MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413220954 · doi:10.22260/ccc2025/0016

DELIVERABLE-DRIVEN AGILE MANAGEMENT: A NEW PARADIGM FOR EFFICIENT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT CONTROL

2025· article· en· W4413220954 on OpenAlexaff
Adel Francis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliverableAgile software developmentComputer scienceSystems engineeringProject managementControl (management)Process managementEngineering managementSoftware engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the field of construction project management, an approach focused on planned activities, such as the one commonly practiced using tools like MS-Project, often limits the flexibility and efficiency of managers.This article proposes a paradigm shift towards management that is centred on deliverables, work packages, and milestones, thus allowing for greater agility in decision-making while adhering to quality, budget, and time constraints.By emphasizing the evaluation of outcomes and performance rather than merely tracking activities, managers can better tailor their strategies to the realities on the ground.The integration of the Last Planner System principles and Lean Construction methodology is also recommended to enhance coordination and efficiency in construction projects.These approaches encourage collaborative planning and waste reduction, promoting smoother and quicker project execution.Furthermore, the use of earned value analysis is highlighted for a more accurate assessment of project performance.Rather than just comparing planned with actual figures, earned value analysis offers a more nuanced perspective by integrating the real added value of the work performed.Finally, the article emphasizes the importance of visual modelling, especially spatiotemporal ones, for project monitoring and management.These tools allow for a clearer and more intuitive visualization of work progress, thus facilitating informed decision-making by managers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207