ArticleHeliyon2024
The knowledge and holistic management indicators to measure the sustainability of area-based infrastructure project (AIP).
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For determining the effectiveness of area-based infrastructure management, a comprehensive measurement to implement and develop an infrastructure project would need to be integrated in holistic and knowledge management. The main objective of this study was to identify the keys to measurement the sustainability of area-based infrastructure project (AIP) management. First, the key performance indicators were reviewed and selected. Next, the interviews with project developers and managers of the pilot site were conducted to investigate the real context of significant keys. The discussion with five experts who have relevant experience in area-based infrastructure projects management then arose to validate possible key performance indicators. Based on the expert comments, the questionnaire was revised for its validity and clarity. Then, the data collection using a questionnaire was sent out to representative samples across Thailand. Later, there was the analysis to interpret the survey results. The results revealed that there are two groups of keys to measure the sustainability of AIP management. One was the "Holistic Management (HM)", which consisted of seventeen components. The other was the "Knowledge Management (KM)", which involved six similarity items. It was found that the aforementioned factors can explain 70.024% of the total cumulative variance in the entire datasets compiled for the assessment of keys to measurement the sustainability of AIP management. The main outcomes from this study can be beneficial for the development of effective and good governance strategies for achieving sustainability patterns of area-based infrastructure project management. This theory offers the understanding of how the effectiveness of key measurement of AIP management can drive sustainable development project s, which can help in project manager and developer research on identity-related transitions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.