MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2522858204 · doi:10.1108/sd-05-2016-0074

Designing future enterprises: aligning enterprise design with business strategy

2016· article· en· W2522858204 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

VenueStrategic Direction · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCollaboration in agile enterprises
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStandardizationOriginalityConsolidation (business)Process managementIdentification (biology)Knowledge managementContext (archaeology)Strategic managementComputer scienceEnterprise architectureBusinessMarketingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose This paper aims to review the misalignment between enterprise design and its business strategy and suggests three principles to eliminate the misalignment. Design/methodology/approach This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context. Findings Three principles – Common Identification and Consolidation, Collaboration and Standardization – are suggested to align enterprise design with its business strategy. Practical implications This paper provides strategic insights that can have influence some of the world’s leading enterprises. Irrespective of the technology, the suggested three principles can be applied to any enterprise to gain interconnectedness, resiliency and efficiency. Originality/value The paper provides valuable information in a very concise and easy-to-understand format thus saving executives hours of browsing and reading time.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.203 · 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