MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753182097 · doi:10.4018/ijitbag.2017070103

The Role of Culture in IT Governance Five Focus Areas

2017· article· en· W2753182097 on OpenAlexaff
Parisa Aasi, Lazar Rusu, Dragos Vieru

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on IT/Business Alignment and Governance · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsUniversité TÉLUQ
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceInformation governanceOrganizational cultureFocus (optics)Political scienceField (mathematics)BusinessResource (disambiguation)Public relationsKnowledge managementInformation systemManagement information systemsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information technology governance (ITG) is one of the top challenges of managers today and culture in different level can have an important role while implementing IT governance. This is a new and significant issue, which has not been investigated deeply. This paper sets out to provide a systematic review of the literature, focusing on the role of culture in IT governance. The literature review findings are categorized through the lens of IT governance's five focus areas which are IT strategic alignment, IT value delivery, Risk management, IT resource management and Performance measurement. This study contributes to the field of IT governance by reviewing and discussing the existing literature on the role of culture on IT governance. This literature review resulted that there are few research studies in this topic and many of the IT governance focus areas are not covered regarding the role of culture in these IT governance areas.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal on IT/Business Alignment and GovernanceSame topicInformation Technology Governance and StrategyFrench-language works237,207