Introduction

Higher education sector has been known as one of the major contributors towards the country's growth as they are striving towards knowledge-economy. This means that they are responsible to provide training and maintain the quality of the graduates since it was part of the Malaysia’s nation building agenda. By looking in the mid of 1990s, higher education is one of the sector in Malaysia that has experienced a positive growth (Eam et al., 2016). Nevertheless, over the years, they also experienced an extremely increased for their cost. Thus, this issue has made university in Malaysia as one of the most expensive place which falls at the fifth ranked by referring to its household income (Chan, 2015).

Besides, in 2015, based on the output ranking, Malaysia has been ranked at 44th, meanwhile based on the resource allocated; they manage to get to the top 12th from Universities 21 Ranking. The output ranking was measured by research output, student employability and others. However, Malaysia only managed to fall at 401st to 500th from The Times Higher Education World University Rankings which received by Universiti Teknologi Malaysia in 2015 to 2016 (Eam et al., 2016).

Therefore, as a result, there are large amount of spending from public funds for the higher education which will lead to the inconsistency of the output performance in Malaysian Public Higher Education (PHE). In addition, the inputs which include the government funds might not be utilized efficiently by the PHE, thus resulted the input slacks and low performance. Hence, all of these issues require the precise investigation on the performance of the PHE in Malaysia (Eam et al., 2016).

Consequently, this shows that non-profit organizations are also exposed to risks and most public entities received their funds from the government. As the public is their main stakeholders, the way these public entities manage and spend the allocated funds will always be under scrutiny by the public. Besides, the wastage of funds due to mismanagement such as lack of proper knowledge management and misappropriation will always be the major concerns of the stakeholders. The advancement of technology has impacted on the way the public gets the information which is readily available in the web. Therefore, public organizations must be managed prudently, effectively and efficiently. In order to do that, they would have to manage their risk in the same way. Public organizations cannot run away from ensuring proper governance is in place (Ahmad et al., 2016).

Thus, Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) implementation in PHE will help them to manage their risk effectively and efficiently. This can be supported by previous studies which stated that ERM are vital for PHE as it can manage all the risks faced by them across the organization which will lead them to achieve their objectives (Howard, 1996; Tarrant et al., 2011).

Hence, the aim of this paper is to propose a conceptual framework for ERM implementation in Malaysian PHE by adapting and applying the Knowledge Management (Rodriguez & Edwards, 2014) and Open System Theory (OST) (Campo, 2009). As such, knowledge management has been conceptualized into the three dimensions which are people, process and technology which have been classified as knowledge management components (Rodriguez & Edwards, 2014).

Literature Review

Enterprise Risk Management (ERM)

In recent years, ERM has drawn much attention from academics and practitioners from worldwide (Hoyt & Liebenberg, 2011; McGeorge & Zou, 2013) and organizations make a comprehensive view towards ERM (Gordon et al., 2009). Besides, organizations should implement ERM as it would help in providing information in terms of available time and resources (Mustapha & Adnan, 2015). Previous studies also argued that appropriate ERM implementation will help the organization’s director to make crucial decisions that would give an impact on the organization’s portfolio, thus provide business solutions and create competitive advantage for the organizations (Karim, 2013; Rasli et al., 2014). This is because ERM is different with Traditional Risk Management (TRM) as ERM managed all various types of risks that arise in organization and risk are everyone responsible, while TRM managed the risk based on silo approach which risk are individual responsible not everyone (Monda & Giorgino, 2019).

There are many definitions of ERM from the past literature such as Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS, 2003; Dickinson, 2001; Lai & Samad, 2011), however the definition of ERM that is most frequently used are from Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) (COSO, 2004) which are:

“A process that applied in strategy setting and across the organization in order to identify the potential risk that may occur and affect the organization, then managed that risk, and lastly provide reasonable solution in order to achieve the objectives of the organization. This process will involve the board of directors, management and other personnel”.

Knowledge Management (KM)

For higher education, KM defined as:

“The structured process of creating, transmitting, filtering, summarizing and delivering explicit and tacit knowledge in order to generate distinctive value which can be employ to improve the environment of teaching and learning” (Adhikari, 2010).

In other words, it means that the higher education is responsible to manage the KM as it is vital to generate a value in order to improve their performance and also to create the stable environment for teaching and learning. Besides, KM also encourages the higher education to obtain, transfer and utilize the knowledge in an effective and efficient ways so that they achieved their success (Adhikari, 2010).

There are three components which are people, process and technology that frequently been portrayed under KM. The origin of these components under KM has been found by Leavitt on 1964 which known as Leavitt “diamond” model. However, Leavitt “diamond” model does not have the process components but it has task and structure together with people and technology components (Edwards, 2011). This is because, it is crucial to consider and include the process components as it is not only referring to knowledge management processes but also referring to business processes (Edwards, 2009).

Figure 1 shows the KM components and how these three components connected to each other. As such, People help design and then operate the Processes and Processes determine the need for Technology and Technology provides support for People.

Source: Edwards (2009)

The concepts of KM in the area of risk management has not been discussed precisely, however the three components of people, process and technology has been identified as an important things to validate the risk management activities. The first component which is people are referring to communication among employees in organization, particularly the risk management committee, which based on risk management actions, risk control and also ERM (Rodriguez, 2010). Hence, this research follows the knowledge management components that been discussed by the previous studies (Edwards, 2009).

The extent of literature also supported that the knowledge management components consists of people, process and technology (Anukrati, Hassan & Rishi, 2017; Sireteanuand, 2007).

The elements under People in this paper will follow the previous studies (Alavi, & Leidner, 2001; Robbins, 1990) which are communication among groups. It has been stated that the communication among groups is vital in order to communicate about their experience in handling losses and problems that arise in organization (Rodriguez & Edwards, 2009).

While for the elements of Process and Technology also follow the previous study (Rodriguez & Edwards, 2009) which in specific the Process elements consists of knowledge sharing. Knowledge sharing is crucial in order to discuss the solution to solve the issues related to risk management.

Lastly, the elements of Technology are consists of intranet quality and network capacity for connecting people. This is because, when in organizations have both of these elements, it will able to solve the issues related to risk management that arise within that organization (Rodriguez, 2010).

Table 1
Areas Of Knowledge Management Components Proposed For This Study
Construct		Operational Definition
People	1. Communication	The risk information or risk knowledge that being transferred within organization to enhance the understanding and encourage team work thus influences the organization to implement the ERM (Peter, 2015).
Process	2. Knowledge sharing	The willingness of people to communicate and share the risk knowledge as well as provide solution on organizational issues that could influence organization to implement ERM (Wang et al., 2014).
Technology	3. Intranet quality	The platform to facilitate the interaction in problem solving process and provide access for collaboration as well as to risk data or information for ERM implementation in the organization (Fugini et al., 2016).
	4. Network capability	The capability of the network through portal to support the interdepartmental of work and knowledge sharing to facilitate the collaborations in different risk management areas in ensuring the implementation of ERM are effective and efficient (Bengesi & ILe Roux, 2014).

People

Relationship of Communication in Implementing ERM Towards Performance of PHE

It has been stated that in order to implement the risk management in organization effectively, the risk management committee need to understand and know what kind of decisions to be made and why that particular actions need to be taken. All of these can be done by having an effective communication between them so that they can discuss regarding the risk management issues that arise in organization and implement the risk management effectively and efficiently (Choo & Goh, 2015).

Furthermore, by having an effective communication, the level of understanding in order to manage and treat the risks that arise in organization will be improved (Karim, 2013). Therefore, this shows that when everyone are understand towards the nature and type of risks that significant to the organization or enterprise, thus the ERM can be implemented effectively and efficiently. Hence, the risk management committee should responsible in order to communicate the information regarding the potential and existing risks that arise in organization (Lai, 2014).

This is because; the scarce of risk knowledge are caused by the poor communication within organization which will lead to poor understanding towards the risk management (Rauf, Mansor & Jabar, 2018). Apart from that, the effective communication among experts in organization also can contribute to the organizational performance as there is no interruption during communication because of an appropriate connection with the experts that can provide the actual meaning of the risk information (Rodriguez & Edwards, 2014).

Process

Relationship of Knowledge Sharing in Implementing ERM Towards Performance of PHE

The risk knowledge needs to be shared within the organization particularly for ERM implementation. This is because knowledge sharing has been recognized as the main process in the knowledge management in order to improve the knowledge towards the risk in organization (Rodriguez & Edwards, 2014). This can be supported by previous studies (Azizi, & Rowlands, 2018), which they stated that knowledge sharing is the crucial element towards the success of risk management in organization. This is because knowledge sharing allows the organizations to update and rearrange their risk knowledge in order to ensure the effectiveness of implementation of risk management.

Furthermore, knowledge sharing also allows the managers to flexibly utilize the risk knowledge within the process of managing the risk in order to ensure the effectiveness of implementation of risk management. Other than that, instead of improving the risk knowledge, knowledge sharing also can improve the performance of the organization and the ability of organization such as competitive advantage and innovation capability (Marouf, 2016).

Technology

Relationship of Intranet Quality in Implementing ERM Towards Performance of PHE

The Intranet is vital in the organization in order to connect people and to access data of risk management in all aspects including the implementation and process across the organization (Rodriguez & Edwards, 2014). Besides, Intranet also can benefit the risk management as the risk committee can make collaboration through web-based in order to portray the risks that arise in organization.

This is because, the web-based will give a notification whenever there is a risk that occur in organization and also provide the strategy and solution on how to handling the risk through the organized dashboard to them (Fugini et al., 2016). It also has been stated that the web-based is very useful medium in order to link the data especially the risk data which include the describing and evaluating the risk (Tarrant, Hitchcock & Carr, 2011).

Despite from that, the use of Intranet also can improve the organizational performance through sharing the information. This is because; it allows the real time of sharing the information and data access across the level of organizations. The quality of Intranet could be achieved in organizations if they know how to fully utilize this system. Other than that, intranet quality also has been proved as one of the most reliable variable in this study (Rauf et.al, 2020; Rauf et.al, 2019).

Relation of Network Capacity Capability in Implementing ERM Towards Performance of PHE

Network capacity is a good medium to share the knowledge about the risk across the organization because some risk terms are difficult to understand (Rauf et al., 2019). Apart from that, network capacity also can benefit the implementation of ERM in organization as it can correlate between the business factors, methodological and technological which are very crucial for ERM implementation (Rodriguez & Edwards, 2014).

In addition, it is important to consider the capacity of the network in organization as to avoid any problems or issue during organizing, examining and estimating the risk that might occur in organizations. This is also to ensure that the information of risk is and rapidly distributed to the risk managers and top management as an alert that are understandable and reliable. In other words, by having a large capacity of network in organization, it can strengthen the collaboration between forecasters and end-users (Graziella, 2015).

Apart from that, network capacity also been suggested as one of the factors that contribute to the organizational performance as it allow the organizations to discover the opportunities easily (Stam, Arzlanian & Elfring, 2014). Papastamatelou et al., (2016) also supported that organizations will have an access to the valuable resources during coordination activities that can improve their performance by having a large capacity of network (Papastamatelou et al., 2016). Besides, there are various number of studies (Bengesiand, 2014; Kenny, 2009; Mitroff, 2006) that examined the relationship between network capacity and organizational performance.

Research Model

Open System Theory (OST) was founded in 1956 by a biologist, Ludwig Von Bertalanffy. Basically, OST fall into three parts which are input, throughput and output, together with the organizational process which feedback. Input is referring to people, raw materials, capital and technology. While the throughput is referring to the different processes that involved in organization such as transformation process within a system and the output is referring to the value added output of the system. Lastly, feedback is referring to the information regarding the input that evaluates the adequacy of the output and objectives of the system.

This OST has been cited by many of previous studies (Benton, 2013; Capps & Hazen, 2002; Hanna, 2000; Jin, Nie & Xiao, 2008; Thien & Razak, 2012) in various of management field. Furthermore, the attributes of input variable stated in OST bore resemblance to attributes stated in knowledge management components by Edwards, 2009. As such, this research will adapt this theory as part of key basic theory for this research due to the relationship between three variable construct namely input, throughput and output which fit and suited to the purpose of this research to show the relationship between the knowledge management components with the process of Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) and outcome of the organization. The input variable in this study will adapt the knowledge management components by Edwards, 2009 and Rodriguez and Edwards (Rodriguez & Edwards, 2014) as it clearly defines the input and components introduced by Ludwig (Ludwig, 1956).

It is therefore, based on literature review and the research framework, to understand the relationship of KM and ERM towards performance of Public Higher Education (PHE) in Malaysia, the following hypothesis is set up to be tested:

H1 There is a positive relationship between people (communication) and ERM towards performance of public higher education (PHE).

H2 There is a positive relationship between process (knowledge sharing) and ERM towards performance of public higher education (PHE).

H3 There is a positive relationship between technology (a. intranet quality and b. network capacity) and ERM towards performance of public higher education (PHE).

The work methodology included a literature search in order to developing the framework for ERM implementation on performance of Malaysian public higher education. This study was conducted with reference to existing theoretical literature, published and unpublished literature. Based on the past literature, ERM has attracted much worldwide attention in recent years (McGeorge & Zou, 2013), however there are very little research on ERM study in Malaysia context even though the it was well known in developed country such as US, China and Canada. Thus, Malaysian public higher education was selected as the population and the samples were comprised of risk manager, top management and internal audit in order to examine the ERM implementation and the effect towards the performance.

The literature search was carried out based on systematic keyword combination search six databases namely, Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald, Science Direct, ProQuest and Google Scholar. The authors used advanced search for the database engines and basic search for Google. There are several keywords used for the data search to obtain relevant studies regarding knowledge management such as “communication”, “knowledge sharing”, “intranet quality”, and “network capacity” followed by enterprise risk management. The criteria for including the article were the article should be:

1) peer-reviewed

2) written in English

3) clearly stated the objective of the study

4) clearly stated the methodology used

5) report the results

6) Conclusion. Lastly, the articles were read several times to obtain a sense of the content.

Conclusion and Future Research

In conclusion, the aim of this paper is to propose the framework for ERM implementation in Malaysian PHE by using Open System Theory by Bertalanffy (Benton, 2013) and knowledge management by Rodriguez & Edwards (2014). However, it is still needs to discuss more depth in future.

This paper explains the relationship between four components under knowledge management which are communication, knowledge sharing, intranet quality and network capacity and ERM implementation towards performance of PHE. Under the proposed framework, there are three hypotheses that have been developed and have to be empirically tested.

Furthermore, these hypotheses provide an opportunity for further investigation for researcher to examine through variety of research designs and settings. Besides, further researchers that intending to adopt the theory should also consider other variables that may influence the ERM towards the performance of PHE. The proposed framework in this paper can be a benchmark for quality accreditation in the future.

Last but not least, this paper is expected to give a contribution to the existing literature in the area of knowledge management and ERM in the context of higher education. This paper will also give relevant government agencies an insight into formulating new policies or strategies on issues related to ERM in Malaysia.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to thank Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka for the UTeM Zamalah Scheme for sponsorship of this study.

References

1. Adhikari, D.R. (2010). Knowledge management in academic institutions. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(2), 94–104.
2. Ahmad, S.N., Isa, M.Y., &amli; Talia, A. (2016). Web disclosure of risk management liractices in Malaysian liublic universities. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 6(11), 404–410.
3. Alavi, M., &amli; Leidner, D.E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Concelitual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136.
4. Anukrati, S., Hassan, A., &amli; Rishi, O.li. (2017). Knowledge management in higher education institutions- With sliecial reference to Universities in India. International Series for Information Systems and Management in Creative eMedia (CreMedia), 115–134.
5. Ariff, M.S.M., Zakuan, N., Tajudin, M.N.M., &amli; Ahmad, A. (2014). A framework for risk management liractices and organizational lierformance in higher education. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 3(2), 422–432.
6. Azizi, N., &amli; Rowlands, B. (2018). The moderating effects of organisational culture on the relationshili between knowledge sharing and it risk management successes. 26th Euroliean Conference on Information Systems: Beyond Digitization - Facets of Socio-Technical Change, ECIS 2018.
7. Bengesi, K.M.K., &amli; Le, R.I. (2014). The influence of dimensions of networking caliability in small and medium enterlirise lierformance’. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 5(2), 189–200.
8. Benton, D.C. (2013). Use of olien systems theory to describe regulatory trends. Journal of Nursing Regulation, Elsevier Masson SAS, 4(3), 49–56.
9. Bertalanffy, L.V. (1956). The theory of olien systems in lihysics and geology. Science, 11(1), 23-28.
10. Camlio, R. (2009). How do colleges and university leaders organize and imlilement liolicies of risk management to lirevent or mitigate institutional liability? (Doctoral dissertation).
11. Calilis, C., &amli; Hazen, S.E. (2002). Alililying general systems theory to the strategic scanning of the environment from 2015 to 2050. International Journal of Management, 19(2), 308-314.
12. Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS). (2003). Overview of enterlirise risk management.
13. Chan, A. (2015). High cost of varsity degree. The star online. Online newslialier, Malaysia.2015.
14. Choo, B.S.Y., &amli; Goh, J.C.L. (2015). liragmatic adalitation of the ISO 31000: 2009 enterlirise risk management framework in a high-tech organization using Six Sigma’. International Journal of Accounting &amli; Information Management, 23(4), 364–382.
15. Committee of Slionsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (2004). Enterlirise Risk. Management-Integrated Framework. New York: COSO.
16. Culcleasure, F.D. (2005). Risk management: A study of current liractices at North Carolina’s lirivate colleges and universities. (Doctoral dissertation).
17. Dickinson, G. (2001). Enterlirise risk management: Its origins and concelitual foundation. The Geneva lialiers on Risk and Insurance, 26(3), 360-366.
18. Eam, L.H., Taib, F.M., Abdullah, N.A.H., &amli; Hwa, Y.S. (2016). How efficient are Malaysian liublic universities? A comliarative analysis using data enveloliment analysis. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 21(2), 75–97.
19. Edwards, J.S. (2011). A lirocess view of knowledge management : It isn’t what you do; it’s the way that you do it. The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, 9(4), 297–306.
20. Edwards, J.S. (2009). Business lirocesses and knowledge management, (2nd edition). In M. Khosrow-liour, Encycloliedia of Information Science and Technology, 1, 471-476.
21. Eick, C.L.M. (2003). Factors that liromote effective risk management at universities classified by the Carnegie system as Doctoral/Research universities - Extensive (Doctoral dissertation).
22. Fugini, M., Hadjichristofi, G., &amli; Teimourikia, M. (2016). A web-based coolierative tool for risk management with adalitive security’. Future Generation Comliuter Systems, 54, 409–422.
23. Gordon, L.A., Loeb, M.li., &amli; Tseng, C.Y. (2009). Enterlirise risk management and firm lierformance: A contingency liersliective. Journal of Accounting and liublic liolicy, 28(4), 301-327.
24. Graziella, D. (2015). Landslide early warning system and web tools for real-Time scenarios and for distribution of warning messages in Norway’. Engineering Geology for Society and Territory, 2, 625–629.
25. Hanna, D. (2000). The organization as an olien system. In: H. Alma, B. Nigel and li. Margarat, Organizational effectiveness and imlirovement in education. Buckingham: Olien University liress. 14-21.
26. Harwell, R.D. (2019). A study of effective risk management liractices in higher education (Doctoral dissertation). 2003.
27. Helsloot, I., &amli; Jong, W. (2006). Risk management in higher education and research in the Netherlands. Journal of Contingencies &amli; Crisis Management, 14(3), 142-159.
28. Howard, M. (1996). Let’s agree on a definition of intranets. InterNetwork, 7(14).
29. Hoyt, R.E., &amli; Liebenberg, A.li. (2011). The value of enterlirise risk management. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 78(4), 795-822.
30. Jin, Y., Nie, B., &amli; Xiao, Y. (2008). Theoretical model and alililication of multilevel modelling in the research of social system. Kybernetes, 37(9), 1401- 1408.
31. Karim, A.J. (2013). Leveraging Enterlirise Risk Management (ERM) for boosting comlietitive business advantages in Bahrain. World Journal of Entrelireneurshili, Management and Sustainable Develoliment, 9(1), 65–75.
32. Kenny, B. (2009). A Network liersliective on International Business: Evidence from SMEs in the Telecommunications Sector in Ireland. 2009. Unliublished lihD Dissertation, University of Limerick, Ireland.
33. Kenwood, li.A., &amli; Rafferty, li.D. (2017). Exliloring the culture of Risk-Awareness among the lirofessoriate: The imlilementation of enterlirise risk management in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Management, 32(1), 243–255.
34. Khakliour, A. (2015). Knowledge management in educational organizations : Oliliortunities and challenges. In 7th International Knowledge Management Conference.
35. Lai, F. (2014). Examining the dimensions of enterlirise risk management imlilementation framework, its challenges and benefits: A study on Malaysian liublic listed comlianies. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 2(2), 81–86.
36. Lai, F., &amli; Samad, F.A. (2011). Enterlirise risk management framework and the emliirical determinants of its imlilementation. International Conference on Business and Economics Research, 1, 340–344.
37. Leavitt, H.J. (1964). Alililied organization change in industry: Structural, technical and human aliliroaches, (2nd Edition). In W.W. Coolier, H.J. Leavitt &amli; M.W.I. Shelly, New liersliectives in Organization Research, 55-71. New York: John Wiley.
38. Liao, S.H., Fei, W.C., &amli; Chen, C.C. (2007). Knowledge sharing, absorlitive caliacity and innovation caliability: An emliirical study of Taiwan's knowledge-intensive industries. Journal of Information Science, 33(3), 340–359.
39. Ludwig, V.B. (1956). General system theory (Revised Edition). New York: George Braziller.
40. Lundquist, A.E. (2015). Enterlirise Risk Management (ERM) at U.S. colleges and universities: Administration lirocesses regarding the adolition, imlilementation, and integration of ERM. Western Michigan University.
41. Marouf, L. (2016). The role of knowledge sharing culture in business lierformance. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 46(2), 154-174.
42. McGeorge, D., &amli; Zou, li.X.W. (2013). Construction management: New directions. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, U.K.
43. Mitrega, M., Ramos, C., Forkmannand, S., &amli; Henneberg, S. (2013). Networking caliability, networking outcomes, and comliany lierformance. A nomological model including moderation effects. IMli Conference, Glasgow.
44. Mitroff, I.I., Diamond, M.A., &amli; Alliasian, C.M. (2006). How lireliared are America’s colleges and universities for major crises? Assessing the state of crisis management. Change: The magazine of higher learning, 38(1), 61-67.
45. Monda, B., &amli; Giorgino, M. (2013). An ERM maturity model. ERM Symliosium, 32.
46. Mustaliha, M., &amli; Adnan, A. (2015). A Case study of enterlirise risk management imlilementation in Malaysian Construction Comlianies. International Journal of Economics and Financial, 5(2), 70–76.
47. National Camlius Safety and Security liroject. (2010). Results of the national camlius safety and security liroject survey. 2010.
48. lialiastamatelou, J., Busch, R., Otken, B., Okanand, E.Y., &amli; Gassemi, K. (2016). Effects of network caliabilities on firm lierformance across cultures. International Journal of Management and Economics, 49(1), 79–105.
49. lieter, L. (2015). Effective business communication. McGraw Hill Inc. New York. liublishing Nigerian Limited, 18-24.
50. Rasli, A.M., Norhalim, N., Kowangand, T.O., &amli; Qureshi, M.I. (2014). Alililying managerial comlietencies to overcome business constraints and create values evidence from small technology-based firms in Malaysia. Journal of Management Info, 3(1), 99-121.
51. Rivard, R. (2013). Middlebury remakes its governing board to manage risks. Inside Higher Ed.
52. Rauf, U.A.A., Jabarand, J., &amli; Mansor, N. (2020). An emliirical study of enterlirise risk management imlilementation on lierformance in Malaysian liublic higher education. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(9s), 962–973.
53. Rauf, U.A.A., Jabarand, J., &amli; Mansor, N. (2019). The association between intranet quality and organizational lierformance. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 28(1), 576–583.
54. Rauf, U.A.A., Jabarand, J., &amli; Mansor, N. (2019). Enterlirise risk management between network caliacity and lierformance of liublic higher education: A liroliosed framework. International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering, 8(2S3), 410–413.
55. Rauf, U.A.A., Jabarand, J., &amli; Mansor, N. (2018). Mediating effect of enterlirise risk management on quality communication and lierformance of Malaysian liublic higher educational institution: A concelitual framework’. Indian Journal of liublic Health Research and Develoliment, 9(12), 2702–2707.
56. Robbins, S.li. (1990). Organization theory: Structure, design, and alililications (3rd edition). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: lirentice-Hall.
57. Rodriguez, E. (2010). Knowledge management alililied to enterlirise risk management. Aston University.
58. Rodriguez, E., &amli; Edwards, J.S. (2009). Knowledge management and enterlirise risk management imlilementation in financial services. Enterlirise Risk Management Symliosium, 1–17.
59. Rodriguez, E., &amli; Edwards, J.S. (2014). ‘Knowledge management in suliliort of enterlirise risk management’. International Journal of Knowledge Management, 10(2), 43–61.
60. Sireteanuand, N.A., &amli; Grigoruta, M.V.B. (2007). liersliectives of knowledge management in universities. Ssrn Electronic Journal, 10(5), 1-10.
61. Stam, W., Arzlanian, S., &amli; Elfring, T. (2014). Social caliital of entrelireneurs and small firm lierformance: A meta-analysis of contextual and methodological moderators. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 152–173.
62. Sum, R., &amli; Saad, Z.M. (2017). Risk management in universities. 3rd International Conference on Qalb Guided Leadershili in Higher Education, 128–142.
63. Tan, W.L., Lam, F., &amli; Lau, W.C. (2007). An emliirical study on 3g network caliacity and lierformance. IEEE INFOCOM liroceedings, 1514–1522.
64. Tarrant, D., Hitchcock, S., &amli; Carr, L. (2011). Where the semantic web and web 2.0 meet format risk management: li2 registry. International Journal of Digital Curation, 6(1), 165–182.
65. Thienand, L.M., &amli; Razak, N.A. (2012). A liroliosed framework of school organization from olien system and multilevel organization theories. World Alililied Sciences Journal, 20(6), 889–899.
66. Tufano, li. (2011). Managing risk in higher education. Forum Futures, 58–61.
67. Wang, Z., Wang, N., &amli; Liang, H. (2014). Knowledge sharing, intellectual caliital and firm lierformance. Management Decision, 52(2), 230–258.
68. Whitfield, R.N. (2003). Managing institutional risks: A framework (Doctoral dissertation).