RePEc Click here to visit UConn Economics IDEAS

This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Top 5% Institutions and Economists in the Field of Project, Program & Portfolio Management, as of August 2008

These rankings take only into account institutions registered in EDIRC and authors registered with the RePEc Author Service and the institutions they claimed to be affiliated with. For Project, Program & Portfolio Management, these are 98 authors affiliated with 327 institutions.
For the worldwide rankings, see here: top 5% authors or top 5% economics institutions.
More rankings.
All authors classified in this field.
The rankings below are aggregate rankings from 31 different ranking methods, excluding worst and best method. See links above for details.
The data presented here is experimental. It is based on a limited sample of the research output in Economics and Finance. Only material catalogued in RePEc is considered. For any citation based criterion, only works that could be parsed by the CitEc project are considered. For any ranking of people, only those registered with the RePEc Author Service can be taken into account. And for rankings of institutions, only those listed in EDIRC and claimed as affiliation by the respective, registered authors can be measured. Thus, this list is by no means based on a complete sample. You can help making this more comprehensive by encouraging more publications to be listed (instructions) and more authors to register (form). For more details on the various rankings that are available as well for documentation, follow this link.

Top 5% institutions in the field of Project, Program & Portfolio Management

Please note that rankings can depend on the number of registered authors in the respective institutions. Subentities of ranked institutions do not increment the rank count and have their rank listed in parentheses. Register at the RePEc Author Service.

The scores of institutions in each field are determined by a weighted sum of all authors affiliated with the respective institutions. The weights are determined, for each author, by the proportion of all working papers announced in NEP that have also been announced in NEP-PPM (Project, Program & Portfolio Management).
RankScoreInstitution
11.38National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Cambridge
23.6Department of Economics, Oxford University, Oxford
33.74World Bank Group, Washington
44.53Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn
55.05Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge
(5)5.05Center for eBusiness, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Cambridge
(6)6.35Economics Research, World Bank Group, Washington
66.44Smeal College of Business Administration, Pennsylvania State University, State College
78.36Department of Economics, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley
89.87Economics Department, Yale University, New Haven
910.76Tinbergen Instituut, Amsterdam
1012.24Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), London
1112.99Department of Economics, University College London (UCL), University of London, London
1214.32Department of Economics, New York University, New York City
1314.33Department of Economics, University of Colorado, Boulder
(14)16.93Economic Growth Center, Economics Department, Yale University, New Haven
1417.99Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge
1519.19Department of Economics, University of Western Ontario, London
1621.81Economics Department, Georgetown University, Washington

Top 5% authors in the field of Project, Program & Portfolio Management

This ranking is based on registered authors only, and only those who are classified within this field. Authors can register at the RePEc Author Service.
RankScoreAuthor
1.1.78John Vickers
2.2.08Erik Brynjolfsson
3.2.32Abdullah Yavas
4.3.71Philip E. Graves

Credits:

We do our best, but we cannot exclude errors.