National Culture and the Meaning of Information Systems Success
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information system (IS) success is still one of the most researched topics in the IS discipline, but most research on defining and measuring IS success was conducted in North America. As the world globalizes, multinational organizations consider information technology and IS as crucial and necessary tools to glue together all of their units. Moreover, IS standardization (i.e., the same IS implemented in all the units), particularly through enterprise systems (ERPs), has attracted these organizations because of the economic benefits standard applications can eventually yield to. However, researchers in the international management discipline have assessed that culture may be a major factor that influences organizational structure and management practices. Some researchers in the field of IS have also confirmed that national cultures do, indeed, have an impact on IS design and acceptance. As culture is defined as “a shared system of meaning,” the success of IS should hold different meanings in different cultures. We found only sparse research work on how people from different national cultures perceive, define and operationalize IS success. The objective of this chapter is twofold: first, discuss why organizations that intend to standardize IS in different cultures should consider culture as an important factor in the achievement of success and second, propose a comprehensive framework for future cross-national research on IS success in multinational organizations. After the introductory section, the four main components of the proposed framework and their interrelations are presented: IS success, culture, IS standardization, and IS built-in success assumptions. The chapter concludes with the presentation of the new framework.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it