BlackBerry in red China: Research in motion navigates institutional barriers in an emerging market. Case comment: RIM in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research in Motion's (RIM's) entry into the Chinese market during a time when many distractions —principally a patent dispute with NTP—occupied management's attention was not a foregone conclusion. China remained a difficult market to crack. One holdup was an impasse with regard to RIM's use of encryption technology and the Chinese authorities' desire to monitor e‐mail traffic and content. Here the technical and political concerns were entangled. To further complicate things, the entirety of RIM had until recently been preoccupied with the legal settlement with NTP in the United States. Issues in this study highlight real‐world dilemmas in a thriving firm. The founders are still in charge, and new markets present themselves regularly. A very real challenge is divided attentions. The standstill over market entry calls for integrative thinking—bringing together disparate and contradictory elements for resolution. RIM's way out will invariably involve embracing complex relationships in order to find a resolution to the various conflicting institutional forces. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".