MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2739676264 · doi:10.1080/08874417.2017.1334244

Business Intelligence Effectiveness and Corporate Performance Management: An Empirical Analysis

2017· article· en· W2739676264 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

VenueJournal of Computer Information Systems · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness intelligenceAmbiguityKnowledge managementBusiness analyticsBusinessField (mathematics)Value (mathematics)Process managementComputer scienceMarketingBusiness modelBusiness analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Business intelligence (BI) technologies have received much attention from both academics and practitioners, and the emerging field of business analytics (BA) is beginning to generate academic research. However, the impact of BI and the relative importance of BA on corporate performance management (CPM) have not yet been investigated. To address this gap, we modeled a CPM framework based on the Integrative model of IT business value and on information processing theory. Data were collected from a global survey of senior managers in 337 companies. Findings suggest that the more effective the BI implementation, the more effective the CPM-related planning and analytic practices. BI effectiveness is strongly related to BA, planning and to measurement. In contrast, BA effectiveness is strongly related to planning but less so to measurement. The study suggests that although both BI and BA contribute to corporate management practices, the information needs are different based on the level of uncertainty versus ambiguity characteristic of the management practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.475
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.016
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.227 · 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