IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v71y2018icp22-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The project vita: A dynamic knowledge management tool

Author

Listed:
  • Wingate, Lori A.
  • Smith, Nick L.
  • Perk, Emma

Abstract

A project vita is a comprehensive index of factual information about a project’s activities and achievements. Like an individual’s professional curriculum vita or resume, it serves as evidence of past performance and capacity for future endeavors. This article situates the project vita as a knowledge management tool for use by large-scale research and development projects or coalitions. In such complex endeavors, the variety and scope of the knowledge generated can quickly outpace project staff attempts to collect, classify, disseminate, and support the effective use of the constant stream of information being produced. We describe how to develop a project vita and utilize it to support several essential project functions, including communication, evaluation, management, and as a portal to products.

Suggested Citation

  • Wingate, Lori A. & Smith, Nick L. & Perk, Emma, 2018. "The project vita: A dynamic knowledge management tool," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 22-27.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:71:y:2018:i:c:p:22-27
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.06.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718917302331
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.06.004?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ekboir, Javier & Blundo Canto, Genowefa & Sette, Cristina, 2017. "Knowing what research organizations actually do, with whom, where, how and for what purpose: Monitoring research portfolios and collaborations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 64-75.
    2. Pauley, P. Ann & Choban, M. C. & Yarbrough, J. Wade, 1982. "A systematic approach to increasing use of management-oriented program evaluation data," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 5(2), pages 123-131, January.
    3. Smith, Nick L. & Florini, Barbara M., 1993. "The project vita as a documentation and evaluation tool for large-scale research and development projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 49-53.
    4. Morell, Jonathan A., 1991. "Modernizing information systems: A comparison of scientific and technological research perspectives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 391-396, January.
    5. Tyndale, Peter, 2002. "A taxonomy of knowledge management software tools: origins and applications," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 183-190, May.
    6. Cohen, Stanley H. & Noah, James C. & Pauley, Ann, 1979. "New ways of looking at management information systems in human service delivery," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 49-57, January.
    7. Backer, Thomas E. & Attkisson, C. Clifford & Barry, John R. & Brock, Timothy C. & Davis, Howard R. & Kiresuk, Thomas J. & Kirkhart, Karen E. & Perloff, Robert & Windle, Charles, 1980. "Information resources for program evaluators," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 25-33, January.
    8. Patton, Michael Quinn & Horton, Douglas, 2008. "Utilization-focused evaluation for agricultural innovation," ILAC Briefs 52533, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    9. Yusa, Anna & Hynie, Michaela & Mitchell, Scott, 2016. "Utilization of internal evaluation results by community mental health organizations: Credibility in different forms," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 11-18.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ghasemi, Behzad & Khalijian, Sadaf & Daim, Tugrul U. & Mohammadipirlar, Ebrahim, 2021. "Knowledge management performance measurement based on World-Class Competitive Advantages to develop strategic-oriented projects: Case of Iranian oil industry," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    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. P. Ann Pauley & Stan Cohen, 1984. "Facilitating Data-Based Decision-Making," Evaluation Review, , vol. 8(2), pages 205-224, April.
    2. Bourgeois, Isabelle & Whynot, Jane, 2018. "The influence of evaluation recommendations on instrumental and conceptual uses: A preliminary analysis," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 13-18.
    3. Ruiz-Mercader, Josefa & Meroño-Cerdan, Angel Luis & Sabater-Sánchez, Ramón, 2006. "Information technology and learning: Their relationship and impact on organisational performance in small businesses," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 16-29.
    4. Lifshitz, Chen Chana, 2017. "Fostering employability among youth at-risk in a multi-cultural context: Insights from a pilot intervention program," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 20-34.
    5. LaVelle, John M. & Davies, Randall, 2021. "Seeking consensus: Defining foundational concepts for a graduate level introductory program evaluation course," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    6. Melz, Heidi & Fromknecht, Anne E. & Masters, Loren D. & Richards, Tammy & Sun, Jing, 2023. "Incorporating multiple data sources to assess changes in organizational capacity in child welfare systems," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    7. Metta, Matteo & Ciliberti, Stefano & Obi, Chinedu & Bartolini, Fabio & Klerkx, Laurens & Brunori, Gianluca, 2022. "An integrated socio-cyber-physical system framework to assess responsible digitalisation in agriculture: A first application with Living Labs in Europe," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    8. Arbour, Ghislain, 2020. "Teaching programme evaluation: A problem of knowledge," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. Jan Činčera & Grzegorz Mikusiński & Bohuslav Binka & Luis Calafate & Cristina Calheiros & Alexandra Cardoso & Marcus Hedblom & Michael Jones & Alex Koutsouris & Clara Vasconcelos & Katarzyna Iwińska, 2019. "Managing Diversity: The Challenges of Inter-University Cooperation in Sustainability Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-16, October.
    10. Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, 2014. "Taking stock of four decades of quantitative research on stakeholder participation and evaluation use: A systematic map," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 171-181.
    11. Panita Rachapaettayakom & Mongkolchai Wiriyapinit & Nagul Cooharojananone & Suparatana Tanthanongsakkun & Nuttirudee Charoenruk, 2020. "The need for financial knowledge acquisition tools and technology by small business entrepreneurs," Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 1-28, December.
    12. Picciotto, Robert, 2019. "Is evaluation obsolete in a post-truth world?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 88-96.
    13. Kupiec, Tomasz, 2022. "Does evaluation quality matter? Quantitative analysis of the use of evaluation findings in the field of cohesion policy in Poland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    14. Gullickson, Amy M. & King, Jean A. & LaVelle, John M. & Clinton, Janet M., 2019. "The current state of evaluator education: A situation analysis and call to action," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 20-30.
    15. Harman, Elena & Azzam, Tarek, 2018. "Incorporating public values into evaluative criteria: Using crowdsourcing to identify criteria and standards," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 68-82.
    16. Pleasant, Andrew & O’Leary, Catina & Carmona, Richard H., 2020. "Using formative research to tailor a community intervention focused on the prevention of chronic disease," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    17. Bean, Corliss N. & Kendellen, Kelsey & Halsall, Tanya & Forneris, Tanya, 2015. "Putting program evaluation into practice: Enhancing the Girls Just Wanna Have Fun program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 31-40.
    18. Purkus, Alexandra & Lüdtke, Jan, 2020. "A systemic evaluation framework for a multi-actor, forest-based bioeconomy governance process: The German Charter for Wood 2.0 as a case study," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    19. Nobre, Silvana Ribeiro & Borges, José Guilherme & Diaz-Balteiro, Luis & Rodriguez, Luiz Carlos Estraviz & von Glehn, Helena Carrascosa & Zakia, Maria José, 2019. "A generalizable monitoring model to implement policies to promote forest restoration – A case study in São Paulo - Brazil," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 123-135.
    20. Bundi, Pirmin, 2018. "Parliamentarians’ strategies for policy evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 130-138.

    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:eee:epplan:v:71:y:2018:i:c:p:22-27. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    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.