Social Learning in Information Technology Investment: The Role of Board Interlocks
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
We use a social learning perspective to extend our understanding of information technology (IT) investment and return. Specifically, we investigate social learning in the context of interlocks between corporate boards, which allow firms to share knowledge and experiences with respect to their IT investments. Using a large data set of firm-years from 2001–2008, we find (a) a positive relationship exists between a focal firm’s IT investment and that of its interlocked firms; (b) this positive relationship is amplified by the interlocked firms’ IT capability but only if the focal firm has an active board, which devotes time to allow sufficient communication among directors; and (c) the component of the focal firm’s IT investment that is attributable to board interlock influence is positively related to the firm’s performance but only if the firm has an active board. Collectively, these findings support our central thesis: social learning through board interlocks can play a significant role in influencing a firm’s IT investments and enhancing their payoff. That said, attaining such benefits requires boards to incorporate those firms with high IT management capability and to strengthen board activity so interlocked members can substantively share their knowledge and experiences with IT investments. This paper was accepted by Anandhi Bharadwaj, information systems.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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