A socio‐technical framework for quality assessment of computer information systems
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
The emergence of total quality management and the ISO 9000 suite of standards has allowed a re‐think of how (and why) the post‐implementation evaluation of computer systems is to be carried out. Traditional performance measurement, modeling and analysis techniques – while not discredited – have been tempered with a more holistic ideology. This article recommends a socio‐technical approach to determining the quality of a computer information system. In this context, two postulates have been proposed and tested by field survey of expert systems in the insurance industry in North America. Postulate one focuses on a multidimensional concept of IS quality comprising the characteristics of task, technology, people and organization. Postulate two deals with differences in assessments of these characteristics according to stakeholder groups: managers, developers, and users. Summarizes the key findings of these postulates in the context of the TQM and ISO 9000 philosophies.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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