The impact of national culture on the meaning of information system success at the user level
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
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand how people from different national cultures; France, Canada and Germany, define and perceive information systems success. Design/methodology/approach This is exploratory research that used a grounded theory approach to analyze qualitative data that were collected using an open interview data collection technique. Grounded theory helps to develop new concepts and new theory. Findings The findings confirm the divergence thesis. The authors found that people from different national cultures define information systems differently. The authors developed models that groups information systems success as they are defined in France, Canada and Germany. Research limitations/implications There are many limitations in this research. First, the findings concern only one single multinational organization. The authors' aim was analytical and not statistical generalization. Second, although the number of respondents was sufficient to develop a partial theory, the authors could not meet with a larger number of people to get more insights. Practical implications There are many practical implications. Multinational organizations that seek to standardize their information systems need to be aware that the implementation as well as long term success of the standard system will not be homogenous. Moreover, the results of the study reveal that information quality and other systems based concepts are not defined the same way in all cultures. Finally, the study proposes a tool that would help the case organization measure IS success in these three cultures. Originality/value This study is unique in a sense that not only does it claim that culture does impact IS success, but it also goes a step further and defines what IS success is in different national cultures.
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 | 0.008 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it