MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1601455536 · doi:10.1108/14637150410518310

Best practices in e‐business process management

2004· article· en· W1601455536 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBusiness Process Management Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Process Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness process managementBusiness processComputer scienceProcess (computing)Process managementParallelsCornerstoneThe InternetWork (physics)Business process modelingKnowledge managementArtifact-centric business process modelBusinessWork in processOperations managementWorld Wide WebMarketingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In formulating e‐business strategies enabled by the Internet and WWW, parallels can be drawn from the viewpoint on process enabled by desktop and centralized computing in the 1990s, and that of present day. In this paper, the cornerstone of 1990s thinking on process, Hammer and Champy's nine best practices, are analyzed to apply for e‐business process management (e‐process management). For instance, Hammer and Champy's first principle is re‐stated as “[o]rganize around business rules (some combined tasks can be performed by stakeholders using interfaces accessed via the WWW)”. One finding is that checks and controls may not need to be reduced – as Hammer and Champy espouse – if they are perceived as valuable and can be performed inexpensively using Internet technologies. This work evolves the traditional re‐engineering framework to use in current e‐business realities; it can be applied to formulate e‐business strategies that are rooted in more traditional, and vetted, management thinking.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it