MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6982392472

The Impact of a Project Management Approach on Micro-Businesses in Achieving Strategic Goals

2024· article· en· W6982392472 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholars Crossing (Liberty University) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProject managementExtreme project managementProject management triangleProject planningStrategic planningKey (lock)Strategic managementProgram management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This flexible case study delves into the challenges micro-businesses in Ontario face, where the informal nature of operations and unique goal-setting processes are seen as obstacles to achieving strategic goals. Despite project management being proven to improve business success, many micro-businesses do not engage in formal processes. The research, employing a flexible case study methodology involving 15 micro-business founders in Ontario, explores the approaches used, differences in outcomes when goals are achieved versus not, and the role of project management in mitigating potential business failure. Analysis reveals five key themes, including lack of defined strategic goals, the unintentional use of an informal project management approach, and referrals and relationship building as an informal strategy for business sustainability. The findings provide an understanding of the dynamics at play in micro-businesses, offering practical implications for integrating systems into business planning and operations for sustained success. This study contributes valuable insights to micro-business owners, researchers, and project management professionals, emphasizing the importance of integrating informal project management processes into business operations for sustained success in the micro-business landscape.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholars Crossing (Liberty University)Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic StudiesFrench-language works237,207