggest that higher levels of digital tool adoption are associated with reduced timeline deviations, particularly when communication is efficient and supported by structured onboarding and platform integration. The study identifies communication efficiency as a key mediating factor and underscores the moderating roles of organizational training and task-tool alignment. Regression analysis further confirms that tool usage alone is not sufficient—its impact is conditioned by contextual variables such as team size, project complexity, and geographic dispersion. By focusing on mid-sized tech firms, the study fills a critical gap in existing literature, which often generalizes findings across organizations of varying scale. The research contributes to theory by extending TAM and TTF to outcome-focused variables such as delivery timelines and offers practical insights for managers aiming to optimize remote workflows. It also holds significance for software developers, policymakers, and scholars interested in digital transformation, remote work, and agile project management.
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 | 0.071 |
| 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".