Knowledge Management in Support of Enterprise Risk Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk management and knowledge management have so far been studied almost independently. The evolution of risk management to the holistic view of Enterprise Risk Management requires the destruction of barriers between organizational silos and the exchange and application of knowledge from different risk management areas. However, knowledge management has received little or no attention in risk management. This paper examines possible relationships between knowledge management constructs related to knowledge sharing, and two risk management concepts: perceived quality of risk control and perceived value of enterprise risk management. From a literature review, relationships with eight knowledge management variables covering people, process and technology aspects were hypothesised. A survey was administered to risk management employees in financial institutions. The results showed that the perceived quality of risk control is significantly associated with four knowledge management variables: perceived quality of risk knowledge sharing, perceived quality of communication among people, web channel functionality, and risk management information system functionality. However, the relationships of the knowledge management variables to the perceived value of enterprise risk management are not significant. We conclude that better knowledge management is associated with better risk control, but that more effort needs to be made to break down organizational silos in order to support true Enterprise Risk Management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".