MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W179508747 · doi:10.17705/1cais.02732

Developments in Practice XXXVII: Total Cost of Ownership

2010· article· en· W179508747 on OpenAlexaff
James D. McKeen, Heather A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications of the Association for Information Systems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal cost of ownershipImplementationCorporate governanceBusinessFocus groupTotal costOperations managementProcess managementMarketingFinanceComputer scienceAccountingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) advocates for a holistic view of IT costs across the enterprise over time, grouped into a series of direct and indirect cost elements. Knowing the full costs allows organizations to make optimal decisions regarding the enhancement, retirement, renewal, and/or replacement of critical IT assets. The authors convened a focus group of senior IT managers who were asked to describe their firm’s adoption of TCO, TCO processes, tools to assist with TCO implementations, the effectiveness of these tools, and the governance practices which guide their TCO processes. The group concluded that TCO, despite facing significant implementation challenges, remains a concept worth pursuing. This article reviews current literature, summarizes the focus group discussion, and offers practical guidance for those IT managers considering adopting TCO.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0110.007
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicInformation Technology Governance and StrategyFrench-language works237,207