MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2398462979

Architecting Enterprise Capabilities: Creating Dynamic Capabilities from IT and Software Architecture.

2014· article· en· W2398462979 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Hossein Danesh, Eric Yu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgile software developmentDynamic capabilitiesOrchestrationFlexibility (engineering)Software deploymentComputer scienceEnterprise architectureProcess managementSystems engineeringCompetitive advantageArchitectureKnowledge managementSoftware engineeringEngineeringBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In this fast-paced world, enterprises are facing increasing difficulties to sustain competitive advantage. The dynamic capability view (DCV) in stra-tegic management suggests that the ability to continuously create valuable and rare capabilities is the basis for competitiveness in rapidly changing environ-ments. Flexible information technology (IT) capabilities that are aligned to en-terprise capabilities and which can facilitate agile operation and decision mak-ing play a fundamental role in dynamic capabilities. In this paper we outline a vision of architecting enterprise capabilities building upon the i * modeling framework to facilitate design of more flexible and adaptive IT capabilities. We discuss how the proposed modeling framework facilitates reasoning on capabil-ity development, orchestration and deployment alternatives considering non-functional requirements with flexibility as a fundamental concern.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInformation Technology Governance and StrategyFrench-language works237,207