Logo PTI
Polish Information Processing Society
Logo FedCSIS

Annals of Computer Science and Information Systems, Volume 21

Proceedings of the 2020 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems

Digital assets for project-based studies and data-driven project management

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15439/2020F94

Citation: Proceedings of the 2020 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems, M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (eds). ACSIS, Vol. 21, pages 591–594 ()

Full text

Abstract. Projects offer learning opportunities and digital data that can be analyzed through a multitude of theoretical lenses. They are key vehicles for economic and social action, and they are also a primary source of innovation, research, and organizational change. This research involves a survey of digital assets available through a project; specifically, it identifies sources of data that can be used for practicing data-driven, context-specific project management, or for project-based academic research. It identified four categories of data sources -- communications, reports/records, model representations, and computer systems -- and 48 digital assets. The list of digital assets can be inputs in the creation of project artifacts and sources for monitoring and controlling project activities and for sense-making in retrospectives or lessons learned. Moreover, this categorization is useful for decision support and artificial intelligence systems model development that requires real-world data.

References

  1. R. A. Lundin and A. Söderholm, "A theory of temporary organization," Scandinavian Journal of Management, vol. 11, no. pp. 437-455, 1995.
  2. N. Drouin, R. Müller, and S. Sankaran, Novel Approaches to Organizational Project Management Research: Translational and Transformational. Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press, 2013.
  3. C. Snider, J. A. Gopsill, S. L. Jones, L. Emanuel, and B. J. Hicks, "Engineering Project Health Management: A Computational Approach for Project Management Support Through Analytics of Digital Engineering Activity," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 325-336, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2018.2846400.
  4. A. Jensen, C. Thuesen, and J. Geraldi, "The Projectification of Everything: Projects as a Human Condition," Project Management Journal, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 21-34, Jun 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700303.
  5. R. A. Lundin, "Project Society: Paths and Challenges," Project Management Journal, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 7-15, Aug 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700402.
  6. J. Geraldi and J. Söderlund, "Project studies and engaged scholarship: Directions towards contextualized and reflexive research on projects," International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 767-797, 2016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-02-2016-0016.
  7. C. Besner and B. Hobbs, "An Empirical Identification of Project Management Toolsets and a Comparison Among Project Types," Project Management Journal, vol. 43, no. 5, pp. 24--46, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21292.
  8. H. K. Doloi, "Understanding stakeholders' perspective of cost estimation in project management," International Journal of Project Management, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 622-636, Jul 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.06.001.
  9. PMI, "A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) --Sixth Edition," Sixth Edition ed. Newtown Square, Pennsylvania, United States: Project Management Institute, Inc., 2017.
  10. APM, "APM Body of Knowledge 6th Edition," ed. Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom: Association for Project Management, 2012.
  11. ISO, "ISO 21500: 2012 Guidance on project management," vol. International Standards Organization, ed. Geneva, Switzerland, 2012.
  12. S. Duffield and S. J. Whitty, "Developing a systemic lessons learned knowledge model for organisational learning through projects," International Journal of Project Management, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 311-324, Feb 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.07.004.
  13. J. Whyte, "How Digital Information Transforms Project Delivery Models," Project Management Journal, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 177- 194, Apr 2019, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/8756972818823304.
  14. K. S. K. Chung and L. Crawford, "The Role of Social Networks Theory and Methodology for Project Stakeholder Management," Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 226, no. pp. 372- 380, Jul 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.06.201.
  15. L. Hossain and A. Wu, "Communications network centrality correlates to organisational coordination," International Journal of Project Management, vol. 27, no. 8, pp. 795-811, Nov 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.02.003.
  16. M. Takahashi, M. Indulska, and J. Steen, "Collaborative Research Project Networks," Project Management Journal, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 36-52, Aug 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/8756972818781630.
  17. L. L. Willems and M. Vanhoucke, "Classification of articles and journals on project control and earned value management," International Journal of Project Management, vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 1610-1634, Oct 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.06.003.
  18. H. R. Nemati, D. W. Todd, and P. D. Brown, "A hybrid intelligent system to facilitate information system project management activities," Project Management Journal, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 42- 52, Sep 2002, https://doi.org/10.1177%2F875697280203300306.
  19. P. Eskerod and M. Huemann, "Sustainable development and project stakeholder management: what standards say," International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 36-50, 2013, https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371311291017.
  20. S. Quinton and N. Reynolds, Understanding research in the digital age: Sage, 2018.