We take a theory-driven approach to designing an evidence management system. The ultimate purpose is to promote evidence-based management. The immediate purpose is to capture, curate, maintain, and deliver evidence gathered from both management research and management practice in a format usable by both humans and intelligent systems. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) and the theory of planned behaviour serve as the framework for the design, resulting in a design theory and empirical propositions. Our design offers a platform to facilitate ongoing communication between researchers and practitioners as well as a trustworthy mechanism for delivering the evidence to the end user in real-time. It comprises an evidence template, a wiki platform for bidirectional communication, and blockchain technology for ensuring trust among evidence users.
RynesSL, BartunekJM and DaftRL. Across the great divide: Knowledge creation and transfer between practitioners and academics. Acad Manage J, 2001; 44: 340–355.
2.
MarabelliM and VaastE.Unveiling the relevance of academic research: A practice-based view. Inf Organ, 2020; 3:100314.
3.
RynesSL, ColbertAE and BrownKG. HR professionals’ beliefs about effective human resource practices: correspondence between research and practice. Hum Resour Manage, 2002; 41: 149–174.
4.
MintzbergH.Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management develop. San Francisco: Bennett-Koehler Publishers, 2005.
5.
PearceJL and HuangL.The decreasing value of our research to management education. Acad Manage Learn Educ, 2012; 11: 247–262.
6.
SharmaG and BansalP.Cocreating rigorous and relevant knowledge. Acad Manage J, 2020; 63: 386–410.
7.
KieserA, NicolaiA and SeidlD.The practical relevance of management research: Turning the debate on relevance into a rigorous scientific research program. Acad Manage Ann, 2015; 9: 143–233.
8.
CoghlanD. Action research: Exploring perspectives on a philosophy of practical knowing. Acad Manage Ann, 2011; 5: 53–87.
Van de VenAH. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press on Demand; 2007.
11.
HevnerAR, MarchST, ParkJ and RamS.Design science in information systems research. MIS Q, 2004; 28: 75–105.
12.
HolmströmJ, KetokiviM and HameriAP. Bridging practice and theory: A design science approach. Decis Sci, 2009; 40: 65–87.
13.
SchumacherT. ‘When shall we three meet again’ PPRIG as a practitioner–practitioner–researcher collaboration approach. Eur Manage Rev, 2018; 15: 395–410.
14.
HatchuelA. Towards an epistemology of collective action: Management research as a responsive and actionable discipline. Eur Manage Rev, 2005; 2: 36–47.
15.
HakemZadehF and BabaVV. Toward a theory of collaboration for evidence-based management. Manage Decis, 2016; 54: 2587–2616.
16.
RousseauDM. The realist rationality of evidence-based management. Acad Manage Learn Educ. 2020; 19: 415–424.
17.
RousseauDM and GuniaBC. Evidence-based practice: the psychology of EBP implementation. Ann Rev Psychol, 2016; 67: 667–692.
18.
BarendsE and RousseauDM. Evidence-based management: How to use evidence to make better organizational decisions. Kogan Page Publishers, 2018.
19.
RousseauDM. Is there such a thing as ‘evidence-based management’?Acad Manage Rev, 2006; 31: 256–269.
20.
BabaVV and HakemZadehF.Toward a theory of evidence based decision making. Manage Decis, 2012; 50: 832–867.
21.
BartunekJM, RynesSL and IrelandRD. What makes management research interesting, and why does it matter?Acad Manage J, 2006; 49: 9–15.
22.
PfefferJ and SuttonRI. Evidence-based management. Harv Bus Rev, 2006; 84: 62.
23.
RynesSL and BartunekJM. Evidence-based management: Foundations, development, controversies and future. Ann Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav, 2017; 4: 235–261.
24.
GoldkuhlG. Design theories in information systems—a need for multi-grounding. J Inf Technol Theory Appl (JITTA), 2004; 6: 7.
25.
GregorS. The nature of theory in information systems. MIS Q, 2006; 30: 611–642.
26.
WallsJG, WidermeyerGR and El SawyOA. Assessing information system design theory in perspective: how useful was our 1992 initial rendition?J Inf Technol Theory Appl (JITTA), 2004; 6: 6.
27.
KinitiS and StandingC.Wikis as knowledge management systems: Issues and challenges. J Sys Inf Technol, 2013; 15. url: 10.1108/13287261311328895
28.
AlaviM and LeidnerD.Knowledge management systems: Issues, challenges, and benefits. Commun Assoc Inf Syst, 1999; 1: 7.
29.
DavenportTH, De LongDW and BeersMC. Successful knowledge management projects. Sloan Manage Rev, 1998; 2: 43–57.
30.
SambamurthyV and SubramaniM.Special issue on information technologies and knowledge management. MIS Q, 2005; 29: 1–7.
31.
SalemS. A proposed adoption model for blockchain technology using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT). Open Int J Inform, 2019; 7: 75–84.
32.
Rubenstein-MontanoB, LiebowitzJ, BuchwalterJ, . A systems thinking framework for knowledge management. Decis Support Syst, 2001; 31: 5–16.
33.
AlaviM and LeidnerDE. Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Q, 2001; 1: 107–136.
34.
GrantRM. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manage J, 1996; 17: 109–122.
35.
AbbasiA, SarkerS and ChiangRH. Big data research in information systems: Toward an inclusive research agenda. J Assoc Inf Syst, 2016; 17:3.
36.
CronholmS and GöbelH. Design science research constructs: A conceptual model. PACIS 2019 Proceedings of the Pacific Asia conference on Information Systems, Xi’an China. 2019; 6.
37.
VenkateshV, MorrisMG, DavisGB and DavisFD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q, 2003; 27: 425–478.
38.
AzjenI. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pearson, 1980.
39.
NonakaI and TakeuchiH. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
40.
ChouYH, LiTY and HoCT. Factors influencing the adoption of mobile commerce in Taiwan. Int J Mobile Commun, 2018; 16: 117–134.
41.
MartinsC, OliveiraT and PopovičA. Understanding the internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and use of technology and perceived risk application. Int J Inf Manage, 2014; 34: 1–3.
42.
TarhiniA, El-MasriM, AliM and SerranoA.Extending the UTAUT model to understand the customers’ acceptance and use of internet banking in Lebanon: A structural equation modeling approach. Inf Technol People, 2016; 29.
43.
BhatiaseviV. An extended UTAUT model to explain the adoption of mobile banking. Inf Dev, 2016; 32: 799–814.
44.
RahiS, GhaniM, AlnaserF and NgahA.Investigating the role of unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in internet banking adoption context. Manage Sci Lett, 2018; 8: 173–186.
45.
ChangM, WalimuniAC, KimMC and LimHS. Acceptance of tourism blockchain based on UTAUT and connectivism theory. Technol Soc, 2022; 71: 102027.
46.
WangH, ChenK and XuD.A maturity model for blockchain adoption. Financ Innov, 2016; 2: 1–5.
47.
CarterL and BélangerF. The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Inf Syst J, 2005; 15: 5–25.
48.
DakaCG and PhiriJ.Factors driving the adoption of e-banking services based on the UTAUT model. Int J Bus Manage, 2019; 14: 43–52.
49.
BlankG and DuttonWH. Age and trust in the internet: The centrality of experience and attitudes toward technology in Britain. Soc Sci Comput Rev, 2012; 30: 135–151.
50.
FranciscoK and SwansonD.The supply chain has no clothes: Technology adoption of blockchain for supply chain transparency. Logistics, 2018; 2: 2.
51.
McKnightDH, CarterM, ThatcherJB and ClayPF. Trust in a specific technology: An investigation of its components and measures. ACM Trans Manage Inf Syst (TMIS), 2011; 2: 1–25.
52.
SchwenkG and MöserG. Intention and behavior: A Bayesian meta-analysis with focus on the Ajzen–Fishbein Model in the field of environmental behavior. Qual Quantity, 2009; 43: 743–755.
53.
MayerRC, DavisJH and SchoormanFD. An integrative model of organizational trust. Acad Manage Rev, 1995; 20: 709–734.
54.
WebbTL and SheeranP.Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull, 2006; 132: 249.
55.
AlharbiST. Trust and acceptance of cloud computing: A revised UTAUT model. Paper Presented at: 2014 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational, Intelligence (Vol. 2). IEEE; 2014: 131–134.
56.
SantoroG, VrontisD, ThrassouA and DeziL.The internet of things: Building a knowledge management system for open innovation and knowledge management capacity. Technol Forecasting Soc change, 2018; 136: 347–354.
57.
SteinEW and ZwassV.Actualizing organizational memory with information systems. Inf Syst Res, 1995; 6: 85–117.
58.
TeeceDJ. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and micro foundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strateg Manage J, 2007; 28: 1319–1350.
59.
KuechlerW and VaishnaviV.A framework for theory development in design science research: multiple perspectives. J Assoc Inf Syst, 2012; 13: 3.
60.
ChambersN and JurafskyD. Template-based information extraction without the templates. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies. 2011 June: 976–986.
61.
DennisAR and VesseyI.Three knowledge management strategies: Knowledge hierarchies, knowledge markets, and knowledge communities. MIS Q Exec, 2005; 4: 399–412.
62.
PfaffCC and HasanHM. Overcoming organizational resistance to using Wiki technology for Knowledge Management. Proceedings of the 10th Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2006: 38–44.
63.
WagnerC and MajchrzakA.Enabling customer-centricity using wikis and the wiki way. J Manage Inf Syst, 2006; 23: 17–43.
64.
HesterAJ and ScottJE. A conceptual model of wiki technology diffusion. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008). IEEE; 2008 January 7: 32–32.
65.
LeufB and CunninghamW. The Wiki Way: Quick Collaboration on the Web. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.; 2001January1.
66.
BarrettDJ. Media Wiki: Wikipedia and beyond. O’Reilly Media, Inc.; 2008 October 14.
67.
PariseS. Knowledge management and human resource development: An application in social network analysis methods. Adv Developing Hum Resour, 2007; 9: 359–383.
68.
ChauT and MaurerF. A case study of wiki-based experience repository at a medium-sized software company. Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on Knowledge capture, Banff, Alberta, Canada: ACM; 2005 October 2: 185–186.
69.
GruberTR. A translation approach to portable ontology specifications. Knowledge Acquisition, 1993; 5: 199–220.
70.
SorensonO and RivkinJW. Fleming, L2006Complexity, networks and knowledge flow. Res Policy, 2006; 35: 994–1017.
71.
SiciliaMA and MoraM.On using the REA enterprise ontology as a foundation for service system representations. In Workshop on Ontology, Conceptualization and Epistemology for Information Systems, Software Engineering and service Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg;2010June7: 135–147.
72.
GordijnJ and AkkermansH.Designing and evaluating e-business models. IEEE Intelligent Syst. 2001July1; 16(04): 11–17.
73.
OsterwalderA and PigneurY.An eBusiness model ontology for modeling eBusiness. BLED 2002 proceedings. 2002December31: 2. Paper Presented at: The 15th Bled Electronic Commerce Conference; 2002 June 17–19; Bled, Slovenia.
74.
AnderssonB, BergholtzM, EdirisuriyaA, . Towards a reference ontology for business models. Paper presented at: International Conference on Conceptual Modeling; 2006 November 6:482–496; Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
75.
BennettM. The Financial Industry Business Ontology: best practice for big data. J Banking Regul, 2013; 14: 255–268.
76.
KeetCM. The use of foundational ontologies in ontology development: An empirical assessment. Paper presented at: Extended Semantic Web Conference; 2011 May 29: 321–335; Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
77.
GuizzardiG and WagnerG.A unified foundational ontology and some applications of it in business modeling. CAiSE Workshops. 2004June7; (3): 129–143.
78.
CooperCL, ArgyrisC and StarbuckWH, editors. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management. Maiden, MA: Blackwell; 2005.
79.
StattDA. The Routledge Dictionary of Business Management. Routledge; 2004 August 2.
80.
BabaVV. Editorial essay on business theory and influential scholarship: What makes research interesting?Can J Adm Sci [Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration], 2016; 33: 268–276.
81.
ThurowLC. Building wealth: The new rules for individuals, companies, and nations in a knowledge-based economy. Am J Econ Sociol, 2000; 59: 351–354.
82.
PilkingtonM. Blockchain technology: Principles and applications. In: Research Handbook on Digital Transformations. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2016September30.
83.
SecinaroS, CalandraD and BianconeP. Blockchain, trust, and trust accounting: Can blockchain technology substitute trust created by intermediaries in trust accounting? A theoretical examination. Int J Manage Pract, 2021; 14: 129–145.
84.
EberhardtJ and TaiS.On or off the blockchain? Insights on off-chaining computation and data. Paper presented at: European Conference on Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing; 2017 September 27: 3–15; Springer, Cham.
85.
XuX, PautassoC, ZhuL, . The blockchain as a software connector. Paper presented at: 2016 13th Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA); 2016 April 5: 182–191; IEEE.
86.
VukolićM. Rethinking permissioned blockchains. Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies and Contracts; 2017 April 2: 3–7.
87.
HubbardDW. How to measure anything: Finding the value of intangibles in business. John Wiley & Sons; 2014 March 17.
TanabeM, SuzukamoY, TsujiI and IzumiSI. Communication training improves sense of performance expectancy of public health nurses engaged in long-term elderly prevention care program. Int Sch Res Notices, 2012. url: 10.5402%2F2012%2F430560
90.
ShinDD. Blockchain: The emerging technology of digital trust. Telematics Inform, 2019; 45: 101278.
91.
CraigheadCW, Ketchen JrDJ and DarbyJL. Taking AIM at theoretical and pragmatic impact: a call for actionable, insightful, and measurable research. J Bus Logistics, 2019; 40: 289–298.
92.
KumazawaT, HaraK, EndoA and TaniguchiM.Supporting collaboration in interdisciplinary research of water–energy–food nexus by means of ontology engineering. J Hydrology, 2017; 11: 31–43.
93.
Sobati-MoghadamS and FayoumiA.Private collaborative business benchmarking in the cloud. Paper presented at: Science and Information Conference; 2018 July 10: 1359–1365; Springer, Cham.
