Sorry, the World is not Flat: A Global View of Organizational Information Systems Issues
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
Information systems (IS) research paradigms, models, and findings are largely developed in the context of the U.S. and Western Europe; therefore, they are applicable primarily to the Western context and have limited relevance elsewhere. In response to this incomplete view and potential bias, the World Information Technology (IT) Project was launched more than five years ago to examine many topics, including the nature of organizational IS issues in various parts of the world. Using a common survey instrument, data were collected from IT employees in 37 countries. These 37 countries provide a good representation of the world as they exhibit different economic, cultural, political, religious, and regional differences. Results demonstrate the fallacy of the Western views and reveal that the globe does not always follow them. While there are a few common issues among the 37 countries, namely: IT reliability and efficiency, and security and privacy; more significantly, there are important differences. A cluster analysis of the country data corroborates the findings and divides countries into two groups: those with strategic issues and those with tactical and operational issues. Overall, the study underscores the importance of visioning beyond ethnocentric views and expanding our horizons to the global IT landscape. Particularly, business and IT executives need to address country and regional differences when pursuing international endeavors.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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