Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Welcome to this second issue of Volume 33. This issue marks the inaugural debut of our technical editor, Gina Green, who has done a marvelous job taking the manuscripts from the point of acceptance to the point of publication. A special thanks is in order for Gina and also for Carrolle Kamperman, who provided Gina some welcome assistance. In addition, Laurie Schatzberg helped make the transition as smooth as possible. Preparing a manuscript for publication is quite an arduous task that requires a keen attention to details. We appreciate the efforts of Gina, Carrolle and Laurie to bring this issue together.We are pleased to include three papers, each one of which offers compelling data on an important IT topic, including IT Evaluation, IT Sourcing, and IT Service Quality. The papers offer an international perspective, with one based upon a survey of IT executives predominantly from the United Kingdom, one based upon a case study of a Canadian firm, and one based upon survey responses from IT users in the United States.The first paper, "Measuring Organizational Effectiveness: An Overview and Update of Senior Management Perspectives," by Seddon, Graeser, and Willcocks, provides a scintillating look at the methods currently used by organizations to evaluate IT projects, to evaluate a specific IT, and to evaluate the IT function. Using responses from senior IT managers in the Europe and the US, the authors examine ten questions related to IT evaluation. This paper should be of interest to both researchers and practitioners. In addition, for those who frequently face such questions from MBA students as "how should an IT application be evaluated?" this paper is a gem. One of the insights of the paper, is that the increased use of outsourcing has led to increased rigor of IT evaluation. This leads us nicely to the second paper in this issue.In "A Resource-Based Analysis of IT Sourcing," Roy and Aubert examine the relationship between the sourcing mode for IS, the value of the resources used in systems development activities, and the presence of the resources within the firm. The authors provide a framework based on the resource-based theory of the firm that helps explain when outsourcing is a desirable option versus when internal governance or partnerships are appropriate. The authors describe the case of Desjardins-Laurentian. The company tried two suppliers, experienced two failures, and eventually settled on internal governance and later, a partnership with a third supplie.The third paper in this issue, "Sources of Dissatisfaction in End-User Support: An Empirical Study" by Shaw, DeLone, and Niederman, explores the end-user support factors that correlate with user satisfaction. A unique aspect of this paper is that it divides end-users into various groups and offers a separate analysis of satisfaction for each group. Measuring service quality as the gap between perceived importance and performance for each support factor, the authors found that service quality gaps and user satisfaction vary across groups. The groups they considered were: faculty, non-IS staff, and students. Knowledge of the inter-relationships among group membership and factors influencing satisfaction can be useful in allocation decisions in the area of end-user support.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,435 | 0,377 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».