Comparing the Prioritization of ERP System Effectiveness Measures by Organizational Actors: A Focus on IT Professionals and Business Managers
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
Modern organizations adopt Enterprise Resource Planning systems (ERP) to integrate their organizational data resources into unified systems. Researchers tend to concentrate on ERP implementation issues with only a handful studying ERP system effectiveness or success in adopting organizations. In fact, none has studied how key organizational actors prioritize or rank relevant measures or items related to the effectiveness of such systems. This study is designed to fill this gap in research as it aims at investigating how two organizational stakeholder groups, i.e. information technology (IT) professionals and business managers prioritize relevant measures related to ERP systems effectiveness. Using surveys in two European countries with a good record of ERP adoption, the study collected data from 66 respondents in 44 diverse, private, industrial organizations. Prior literature suggests that differences exist between the two organizational groups regarding how each perceives organizational-IT issues. However, this study’s findings showed that no significant statistical differences exist between the two groups on the all the measures operationalized for ERP effectiveness assessment with the exception of one dimension: the Vendor/Consultant Quality. The implications of the finding for both practice and research are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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