IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v40y2023i3p460-487.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Understanding perceived influencers on project outcomes and quantifying disciplinary similarities in academic literature

Author

Listed:
  • Casey Eaton
  • Amanda Banks
  • Kristin Weger
  • Bryan Mesmer
  • Robert Moreland

Abstract

Modern systems rely on contributions from many disciplines, requiring a systems perspective when evaluating project outcomes. This investigation provides insight into categorizations of influencers on project outcomes across a range of disciplines and the challenges in categorizing perceived influencers on project outcomes when multiple disciplines are collaborating on a project. This research identifies 390 categorizations from 12 disciplines through systematic review, extracts over 4000 perceived influencers on project outcomes as metadata and analyses the categorizations with a focus on disciplinary similarities. The results of the meta‐analysis indicate that contents of categorizations of perceived influencers on project outcomes are diverse, both within and across disciplines, highlighting the significance of understanding the disciplinary contributions to project outcomes, in order to develop successful systems. Findings indicate that practising systems engineers need to consider the many perspectives that are entangled in the design of complex multidisciplinary systems into a holistic view of the system.

Suggested Citation

  • Casey Eaton & Amanda Banks & Kristin Weger & Bryan Mesmer & Robert Moreland, 2023. "Understanding perceived influencers on project outcomes and quantifying disciplinary similarities in academic literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(3), pages 460-487, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:40:y:2023:i:3:p:460-487
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2883
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2883
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2883?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin-Martin, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Harzing, Anne-Wil & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2017. "Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 152-163.
    2. Engwall, Mats, 2003. "No project is an island: linking projects to history and context," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5), pages 789-808, May.
    3. Joost C. F. Winter & Amir A. Zadpoor & Dimitra Dodou, 2014. "The expansion of Google Scholar versus Web of Science: a longitudinal study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 98(2), pages 1547-1565, February.
    4. Michael Gusenbauer, 2019. "Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 177-214, January.
    5. A. G. Hessami, 1999. "Risk management: A systems paradigm," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(3), pages 156-167.
    6. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 871-906, January.
    7. Martín-Martín, Alberto & Orduna-Malea, Enrique & Thelwall, Mike & Delgado López-Cózar, Emilio, 2018. "Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 1160-1177.
    8. Alberto Martín-Martín & Mike Thelwall & Enrique Orduna-Malea & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2021. "Correction to: Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 907-908, January.
    9. Nathan J. Slegers & Ronald T. Kadish & Gary E. Payton & John Thomas & Michael D. Griffin & Dan Dumbacher, 2012. "Learning from failure in systems engineering: A panel discussion," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 74-82, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Gusenbauer, 2022. "Search where you will find most: Comparing the disciplinary coverage of 56 bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2683-2745, May.
    2. Vivek Kumar Singh & Satya Swarup Srichandan & Hiran H. Lathabai, 2022. "ResearchGate and Google Scholar: how much do they differ in publications, citations and different metrics and why?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1515-1542, March.
    3. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    4. Gabriel Alves Vieira & Jacqueline Leta, 2024. "biblioverlap: an R package for document matching across bibliographic datasets," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4513-4527, July.
    5. Elena Andriollo & Alberto Caimo & Laura Secco & Elena Pisani, 2021. "Collaborations in Environmental Initiatives for an Effective “Adaptive Governance” of Social–Ecological Systems: What Existing Literature Suggests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-29, July.
    6. Ruben Tessmann & Ralf Elbert, 2022. "Multi-sided platforms in competitive B2B networks with varying governmental influence – a taxonomy of Port and Cargo Community System business models," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 32(2), pages 829-872, June.
    7. Maik Hesse & Timm Teubner, 2020. "Reputation portability – quo vadis?," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 30(2), pages 331-349, June.
    8. Steve J. Bickley & Ho Fai Chan & Benno Torgler, 2022. "Artificial intelligence in the field of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2055-2084, April.
    9. Michael Gusenbauer, 2019. "Google Scholar to overshadow them all? Comparing the sizes of 12 academic search engines and bibliographic databases," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 177-214, January.
    10. Momoka Nagasue & Haruka Kitagawa & Takashi Asawa & Tetsu Kubota, 2024. "A Systematic Review of Passive Cooling Methods in Hot and Humid Climates Using a Text Mining-Based Bibliometric Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-29, February.
    11. Patrick Ssekitoleko & Shepherd Dhliwayo, 2023. "Elevating South Africa’s Entrepreneurial Activity in the Fourth Industrial Revolution Era," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, August.
    12. Irina Gerasimov & Binita KC & Armin Mehrabian & James Acker & Michael P. McGuire, 2024. "Comparison of datasets citation coverage in Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Crossref, and DataCite," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 3681-3704, July.
    13. Gen-Chang Hsu & Wei-Jiun Lin & Syuan-Jyun Sun, 2023. "Temporal trends in academic performance and career duration of principal investigators in ecology and evolutionary biology in Taiwan," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3437-3451, June.
    14. Vivek Kumar Singh & Prashasti Singh & Mousumi Karmakar & Jacqueline Leta & Philipp Mayr, 2021. "The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5113-5142, June.
    15. Ramón A. Feenstra & Emilio Delgado López-Cózar, 2022. "Philosophers’ appraisals of bibliometric indicators and their use in evaluation: from recognition to knee-jerk rejection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 2085-2103, April.
    16. Weishu Liu & Meiting Huang & Haifeng Wang, 2021. "Same journal but different numbers of published records indexed in Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection: causes, consequences, and solutions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4541-4550, May.
    17. Rui Liang & Xichuan Zheng & Po-Hsun Wang & Jia Liang & Linhui Hu, 2023. "Research Progress of Carbon-Neutral Design for Buildings," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(16), pages 1-50, August.
    18. Mehdi Toloo & Rouhollah Khodabandelou & Amar Oukil, 2022. "A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Fractional Programming (1965–2020)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-21, May.
    19. Mike Thelwall, 2021. "Alternative medicines worth researching? Citation analyses of acupuncture, chiropractic, homeopathy, and osteopathy 1996–2017," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(10), pages 8731-8747, October.
    20. Sam Arts & Nicola Melluso & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2023. "Beyond Citations: Measuring Novel Scientific Ideas and their Impact in Publication Text," Papers 2309.16437, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2024.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:40:y:2023:i:3:p:460-487. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.