MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123348931 · doi:10.24251/hicss.2021.805

Barriers to the Implementation of AI in Organizations: Findings from a Delphi Study

2021· article· en· W3123348931 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

VenueProceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKnowledge managementDelphi methodDelphiExploratory researchComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Applications of artificial intelligenceData scienceProcess managementArtificial intelligenceBusinessSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence (AI), like many technological innovations before it, promises to revolutionize organizations. However, implementing AI in organizations is not as simple as it may appear. This exploratory research aims to unearth barriers to the implementation of AI in organizations. The methodology is based on a ranked-order Delphi study with 18 AI experts. By comparing our results with previous research on barriers to implementation of other information systems and to conceptual and practitioner literature on AI implementation, our findings underscore specific AI implementation challenges for organizations. Barriers to AI implementation fall under three main categories: (1) a lack of organizational capabilities related to data; (2) a lack of individual competencies related specifically to AI; and (3) generic implementation barriers previously observed in implementation research that persist with this innovation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0080.002
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.276 · 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