The role of life cycle concepts in the assessment of interorganizational alignment
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 aims to investigate the alignment between the information‐processing needs and capabilities during interorganizational relationships through the lenses of both the product and the business relationships life cycle concepts, and the types of information exchanged. Design/methodology/approach This paper follows up on a previous empirical study conducted in the automotive sector, investigating the electronic collaboration within the supply chain of a large European Automotive Supplier (EAS). Out of the 61 respondents from this previous study, four illustrative cases are selected to further investigate their information alignment, where each case involves one specific relationship between EAS and its business partners based on the supply chain collaboration classification provided by the German Association of the Automotive Industry (VDA). Findings The conclusion is that the phenomenon is bimodal and requires that the different information‐processing needs and capabilities associated with each stage of both the product and the business relationships life cycles should be considered. Research limitations/implications The small number of illustrative cases and the specificity of the chosen sector limit the generalizability of the results. Without considering the various types of information‐processing needs and capabilities as well as the stage of both product and business relationships life cycles, a biased conclusion could lead to inappropriate information and communication technology investments and business decisions. Originality/value The richness of the cases and the genuine integration of the life cycle concepts and the type of information with the notion of alignment help to identify some key aspects of interorganizational relationships.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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