Distributed IT championing: A process theory
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
Championing is key to the success of an IT implementation. Recently, changes in the nature of technologies used in organizational contexts and changing organizational structures call for a renewed focus on IT championing to explain its distributed nature. Following an analytic induction approach and drawing from semi-structured interviews with 37 practitioners (physicians, residents, nurses, IT staff, and administrators) in three healthcare-related settings, the study conceptualizes distributed IT championing as a process constituted of multiple individuals’ behaviors, unfolding over time, that proactively go beyond formal job requirements in support of an IT implementation. While multiple individuals may enact similar championing behaviors, the data indicate that multiple individuals may also enact distinct, yet complementary, championing behaviors over the course of the IT implementation. Overall, distributed IT championing evolves through cycles of distinct stages of bridging-in, bonding, and bridging-out, with each stage being shaped by different dimensions of social capital. Also, IT artifacts that are particularly generative appear more conducive to distributed IT championing than closed ones. This article contributes to extant literature on IT championing by developing a process model of distributed IT championing in the context of an IT implementation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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