La performance organisationnelle mesurée de manière globale et partagée : leçons tirées d'un échec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article étudie le cas d’une PME faisant face à une divergence de visions relativement à la mesure de la performance et à son suivi par les différentes fonctions opérationnelles et de support. Les acteurs de la fonction marketing ont résisté à la mise en place d’un outil de mesure de la performance élaboré par la fonction contrôle de gestion en continuant à se servir de leurs propres outils. L’utilisation de ces outils de substitution a conduit à des décisions stratégiques erronées, au détriment de la cohérence globale de l’entreprise. Afin d’éviter l’évolution à plusieurs vitesses de l’organisation, des recommandations sont formulées aux gestionnaires de l’entreprise pour que les différentes fonctions adoptent des mesures de suivi donnant une image globale, complète et partagée de la performance.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".