Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Communication strategy during the management of change has been one success factor widely cited in the literature. However, despite its recognition within the enterprise resource planning (ERP) domain, there has been little regard for stakeholder perspective and even less for practical suggestions regarding communication planning. Design/methodology/approach This mixed‐method research investigated the ERP implementation process from the perspective of four key stakeholder groups and generated greater understanding of their differing views on communication effectiveness and preferred communications strategies during the management of change process. Findings The findings of this study revealed that stakeholders differ, significantly in some respects, in how each group believes certain aspects of the project should be handled, from a tactical communication standpoint. Research limitations/implications The research is based on a single case study, which adds caution to the generalizability of the results. Further, the survey sample was self‐selected and not random. Practical implications This paper has made a significant contribution in terms of understanding differing perspectives regarding communication strategies during change. Particularly, we have learned how each group believes certain aspects of the project should be handled, from a tactical standpoint. Originality/value The lack of case studies addressing practical challenges has already been identified as a gap in the literature. Further, with a stakeholder perspective combined, this research has revealed another element, which is that the management of ERP projects is not as simple as a “one size fits all” strategy.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".