Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This paper is aimed at shedding some light on the issue of the contribution of ERP systems to the coordination of the activities of the enterprise, an issue which has not been empirically studied very much to date. Design/methodology/approach Exploratory research has been conducted in a Canadian mail and parcel delivery enterprise on this theme of the contribution of ERP systems to the coordination of activities. The system studied was the R/3 system developed by the firm SAP. Some 16 different work situations, in and between four basic units of the company, were investigated in an ethnographic way. Findings Various contributions (real or potential) to the coordination of activities were detected for the R/3 system studied. The contribution of R/3 was not, however, systematic. In addition, this contribution was diverse in nature and quite variable in intensity. Research limitations/implications The results of this research, which was to be exploratory, are not definitive. Other research will be necessary, notably to specify the range of the possible types of contribution in regard to the various work situations that may exist in enterprises. Practical implications This research confirms the idea that ERP systems can contribute to the coordination of activities in the enterprise. The devices and mechanisms of an organizational nature are definitively not the only means that permit coordination in the enterprise. Originality/value This paper will make it possible for managers and researchers to better understand the role that ERP systems can play in the coordination and integration of the enterprise.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".