MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995389758 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v5n3p16

Towards the Business Federation in Top Management Consulting in Europe: The Role of Co-creation

2012· article· en· W1995389758 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carsten Martin Syvertsen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipDelegationBusinessFunction (biology)Empirical researchRussian federationIndustrial organizationMarketingEconomicsManagementFinanceEconomic policy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the business federation as a new organizational form. We illustrate how management consulting firms can achieve economic growth through operating locally within an international network. We use management consulting firms operating in Western Europe as our empirical setting. Within the business federation local offices gain access to resources through an extreme form of delegation as it is not top management that delegates to local offices but rather local units that give top management the permission to handle certain tasks because it is most efficient to do so. Using questionnaire as instrument, the article illustrates how the business federation is supposed to function through the use of five organizational design parameters. The research shows a support for the claim that firms that operate close to principles of the business federation achieve a stronger economic growth than other firms operating further away from the federation, using profits per partner as the criteria. Firms that started out from strategy consulting achieve a higher growth rate than other firms. The research contradicts claims found in the academic literature as alternatives to the partnership model supports economic growth.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicBusiness Strategy and InnovationFrench-language works237,207