A Model of Effective IT Governance for Collaborative Networked Organizations
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
Inter-organizational collaboration based on the use of IT systems is now essential for organizations working as Collaborative Networked Organizations (CNOs). However, little research has been done to examine the critical success factors involved in shared IT governance among members of a CNO. Accordingly, this research develops a model of inter-organizational IT-governance composed of critical success factors (CSFs) and key performance indicators. The study defines fourteen CSFs that are classified under the main four categories of IT governance, which include strategic alignment, resource management, value delivery and risk management, and performance measurement. In addition, the study identifies key performance indicators that measure the CSFs and evaluate the effectiveness of how partners work together in joint processes for a common goal. The main dimensions of the KPIs include consensus, alignment, accountability, trust, involvement and transparency. The model was validated by gathering feedback from participants in a healthcare on the importance of the CSFs and performance indicators. The findings confirm the importance of the CSFs but suggest that they could be ranked in order of criticality. In addition, certain CSFs were re-defined based on the experience of CNO participants and questions were raised related to the context of the CNO, which influences participant perceptions, as well as the degree of formalization noted in the CNO.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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