MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121271331 · doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0555

Market Positioning by IT Service Vendors Through Imitation

2015· article· en· W3121271331 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

VenueInformation Systems Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBusiness Strategy and Innovation
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImitationService (business)ReferentSample (material)MarketingBusinessPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information technology (IT) services vendors operate in a highly competitive but also institutional environment that render their service-line offerings mutually observable. This suggests that imitation of rivals’ decisions can be an efficient means for IT vendors when reconfiguring their service-line offerings. To explore how such imitation unfolds in this sector, we estimate a series of logistic regression models of 116 IT vendors’ service-line choices over three time periods. First, from the strategic imitation literature we identify the key imitation “referents,” which is a group of firms or a single firm with specific traits, and we test the relative influence of each referent. All of our analysis includes these referents as predictors of service-line choice. Next, we tested more nuanced models using theoretically guided subsamples as follows. One, based on information systems (IS) literature, we consider the IT vendors as embedded in three distinct “institutional spheres,” each corresponding to a knowledge domain, namely, technical, functional, and vertical industry domains. We separately examine imitation in each subsample corresponding to the three types of service lines. Two, based on strategy literature, we consider that the influence of the imitation referents differs when the choice under consideration is the addition of a new service line versus a withdrawal. Our results across all of these subsamples uncover a nuanced pattern of imitation that sometimes contrasts the full-sample results. The most prominent result is that although imitation is highly salient, the different imitation referents are not universally influential across all knowledge domains and between development versus withdrawal decisions. Specifically, the imitation of similar firms is widespread, whereas the imitation of largest firms or offering popular service-lines, which indicates bandwagon effects, are at play only selectively. This study contributes to the IS literature by laying a basis for a variety of research directions including resource spillovers and vicarious learning in IT sectors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScholarly communication
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.014
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.003

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.206 · 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