Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Knowledge Documentation Practices in AI Initiatives: A Systematic Literature Review Finannisa Zhafira; Fitria Handayani; Dana Indra Sensuse; Sofian Lusa
Jurnal Impresi Indonesia Vol. 5 No. 8 (2026): Jurnal Impresi Indonesia
Publisher : Riviera Publishing

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.58344/jii.v5i8.7964

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an essential component of organizational strategy; however, the knowledge generated during AI projects, including design decisions, model behavior, development processes, and practitioner insights, is often insufficiently documented. This study aimed to examine how knowledge documentation is currently practiced in organizations implementing AI. Using a systematic literature review approach, this study analyzed twenty peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2026. The articles were collected from five major academic databases, namely Scopus, ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, and Emerald Insight, and were selected following the PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Based on five research questions structured using the PICOC framework, several key findings emerged. First, knowledge management in AI contexts has shifted from static repositories toward more dynamic and AI-supported systems, although this transition introduces challenges such as model drift, inconsistent documentation practices, and difficulties in capturing tacit knowledge. Second, the literature presents various knowledge documentation methods and frameworks, indicating that the field remains in development without a universally accepted standard. Third, structured documentation has been shown to positively influence organizational learning, knowledge reuse, and the overall effectiveness of AI initiatives. Fourth, despite these benefits, significant gaps remain, particularly regarding the absence of standardized AI/machine learning (ML) documentation practices and the limited integration of documentation throughout the AI lifecycle. In response to these challenges, this study proposed the Knowledge Documentation Framework for AI Initiatives (KDF-AI), consisting of twelve components organized into five phases and supported by different maturity levels. Overall, this review highlighted the increasing importance of knowledge documentation as a core capability in AI-driven organizations and provided a foundation for future research and practical implementation.
Knowledge Documentation Framework for AI Initiatives: Development and Validation Across Organizational AI Contexts Fitria Handayani; Finannisa Zhafira; Dana Indra Sensuse; Sofian Lusa
Jurnal Impresi Indonesia Vol. 5 No. 8 (2026): Jurnal Impresi Indonesia
Publisher : Riviera Publishing

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.58344/jii.v5i8.8019

Abstract

Despite the growing organizational reliance on artificial intelligence (AI) systems, knowledge documentation (KD) practices in AI initiatives remain largely ad hoc, unstandardized, and disconnected from project lifecycle management. This study addressed this gap by proposing and validating the Knowledge Documentation Framework for AI Initiatives (KDF-AI), a twelve-component, five-phase, maturity-tiered framework synthesized through a literature review of peer-reviewed studies on KD practices in organizations implementing AI. Using Design Science Research (DSR) as the methodological paradigm, the study completed two iterative cycles: a literature-based synthesis that produced KDF-AI v1 and an expert evaluation cycle that resulted in the refined KDF-AI v2. Expert content validation was conducted with three domain validators representing academic, governance, and AI practitioner perspectives using a mixed-method approach that combined quantitative Content Validity Index (CVI) assessment with deductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. The results showed that 57 of 66 items (86.4%) achieved universal inter-rater agreement, producing S-CVI/UA = 0.864 and S-CVI/Ave = 0.955, both exceeding the recommended threshold of 0.80. The nine items that did not meet the threshold consistently reflected issues of clarity rather than relevance, indicating strong conceptual acceptance of the framework while highlighting the need for more operationally specific articulation in several Advanced-tier components. Nine targeted revisions resulted in the development of KDF-AI v2. The study contributed: (1) a validated lifecycle-integrated KD framework for AI initiatives; (2) a taxonomy of ten systematically identified gaps in current AI KD practices; and (3) a methodological demonstration of mixed-method CVI validation for framework development in information systems research.