Intertwining of information systems and knowledge risk in the uncertain business environment

Closes:

The knowledge risk can be defined as the probability and severity of adverse effects associated with any activity engaging or related somehow to the knowledge (Durst & Zieba, 2019). The operational dimension of knowledge risks pertains to all the risks arising from an organization's day-to-day operations and overall functioning, such as entering into collaborative agreements, outsourcing certain business functions, or applying incorrect or outdated knowledge during business operations (Adar & Wuchner, 2005; Durst, 2019). It is important to actively manage knowledge risks while acknowledging that some of them cannot be eliminated (Adar & Wuchner, 2005; Durst, 2019). Knowledge risk management, however, provides ways to deal with knowledge at risk, such as nowledge loss-the result of personnel removed, for example, by turnover or death, or any other reason that the person is no longer part of the organization or cannot be reached. The literature on knowledge management emphasises the positive aspects of the discipline; it hardly covers the negative aspects, such as when knowledge is misunderstood, repressed, or misused for personal or organisational reasons (Burgin & Mikkilineni, 2021; Di Vaio et al., 2021). Thus, in completing the loop, knowledge risks and knowledge risks management needs to be considered together rather than studied in silos. Furthermore, only a few studies attempt to explore the two together, and thus the literature on it remains fragmented primarily. Some studies have been conducted about knowledge loss (e.g., Norman, 2004; Parise, 2007; Schmitt et al., 2012); knowledge leakage (e.g., Ahmad et al., 2014; Annansingh, 2012; Mohamed et al., 2007; Parker, 2012); spillover effects (e.g., Fernandes and Ferreira 2013); privacy (e.g., Arshad & Ismail 2018; Hernaus et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2018), etc. Yet, studies combining knowledge risk, knowledge risk management, and information systems with an uncertain business environment by considering the ‘people’ and ‘processes’ seem to be an under-researched area in the literature. 

Information systems (IS) have been exposed to a fast-changing environment (Arogundade et al., 2020). Information systems and knowledge risks play the central role in the uncertain business environment (Hammoda & Durst, 2022; Massingham, 2010). Knowledge has generally been seen as a positive asset that organizations ought to maximize. Nevertheless, several researchers recently argued that organizations must also consider knowledge risks, given the increasing number of these risks and the increasing complexity of organizational environment (Choi et al., 2021; Gioe & Hatfield, 2021; Nauhria et al., 2018). Some of the examples include knowledge concealment (Cooke & Leydesdorff, 2006; Saeidpoursarcheshmeh et al., 2021); the hoarding of knowledge  (Oliveira et al., 2021), information and media illiteracy, fake data, cognitive and affective bias (Hopf et al., 2019 and unlearning or intentionally forgetting the learned facts (Albana & Yeşiltaş, 2021; Durst, 2019). Therefore, the focus on ‘people’ and ‘processes’ by intertwining of information systems and knowledge risk in the uncertain business environment is under researched as many authors suggests the need for identifying the antecedents, mediators, moderators, consequents, and control variables associated with information systems and knowledge risks  while neglecting the two concepts of  ‘people’ and ‘processes’ (Di Vaio et al., 2021; Gioe & Hatfield, 2021; Oliveira et al., 2021).  

As an example, Anaza and Nowlin (2017) consider the importance of identifying the effects of recognition and financial rewards in knowledge risk management by focusing on people, while Gagné et al. (2019) emphasized the importance of measuring time pressure or excessive workload as a moderator by focusing processes. Hence, this special issue will reveal the management of possible information systems (IS) that may help to mitigate the knowledge risks in the unstable business environment by considering the dual aspects of ‘people’ and ‘processes’ 

The main aim of this special issue is to combine the information systems (IS) and knowledge risk in the uncertain business environment by considering the ‘people’ and ‘processes.’ Organizations are exposed to different knowledge risks (Lee et al., 2021). Recent researchers suggests that information systems and knowledge risk management tools play a main role in overcoming the risks in the uncertain business environment (Di Vaio et al., 2021; Gioe & Hatfield, 2021; Lee et al., 2017; Shabbir & Gardezi, 2020). To understand the difference between knowledge management and information management, it is best to say that knowledge management focuses on people (Burgin & Mikkilineni, 2021; Mbassegue et al., 2016) while information management focuses on processes (Lee et al., 2017; Mbassegue et al., 2016). However, recent researchers have not responded to these two concepts of information systems and knowledge risk in the uncertain business environment by considering the ‘people’ and ‘processes’ (Choi et al., 2021; Di Vaio et al., 2021; Shabbir & Gardezi, 2020). Therefore, this special issue will be of significant importance to the practitioners and policymakers within academic institutions by allowing them to understand the combined effect of information systems and knowledge risks in the uncertain business environment by considering the dual aspects of ‘people’ and ‘processes’. 

 

Topics of interest may include, but are not limited to: 

  1. The dark side of knowledge management in determining the factors with effective use of advanced technological innovations.   

  1. The role of digital innovation in managing the dark side of the knowledge management systems of the firms   

  1. Theoretical advancements of knowledge risk and information systems in times of risks and uncertainties.  

  1. Novel mechanisms for business analytics value creation by mitigating the dark side of knowledge management 

  1. Determining the factors leading to the dark side of knowledge management in the development of Data-Intensive Systems within the firms  

  1. The dark side of knowledge management to increase the business value of cognitive analytics technology through effective use of data analytics 

  1. The dark side of knowledge management which decreases the firm-level efficiency in product development/ innovation through effective use of data analytics 

  1. Curbing and controlling false information and knowledge creation systems and processes for improving system efficiency 

  1. Role of firm-based IS when dealing with knowledge loss, knowledge leakage, spillover effects, and privacy concerns of the firm.  

  1. Issue related to information and media illiteracy;  fake data; cognitive  and  affective bias and ignorance. 

 

References  

Adar, E., & Wuchner, A. (2005, November). Risk management for critical infrastructure protection (CIP) challenges, best practices & tools. In First IEEE International Workshop on Critical Infrastructure Protection (IWCIP'05) (pp. 8-pp). IEEE. 

Ahmad, A., Bosua, R., & Scheepers, R. (2014). Protecting organizational competitive advantage: A knowledge leakage perspective. Computers & Security, 42, 27-39. 

Albana, M. J., & Yeşiltaş, M. (2021). Impact of linguistic ostracism on knowledge sharing, hiding and hoarding and the moderating role of cultural intelligence. Kybernetes. 51(3), 1180-1198. 

Anaza, N. A., & Nowlin, E. L. (2017). What's mine is mine: A study of salesperson knowledge withholding & hoarding behavior. Industrial Marketing Management, 64, 14-24. 

Annansingh, F. (2012). Exploring the risks of knowledge leakage: an information systems case study approach. New research on knowledge management models and methods, 269-286. 

Arogundade, O. T., Abayomi-Alli, A., & Misra, S. (2020). An ontology-based security risk management model for information systems. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 45(8), 6183-6198. 

Arshad, R., & Ismail, I. R. (2018). Workplace incivility and knowledge hiding behavior: does personality matter? Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, (5)3, 278-288. 

Burgin, M., & Mikkilineni, R. (2021). From Data Processing to Knowledge Processing: Working with Operational Schemas by Autopoietic Machines. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 5(1), 13. 

Choi, T. Y., Narayanan, S., Novak, D., Olhager, J., Sheu, J. B., & Wiengarten, F. (2021). Managing extended supply chains. Journal of Business Logistics, 42(2), 200-206. 

Cooke, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: The construction of advantage. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 31(1), 5-15. 

Di Vaio, A., Palladino, R., Pezzi, A., & Kalisz, D. E. (2021). The role of digital innovation in knowledge management systems: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 123, 220-231. 

Durst, S. (2019). How far have we come with the study of knowledge risks? VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 49(1), 21-34 

Durst, S., & Zieba, M. (2019). Mapping knowledge risks: towards a better understanding of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 17(1), 1-13. 

Fernandes, C. I., & Ferreira, J. J. (2013). Knowledge spillovers: Cooperation between universities and KIBS. R&D Management, 43(5), 461-472. 

Gagné, M., Tian, A. W., Soo, C., Zhang, B., Ho, K. S. B., & Hosszu, K. (2019). Different motivations for knowledge sharing and hiding: The role of motivating work design. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(7), 783-799. 

Gioe, D. V., & Hatfield, J. M. (2021). A damage assessment framework for insider threats to national security information: Edward Snowden and the Cambridge Five in comparative historical perspective. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 34(5), 704-738. 

Hammoda, B., & Durst, S. (2022). A taxonomy of knowledge risks for healthcare organizations. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 

Hernaus, T., Cerne, M., Connelly, C., Vokic, N. P., & Škerlavaj, M. (2018). Evasive knowledge hiding in academia: when competitive individuals are asked to collaborate. Journal of Knowledge Management. 23(4), 597-618 

Hopf, H., Krief, A., Mehta, G., & Matlin, S. A. (2019). Fake science and the knowledge crisis: ignorance can be fatal. Royal Society open science, 6(5), 190161. 

Lee, J. H., Lee, J. M., Kim, W. K., & Kim, H. G. (2017). A study on perception of swimsuit using big data text-mining analysis. Korean Journal of Sport Science, 28(1), 104-116. 

Lee, R. W., Yip, J. Y., & Shek, V. W. (2021). Knowledge Risk and Its Mitigation: Practices and Cases. Emerald Group Publishing. 

Massingham, P. (2010). Knowledge risk management: a framework. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(3), 464-485 

Mbassegue, P., Escandon-Quintanilla, M.-L., & Gardoni, M. (2016). Knowledge management and big data: Opportunities and challenges for small and medium enterprises (SME). Paper presented at the IFIP International Conference on Product Lifecycle Management. 

Mohamed, S., Mynors, D., Grantham, A., Chan, P., Coles, R., & Walsh, K. (2007). Unearthing key drivers of knowledge leakage. International Journal of Knowledge Management Studies, 1(3-4), 456-470. 

Nauhria, Y., Kulkarni, M. S., & Pandey, S. (2018). Development of strategic value chain framework for Indian car manufacturing industry. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 19(1), 21-40. 

Norman, P. M. (2004). Knowledge acquisition, knowledge loss, and satisfaction in high technology alliances. Journal of Business Research, 57(6), 610-619. 

Oliveira, M., Curado, C., & de Garcia, P. S. (2021). Knowledge hiding and knowledge hoarding: a systematic literature review. Knowledge and Process Management, 28(3), 277-294. 

Parise, S. (2007). Knowledge management and human resource development: An application in social network analysis methods. Advances in developing human resources, 9(3), 359-383. 

Parker, H. (2012). Knowledge acquisition and leakage in inter‐firm relationships involving new technology‐based firms. Management Decision, 5(9), 1618-1633. 

Saeidpoursarcheshmeh, M., Hajianzehaei, Z., Nikaeen, Z., & Zarei, A. (2021). The Impact of Organizational Politics on Employee Creativity with in the Ministry of Sports and Youth with the Mediating Role of Knowledge Concealment and the Role of Moderator of Job Characteristics. Scientific Journal of Organizational Behavior Management in Sport Studies, 8(3), 62-71. 

Schmitt, A., Borzillo, S., & Probst, G. (2012). Don’t let knowledge walk away: Knowledge retention during employee downsizing. Management Learning, 43(1), 53-74. 

Shabbir, & Gardezi. (2020). Application of big data analytics and organizational performance: the mediating role of knowledge management practices. Journal of Big Data, 7(1), 1-17.  

Wang, Z., Hu, J., Lv, R., Wei, J., Wang, Q., Yang, D., & Qi, H. (2018). Personalized privacy-preserving task allocation for mobile crowdsensing. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, 18(6), 1330-1341. 

 

Submission procedures 

Submissions to the special issue should be sent electronically through the “VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems” ScholarOne System. The manuscripts must be prepared in accordance with the guidelines for authors given in the website of the journal “VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems”: https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/vjikms  

Authors need to clearly indicate in their submission information and letter that their manuscript is for the Special Issue on “Intertwining of information systems and knowledge risk in the uncertain business environment” All submissions will be subject to a double-blind review process followed by “VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems” Journal. All manuscripts must be original, unpublished works that are not concurrently under review for publication elsewhere. Questions about this special issue may be directed to the guest editors. 

Interested authors are welcome to discuss their research ideas in the form of an extended abstract by contacting the guest editors. The abstract should be written keeping in mind the style of Emerald. The idea of proposing an abstract is share preliminary feedback to the interested authors.  

For any questions, interested authors can contact the corresponding guest editor: 

Abhishek Behl; [email protected]  

 

IMPORTANT DATES 

  • Submission Due Date: September 15th, 2022 

  • First Round Reviews: November 10th, 2022 

  • Revisions due: December 30th, 2022 

  • Second Round Decision: Feb 15th, 2023 

  • Final Editorial Decision: April 30th, 2023 

  • Expected Publication: second half of 2023 

 

Guest Editors

Abhishek Behl

Management Development Institute, Gurgaon, India

[email protected]

 

Justin Zhang

University of North Florida, USA

[email protected]

 

Achint Nigam

Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, India

[email protected]