Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.038 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".