MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288391601 · doi:10.4018/ijbir.305240

Business Intelligence Adoption and Implementation Risk in SMEs

2022· article· en· W4288391601 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

VenueInternational Journal of Business Intelligence Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness intelligenceProcess (computing)Order (exchange)Risk managementProcess managementKnowledge managementBusinessSmall and medium-sized enterprisesComputer scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Business Intelligence – BI systems are increasingly accessible to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Like all Information Systems (IS), their implementation is very risky by nature. Several scholars underscore that IS risk management is more effective when initiated earlier in the system life cycle, as early as at the adoption. The objective of this research is to describe and understand the process of BI adoption in SMEs focusing on the management of implementation risk of from the adoption stage using an interpretive holistic single-case study of a small manufacturing firm in Tunisia in Africa that successfully adopted a BI system. Consistent with previous research, the study shows that in order to manage the implementation risk during the adoption stage, SMEs can proceed in a way that is more efficient for them that is rather intuitive, informal and unstructured, which is, however, explicitly based on an architecture of principles, policies and practices. The main limitation of the study is related to the qualitative single case study design.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.285 · 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