MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117642248 · doi:10.1109/icre.2003.1232736

Lessons learnt from five years of experience in ERP requirements engineering

2004· article· en· W2117642248 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Lightwave Technology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicERP Systems Implementation and Impact
Canadian institutionsTelus (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnterprise resource planningDocumentationComputer scienceProcess managementProcess (computing)Requirements engineeringBusiness processEngineering managementSoftware engineeringKnowledge managementEngineeringWork in processOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Generic off-the-shelf requirements engineering (RE) processes have been packaged by enterprise resource planning (ERP) vendors since 1997, and adopted by client organizations as the key strategy for getting the business requirements and the conceptual design for their complex solutions. We summarize one company's five years of experience in making a generic ERP RE model a live process. It rests on previously published ERP RE process assessment results and reports on what we learnt with particular focus on typical issues organizations face when adopting a standard model and solutions that can be used to avoid those issues in the future. Each of our lessons is described together with a RE practice, technical foundation for the practice and engineering techniques for the RE practitioner. The lessons were used to refine our corporate documentation model, a process-focused and template-based ERP-architecture framework.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it