Agile governance theory: a multi-scenario empirical assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Agile Governance Theory (AGT) has emerged as a potential model for organizational chains of responsibility across business units and teams. Objective: This study aims to assess how AGT is reflected in practice. Method: AGT was operationalized down into 16 testable hypotheses. All hypotheses were tested by arranging eight theoretical scenarios with 118 practitioners from 86 organizations and 19 countries who completed an in-depth explanatory scenario-based survey. The feedback results were analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Results: The analyses supported key theory components and hypotheses, such as mediation between agile capabilities and business operations, through governance capabilities. Conclusion: This study supports the theory and suggests that AGT can assist teams in gaining a better understanding of their organization’s governance in an agile context. A better understanding can help remove delays and misunderstandings that can come about with unclear decision-making channels, which can jeopardize the fulfillment of the overall strategy.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".