Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16,594

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Foundations of social theory

·1990·Choice Reviews Online
DOI 10.5860/choice.27-6637
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As firms move toward a more disciplined approach to e-business strategic planning, managers are seeking metrics that will help them analyze the success of their e-business investments. Likewise, researchers require metrics to build analytical models of the impact of managerial strategy on firm performance and to validate empirical field research on specific managerial tactics. In this paper, we develop a comprehensive framework for identifying e-business applications associated with activities upstream in the value chain, that complements an existing framework for applications further down the value chain. We propose that the real value proposition in e-business applications can be found in functionality interaction where one application enables the successful functionality in another application. The framework provides a methodology for mapping e-business applications within the proposed frameworks, which then can be used to generate three different types of metrics that should be considered for evaluating e-business strategic initiatives. Further, a classification of e-businesses provides the basis for selecting those metrics that are important to the strategic thrusts of the organization. The methodology allows the e-business strategist to map the organization’s e-business objectives into a coherent, easily understood visual representation. The framework is based on an extensive literature review of several reference disciplines. 2

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5860/choice.27-6637

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Items 201–230 of 230

Metadata

Venue
Choice Reviews Online
Publisher
American Library Association
Published
1990-07-01
Volume
27
Issue
11
Pages
27-6637-27-6637
ISSN
  • 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
  • 1523-8253
DOI
10.5860/choice.27-6637
OpenAlex
W2153943092
Cited by
16,594
References
0
Type
book review
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.