Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the antecedents and implications of aligning the organizational values embedded in a systems development approach (e.g. agile) with the organizational values of project team members. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative case study approach is used to examine systems development project teams at three organizations, each using a development approach that incorporates different organizational value dimensions. Interviews were conducted with developers, systems analysts, and managers regarding their systems development experiences. A structured coding of the interview transcripts was then completed to enable analysis of value dimensions. Findings By comparing the dominant values between the project teams and their development approach, varying degrees of alignment were identified. Where alignment is high, perceptions of the systems development process are associated with satisfaction and enthusiasm; where alignment is low, perceptions focus on frustration and discontent. Research limitations/implications Based on the study's findings, four propositions pertaining to the antecedents and implications of IS values alignment are outlined for examination in future research. Practical implications The findings from this study can aid managers who are considering the use of a new systems development approach or evaluating the effectiveness of their current approach. By determining the degree of information systems (IS) values alignment, organizations may be able to customize their development approach to be more consistent with the team's values, in order to minimize negative development process perceptions and increase project performance. Originality/value This research extends past studies of organizational values and alignment by introducing the concept of IS values alignment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".