MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286436791 · doi:10.18280/isi.270312

Design of a Balanced Model for Evaluating the Outcomes of ERP Projects

2022· article· en· W4286436791 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueIngénierie des systèmes d information · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicERP Systems Implementation and Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBalanced scorecardProcess managementMeasure (data warehouse)BusinessKnowledge managementEmpirical researchComputer scienceData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims to design a balanced scorecard to measure the contribution of ERP systems to improving the multidimensional performance of companies from different perspectives (internal processes, customer, financial, learning & innovation). Then, the proposal of an ERP impact model (MI-ERP) which illustrates this contribution validated by empirical studies carried out in several large organizations. The analysis of the results shows that the companies studied have mainly benefited from the advantages of ERP in terms of improving overall performance (between 63% and 90%). This improvement is strongly manifested at the “Internal processes” level, more than on the other aspects of performance. The study further describes the situation of ERP in large organizations in Morocco.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.226 · 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