MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132275708

Thoughtworks: Agile Innovation in the Digital Era

Taiyuan 王泰元, 赵丽缦, Daniel Han Ming Chng

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

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2023
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital eraAgile software developmentDigital transformationIndustrial RevolutionField (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

本案例描述了Thoughtworks中国与跃龙汽车公司合力打造一款数字化产品过程中所经历的种种冲突与平衡:创新是为了超越竞争者还是满足消费者需求?数字化转型项目是新零售部门主导还是一把手工程?探索创新机会是否应当进行调研?应考虑所有的用户痛点和需求还是聚焦关键问题?关键问题排序时首先考虑高价值还是首先验证高风险的需求?形成最小可行性产品并发布之后,若遇到外部市场变化,企业到底要不要做出相应调整?创新产品到底应当由哪个部门来运营?面向未来,创新产品又当如何在时间维度和空间维度延伸与复制呢……沿着Thoughtworks的敏捷创新流程,本案例透过跃龙汽车的数字产品打造历程,将如上创新困境逐一陈述。 案例中,Thoughtworks和跃龙汽车在开放的“争论”中合作共创,使得跃龙汽车手机应用(App)项目,在推出一个月内取得了不错的市场反响。2021年1月底,跃龙汽车母公司腾飞集团的销售副总裁张敏,邀请了跃龙汽车总经理王捷和新零售总监李创,以及Thoughtworks首席项目经理赵新,来商讨如何将这款创新产品的经验在集团内复制。纵然数字化时代召唤着更多创新,赵新更希望引导客户企业先来复盘过去和认清发展现状。 基于此,案例引发了对企业推出创新产品的各种困境与探索的更深层次和更具普适性的讨论,并帮助学员理解Thoughtworks敏捷创新方法论的特点和适用场景。

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.704
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.023

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCEIBS Institutional RepositoryFrench-language works237,207