The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar

EBS-XXX

Doing Systematic Review in Business Management Research Jarut Kunanoppadol Department of Mechanical Engineering Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Technology, Silpakorn University Nakhon Pathom 73000, Thailand E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract This paper aimed to summarize the methods for conducting the systematic review and reporting the results, then develop the guideline for further review in this field. To do so, systematic review articles were electronically searched from six bibliographic databases: EBSCO, Emerald, JSTOR, ProQuest, Science Direct, and Springer Link. They were systematically selected, assessed the quality, and extracted the data respectively. The 40 articles from 2004 to 2015 were included in the review. Their review topics were categorized into five themes: innovation, network, commercialization, operation, and knowledge. Their methods were summarized into the guideline for further review in this field. Keywords: systematic review, business management research. 1. Introduction Systematic review (SR) is one of the evidence-based approaches to integrate evidences from individual studies, then use a finding for academic and practical implications [1]. While a traditional narrative review has been widely criticized in terms of un-systematic process and personal bias, SR explicitly applies a scientific principle in order to reduce random and systematic errors of bias [2]. This review method has been regarded as the highest hierarchy of the evidence-based practices [3], [4] due to scientific and structural methods, systematic and transparent protocols, and replicable and reproducible processes. It has been widely used in medical research for more than three decades [5]. In medical review, there are handbooks and guidelines for suggesting reviewers to conduct their reviews and present the results, for example, Cochrane handbook [6], CRD guidance [7], NICE guideline [8], and JBI manual [9]. Moreover, there are internet-based systems for supporting the review processes, for example, Cochrane system1 and JBI system2. In business management review, Tranfield et al. (2003) presented an idea of applying this method to a business management research. That article seems like the starting point of doing SR in this field. Until now, several review articles in business management have been conducted by SR method. A pilot study found that the SR in this field were various in terms of method, process, and format. Therefore, this paper aimed to summarize the methods from literature to develop the guideline for further reviews in business management research. Two normative review questions were identified based on the objectives as follows: RQ1: Which topics have been reviewed by SR method? RQ2: How to conduct the review and report the results?

2. Methodology 2.1 Literature search Literature was electronically searched from six bibliographic databases: EBSCO, Emerald, JSTOR, ProQuest, Science Direct, and Springer Link. The keyword ‘systematic review’ was used as the main

1 2

www.cochrane.org www.joannabriggs.org

1

The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar

EBS-XXX

keyword. Search strategy is shown in Appendix to ensure that the search can be reproduced [4]. Initial search was conducted on February 2015. There were 7457 discovered items for first hit. 2.2 Article selection The PICOS logic was used to identify inclusion and exclusion criteria as shown in Table 1 [7]. Article selection was conducted with ‘do & redo’ technique for reduce an error [5]. First selection was undertaken on February 2015, and the second round was done on July 2015. The selection processes started from limiting the document types and manually selecting the journal names in searching process to consider the criteria C4 and C1 respectively. Subsequently, title and abstract screening, methodology screening, and full-text screening [5] were conducted to consider the criteria C2, C3, and C5 respectively. Article selection results are illustrated in PRISMA flow diagram [7] as shown in Figure 1. Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria C1

PICOS Population

C2

Intervention

C3

Comparator

C4

Outcome

C5

Study design

Inclusion criteria The articles published in business management journals The title focused in business management theory The articles that refer to sources of systematic review method used The review articles or research articles The articles using a systematic review method

Exclusion criteria The articles published in other fields such as medical, engineering, or educational journals. The title focused in other theory such as medical, engineering, or educational discipline The articles that did not refer to sources of systematic review method used Other types such as secondary article, short communication, book review, conference or symposium proceeding, discussion papers The articles using other methods such as narrative review, integrative review, meta-analysis, and empirical research

Selection process Journal name selecting Title and abstract screening Methodology screening Document type limiting Full-text screening

Firstly, the 7457 articles discovered form electronic search were limited by selecting journal name in business management (criterion C1), and selecting document type to be review article and research article (criterion C4). There were 62 articles meeting these criteria, while the 7395 articles were rejected. Secondly, title screening was conducted to select the articles using business management theory (criterion C2). There were 45 articles meeting this criterion, while five articles were rejected. Four of them focused on the other areas: health care [10], education [11], software engineering [12], and medical science [13]. One of them was an empirical research article [14]. Thirdly, methodology screening was subsequently conducted to select the articles referring to the source of the SR method (criterion C3). There were 38 articles meeting this criterion. Seven articles were excluded because they did not mention any source of the SR method used [15]–[21]. Finally, full-text screening was conducted to select the articles conducted and reported in the pattern of the systematic review (Criterion C3). There were 37 articles meeting this criterion, while one article was excluded as its reporting method seemed like the narrative review [22]. By article selection process, there were 37 included articles meeting all inclusion criteria for next stage. 2.3 Literature Expansion Literature expansion was conducted for searching additional articles from the references list of the selected articles [6]. By doing so, there were three additional articles meeting all inclusion criteria [23]– [25] and two articles additionally included with remark [26], [27]. Those two articles did not mention any source of the method used (criterion C3); however, they were included since they were published in the early stage. Therefore, there were 42 potential articles used for next stage as shown in Figure 1.

2

EBS-XXX

The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar Literature search

Discovered items from database search (n = 7457)

Journal name and document type screening (n = 7457) Excluded articles that did not meet the criteria C1 and C4 (n = 7395)

Relevant articles (n=62)

Article selection

Duplicated items (n = 12)

Title and abstract screening (n = 50) Excluded articles that did not meet the criterion C2) (n = 5)

Methodology screening (n = 45)

Excluded articles that did not meet the criterion C3 (n = 7)

Full-text screening (n = 38)

Excluded articles that did not meet the criterion C3 (n = 1)

Included articles meeting all inclusion criteria (n = 37) Literature expansion Additional articles identified from references list screening meeting all inclusion criteria (n = 3)

Potential articles for the review (n = 42) Quality assessment Passed articles meeting at least one quality criterion (n = 38) Literature update The samples for the review (n = 40)

Additional articles identified from references list screening with remark (n = 2)

Excluded articles that did not meet any quality criterion (n = 4)

Additional articles from literature update on July 2015 meeting all inclusion criteria and at least one quality criterion (n = 2)

Figure 1. Flow diagram 2.4 Quality Assessment Quality assessment was conducted with four quality criteria: citation per year, and three journal indexes. Number of citation was checked via Google Scholar3 [28], then citation per year (on average) was calculated by using 2014 as base year. Three journal indexes consisted of ABS score, SRJ quartile, and Impact factor. ABS score was checked from Association of Business Schools (2010) report, SRJ quartile was checked via SCImago database4 on February 2015, and the impact factor (2013) was checked via official websites of the journal. The cutoff values are shown in Table 2. The passed articles must meet at least one of these criteria. The quality assessment of the 42 articles was conducted on February 2015. There was four articles excluded because they did not meet any quality criterion [30]– [33], while the 38 passed articles were used for next stage. 3 4

http://scholar.google.com http://www.scimagojr.com

3

EBS-XXX

The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar

Table 2. Quality criteria Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Tool Citation per year ABS score SRJ Quartile Impact Factor

Source Google Scholar and used 2014 as based year Association of Business Schools (2010) report SCImago database Journals official websites

Included article ≥ 2 citation per year ≥3 ≥ 2nd quartile ≥ 1.50

2.5 Literature updated Literature updated was conducted on July 2015. There were three additional articles meeting all inclusion criteria. One of them was rejected as it did not meet any quality criterion [34], while two additional articles were included to the review [35], [36]. Therefore, there were 40 samples for the review as shown in Figure 1. The samples were assigned the article ID as shown in Table A1 and marked with asterisk (*) in the references list. 2.6 Data extraction Computer-based data extraction form was generated by ‘Microsoft Excel’. It consisted of three parts: descriptive, thematic, and methodological data. The descriptive data consisted of article ID, author, year, title, journal, and country. The thematic data was the theoretical lens considered in the articles. The methodological data consisted of the items following the SR methodology in Table 3. The electronic data extraction was conducted with the ‘do & redo’ technique. First extraction was conduct on February 2015 and the second round was done on July 2015. 2.7 Data Analysis Data analysis consisted two themes: descriptive and thematic analyses. Descriptive analysis was to overview the distribution of samples. It was conducted by considering the frequency of samples based on a year published and a country of the main author. Thematic analysis was to answer the review questions. For first review question, the topics of samples were categorized for overviewing which topic in business management reviewed with SR method. For the second question, the methods for conducting the review and reporting the results were summarized for considering how to conduct the review and report the result, then developing the guideline for further review.

Number of articles

27

9 4

2001-2005

2006-2010

2011-2015

Year published

Italy 7%

Norway 3%

Sweden 3%

Commercial ization 12%

UK 27%

Canada 10%

Operation 33%

Spain 10% Finland 15% Germany 10%

Network 29%

US 15%

Figure 2. Distribution of samples

4

Innovation 19%

Knowledge 7%

The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar

EBS-XXX

3. Finding 3.1 Distribution of samples The publication trend of SR articles in business management is shown in Figure 2. The year published was classified into three periods. The trend clearly indicated the growth of doing SR in this field. Since Tranfield et al. (2003) article, this method has been applied for the reviews in many topics, and the number of articles have increased from 4 articles in first period to 25 articles in the recent period. The distribution of sample by country showed that most of SR articles were from UK (27%), Finland (15%), and US (15%). Although this method has been widely used, doing SR in this field has limited in the Western countries. The topics in business management research reviewed with SR method were categorized into five themes: innovation, network, commercialization, operation, and knowledge. Most of them were SR article in the topics of operation (33%) and network (29%). The result indicated that the SR method can be applied for review in various topics in business management research. The list of topic are shown in Table A1. 3.2 Systematic review template The methods used in the samples were summarized to develop the guideline for further review in this field. The SR processes can be classified into three phases with six stages as shown in Table 3. The details of each processes are as follows: Table 3. Systematic review processes S1 S2

Stage Review planning Literature search

Phase I: Preparing - Background for review - Database - Keyword and search term - Inclusion and exclusion criteria - Assessment tool

Phase II: Conducting - (Scoping search) - Search strategy

Phase III: Reporting - Review question - Search result

S3

Article selection

- Selection strategy - Literature expansion - Assessment strategy

- Selection result

S4

Quality assessment

S5 S6

Data extraction Data analysis

- Extraction tool - Analysis theme - Analysis tool

- Extraction strategy - Analysis process

Output

Review protocol

Progress report

- Assessment result - (Literature update) - Extraction table - Distribution of samples - Finding summary - Implication - Limitation Systematic review article

Stage 1 Review Planning  Background for review should be separated from an introduction section. Its heading can be , for example, background, literature review, background literature, related work, name of main theory, evidence of problem, motivation for review, or definition of main topic. It overviews the previous reviews related to the topic via a summary table, overview the conceptual framework of the overall scope to define the need for a review, or explained the related work via a summary table.  Review question is the most important for SR [4]. It can be classified into five types: descriptive, normative, observational (rational), causal, and theoretical question [5]. It can be specify or broad, if broad, it should be broken down into the specific sub-questions [7]. It can be explicitly highlighted by using ‘RQ’ abbreviation. Stage 2 Literature Search  Database can be both published journals listed in bibliographic databases and unpublished studies, for example, conference/symposium proceeding, thesis/dissertation, and industry trial [4], [5]. Search can be hand or electronic searching. For hand searching, the list of journals and conferences should be defined. For electronic searching, literatures should be searched from multiple bibliographic databases, and the lists of the databases (and their URLs) should be explicitly reported.

5

The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar

EBS-XXX

 Keyword and search term can be single or multiple keywords based on the scope of review. Boolean operator (AND, OR, NOT) can be used to increase search efficiency. Wildcard (*) can be used for cover others of the keyword.  Search strategy, search string, or search protocol should be explicitly explained to ensure that the search can be reproduced. If there are much details, it can be explained in appendix.  Search result should be explicitly reported based on keyword, database, or round of search. It can be report via crosstab. Stage 3 Article Selection  Inclusion criteria (or eligibility criteria) must be pre-defined for article selecting. It is for describing the specific attributes of studies included in SR [5]. Both inclusion and exclusion criteria should be pre-defined in a tabular form. PIOS logic [37], PICO logic [5], and PICOS logic5 [7] can be used for quantitative review, while PICo logic6 can be used for qualitative review [9]. It can also describe the reason for each criteria.  Selection strategy should be applied for reducing the personal bias. Article selection can be sequentially conducted by screening a title, an abstract, and a full-text respectively [5]. It can be undertaken by two independent reviewers, then cross-checked for considering the number (or percentage) of agreement and the Kappa coefficient of agreement. It can be conducted by one reviewer, then randomly rechecked by another one. It can be conducted by a single reviewer with ‘do & redo’ technique [5].  Literature expansion can be conducted by screening the list of references in each selected articles. This method is called ‘snowballing technique’ [38].  Selection result should be explicitly reported for each steps of selection. It can be reported via summary table or PRISMA flow diagram [7]. The rejected articles can be classified into two groups: they are clearly irrelevant to the topic of interest, or they are relevant to the topic but fail on one or more criteria [7]. First group can be recorded as an irrelevant study, while second group should be explained why the article is rejected. Stage 4 Quality Assessment  Assessment tool, quality criteria, and cut-off values must be pre-defined for including or excluding the articles base on the quality. In medical review, there are institutes developing their systems and tools such as Cochrane [6] and JBI [9]. There are standard checklist for assessing the quality of studies such as PRISMA checklist [5], CRD checklist for RCT studies [7], and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) checklist for cohort studies [39]. In business review, there are suggested checklists such as Oxman (1994) checklist and Glynn (2006) EBLIP checklist. Some reviewers developed their own quality assessment tool. The scoring method can be a digital scale (0 = no, 1 = yes), a partial scale (0 = absence, 0.5 = partial, 1 = full), or a three-level scale (0 = absence, 1 = low, 2 = medium, 3 = high). The scoring definition should be explained (e.g. in tabular form). The summary of the score can be used to classify the articles (e.g. into three groups: A, B, C). Quality of articles can be assessed by other tools: a citation per year (on average), a journal rank, and a journal index (e.g. Impact factor, VHB, ABS, SRJ Quartile). The articles can be classified (e.g. into three groups based on year), then assessed with the different tools.  Assessment strategy should be applied for reducing the personal bias. It can be undertaken by a single reviewer or multiple reviewers as similar as the article selection process. In case that the articles are assessed by citation per year, journal rank, or journal index, it may not need to be rechecked.  Assessment result should be explicitly report for each criteria or each steps (e.g. via table or flow diagram). Passed article may be assigned the article ID for further processes. The article included in the review can be marked with asterisk (*) in the references list. 5 6

P = population, I = intervention, C = comparator, O = outcome, and S = study design P = population, I = phenomena of interest, Co = context

6

The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar

EBS-XXX

Stage 5 Data Extraction  Extraction tool can be paper-based or computer-based. For reducing human error and bias, the data extraction form (proforma) should be pre-designed [4]. Its item can be classified three groups: descriptive, methodological, and thematic data. The descriptive data can consist of date of extraction, author, year published, title, journal, and article type (review, conceptual, empirical). The methodological data can consist of theory, objective, research method, research design, country, industry, sector, sample size, data collection, definition of variables, measurement, and data analysis method. The research method can be classified into qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method. The research design for the quantitative study can be classified into randomized controlled trial, controlled-comparison study, cohort study, or descriptive survey [3], [7], while the research design for qualitative research can be classified into narrative, phenomenological, ground theory, ethnographic, or case study [42]. The variables can consist of dependent, independent, control, mediating, and moderating variable(s). The thematic data can consist of definition of key term, contribution/finding, further research suggestion, and additional comment. In case that there are a lot of details, a coding protocol should be prepared.  Extraction strategy should be applied for reducing the personal bias. It can be undertaken by a single reviewer or multiple reviewers as similar as the article selection and quality assessment process.  Extraction table should be reported. If there are huge of data extracted, reviewer can select some of them to show in the article (e.g. via crosstab). Stage 6 Data Analysis  Analysis theme can be classified into three types: descriptive, citation network, and thematic analysis. Descriptive analysis is a deductive procedure for overviewing distributions of samples in the review. Citation network analysis is to illustrate citations and cross-citations for highlighting main references in the topic. Thematic analysis is an inductive procedure by using a meta-synthesis technique for summarizing contributions and findings depended on the objective and review question. A framework can help reviewer setting the analysis theme and organizing a presentation and discussion of finding. Meta-analysis technique can be used in case that there are enough quantitative studies in the review.  Analysis tool is selected based on analysis theme. Databases can constructed by a spreadsheet software (e.g. Microsoft Excel, Libra Office). Descriptive analysis can be simply determined by a spreadsheet software or a statistical software (e.g. IBM SPSS). Citation network analysis can be undertaken by a citation network software (e.g. Thomson Reuter HistCite). It can be manually done by considering the frequency of references then using a software to generate the net diagram (e.g. Gephi). Thematic analysis can be conducted by a text analysis software (e.g. QSR NVivo).  Analysis process should be applied for reducing the personal bias. It can be undertaken by a single reviewer or multiple reviewers as similar as the article selection, the quality assessment, and the data extraction processes. For multiple reviewers, data analysis process should be undertaken by discussion to reach the conclusion.  Distribution of samples should be reported based on the data extracted. It is to overview the distribution of samples based on several criteria, for example, year published, journal, country, industry, and so on.  Finding summary can be presented based on the objective and the review question. Citation network can be illustrated in a net diagram. An overview or a comparison of literatures can be presented in tubular form. A summary of research findings can be classified and presented via crosstab or matrix. Classification and definition of a key term can be summarized in table. The historical development of theory can be portrayed by conceptual graph. The summary of research frameworks can be illustrated by diagram or mind map. The summary of variables and their measurements can be provided in tabular form.  Implication should consists of theoretical and managerial (or practical) implications.

7

The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar

EBS-XXX

 Limitation and suggestion should be explicitly explained to mention the lack and uncovered topic in the review, and guide for the development of the further review.

4. Conclusions The topics in business management which have been reviewed by SR method from 2004 to 2015 were classified into five themes: innovation, network, commercialization, operation, and knowledge. However, there are several topics still have not been reviewed by this method. The paper also summarized the method used in the samples, then provided the guideline for further reviews in this field.

5. Limitation There were three limitations in this review. Firstly, this review collected the SR articles in business management from six bibliographic databases based on the PDF full-text accessibility. However, there were other databases excluded in the review such as Scopus, Sage, and Wiley. Moreover, the samples in the review were not from the unpublished studies such as conference/symposium proceeding and thesis/dissertation. Secondly, in selection processes, the journal was refined by considering the journal names in business management listed in the search strategy. Therefore, articles in other journals were excluded. Finally, this review was conducted by a single reviewer, however, author applied several methods to improve the reliability and reduce the personal bias. The pre-defined inclusion criteria and quality criteria were for minimizing a personal bias. The explicit descriptions of the processes were for presenting the systematic and transparent processes. The ‘do & redo’ technique was for increasing the reliability of the review.

6. Acknowledgement I would like to thank the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Technology, Silpakorn University, Thailand for supporting research facilities.

7. Appendix Table A1. Data extraction Study

Article selection

Quality assessment

Article ID

Country

Topic

Topic category

Initial search Cubbison (1999) Hackett and Dilts (2004) Becheikh et al. (2006) Macpherson and Holt (2007)

Excluded Included Included Included

Included Included Included

A01 A02 A03

US Canada UK

N I O

Lettieri et al. (2009) Bergman and Holden (2010)

Included Included

Included Included

A04 A05

Italy US

Fiegen (2010) González et al. (2010) Peloza and Shang (2010) Walker (2010) Geraldi et al. (2011) Meglio and Risberg (2011) Mohiuddin (2011) Colicchia and Strozzi (2012) Delbufalo (2012)

Included Included Excluded Included Included Excluded Excluded Included Included

Included Included

A06 A07

US Spain

Business incubation Innovation in manufacturing section Knowledge, learning, and growth in small firm Disaster management User satisfaction with electronic reference Business instruction Measurement in business process

Included Included

A08 A09

Canada UK

Corporate reputation Complexity of project

C O

Included Included

A10 A11

Italy Italy

N N

Gimenez and Tachizawa (2012) Ginieis et al. (2012) Gligor and Holcomb (2012)

Included Included Included

Included Included Included

A12 A13 A14

Spain Spain US

Jalonen (2012) Keränen et al. (2012) Lepmets et al. (2012) Pilbeam et al. (2012) Savolainen et al. (2012)

Included Included Excluded Included Included

Included Included

A15 A16

Finland Finland

Supply chain risk management Inter-organizational trust in supply chain relationship Extending sustainability to suppliers Air transportation Role of logistics capabilities in achieving supply chain agility Uncertainty of innovation B2B branding

Included Included

A17 A18

UK Finland

Governance of supply networks Software development project success and failure

N I

8

O N O O

N O N I C

The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar Study

EBS-XXX

Quality assessment Included

Article ID A19

Country

Topic

Wong et al. (2012) Coombes and Nicholson (2013) Iden and Eikebrokk (2013)

Article selection Included Excluded Included

Topic category N

UK

Supply chain alignment

Included

A20

Norway

Implementing IT service management

O

Legros et al. (2013) Lightfoot et al. (2013) Mugurusi and de Boer (2013) Mustak et al. (2013)

Included Included Excluded Included

Excluded Included

A21

UK

Servitization of manufacturing

O

Included

A22

Finland

Customer participation and value creation

N

Nicolescu and Galalae (2013) Nidhra et al. (2013)

Excluded Included

Included

A23

Sweden

K

Parris and Peachey (2013) Schmeisser (2013) Schneider et al. (2013) Sourouklis and Tsagdis (2013)

Included Included Excluded Included

Included Included

A24 A25

US Germany

Knowledge transfer challenges and mitigation strategies in global software development Servant leadership theory Offshoring of value chain activities

Included

A26

UK

O

Vázquez-carrasco and Lópezpérez (2013) Anaya-Arenas et al. (2014) Arumugam et al. (2014) Czakon et al. (2014) Devaraj et al. (2014) Hansen and Schaltegger (2014) Junker and van Dick (2014) Laufs and Schwens (2014)

Included

Included

A27

Spain

Included Included Included Excluded Included Excluded Included

Included Excluded Excluded

A28

Canada

Workforce diversity and hotel performance SMEs and corporate social responsibility Relief distribution networks

Included

A29

Germany

Sustainability balanced scorecard

O

Included

A30

Germany

Foreign market entry mode of SMEs

C

McLeod et al. (2014) Mustak (2014) Sandberg and Aarikka-Stenroos (2014) Wonglimpiyarat (2014) Bouncken et al. (2015) Hueske and Guenther (2015) Literature expansion Leseure et al. (2004) Pittaway et al. (2004) Thorpe et al. (2005) Rashman et al. (2009)

Excluded Included Included

Included Included

A31 A32

Finland Finland

Service innovation in networks Barrier to radical innovation

I I

Excluded Included Included

Included Excluded

A33

Germany

Coopetition

C

Included Included Included Included

Included Included Included Included

A34 A35 A36 A37

UK UK UK UK

O N, I K K

Crossan and Apaydin (2010) Literature update Adagha et al. (2015) Drohomeretski et al. (2015) Tarhini et al. (2015)

Included

Included

A38

US

Adoption of promising practice Networking and Innovation Using knowledge within SMEs Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations Organizational innovation

Included Excluded Included

Included

A39

Canada

Product design assessment

I

Included

A40

UK

Enterprise resource planning implementation

O

O N

O C, N

I

Note: Topic category: C = commercialization, I = innovation, K = knowledge, N = network, and O = operation

Search strategy: EBSCO (http://eds.b.ebscohost.com) (1) Business/economics databases (2) Advance search (3) Search for ‘systematic review’ in title (4) Limit your result: full t ext, and scholarly (peer reviewed) journals (5) Language: English (6) Publication type: academic journal (7) Document type: article (8) Include: PDF full text (9) There were two articles from 2013-2013 discovered. (10) Manually select from journal name in business management: Journal of Business Ethics (11). There was one article from this database. Emerald (http://www.emeraldinsight.com) (1) Advance search (2) Search for ‘systematic review’ in content item title (3) Include: only content I have access to (4) Exclude: early cite and back files (5) Content types: articles and chapters (6) Publication date: all dates (7) Search (8) There were 164 articles from 1994-2015 discovered. (9) Manually select from journal name in business management: Supply Chain Management, An International Journal, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Reference Services Review, Business Process Management Journal, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal (10) There were 12 articles from this database. JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org) (1) Advance search (2) Search for ‘systematic review’ in item title (3) Include only content I can access (4) Exclude links t o external content (5) Item type: articles (6) Language: English (7) Narrow by discipline: business, business and economics, management & organizational behavior (8) Search (9) There were 958 articles from 1854-2014 discovered. (10) Manually select from article title that have the keywords. (11) There was no article from this database. ProQuest (http://search.proquest.com/index)

9

The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar

EBS-XXX

(1) Advance search (2) Search for ‘systematic review’ in document title (3) Limit to: full text and peer reviewed (4) Publication data: all date (5) Language: English (6) Search (7) Refine source type: scholarly journals (8) There are 500 articles from 1992-2015 discovered. (9) Manually select from journal name in business management: Disaster Prevention and Management, Business Process Management Journal, Supply Chain Management, The Journal of Product and Brand Management, Journal of Business Ethics, Corporate Reputation Review, Journal of Business and Technical Communication, Journal of Technology Transfer, Management & Marketing, Journal of Economics & Management, Journal of International Business Research, suppl. Special Issue, Quality and Quantity, Journal of Service Science Research, The International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online), The Quality Management Journal, The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Managing Service Quality, Strategic Outsourcing: an International Journal, Journal of Management Research, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Journal of Business Administration Research (10) There were 27 articles from this database. Science Direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com) (1) Advance search (2) Journals tab (3) Search for ‘systematic review’ in title (4) Discipline: business, management and accounting (5) Types: article and review articles (6) Select: all years (7) Exclude: articles in press (8) Search (9) There were 35 articles from 2006-2015 discovered (10) Manually select from journal name in business management: International Journal of Information Management, Industrial Marketing Management, International Business Review, International Journal of Hospitality Management, International Journal o f Project Management, Journal of Air Transport Management, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Journal of International Management, The Leadership Quarterly, Research Policy, Scandinavian Journal of Management, Technovation (11) There were 15 articles from this database. Springer link (http://link.springer.com) (1) Advance search (2) Find resources where the title contains ‘systematic review’ (3) Exclude: preview-only content (4) Search (5) There were 5,800 documents from 1997-2015 discovered (6) Refine content type: article (7) Refine by discipline: business & management (8) Manually select from journal name in business management: Management Review Quarterly, Review of Managerial Science, Annals of Operations Research, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, The Journal of Technology Transfer (9) There were 7 articles from this database.

8. References [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

[15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

H. M. Cooper, The integrative research review: a systematic approach. Sage Publications, 1984. C. D. Mulrow, “Systematic reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews,” British Medical Journal, vol. 309, no. 6954, pp. 597–599, Sep. 1994. J. D. Eldredge, “Evidence-based librarianship: an overview,” Bull Med Libr Assoc, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 289–302, Oct. 2000. D. Tranfield, D. Denyer, and P. Smart, “Towards a methodology for developing evidence-Informed management knowledge by means of systematic Review,” British Journal of Management, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 207–222, 2003. A. Boland, M. G. Cherry, and R. Dickson, Eds., Doing a Systematic Review: A Student’s Guide, 1 edition. SAGE Publications Ltd, 2013. J. Higgins and S. Green, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Systematic Reviews: CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Healthcare. York: Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, 2009. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition). 2012. Joanna Briggs Institute, Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2014 edition, vol. 2014. The Joanna Briggs Institute, The University of Adelaide, South Australia, 2014. L. Cubbison, “Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for health care decisions,” Journal of Business and Technical Communication, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 473–475, Oct. 1999. L. Nicolescu and C. Galalae, “A systematic literature review on students’ international mobility and cultural adjustment,” Management & Marketing, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 261–282, 2013. S. Schneider, R. Torkar, and T. Gorschek, “Solutions in global software engineering: A systematic literature review,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 119–132, Feb. 2013. S. Devaraj, S. K. Sharma, D. J. Fausto, S. Viernes, and H. Kharrazi, “Barriers and facilitators to clinical decision support systems adoption: A systematic review,” Journal of Business Administration Research, vol. 3, no. 2, p. n/a, 2014. J. Wonglimpiyarat, “Competition and challenges of mobile banking: A systematic review of major bank models in the Thai banking industry,” The Journal of High Technology Management Research, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 123–131, 2014. P. H. Coombes and J. D. Nicholson, “Business models and their relationship with marketing: A systematic literature review,” Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 656–664, Jul. 2013. N. M. Junker and R. van Dick, “Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories,” The Leadership Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1154–1173, Dec. 2014. M. Lepmets, A. Cater-steel, F. Gacenga, and E. Ras, “Extending the IT service quality measurement framework through a systematic literature review,” Journal of Service Science Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 7–47, Jun. 2012. M. S. McLeod, G. T. Payne, and R. E. Evert, “Organizational ethics research: A systematic review of methods and analytical techniques,” J Bus Ethics, pp. 1–15, Nov. 2014. O. Meglio and A. Risberg, “The (mis)measurement of M&A performance—A systematic narrative literature review,” Scandinavian Journal of Management, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 418–433, Dec. 2011.

10

The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar [20] [21] [22] [23]* [24]* [25]*

[26]* [27]* [28]* [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

[34] [35]* [36]*

[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]* [44]* [45]* [46]* [47]* [48]*

EBS-XXX

G. Mugurusi and L. de Boer, “What follows after the decision to offshore production?: A systematic review of the literature,” Strategic Outsourcing: an International Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 213–257, 2013. J. Peloza and J. Shang, “How can corporate social responsibility activities create value for stakeholders? A systematic review,” J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci., vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 117–135, Aug. 2010. M. Mohiuddin, “Research on offshore outsourcing: A systematic literature review,” Journal of International Business Research, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 59–76, 2011. M. M. Crossan and M. Apaydin, “A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature,” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 1154–1191, Sep. 2010. L. Rashman, E. Withers, and J. Hartley, “Organizational learning and knowledge in public service organizations: A systematic review of the literature,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 463–494, Dec. 2009. R. Thorpe, R. Holt, A. Macpherson, and L. Pittaway, “Using knowledge within small and medium-sized firms: A systematic review of the evidence,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 257–281, Dec. 2005. M. J. Leseure, J. Bauer, K. Birdi, A. Neely, and D. Denyer, “Adoption of promising practices: a systematic review of the evidence,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 5–6, no. 3–4, pp. 169–190, Sep. 2004. L. Pittaway, M. Robertson, K. Munir, D. Denyer, and A. Neely, “Networking and innovation: a systematic review of the evidence,” International Journal of Management Reviews, vol. 5–6, no. 3–4, pp. 137–168, Sep. 2004. K. Walker, “A systematic review of the corporate reputation literature: definition, measurement, and theory,” Corporate Reputation Review, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 357–387, Winter 2010. Association of Business Schools, Academic Journal Quality Guide Version 4. 2010. V. Arumugam, J. Antony, and K. Linderman, “A multilevel framework of six sigma: A systematic review of the literature, possible extensions, and future research,” Quality Management Journal, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 36–61, 2014. W. Czakon, K. Mucha-Kus, and M. Rogalski, “Coopetition research landscape - A systematic literature review 19972010,” Journal of Economics & Management, vol. 17, pp. 121–150, 2014. A.-K. Hueske and E. Guenther, “What hampers innovation? External stakeholders, the organization, groups and individuals: a systematic review of empirical barrier research,” Manag Rev Q, vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 113–148, Jan. 2015. M. Legros, E. G. Karuranga, M.-F. Lebouc, and M. Mohiuddin, “Ethnic entrepreneurship in OECD countries: A systematic review of performance determinants of ethnic ventures,” The International Business & Economics Research Journal (Online), vol. 12, no. 10, p. 1199, 2013. E. Drohomeretski, S. E. G. da Costa, E. P. de Lima, and T. R. de O. Neves, “The Application of Sustainable Practices and Performance Measures in the Automotive Industry: A Systematic Literature Review,” Engineering Management Journal, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 32–44, Mar. 2015. O. Adagha, R. M. Levy, and S. Carpendale, “Towards a product design assessment of visual analytics in decision support applications: a systematic review,” J Intell Manuf, pp. 1–11, Jun. 2015. A. Tarhini, H. Ammar, T. Tarhini, and R. ’ed Masa’deh, “Analysis of the critical success factors for enterprise resource planning implementation from stakeholders’ perspective: A systematic review,” International Business Research, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 25–40, Apr. 2015. D. J. Cook, D. L. Sackett, and W. O. Spitzer, “Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the potsdam consultation on meta-analysis,” Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 167–171, Jan. 1995. A. McKibbon, “Systematic Reviews and Librarians,” Library Trends, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 202–215, 2006. G. Wells, B. Shea, D. O’Connell, J. Peterson, V. Welch, M. Losos, and P. Tugwell, “The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses,” Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. [Accessed: 12-Apr-2015]. A. D. Oxman, “Systematic reviews: Checklists for review articles,” British Medical Journal, vol. 309, no. 6955, pp. 648–651, Sep. 1994. L. Glynn, “A critical appraisal tool for library and information research,” Library Hi Tech, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 387– 399, Jul. 2006. J. W. Creswell, Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, Third Edition edition. Los Angeles, Calif.: SAGE Publications, Inc, 2012. S. M. Hackett and D. M. Dilts, “A systematic review of business incubation research,” The Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 55–82, Jan. 2004. N. Becheikh, R. Landry, and N. Amara, “Lessons from innovation empirical studies in the manufacturing sector: A systematic review of the literature from 1993–2003,” Technovation, vol. 26, no. 5–6, pp. 644–664, May 2006. A. Macpherson and R. Holt, “Knowledge, learning and small firm growth: A systematic review of the evidence,” Research Policy, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 172–192, Mar. 2007. E. Lettieri, C. Masella, and G. Radaelli, “Disaster management: findings from a systematic review,” Disaster Prev and Management, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 117–136, Apr. 2009. E. M. L. Bergman and I. I. Holden, “User satisfaction with electronic reference: a systematic review,” Reference Services Review, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 493–509, Aug. 2010. A. M. Fiegen, “Systematic review of research methods: the case of business instruction,” Reference Services Review, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 385–397, Aug. 2010.

11

The 8th International Conference on Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Well-Being (STISWB VIII), 15–17 June, 2016, Yangon, Myanmar

EBS-XXX

[49]* L. S. González, F. G. Rubio, F. R. González, and M. P. Velthuis, “Measurement in business processes: a systematic review,” Business Process Mgmt Journal, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 114–134, Feb. 2010. [50]* J. Geraldi, H. Maylor, and T. Williams, “Now, let’s make it really complex (complicated) A systematic review of the complexities of projects,” Int Jrnl of Op & Prod Mnagemnt, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 966–990, Aug. 2011. [51]* C. Colicchia and F. Strozzi, “Supply chain risk management: a new methodology for a systematic literature review,” Supp Chain Mnagmnt, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 403–418, Jun. 2012. [52]* E. Delbufalo, “Outcomes of inter‐organizational trust in supply chain relationships: a systematic literature review and a meta‐analysis of the empirical evidence,” Supp Chain Mnagmnt, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 377–402, Jun. 2012. [53]* C. Gimenez and E. M. Tachizawa, “Extending sustainability to suppliers: a systematic literature review,” Supp Chain Mnagmnt, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 531–543, Aug. 2012. [54]* M. Ginieis, M.-V. Sánchez-Rebull, and F. Campa-Planas, “The academic journal literature on air transport: Analysis using systematic literature review methodology,” Journal of Air Transport Management, vol. 19, pp. 31–35, Mar. 2012. [55]* D. M. Gligor and M. C. Holcomb, “Understanding the role of logistics capabilities in achieving supply chain agility: a systematic literature review,” Supp Chain Mnagmnt, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 438–453, Jun. 2012. [56]* H. Jalonen, “The uncertainty of innovation: A systematic review of the literature,” Journal of Management Research, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 1–47, 2012. [57]* J. Keränen, K. A. Piirainen, and R. T. Salminen, “Systematic review on B2B branding: research issues and avenues for future research,” Jnl of Product & Brand Mgt, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 404–417, Sep. 2012. [58]* C. Pilbeam, G. Alvarez, and H. Wilson, “The governance of supply networks: a systematic literature review,” Supp Chain Mnagmnt, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 358–376, Jun. 2012. [59]* P. Savolainen, J. J. Ahonen, and I. Richardson, “Software development project success and failure from the supplier’s perspective: A systematic literature review,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 458– 469, May 2012. [60]* C. Wong, H. Skipworth, J. Godsell, and N. Achimugu, “Towards a theory of supply chain alignment enablers: a systematic literature review,” Supp Chain Mnagmnt, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 419–437, Jun. 2012. [61]* J. Iden and T. R. Eikebrokk, “Implementing IT service management: A systematic literature review,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 512–523, Jun. 2013. [62]* H. Lightfoot, T. Baines, and P. Smart, “The servitization of manufacturing: A systematic literature review of interdependent trends,” Int Jrnl of Op & Prod Mnagemnt, vol. 33, no. 11/12, pp. 1408–1434, Nov. 2013. [63]* M. Mustak, E. Jaakkola, and A. Halinen, “Customer participation and value creation: a systematic review and research implications,” Managing Service Quality, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 341–359, Jul. 2013. [64]* S. Nidhra, M. Yanamadala, W. Afzal, and R. Torkar, “Knowledge transfer challenges and mitigation strategies in global software development—A systematic literature review and industrial validation,” International Journal of Information Management, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 333–355, Apr. 2013. [65]* D. Parris deniselparris@gmail. co. and J. Peachey jweltypeachey@hlkn. tamu. ed., “A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts,” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 113, no. 3, pp. 377–393, Mar. 2013. [66]* B. Schmeisser, “A systematic review of literature on offshoring of value chain activities,” Journal of International Management, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 390–406, Dec. 2013. [67]* C. Sourouklis and D. Tsagdis, “Workforce diversity and hotel performance: A systematic review and synthesis of the international empirical evidence,” International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 34, pp. 394–403, Sep. 2013. [68]* R. Vázquez-carrasco and M. E. López-pérez, “Small & medium-sized enterprises and Corporate Social Responsibility: a systematic review of the literature,” Quality and Quantity, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 3205–3218, Oct. 2013. [69]* A. M. Anaya-Arenas, J. Renaud, and A. Ruiz, “Relief distribution networks: a systematic review,” Ann Oper Res, vol. 223, no. 1, pp. 53–79, Dec. 2014. [70]* E. G. Hansen and S. Schaltegger, “The sustainability balanced scorecard: A systematic review of architectures,” J Bus Ethics, pp. 1–29, Sep. 2014. [71]* K. Laufs and C. Schwens, “Foreign market entry mode choice of small and medium-sized enterprises: A systematic review and future research agenda,” International Business Review, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 1109–1126, Dec. 2014. [72]* M. Mustak, “Service innovation in networks: a systematic review and implications for business-to-business service innovation research,” Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 151–163, 2014. [73]* B. Sandberg and L. Aarikka-Stenroos, “What makes it so difficult? A systematic review on barriers to radical innovation,” Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 1293–1305, Nov. 2014. [74]* R. B. Bouncken, J. Gast, S. Kraus, and M. Bogers, “Coopetition: a systematic review, synthesis, and future research directions,” Rev Manag Sci, pp. 1–25, Mar. 2015.

12