Strategic information systems planning model for building flexibility and success
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 This paper provides a model for IS planning for building flexibility and success, by considering volatile environment and the possibilities for leveraging the user's cognitive capabilities. Design/methodology/approach A review of existing IS planning models is given to identify the shortcomings in building flexibility and success. A model is evolved by hypothesizing user involvement in IS planning leads to IS flexibility; and flexibility in IS enables organizational flexibility and IS success. The control variables were considered at the user, IS, and organizational levels. The proposed model was examined by a questionnaire survey, in which 296 users and planners from 42 organizations participated. Findings The study results validated the proposed model that IS success and organizational flexibility could be achieved through IS flexibility, which could be generated by involving users in IS planning. Also, the study results have shown that user expectations, perceived personal usefulness, and users' internal flexibility possess a high driver power for user involvement. Research limitations/implications The variables included in the model are not exhaustive, and the validity of the model has not been tested in a real life situation. Originality/value This paper explains the ways of collaborating with users and top management to plan a flexible IS by studying the impending changes in the environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| 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