Board-level IT governance and organizational performance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on the strategic management of Information Technology (IT) resources has mostly focused on the oversight provided by the management team as a means to increase organizational performance. In recent years, boards of directors have also increased their involvement in IT matters, and various theoretical lenses suggest that this oversight too has the potential to influence organizational performance. Hence, this study synthesizes the resource-based and contingency views of MIS with corporate governance theories, and examines key antecedents and consequences of board-level IT governance (ITG) using a multi-method approach. Structural Equation Modelling analysis applied to organization-level data collected from 171 board members suggested that the level of ITG exercised by boards was contingent upon the organization's ‘IT use mode’, along the two dimensions of need for (a) fast and reliable IT, and (b) new innovative IT. But, the findings further suggested that the contingency approach may be suboptimal because it can cause new ways of leveraging IT to be ignored. High levels of board-level ITG, regardless of existing IT needs, increased organizational performance. This phenomenon was illuminated with applicability checks. Moreover, content analysis and structured interviews with board members further enriched these insights.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it