MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409839684 · doi:10.1016/j.msj.2025.100005

A market management approach to transformative business operations

2024· article· en· W4409839684 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Kotler

Bibliographic record

VenueMarketing Strategy Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicFinancial Reporting and Valuation Research
Canadian institutionsKellogg's (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningBusinessProcess managementSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How are new-age technologies transforming business operations? Why does it matter? The article suggests that a market management approach is conducive to understanding how new-age technologies can transform business operations. In this regard, the article defines market management approach as a holistic framework for managing transformative business operations that emphasizes the integration of emerging technologies with an organization’s operational processes. In this regard, the concept of transformative business operations is introduced and defined as the transformation of organizational systems, resources, and processes using new-age technologies to improve business functions that can generate superior value offerings to all stakeholders . The proposed transformative business operations approach identifies three triggers—the tension of uncertainty, adaptive capabilities, and operational elasticity—that drive the unique and synergistic impacts of these technologies. These triggers result in transformative changes through (a) foundational shifts in organizations, (b) strategy design, execution, and optimization, (c) unified ecosystem creation, and (d) pioneering business operations solutions. The actual transformation is observed in hyper-automation, augmented decision-making, and decentralized supply chains . The article also highlights barriers to adopting these technologies - cultural and workforce adjustments, data security and privacy concerns, and interoperability issues -, which moderate their potential impact, and guide organizations navigating these challenges. Finally, it outlines a market management agenda for exploring the implications of these developments.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0160.021
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarketing Strategy JournalSame topicFinancial Reporting and Valuation ResearchFrench-language works237,207