MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1873994663 · doi:10.5539/ijbm.v10n11p1

Knowledge Sharing Challenges during Post-Merger Integration: The Role of Boundary Spanners and of Organizational Identity

2015· article· en· W1873994663 on OpenAlexaff
Dragos Vieru, Suzanne Rivard

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Business and Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalUniversité du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMerge (version control)Knowledge managementKnowledge sharingOrganizational identityIdentity (music)Boundary (topology)Computer sciencePsychologySociologyEpistemologyBusinessSocial psychologyOrganizational commitmentMathematicsInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>When organizations merge, information systems (IS) need to be integrated to span the demarcations between the previously independent entities, be to bridge the pre-merger ISs or as new, single IS. Although research stresses the important role played by ISs in support of the combined organizations, there is a paucity of studies on the process of IS integration. Grounded in the practice perspective of knowledge and on the concept of organizational identity, we first propose a conceptual framework that conjectures about effective knowledge sharing processes, boundary objects and the role that boundary spanners are expected to play if they are to be effective. Then, we assess the relational dynamics suggested by our framework in four existing case studies from the academic literature that present rich post-merger IS integration data.</p>

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.358

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Business and ManagementSame topicInnovation and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207