MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Information Technology and Process Performance: An Empirical Investigation of the Interaction Between IT and Non‐IT Resources*

2008· article· en· W2138714646 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

VenueDecision Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPremiseKnowledge managementScope (computer science)Process (computing)Resource (disambiguation)Perspective (graphical)BusinessService (business)Business processComputer scienceTacit knowledgeInformation technologyWork (physics)Resource-based viewMarketingCompetitive advantageWork in process

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Drawing on the resource‐based view, we propose a configurational perspective of how information technology (IT) assets and capabilities affect firm performance. Our premise is that IT assets and IT managerial capabilities are components in organizational design, and as such, their impact can only be understood by taking into consideration the interactions between those IT assets and capabilities and other non‐IT components. We develop and test a model that assesses the impact of explicit and tacit IT resources by examining their interactions with two non‐IT resources (open communication and business work practices). Our analysis of data collected from a sample of firms in the third‐party logistics industry supports the proposed configurational perspective, showing that IT resources can either enhance (complement) or suppress (by substituting for) the effects of non‐IT resources on process performance. More specifically, we find evidence of complementarities between shared business–IT knowledge and business work practice and between the scope of IT applications and an open communication culture in affecting the performance of the customer‐service process; but there is evidence of substitutability between shared knowledge and open communications. For decision making, our results reinforce the need to account for all dimensions of possible interaction between IT and non‐IT resources when evaluating IT investments.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.261 · 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