The role of information technology (IT) performance in the relationship between high-performance work systems and competitive advantage
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
Human resources that are of high quality create a competitive advantage for companies, thus Human Resource Management (HRM) and High-Performance Work Systems (HPWS) that are good become key success factors that need to be considered by every company. This study aims to investigate the influence of Human Resource Management (HRM) and High-Performance Work Systems (HPWS) on Information Technology (IT) Performance and Competitive Advantage of a company. The method used in this study is a quantitative approach with a questionnaire as the data collection method. The research sample consisted of 191 supervisors, managers, and executives of manufacturing companies located in Medan, Indonesia. Data analysis was conducted using SmartPLS 4.0 software. The results showed that Human Resource Management significantly affects IT Performance but does not directly affect Competitive Advantage. Meanwhile, HPWS Capability does not affect IT Performance but significantly affects Competitive Advantage. IT Performance significantly affects Competitive Advantage. IT Performance also mediates the relationship between Human Resource Management and Competitive Advantage. However, it is not significant in mediating the relationship between HPWS Capability and Competitive Advantage. These findings underscore that Human Resource Management (HRM) and High-Performance Work Systems (HPWS) play pivotal roles in shaping Information Technology (IT) performance and competitive advantage within companies, thus impacting the overall success and sustainability of companies.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it