Alliances et partenariats en développement de systèmes d'information: des états transitoires?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Le contexte d'affaires compétitif oblige désormais les entreprises à se procurer leurs systèmes d'information d'une façon efficiente. Forcées d'arbitrer entre « faire » et « faire faire », elles doivent apprendre à choisir le mode d'approvisionnement qui convienne le mieux à leur condition. Une étude antérieure a permis de démontrer comment deux facteurs principaux, la valeur stratégique du futur système et la présence des ressources nécessaires pour sa réalisation, peuvent expliquer le choix du mode d'approvisionnement retenu. Parmi les modes possibles, les alliances avec des rivaux et les partenariats technologiques semblent conduire à un état transitoire. Portant sur une étude de cinq cas étalée sur cinq ans, cette étude permet d'illustrer les forces en présence qui expliquent leur évolution vers un mode d'approvisionnement plus stable. Abstract The relentless competitive context forces companies to acquire their information systems in the most efficient way. Confronted with the choice of in-house development or outsourcing, they must learn to choose an appropriate sourcing mode in relation to their specific circumstances. An earlier study has identified how two principal factors, the strategic value of the future system and the presence of the necessary resources for its realization, can explain the choice of the selected sourcing mode. Among the possible modes, alliances with rivals and technological partnerships with external suppliers appear to be transitory states. Based on data from five case studies over five years, this study describes the forces at work which may account for the evolution of such projects towards a more stable sourcing mode.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; 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".