Exploring Critical Success Factors of ERP Implementation in \nUnited Nations Types of Organizations: Relationship between \nfactors impacting user experience
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
The present study entails the literature in critical success factors (Daniel, 1961; \nRockart, 1979; Thierauf, 1982; Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Wijn et.al, 1996) namely for \nERP implementation (Sarkar et.al, 2003; Jaideep et.al, 2005, Koh et.al, 2011) and \nthe components of user satisfaction (Doll & Torkzadeh, 1988). The primary \npurpose of this research is to explain the critical factors for successful ERP \nimplementation in United Nations type of organization and set up a grounded \nresearch approach that aims to identify and investigate the relationship between \nthe components of user satisfaction with the goal to propose a model that explains \nthe success factors and relevant relationships between information technology \nusage, information characteristics and business processes. \nA three dimension (triangulation) approach consisting of grounded research, a \nquantitative survey methodology and qualitative semi-structured interviews was \nused to collect information and data from a United Nations agency in Montreal, \nCanada. The data for the research was taken over a period of 6 months, studying \ndocuments of project implementation, discussions, meetings, observations, a \nsurvey with 101 responses and interviewing 10 senior management officials. \nExploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to identify the relevant factors \ncritical to the success of ERP implementation. A correlation analysis was done to \nunderstand the relationship between the components of user satisfaction. \nStructural equation modelling (SEM) technique was then used to extract a model \nthat explains ERP implementation. Finally, qualitative information were examined \nin light of the findings to complete our investigation loop. \nThe findings along with the theoretical and practical significance of the research \nare discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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