Abstract
Background: Business analytics knowledge is a tacit resource that serves as a driving force in aiding data-driven decisions for organisational competitive advantage and efficient and effective service delivery. It is vital to explore the factors which impact knowledge sharing within data analytics teams.
Objectives: The study aimed to identify the prominent information systems capabilities and knowledge sharing factors which are vital for improved business analytics within the public enterprise organisations.
Method: Through a systematic literature review, this study examines the mechanisms by which knowledge retention can be achieved. Data were collected from AIS eLibrary, AJIS, Web of Science, Scopus and ScienceDirect databases. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.
Results: The knowledge possessed by subject matter experts (SMEs) is business domain knowledge, which cannot be easily accessed unless it is retained within various knowledge repositories within the organisation. Such a situation results in public organisations losing out on their intellectual capital. The study findings reveal that social factors such as knowledge sharing, knowledge retention, scarcity in sourcing the right skills, analytics competence and analytics culture, trust, play significant roles in improving business analytics.
Conclusion: To reap the benefits, both social and technical factors should be considered as part of a social activity system, rather than being applied in isolation. This article discusses the best practices that public enterprise organisations should consider from a social perspective for improved business analytics.
Contribution: The study contributes to the body of knowledge through addressing the existing gap experienced by public enterprise organisations through investigating prominent factors influencing information systems capabilities and knowledge sharing for improved business analytics.
Keywords: business analytics; knowledge sharing; information systems capabilities; public enterprises; intellectual capital; subject matter experts.
Introduction
Government departments and other state enterprises face challenges in predicting the demands of public utilities by citizens. Therefore, they are increasingly resorting to business analytics to improve forecasting of citizens’ demands for various services (Asongu & Odhiambo 2019; Hasan, Popp & Oláh 2020). Over the years, the need for in-depth knowledge and specialised expertise in business analytics has been recognised (Khanra, Dhir & Mäntymäki 2020; Pencheva, Esteve & Mikhaylov 2020; Phaladi & Ngulube 2024). While the private sector appears to be advancing in business analytics, the public sector is lagging because of the costs associated with acquiring the required skills and the failure to recognise the benefits of data-driven decision-making (Merhi & Bregu 2020). Accordingly, Pencheva et al. (2020) recommended that organisations need to develop and retain data scientists who possess the necessary skills and incorporate these skills into their standards and procedures for building organisational knowledge repositories. Merhi and Bregu (2020) reported the lack of experienced labour as a significant hindrance to the effective and efficient use of big data in the public sector, including in business analytics. In addition, the scholars revealed that the private sector outcompetes the public sector in retaining skilled data analysts, arguing that budgetary constraints necessitate the situation. Stakeholders in the public sectors of developing economies expect efficient and effective service delivery through improved business decision-making processes, supported by business analytics. However, a notable gap remains in fulfilling this expectation because of various challenges. For example, Power et al. (2018) reported that it becomes difficult to conclude after analysing data without incorporating the knowledge domain. Deriving the competitive advantage from business analytics has been reported to be increasingly complex over the past few years (Mikalef et al. 2018). This phenomenon is attributed to a lack of knowledge about the practical operational use of business analytics for business decision-making and problem-solving (Akter & Wamba 2016). Ongena (2023) argues that a few experts still possess business analytics skills and have not yet been disseminated to all levels of the organisation. Given such a scenario, the value of business analytics is limited, negatively impacting the capacity to deliver services efficiently and effectively (Ferraris et al. 2019; Gupta et al. 2023; Kristoffersen et al. 2021). Despite the existence of these problems, previous studies (Goswami et al. 2025) have focused on management and the technological aspects of business analytics, resulting in a notable gap in the literature on the social aspects of the phenomenon. In addition, no framework has yet been developed to address business analytics as a social activity system in a unique context, such as the South African public entity. To the best of the researcher’s knowledge, there is limited scholarship about knowledge sharing and information systems capabilities. Therefore, this study seeks to contribute to addressing the research gap by focusing on business analytics within the bigger social activity ecosystem. Knowledge sharing between data analysts, particularly among their peers, enhances organisational outcomes (Davenport 2012; Ghasemaghaei 2023). Ghasemaghaei (2023) surveyed whether data analysts’ knowledge-sharing beliefs have an impact on their behaviour. Analytical skills positively moderate the effect of knowledge sharing beliefs of data analysts (Akter et al. 2019a), while the comprehensiveness of the tool negatively moderates the effect of knowledge sharing beliefs on their behaviour. This study builds upon previous research by focusing on both knowledge retention within the tools and knowledge sharing between subject matter experts (SMEs), aiming to enable improved business analytics. Furthermore, this study examines the factors that influence these SMEs to share knowledge and the information systems (IS) capabilities. Therefore, considering the recommendation by Ghasemaghaei (2023), this study examines the factors that may influence knowledge sharing among analytics teams. Following the increasing number of articles being published that address the social factors of business analytics (Akter & Wamba 2016; Ferraris et al. 2019; Grover 2020; Oesterreich et al. 2022b) there is a need to consolidate the research findings. The primary objective of this systematic review is to synthesise the literature, gather evidence from organisational case studies, author observations and scientific developments in business analytics to identify key information systems capabilities and aspects of knowledge sharing in public enterprises. To achieve this objective, this systematic review presents a detailed list of articles spanning nearly a decade that address social and technical factors, including human resources expertise, information system capabilities and knowledge sharing.
The contributions of the article include the following:
- A literature review to discuss factors which influence knowledge sharing for improved business analytics within public enterprises.
- A literature review to discuss information systems capabilities for improved business analytics in public enterprises.
- Evaluation of how the data analytics teams can use knowledge sharing and information systems capabilities for improved business analytics, which leads to efficient and effective service delivery by public organisations.
Table 1 introduces the research questions and links each research question to its background.
| TABLE 1: Research questions and background are considered for investigation in this systematic review. |
The rest of the article is structured as follows. Research methods and design section discusses the research methodology in conducting the systematic literature review. Subsequently, the results analysis is presented in the discussion section, which includes a detailed review of articles addressing the different research questions identified in Table 1. The opportunities for conducting additional research to strengthen the findings for both Research Question 1 and Research Question 2 are discussed in the discussion section. Last, the conclusions and future work are summarised in the conclusion section.
Research methods and design
This section gives a detailed description of how the study’s literature review was conducted. A systematic literature review becomes more meaningful when the authors provide a complete and transparent justification for its performance, as well as an identification of the studies used (Page et al. 2021). This is usually achieved by following reporting guidelines, and this study utilised the PRISMA framework 2020 to cover this aspect (Page et al. 2021).
Research questions
Business Analytics has evolved from being a purely technical matter, where the emphasis was only on analysing the growing volumes of data, to being regarded as a social phenomenon that involves human capabilities. Previous researchers (Ongena 2023) have shown that business analytics in the public sector has been a focal point since its regular application. However, there are underlying complex challenges associated with its application, and if not addressed, these can have a negative impact (Fredriksson et al. 2017). Literature analysis demonstrates that previous studies (Al-Ajmi & Al-Busaidi 2024) have been primarily focused on business analytics in developed economies. There is a need for scholarly work in the context of developing economies, which have received less academic attention (Maroufkhani et al. 2019; Sabharwal & Miah 2021). Therefore, this study seeks to contribute to the body of knowledge by answering the following research questions:
- What are the prominent information systems capabilities challenges in business analytics in public enterprises?
- How does trust influence knowledge sharing in business analytics in the public enterprises?
- How can knowledge sharing be enabled to improve business analytics in public enterprises?
Protocol and eligibility criteria
The study employed the PRISMA framework (Page et al. 2021) and structured this article accordingly. The articles considered eligible for review were published within the past 8 years (2018–2025). One of the criteria was to include only journal and conference papers that have been peer reviewed and published. In addition, the practical gaps identified in the literature (Oesterreich et al. 2022b; Phaladi & Ngulube 2024) include the lack of frameworks for knowledge retention in public enterprises, specifically in business analytics. Such an absence of frameworks results in knowledge loss, poor service delivery and an inability to improve taxpayer compliance. Despite the South African private sector’s advancements in business data analytics (Majam & Jarbandhan 2022), the public sector remains lagging. The situation is attributed to challenges such as the scarcity of data analytics skills, inadequate skills acquisition and retention capabilities, and limited knowledge sharing among professionals in the business analytics domain, as separately advocated by Shava and Vyas-Doorgapersad (2022) and Majam and Jarbandhan (2022). There is a variety of articles published already in different sectors; however, this article includes the public sector as part of the eligibility criteria, with a more focused look at the data analytics teams.
Information sources
Five different databases were used to search for articles, including AIS eLibrary, AJIS, Web of Science, Scopus and ScienceDirect. These databases were selected because they have high-impact quality articles (Mohammed & Ozdamli 2024). After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 42 articles were selected, as shown in Figure 1.
 |
FIGURE 1: Literature search process, aligned to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram. |
|
Searches
A total of five search queries were executed in the different databases listed in section 2.3. The vital part of search strings was to identify the keywords aligned to this research and combine them appropriately to yield the best results:
- [All: business analytics, knowledge sharing and information systems capabilities, public institutions] AND [Publication Date: (01 January 2018 to 31 December 2025)]
- [Business Analytics, Knowledge Sharing, Trust and Information Systems Capabilities, Public Institutions] AND [Publication Date: (01 January 2018 to 31 December 2025)]
- Business Analytics AND (Knowledge Sharing [TIAB] AND (‘Information Systems Capabilities’ [TIAB] OR ‘Data analytics Capabilities’ [TIAB])) AND 2018:2025[DP] AND eng[LA].
- Business Analytics OR (Knowledge Sharing [TIAB] AND (‘Public Sector’ [TIAB] OR ‘Government’ [TIAB])) AND 2018:2025[DP] AND eng [LA].
- (‘Business Analytics’ OR ‘Knowledge Sharing’ OR ‘Knowledge Transfer’) AND ‘Trust’ AND (‘Public Sector’ OR ‘Public Institution’ OR ‘Government Organisation’) AND [Publication Date: (01 January 2018 to 31 December 2025)
Inclusions and eligibility criteria
The study employed inclusion and exclusion criteria to select articles that were more closely aligned with the research objectives and to determine the scope of the systematic literature review. Six inclusion criteria were used, with the publication period being solely restricted from 2018 to 2025. To ensure that quality articles were selected, only journal and conference papers that have been peer reviewed and published were included. To streamline the area of study, the third criterion was to select articles from the Information Systems field. The fourth criterion was to select articles which reported on Business Analytics, Knowledge Sharing and related subjects. The area of study is organisations from public enterprises, mainly government organisations and other related areas; therefore, this criterion was used to eliminate articles that focused on different areas. Lastly, all articles which were included were written in English only. The exclusion criteria were then based on all the articles which does not meet the inclusion criteria. Table 2 documents the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
| TABLE 2: Description of inclusion and exclusion criteria. |
Data extraction
The researcher utilised computer software called NVivo to facilitate the data coding process. NVivo enabled the researcher to select aspects of data that were required to analyse, code phrases that summarised the portions to be analysed, group codes together to form categories and finally build themes from the categories of information (Hilal & Alabri 2013; Mezmir 2020). The inductive method was employed for the application to the code, enabling data analysis that aided in answering the research questions. The software is user-friendly and robust. In the current study, the coding process was conducted systematically, eventually forming a pattern from the developed themes (Rambaree & Faxelid 2013). It helped to synchronise data for in-depth analysis, supporting what Creswell and Creswell (2017) echoed, that NVivo aids in coding data efficiently through rigorous probing and analysis. The first research question is ‘How can information systems capabilities be enabled to improve business analytics in public enterprises?’ Different themes emerged; however, through the utilisation of the sub-categories of the research questions, more meaningful themes aligned with the research started to appear, and this allowed for the grouping of these themes based on the information systems capabilities factors.
The second research question is ‘How does trust influence knowledge sharing in business analytics in the public enterprises?’ The themes presented a lot of challenges linked to trust, which hindered knowledge sharing.
The third research question is ‘How can knowledge sharing be enabled to improve business analytics in public enterprises?’ The initial codes were derived from the research question. These codes were then refined by focusing on the themes that presented knowledge-sharing factors, which aided in revealing the enabling factors that can result in improved business analytics.
Risk and bias
Business analytics research areas have been studied for several years. It is deemed relevant for this study to have proper methods for scope limitation and to include only articles aligned with the study. Additionally, the researchers used an 8-year period to mitigate selection bias. The bulk of the articles used for the study were from Europe and the US, with only a few articles (five) from South Africa. This revealed the existing gap in Business Analytics in Africa, which indicates the necessity to delve further into and research this area in Africa. Although the study spanned across different geographical scopes, the generalisation was strengthened through deriving findings from diverse contexts, which will result in applicability across different regions, instead of focusing on one country.
Discussion
This section presents the findings from the systematic literature review, and these are based on the two research questions introduced earlier in this article. The articles used were distributed by year in Figure 2, from 2018 to 2025, and a total of 42 articles were in scope as per Appendix 1. As shown in Figure 2, the results indicate that the frequency of articles focusing on business analytics is gradually increasing. Figure 3 illustrates the percentage of articles per research question during the study period, showing that research question 1 has fewer articles compared to research questions 2 and 3.
 |
FIGURE 2: Distribution of selected articles by year of publication. |
|
 |
FIGURE 3: Percentage by research questions (number of articles). |
|
Research question 1: What are the prominent information systems capabilities challenges in business analytics?
Information systems capabilities can improve business analytics by enabling organisations to manage the end-to-end process of capturing, applying and leveraging knowledge and expertise attained internally. However, human factors, such as skills and knowledge, play an important role in creating value in business analytics (Kristoffersen et al. 2021). As reported by Vidgen, Shaw and Grant (2017), managers encounter several challenges in creating business value. Such challenges include the lack of a clear data and analytics strategy, the right people with competencies to instil a data-driven cultural change, and alignment between business analytics capabilities and the organisation’s business strategy. Several scholars have investigated how organisations can improve their data competencies by incorporating expertise from interdisciplinary teams and other analytical domains (Shirani 2016; Vijayasarathy & Jetley 2025). These studies confirmed the vital role played by human factors, such as skills and knowledge, in creating value in business analytics. This includes the organisation’s capacity to attract and retain skilled employees, such as data scientists and data engineers, who can create value from the data. However, sourcing employees who possess both technical and business skills is difficult. A resource is defined as a specific asset or know-how. On the other hand, capabilities are defined as the skills acquired through the organisation’s processes that enable it to utilise the assets and competences comprising a set of skills and a group of technologies (Wamba et al. 2024). The lack of data skills within various data teams, combined with a deficiency in leadership skills and capabilities, leads to the failure of most big data projects (Gürlek & Çemberci 2020), as noted by Gartner (Persaud 2020). This has a negative influence on organisations’ drive to serve their clients efficiently and provide quality data. On the contrary, as much as some technical data and human skills are scarce, they can be sourced on the market if organisations provide the right incentives (Ferraris et al. 2019). Klee, Janson and Leimeister (2021) also revealed another challenge for business analytics, showing that organisations depend on systematic data analytics competencies to use data appropriately and make strategic decisions, including determining the most suitable approach between inductive and deductive methods. Thus, if these data competencies are not available, then significant data synergies cannot be recognised without them, which has a negative impact on business value. Furthermore, organisations face challenges in managing business analytics as they strive to establish a data-and information-driven framework to generate business value (Vidgen et al. 2017). These challenges include the lack of a clear data and analytics strategy, the right people with competencies to instil a data-driven cultural change, and alignment between business analytics capabilities and the organisation’s business strategy (Vidgen et al. 2017). In alignment with the above findings, this study is extending to look closely at the information systems challenges in business analytics and the impact on the public enterprises. Human capital and institutional logic facilitate the coordination of different technologies through data science and domain-specific skills (Di Vaio et al. 2022). Therefore, IT capabilities, IT human capabilities and IT knowledge management capabilities are deemed important for organisations to attain a competitive advantage (Muazu & Abdulmalik 2021). Retention, motivation, development, and attraction of employees with the right data analytics skills should be emphasised for achieving successful organisational performance (Gurlek 2020). Enhancement of generation, usage, sharing, and continuous knowledge protection requires IT knowledge management capabilities to enable organisations to manage the end-to-end process of capturing and applying knowledge and expertise attained internally. This knowledge becomes a distinctive competence once it is retained as explicit knowledge, assisting in providing a competitive advantage (Muazu & Abdulmalik 2021). Data scientists must possess these competencies to enhance their performance and become innovative in an ever-evolving global data environment (Hattingh et al. 2019). It is also vital to note that the data scientist cannot possess all the competencies; instead, they complement each other to perform beyond expectations and improve the organisation’s competitiveness (Hattingh et al. 2019). Competency extends beyond knowledge and skills to include attitudes, behaviour, personal and abilities traits and work habits (Persaud 2020). As demonstrated by Goswami et al. (2025), both analytics competence and analytics culture are positively related to ambidexterity (Goswami et al. 2025). Therefore, for an organisation to reap benefits from analytics competencies derived from its technical resources, an analytics culture needs to be established (Al-Ajmi & Al-Busaidi 2024; Ghasemaghaei 2019). Market competence can be enhanced through the effective use of analytics, facilitated by analytics expertise and a culture that supports analytics.
The incorporation of business analytics into business operations yields immediate positive effects (Klee et al. 2021), as this strategy can facilitate the formulation of data-driven models. Therefore, an established framework is needed to highlight the significance of these skills in enhancing organisational performance. Business analytics initiatives require professionals with both technical and managerial skills, as data-analytical thinking is essential for data scientists; nevertheless, research suggests that managers can also benefit from it (Mikalef et al. 2018). Insights generated from business analytics lead to innovation, improved productivity, growth, enhanced service delivery, cost control and increased customer value (Persaud 2020). However, the shortage of skills, the lack of knowledge and experience on deployment and the conversion of insights into greater value challenge the realisation of the anticipated value (Johnson et al. 2021; Persaud 2020). Organisations seek all four types of competencies to be part of a job role, as reported by Persaud (2020). Therefore, employees are expected to possess both the social competencies and meta-competencies. Although cognitive and functional competencies are essential, they are often considered insufficient for making hiring decisions. This study argues that all four competencies are essential, and teams working in business analytics environments must consider them, as they are complementary to one another. As such, team members need to integrate and share all the knowledge and expertise they possess to allow for this knowledge to be utilised for improved business analytics. Furthermore, business analytics knowledge is a tacit resource, and this knowledge also serves as a driving force to aid in achieving organisational competitive advantage. Skills shortages, inability to recruit and retain SMEs in these public enterprises in South Africa are some of the prominent challenges identified, and it is recommended that organisations invest in data analytics training programmes for improved business analytics (Bag et al. 2021; Ochuba et al. 2024; Sutherland 2020). In addition, skills and capabilities, including data analytics and programming, can be socially complex if there is no coordination and knowledge transfer among experts with in-depth knowledge. Bag et al. (2021) report that the biggest challenge experienced by organisations is the hiring of SMEs who possess these IS capabilities. Such skilled personnel are hired at a high cost, and management needs to motivate them by altering policies to extend the salary bands (Bag et al. 2021). Findings reveal that skills shortages and the transferability of knowledge are key considerations for the success of significant business analytics initiatives.
Research question 2: How does trust influence knowledge sharing in business analytics in the public sector?
Trust within teams is one of the factors that influence knowledge sharing (Agbejule, Rapo & Saarikoski 2021; McAllister 1995). However, trust has been defined in different ways by the researchers; McEvily and Tortoriello (2011) found more than 129 definitions of trust. For this study, interpersonal trust will be the key focus since knowledge sharing between two business analytics experts aids in the retention of specialised knowledge. Interpersonal trust relationships can be categorised into two forms: cognitive-based trust and affect-based trust (McAllister 1995). Cognitive-based trust is more about an individual’s rational decision or belief to trust based on previous knowledge of the reliability and dependability of the other team member. In contrast, affect-based trust is based on the emotions, care and concern of the other team member, and vice versa; it is primarily a reciprocal relationship built over a more extended period. An exploration of the impact of cognition-based and affect-based trust on employees’ willingness to share and use tacit knowledge revealed that both types of trust have an influence (Holste & Fields 2010). Affect-based knowledge has a greater impact on employees’ willingness to share tacit knowledge. In contrast, cognition-based trust plays a more significant role in their desire to utilise tacit knowledge (Holste & Fields 2010). Building on prior research, Rutten, Blaas-Franken and Martin (2016) investigated the levels of knowledge sharing between coworkers in high- and low-trust scenarios, focusing on both affect-based and cognitive-based trust, and comparing explicit and implicit knowledge. Findings revealed a significant difference in the level of knowledge sharing between high- and low-trust environments, with the difference being notably higher in affect-based trust and implicit knowledge (Chua, Thinakaran & Vasudevan 2023; Khan et al. 2022; Rutten et al. 2016). Trust is the foundation of a supportive work environment where employees can share knowledge and insights about their work tasks. Management plays a key role in enabling workplace spirituality (Khan et al. 2022). This is also applicable to data analytics teams, where trust plays a crucial role in their decision-making regarding whether to share knowledge or not (Maja & Letaba 2022). Functional experts possess critical data knowledge and competencies, and they rely on a trust-based culture within their teams to share and solve problems that require human intervention (Vasilyeva & Richardson 2022). Trust enables this open exchange of knowledge; thus, the positive mindset bestowed by trust enables the knowledge bearer to view the knowledge shared as a benefit rather than a cost (Issac et al 2022; Ghasemaghaei 2023). This also concurs with Wah et al. (2018), who reiterated that employees are likely to be more open and willing to engage in innovative behaviour if they perceive trust in their line manager and ultimately become open to exchanging information and sharing knowledge. In the context of this study, based on the Social Exchange Theory, a business analytics specialist will be willing to share knowledge if trust is demonstrated in the social relationship, thus minimising complexity. However, an attitude of helping and collaboration will be shown to other team members. Leadership needs to influence knowledge sharing in teams by creating a transparent environment at the individual level, which fosters trust among team members (Khoreva & Wechtler 2020). Trust among team members is emphasised, so that the knowledge bearer can understand the benefit for the team and the organisation of sharing the knowledge. On the contrary, where there is no trust, the risk of inaccurate knowledge being shared is present. At the same time, trust is subject to how the knowledge bearer perceives it towards others and decides whether it poses an improvement or risk in the workplace.
Research question 3: How can knowledge sharing be enabled to improve business analytics in public enterprises?
Facets of knowledge sharing and information systems capabilities are considered for recommending a business analytics implementation framework. Employees possess different data analytics skills within organisations. Still, as a result of a lack of a proper knowledge-sharing framework, there are limited opportunities to share these skills and utilise business analytics effectively. Shabbir and Gardezi (2020) affirmed that big data might not perform as expected if the data quality does not allow for true replicability of models and if there is no clarity on the sources that cause instability in the models. These deep insights require knowledge sharing within data teams, so that employees with the necessary skills to ensure data quality can assist in pinpointing the specific sources that cause silo instability (Akter et al. 2019b). However, data teams face interpersonal challenges, including knowledge sharing (Didas 2023; Gupta et al. 2023). Understanding these challenges is of significant value, especially during new product development (Simsek et al. 2019). Resultantly, senior executives need to be tasked with building significant data initiatives that integrate data and analytical capabilities already existing within the organisation. However, this can result in cultural challenges, such as resistance to knowledge sharing because of organisational silos and disputes arising from the implications of analytical insights (Issac et al. 2022; Memon, Qureshi & Jokhio 2020). Organisations that have a strong emphasis on knowledge sharing have a competitive advantage and are more likely to succeed in open innovation pursuits; however, Singh et al. (2021) caution that for organisations operating in a dynamic business environment, knowledge can quickly become obsolete. Hence, it is essential to adopt innovative policies and practices. Through the lens of a community of practice, Mosala-Bryant and Hoskins (2017) revealed that knowledge sharing was perceived as necessary, and knowledge was shared through various means, including meetings, presentations and the Department of Public Service and Administration’s website. However, the study’s findings concur with those of previous scholars in reporting a lack of institutional repositories or knowledge portals to store all the knowledge shared during meetings or presentations. However, contemporary studies (Akter et al., 2019a) argue that knowledge sharing in business analytics is enhanced through digital technology. Such knowledge can be stored in knowledge repositories, such as Wikis and SharePoint, for easy accessibility and enhanced decision-making. Recently, Deng, Duan and Wibowo (2023) found that digital technology facilitates knowledge sharing, resulting in improved decision-making and enhanced employee job performance. An interesting study in the knowledge domain was conducted by Mahura and Birollo (2021). The findings reveal that IT project teams more commonly practised informal knowledge transfer methods in the public sector to enhance knowledge retention. However, the private sector practices formal knowledge transfer to comply with the organisation’s requirements. Therefore, a formal knowledge transfer method to enable knowledge retention is recommended. Another challenge faced by the public sector is the lack of knowledge retention of business domain knowledge gained from data analytics teams (Abeysekera 2021; Hagen & Hess 2021). A closer look at the causes of enterprise tacit knowledge loss in State-Owned Enterprises in South Africa showed that knowledge management capacity was hindered by both voluntary and involuntary employee turnover in the absence of knowledge retention investment strategies (Phaladi & Ngulube 2024). Building on Phaladi and Ngulube (2024), this study seeks to comprehend how knowledge is shared and retained within business data analytics teams. Moreover, this study aims to provide an understanding of the influence of knowledge sharing among data analytics teams on the improvement of business analytics in public enterprises based on the outcomes from previous studies.
Conclusion
This study utilised a systematic literature review to understand previous and current studies on the role of information systems capabilities and knowledge sharing in enabling improved business analytics. This was guided by the selection of 42 articles spanning the period from 2018 to 2025. The outcomes from the reviewed papers showed that business analytics studies have primarily focused on developing data-driven methods, whereas theory building in management and social theory has been lacking (Aykanat, Yildiz & Çelik 2025; Ghasemaghaei 2019; Janiesch et al. 2022; Kar & Dwivedi 2020). Grover (2020) further argues that several studies focused on data representation, data models and data mining tools. The studies showed how technological factors have had a positive influence on business analytics. However, there is still the missing component of considering the social aspect, such as knowledge sharing and information systems capabilities, and the role they play in improving business analytics. Oesterreich, Anton and Teuteberg (2022a) recommended that future studies focus on knowledge sharing as one of the key data analytics competencies and the development of frameworks that outline knowledge sharing in a business data analytics environment. Thus, this study is hinged on this recommendation, to expand on these social factors. The study findings demonstrate that research in business analytics primarily focuses on analysis and decision-making (Akter et al., 2019b). However, the aspect of knowledge sharing and IS capabilities has been neglected. As recommended by Ciampi et al. (2020), future studies focus on knowledge sharing and collaboration strategies that enable business analytics, justifying the need for this element to be one of the research objectives of this study. Future surveys may be conducted to examine the social and technical factors, which include human resources expertise, information system capabilities and organisational processes, as they are highlighted to potentially impact the actualisation of business analytics affordance in organisations (Dremel et al. 2020). The study contributes to the body of knowledge through the synthesis of research themes which emerged from information systems capabilities and factors influencing knowledge sharing within data analytics teams, and how these can aid in improved business analytics.
Acknowledgements
This article is based on research originally conducted as part of Shingai Javani’s doctoral thesis titled ‘A Knowledge and Information Systems Capabilities Framework for Improved Business Analytics (in South African Government Organisation)’, to be submitted to the School of Business, University of the Witwatersrand in 2025. The thesis is currently unpublished and not publicly available. The thesis was supervised by supervisor John Mangundu. The manuscript has been revised and adapted for journal publication. The author confirms that the content has not been previously published or disseminated and complies with ethical standards for original publication.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Shingai Javani: Conceptualisation, Formal analysis, Investigation. John Mangundu: Supervision, Writing – review & editing. All authors reviewed the article, contributed to the discussion of results, approved the final version for submission and publication, and take responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Ethical considerations
This article followed all ethical standards for research without direct contact with human or animal subjects.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Shingai Javani, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Abeysekera, I., 2021, ‘Intellectual capital and knowledge management research towards value creation. From the past to the future’, Journal of Risk and Financial Management 14(6), 238. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14060238
Adesina, A.A., Iyelolu, T.V. & Paul, P.O., 2024, ‘Leveraging predictive analytics for strategic decision-making: Enhancing business performance through data-driven insights’, World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews 22(3), 1927–1934. https://doi.org/10.30574/wjarr.2024.22.3.1961
Agbejule, A., Rapo, J. & Saarikoski, L., 2021, ‘Vertical and horizontal trust and team learning: The role of organizational climate’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 14(7), 1425–1443. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijmpb-05-2020-0155
Akter, S. & Wamba, S.F., 2016, ‘Big data analytics in E-commerce: A systematic review and agenda for future research’, Electronic Markets 26, 173–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-016-0219-0
Akter, S., Bandara, R., Hani, U., Wamba, S.F., Foropon, C. & Papadopoulos, T., 2019a, ‘Analytics-based decision-making for service systems: A qualitative study and agenda for future research’, International Journal of Information Management 48, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.020
Akter, S., Fosso Wamba, S., Barrett, M. & Biswas, K., 2019b, ‘How talent capability can shape service analytics capability in the big data environment?’, Journal of Strategic Marketing 27(6), 521–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254x.2018.1442364
Al-Ajmi, Z. & Al-Busaidi, K.A., 2024, ‘Mitigating knowledge-sharing risks among ICT knowledge workers in the government sector’, VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems 54(3), 616–637. https://doi.org/10.1108/vjikms-06-2021-0102
Asongu, S.A. & Odhiambo, N.M., 2019, ‘Challenges of doing business in Africa: A systematic review’, Journal of African Business 20(2), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228916.2019.1582294
Aykanat, Z., Yildiz, T. & Çelik, A.K., 2025, ‘Organizational readiness for big data analytics, business analytics adoption and data-driven culture: The case of Turkish banking sector’, Management Research and Practice 17(1), 18–34.
Bag, S., Pretorius, J.H.C., Gupta, S. & Dwivedi, Y.K., 2021, ‘Role of institutional pressures and resources in the adoption of big data analytics powered artificial intelligence, sustainable manufacturing practices and circular economy capabilities’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 163, 120420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120420
Chua, K., Thinakaran, R. & Vasudevan, A. 2023, ‘Knowledge sharing barriers in organizations – A review’, TEM Journal 12(1), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.18421/tem121-24
Ciampi, F., Marzi, G., Demi, S. & Faraoni, M., 2020, ‘The big data-business strategy interconnection: A grand challenge for knowledge management. A review and future perspectives’, Journal of Knowledge Management 24(5), 1157–1176. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-02-2020-0156
Creswell, J.W. & Creswell, J.D., 2017, Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 5th ed., Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
Davenport, T.H., 2012, ‘The human side of Big Data and high-performance analytics’, International Institute for Analytics 1(1), 1–13.
Deng, H., Duan, S.X. & Wibowo, S., 2023, ‘Digital technology driven knowledge sharing for job performance’, Journal of Knowledge Management 27(2), 404–425. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-08-2021-0637
Di Vaio, A., Hassan, R. & Alavoine, C., 2022, ‘Data intelligence and analytics: A bibliometric analysis of human-artificial intelligence in public sector decision-making effectiveness’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 174, 121201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121201
Didas, M., 2023, ‘The barriers and prospects related to big data analytics implementation in public institutions: A systematic review analysis’, International Journal of Advanced Computer Research 13(64), 29. https://doi.org/10.19101/ijacr.2021.1152071
Dremel, C., Herterich, M.M., Wulf, J. & Vom Brocke, J., 2020, ‘Actualizing big data analytics affordances: A revelatory case study’, Information & Management 57(1), 103121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2018.10.007
Ferraris, A., Mazzoleni, A., Devalle, A. & Couturier, J., 2019, ‘Big data analytics capabilities and knowledge management: Impact on firm performance’, Management Decision 57(8), 1923–1936. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-07-2018-0825
Fosso Wamba, S., Queiroz, M.M., Wu, L. & Sivarajah, U., 2020, ‘Big data analytics-enabled sensing capability and organizational outcomes: assessing the mediating effects of business analytics culture’, Annals of Operations Research, 333(2), 559–578.
Fredriksson, C., Mubarak, F., Tuohimaa, M. & Zhan, M., 2017, ‘Big data in the public sector: A systematic literature review’, Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration 21(3), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v21i3.11563
Ghasemaghaei, M., 2019, ‘Does data analytics use improve firm decision making quality? The role of knowledge sharing and data analytics competency’, Decision Support Systems 120, 14–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2019.03.004
Ghasemaghaei, M., 2023, ‘Does knowledge sharing belief of data analysts impact their behavior’, Journal of Computer Information Systems 63(2), 460–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2022.2070799
Goswami, A.K., Sinha, A., Goswami, M. & Kumar, P., 2025, ‘Explicating the mapping between big data and knowledge management: A systematic literature review and future directions’, Benchmarking: An International Journal 32(4), 1224–1266. https://doi.org/10.1108/bij-09-2022-0550
Grover, V., 2020, ‘Do we need to understand the world to know it? Knowledge in a big data world’, Journal of Global Information Technology Management 23(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2019.1701623
Gupta, S., Tuunanen, T., Kar, A.K. & Modgil, S., 2023, ‘Managing digital knowledge for ensuring business efficiency and continuity’, Journal of Knowledge Management 27(2), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-09-2021-0703
Gürlek, M., 2020, ‘Knowledge management and human resources management’, in M. Gürlek (ed.), Tech development through HRM, pp. 25–43, Emerald Publishing Limited, Burdur.
Gürlek, M. & Çemberci, M., 2020, ‘Understanding the relationships among knowledge-oriented leadership, knowledge management capacity, innovation performance and organizational performance: A serial mediation analysis’, Kybernetes 49(11), 2819–2846. https://doi.org/10.1108/k-09-2019-0632
Hagen, J. & Hess, T., 2021, ‘Collaboration for big data analytics: Investigating the (troubled) relationship between data science experts and functional managers’, in J.A. Hagen & T. Hess (eds.), Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, January 5–8, 2021, pp. 254–263, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Munich.
Hasan, M.M., Popp, J. & Oláh, J., 2020, ‘Current landscape and influence of big data on finance’, Journal of Big Data 7(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-020-00291-z
Hattingh, M., Marshall, L., Holmner, M. & Naidoo, R., 2019, ‘Data science competency in organisations: A systematic review and unified model’, Proceedings of the South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists 2019, Skukuza, South Africa, September 17–18, 2019, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351108.3351110
Hilal, A.H. & Alabri, S.S., 2013, ‘Using NVivo for data analysis in qualitative research’, International Interdisciplinary Journal of Education 2(2), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.12816/0002914
Holste, J.S. & Fields, D., 2010, ‘Trust and tacit knowledge sharing and use’, Journal of knowledge Management 14(1), 128–140. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271011015615
Horani, O.M., Khatibi, A., Al-Soud, A.R., Tham, J. & Al-Adwan, A.S., 2023, ‘Determining the factors influencing business analytics adoption at organizational level: A systematic literature review’, Big Data and Cognitive Computing 7(3), 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7030125
Issac, A.C., Bednall, T.C., Baral, R., Magliocca, P. & Dhir, A., 2023, ‘The effects of expert power and referent power on knowledge sharing and knowledge hiding’, Journal of Knowledge Management 27(2), 383–403. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-10-2021-0750
Janiesch, C., Dinter, B., Mikalef, P. & Tona, O., 2022, ‘Business analytics and big data research in information systems’, Journal of Business Analytics 5(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1080/2573234X.2022.2069426
Johnson, M., Jain, R., Brennan-Tonetta, P., Swartz, E., Silver, D., Paolini, J., et al., 2021, ‘Impact of big data and artificial intelligence on industry: Developing a workforce roadmap for a data driven economy’, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 22(3), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-021-00272-y
Kar, A.K. & Dwivedi, Y.K., 2020, ‘Theory building with big data-driven research–Moving away from the “What” towards the “Why”’, International Journal of Information Management 54, 102205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102205
Khan, J., Usman, M., Saeed, I., Ali, A. & Nisar, H., 2022, ‘Does workplace spirituality influence knowledge-sharing behavior and work engagement in work? Trust as a mediator’, Management Science Letters 12(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2021.8.001
Khanra, S., Dhir, A. & Mäntymäki, M., 2020, ‘Big data analytics and enterprises: A bibliometric synthesis of the literature’, Enterprise Information Systems 14(6), 737–768. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2020.1734241
Khoreva, V. & Wechtler, H., 2020, ‘Exploring the consequences of knowledge hiding: An agency theory perspective’, Journal of Managerial Psychology 35(2), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-11-2018-0514
Klee, S., Janson, A. & Leimeister, J.M., 2021, ‘How data analytics competencies can foster business value–A systematic review and way forward’, Information Systems Management 38(3), 200–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2021.1894515
Kristoffersen, E., Mikalef, P., Blomsma, F. & Li, J., 2021, ‘The effects of business analytics capability on circular economy implementation, resource orchestration capability, and firm performance’, International Journal of Production Economics 239, 108205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108205
Mahura, A. & Birollo, G., 2021, ‘Organizational practices that enable and disable knowledge transfer: The case of a public sector project-based organization’, International Journal of Project Management 39(3), 270–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.12.002
Maja, M.M. & Letaba, P., 2022, ‘Towards a data-driven technology roadmap for the bank of the future: Exploring big data analytics to support technology roadmapping’, Social Sciences & Humanities Open 6(1), 100270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssaho.2022.100270
Majam, T. & Jarbandhan, D.B., 2022, ‘Data driven human resource management in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR)’, Africa’s Public Service Delivery and Performance Review 10(1), 588. https://doi.org/10.4102/apsdpr.v10i1.588
Marjanovic, O., 2022, ‘A novel mechanism for business analytics value creation: Improvement of knowledge-intensive business processes’, Journal of Knowledge Management 26(1), 17–44. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-09-2020-0669
Maroufkhani, P., Wagner, R., Wan Ismail, W.K., Baroto, M.B. & Nourani, M., 2019, ‘Big data analytics and firm performance: A systematic review’, Information 10(7), 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10070226
McAllister, D.J., 1995, ‘Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations’, Academy of Management Journal 38(1), 24–59. https://doi.org/10.2307/256727
McEvily, B. & Tortoriello, M., 2011, ‘Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and recommendations’, Journal of Trust Research 1(1), 23–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2011.552424
Memon, S.B., Qureshi, J.A. & Jokhio, I.A., 2020, ‘The role of organizational culture in knowledge sharing and transfer in Pakistani banks: A qualitative study’, Global Business and Organizational Excellence 39(3), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/joe.21997
Merhi, M.I. & Bregu, K., 2020, ‘Effective and efficient usage of big data analytics in public sector’, Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy 14(4), 605–622. https://doi.org/10.1108/tg-08-2019-0083
Mezmir, E.A., 2020, ‘Qualitative data analysis: An overview of data reduction, data display, and interpretation’, Research on Humanities and Social Sciences 10(21), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.7176/rhss/10-21-02
Mikalef, P., Boura, M., Lekakos, G. & Krogstie, J., 2019, ‘Big data analytics capabilities and innovation: The mediating role of dynamic capabilities and moderating effect of the environment’, British Journal of Management 30(2), 272–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12343
Mikalef, P., Pappas, I.O., Krogstie, J. & Giannakos, M., 2018, ‘Big data analytics capabilities: A systematic literature review and research agenda’, Information Systems and E-Business Management 16(3), 547–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-017-0362-y
Mikalef, P., Pappas, I.O., Krogstie, J. & Pavlou, P.A., 2020, ‘Big data and business analytics: A research agenda for realizing business value’, Information & Management 57(1), 103237.
Mohammed, F.S. & Ozdamli, F., 2024, ‘A systematic literature review of soft skills in information technology education’, Behavioral Sciences 14(10), 894. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14100894
Mosala-Bryant, N.N. & Hoskins, R.G., 2017, ‘Motivational theory and knowledge sharing in the public service’, South African Journal of Information Management 19(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v19i1.772
Muazu, U.A. & Abdulmalik, S., 2021, ‘Information technology capabilities and competitive advantage: A review’, International Journal of Technology and Systems 6(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.47604/ijts.1206
Nguyen, T.M., Nham, T.P., Froese, F.J. & Malik, A., 2019, ‘Motivation and knowledge sharing: A meta-analysis of main and moderating effects’, Journal of Knowledge Management 23(5), 998–1016. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-01-2019-0029
Ochuba, N.A., Amoo, O.O., Okafor, E.S., Akinrinola, O. & Usman, F.O., 2024, ‘Strategies for leveraging big data and analytics for business development: A comprehensive review across sectors’, Computer Science & IT Research Journal 5(3), 562–575. https://doi.org/10.51594/csitrj.v5i3.861
Oesterreich, T.D., Anton, E. & Teuteberg, F., 2022a, ‘What translates big data into business value? A meta-analysis of the impacts of business analytics on firm performance’, Information & Management 59(6), 103685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103685
Oesterreich, T.D., Anton, E., Teuteberg, F. & Dwivedi, Y.K., 2022b, ‘The role of the social and technical factors in creating business value from big data analytics: A meta-analysis’, Journal of Business Research 153, 128–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.08.028
Ongena, G., 2023, ‘Data literacy for improving governmental performance: A competence-based approach and multidimensional operationalization’, Digital Business 3(1), 100050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100050
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D. et al., 2021, ‘The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews’, BMJ 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003
Pencheva, I., Esteve, M. & Mikhaylov, S.J., 2020, ‘Big Data and AI – A transformational shift for government: So, what next for research?’, Public Policy and Administration 35(1), 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076718780537
Persaud, A., 2020, ‘Key competencies for big data analytics professions: A multimethod study’, Information Technology & People 34(1), 178–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-06-2019-0290
Phaladi, M.P. & Ngulube, P., 2024, ‘Understanding tacit knowledge loss in public enterprises of South Africa’, SA Journal of Human Resource Management 22, 2229. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v22i0.2229
Power, D.J., Heavin, C., McDermott, J. & Daly, M., 2018, ‘Defining business analytics: An empirical approach’, Journal of Business Analytics 1(1), 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/2573234x.2018.1507605
Rambaree, K. & Faxelid, E., 2013, ‘Considering abductive thematic network analysis with ATLAS-ti 6.2’, in N. Sappleton (ed.), Advancing research methods with new technologies, pp. 170–186, IGI Global Scientific Publishing, Manchester.
Ruhode, E. & Mansell, I.J., 2019, ‘Inhibitors of business intelligence use by managers in public institutions in a developing country: The case of a South African municipality’, South African Journal of Information Management 21(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v21i1.1004
Rutten, W., Blaas-Franken, J. & Martin, H., 2016, ‘The impact of (low) trust on knowledge sharing’, Journal of Knowledge Management 20(2), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-10-2015-0391
Sabharwal, R. & Miah, S.J., 2021, ‘A new theoretical understanding of big data analytics capabilities in organizations: A thematic analysis’, Journal of Big Data 8(1), 159. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-021-00543-6
Shabbir, M.Q. & Gardezi, S.B.W., 2020, ‘Application of big data analytics and organizational performance: The mediating role of knowledge management practices’, Journal of Big Data 7(1), 47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-020-00317-6
Shava, E. & Vyas-Doorgapersad, S., 2022, ‘Fostering digital innovations to accelerate service delivery in South African Local Government’, International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478) 11(2), 83–91. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i2.1610
Shirani, A., 2016, ‘Identifying data science and analytics competencies based on industry demand’, Issues in Information Systems 17(4), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.48009/4_iis_2016_137-144
Shuradze, G. & Wagner, H.T., 2021, ‘Data analytics and knowledge integration mechanisms: The role of social interactions in innovation management’, in T. Bayón, M. Eisend, J. Koch, A. Söllner, M. Vodosek & H.-T. Wagner (eds.), Dynamic capabilities and relationships: Discourses, concepts, and reflections, pp. 67–86, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Simsek, Z., Vaara, E., Paruchuri, S., Nadkarni, S. & Shaw, J.D., 2019, ‘New ways of seeing big data’, Academy of Management Journal 62(4), 971–978. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2019.4004
Singh, S.K., Gupta, S., Busso, D. & Kamboj, S., 2021, ‘Top management knowledge value, knowledge sharing practices, open innovation and organizational performance’, Journal of Business Research 128, 788–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.040
Someh, I., Wixom, B., Davern, M. & Shanks, G., 2023, ‘Configuring relationships between analytics and business domain groups for knowledge integration’, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 24(2), 592–618. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00782
Sutherland, E., 2020, ‘The fourth industrial revolution–the case of South Africa’, Politikon 47(2), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/02589346.2019.1696003
Tønnessen, Ø., Dhir, A. & Flåten, B.T., 2021, ‘Digital knowledge sharing and creative performance: Work from home during the COVID-19 pandemic’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change 170, 120866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120866
Vasilyeva, O. & Richardson, A., 2022, ‘Big data and data analytics for enhanced decision-making in the public sector’, in 43rd International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS): on Association for Information Systems, Copenhagen, Denmark, pp. 1–9, viewed n.d., from https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2022/data_analytics/data_analytics/14.
Vidgen, R., Shaw, S. & Grant, D.B., 2017, ‘Management challenges in creating value from business analytics’, European Journal of Operational Research 261(2), 626–639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.02.023
Vijayasarathy, L.R. & Jetley, G., 2025, ‘Analytics competence and IT business value: The role of metric ambidexterity’, Journal of Business Analytics 8(4), 267–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/2573234x.2025.2485213
Wah, N.C., Zawawi, D., Yusof, R.N.R., Sambasivan, M. & Karim, J., 2018, ‘The mediating effect of tacit knowledge sharing in predicting innovative behaviour from trust’, International Journal of Business and Society 19(3), 937–954.
Wamba, S.F, Queiroz, M.M., Wu, L. & Sivarajah, U., 2024, ‘Big data analytics-enabled sensing capability and organizational outcomes: Assessing the mediating effects of business analytics culture’, Annals of Operations Research 333(2), 559–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-020-03812-4
Zhang, Q., Jayawickrama, U. & Ravenwood, C., 2025, ‘Developing a knowledge sharing strategy through the lens of activity theory’, in 2025 ECIS 2025 Proceedings, vol. 3, pp. 1–16, viewed 30 September 2025, from https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2025/general_track/general_track/3.
Appendix 1
| TABLE 1-A1: Analysis of literature based on research questions. |
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
