The Implementation of ERP Packages as a Mediation Process
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
This research has investigated the implementation of ERP as mediation process that is, as an interactive process developed between the organization’s members and external consultants. The adoption of a mediation lens helps identify how global and local skills have been combined in ERP projects, and how these different arrangements have affected the project results. Underlying our analysis were two main questions: (1) How do patterns of mediation emerge, and what kinds of elements influence their emergence? and (2) What kind of association can be established between patterns of mediation and project results? Our conclusions point towards certain drivers. The local firm’s position regarding the head office and the meaning attached to each project have directly influenced the way external consultants are perceived by the local firm’s members, and these perceptions influence team members’ and consultants’ roles. Team members’ and consultants’ roles, in turn, contribute to reinforcement or transformation of established mediation patterns.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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