Managing critical success factors for IS implementation: A stakeholder engagement and control perspective
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
Abstract Enterprise information systems (IS) implementation is often part of an organization's strategic IT initiatives and requires a large investment of organizational resources, yet may fail due to inadequate management of critical success factors (CSF). Using a revelatory case study of a multi‐partner COTS implementation process by a large Canadian government organization, this research investigates successful management of CSF through optimal stakeholder engagement and a balancing of control configurations. This research identifies four distinct project orientations related to stakeholder engagements—strategic, responsibility, harmony, and persuasion—that can be of significant value in managing CSF and other challenges during implementation and post‐implementation phases. In addition to the identification of a need for control balancing in a multi‐partner IS implementation, three key drivers responsible for triggering control balancing are identified: (a) shared understanding, (b) negative anticipation, and (c) deviation of expectations. Copyright © 2017 ASAC. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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