A Triple Take on Information System Implementation
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
While researchers have used a variety of models to explain information system (IS) implementation outcomes, few have analyzed the same project or set of projects with different models looking for complementary explanations. Recognizing the multilevel nature of IS implementation, our study rises to this challenge by conducting an alternate template analysis of three cases of IS implementation in hospitals. First, we explain individual use, group resistance, and organizational adoption with models situated at the same level of analysis as each outcome. At the individual level, we use a model of cognitive absorption to explain individual system usage. At the group level, the political variant of interaction theory is used to explain group resistance to IS implementation. At the organizational level, we use organizational configurations to explain IS adoption in terms of emergence and routinization. We identify each model’s limits and prediction failures, and we show that using alternate models helps to remedy a model’s prediction failures and overcome its limits. Finally, we propose an alternate-template theory of IS implementation outcomes that takes into account all three levels of analysis, their respective outcomes, and the time dimension. This multilevel, longitudinal theory provides a better understanding of IS implementation and further elucidates what may initially have seemed to be contradictory results.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
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