ON MEASURING AND SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF PROCESS- ORIENTATION: A LITERATURE SYNTHESIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the early 1990s the concept of business process-orientation attracted the interest of many researchers and practitioners. Many companies started to realize the benefits associated with implementing process-oriented structure. For example, IBM conducted a review of its business processes and realized that the majority of its corporate customers were increasingly operating on a global basis. Therefore, IBM started to standardize its business processes, and initiated a common business process approach for all its day to day activities. The benefits have been astonishing, with a 75% reduction in the average time to market for new products, a rapid increase in on time deliveries and customer satisfaction, and cost savings of over 9 billion dollars. There is increasing evidence from this and many other successful companies that an exceptional competitive advantage results when a firm combines its organization’s assets and skills (e.g., marketing capabilities, innovation) with process-orientation (McCormack, 2002).
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 | 0.046 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.066 | 0.054 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".