Assessing the impact of customer knowledge management on organizational performance
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
This study aims to discover how customer knowledge management (CKM) enhances organizational performance. For this purpose, a process‐oriented framework is developed to examine the relationship among organizational knowledge infrastructure, CKM processes, CKM capabilities, and organizational performance. Organizational knowledge infrastructure includes both “customer relationship management infrastructure” and “knowledge management infrastructures.” The balanced scorecard dimensions are used for measuring organizational performance. Based on process‐oriented approach, infrastructures enhance CKM capabilities through CKM processes and consequently improve firm performance. The research framework is evaluated by a questionnaire survey in 51 software companies in Iran. The empirical work indicated that constructed measures demonstrate the key psychometric properties including reliability and validity. The findings also demonstrate mediating role of CKM processes and CKM capabilities on the relationship between CKM and organizational performance. It means that firms with improved CKM process capabilities enjoy better organizational performance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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