MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400069818 · doi:10.1080/08956308.2024.2352690

Configuring Technology Resources and Organizational Practices for Innovation Success

2024· article· en· W4400069818 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

VenueResearch-Technology Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessKnowledge managementTechnology innovationProcess managementIndustrial organizationComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Overview: As novel technologies and organizational practices become available, innovation managers must identify and invest in those best suiting their needs. To ensure their firm’s innovativeness, innovation managers must integrate these new technologies and organizational practices into their resource portfolio and deploy them in combination with existing resources. In this article, we demonstrate the orchestration of technologies and practices that set the most innovative firms apart from less innovative. Using the fsQCA method, we found that high-performing firms configure their technological resources and organizational capabilities in bundles, whereas their less innovative counterparts are preoccupied with investing in technologies alone. Resource orchestration management is therefore a novel innovation management capability, which may accelerate a firm’s innovative capabilities. We offer practitioners managerial implications that emphasize the development of innovation managers’ resource orchestration capabilities.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.849

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.302 · 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