{"title":"Problematisation and reconfiguration of knowledge in AI-embedded agile software development","authors":"Fangyuan Shen,Tingyu Quan","doi":"10.1108/jeim-04-2026-0622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose Agile software development research increasingly treats artificial intelligence (AI) as a knowledge-creating agent yet rarely examines how its outputs become credible project knowledge. Design/methodology/approach Grounded in the knowledge-based view (KBV), this paper adopts a two-study design. Study 1 systematically reviews 33 Q1 journal articles, using the Antecedents-Decisions-Outcomes (ADO) framework to map reported patterns and a problematisation analysis to derive six theory-informed, structured factors. Study 2 then applies fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) with 52 screened software practitioners to examine their perceptions of the directional relationships among those factors. Findings Study 1 establishes four problematisations and conceptually derives six factors shaping knowledge outcomes: AI intensity of use, explainability and transparency, team decision autonomy, trust, governance tightness, and agile performance. Study 2 indicates that trust has the highest prominence in the pre-specified network. Research limitations/implications The paper extends the KBV through a problematisation that distinguishes computational outputs from credible project knowledge and derives structured factors shaping knowledge outcomes in AI-embedded agile projects. The paper also develops an agility paradox linking reactive, efficiency-oriented AI adoption to potential constraints on proactive agile capabilities. Practical implications AI-generated outputs should be treated as provisional knowledge that requires contextual review. Software firms could pilot a lightweight validation record for consequential AI-supported decisions, review these records during retrospectives, and calibrate governance. Originality/value The paper's originality lies in reframing AI in agile software development work as a question of knowledge credibility, decision authority, trust and governance.","PeriodicalId":47889,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Enterprise Information Management","volume":"25 1","pages":"1-31"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Enterprise Information Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jeim-04-2026-0622","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose Agile software development research increasingly treats artificial intelligence (AI) as a knowledge-creating agent yet rarely examines how its outputs become credible project knowledge. Design/methodology/approach Grounded in the knowledge-based view (KBV), this paper adopts a two-study design. Study 1 systematically reviews 33 Q1 journal articles, using the Antecedents-Decisions-Outcomes (ADO) framework to map reported patterns and a problematisation analysis to derive six theory-informed, structured factors. Study 2 then applies fuzzy Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) with 52 screened software practitioners to examine their perceptions of the directional relationships among those factors. Findings Study 1 establishes four problematisations and conceptually derives six factors shaping knowledge outcomes: AI intensity of use, explainability and transparency, team decision autonomy, trust, governance tightness, and agile performance. Study 2 indicates that trust has the highest prominence in the pre-specified network. Research limitations/implications The paper extends the KBV through a problematisation that distinguishes computational outputs from credible project knowledge and derives structured factors shaping knowledge outcomes in AI-embedded agile projects. The paper also develops an agility paradox linking reactive, efficiency-oriented AI adoption to potential constraints on proactive agile capabilities. Practical implications AI-generated outputs should be treated as provisional knowledge that requires contextual review. Software firms could pilot a lightweight validation record for consequential AI-supported decisions, review these records during retrospectives, and calibrate governance. Originality/value The paper's originality lies in reframing AI in agile software development work as a question of knowledge credibility, decision authority, trust and governance.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Enterprise Information Management (JEIM) is a significant contributor to the normative literature, offering both conceptual and practical insights supported by innovative discoveries that enrich the existing body of knowledge.
Within its pages, JEIM presents research findings sourced from globally renowned experts. These contributions encompass scholarly examinations of cutting-edge theories and practices originating from leading research institutions. Additionally, the journal features inputs from senior business executives and consultants, who share their insights gleaned from specific enterprise case studies. Through these reports, readers benefit from a comparative analysis of different environmental contexts, facilitating valuable learning experiences.
JEIM's distinctive blend of theoretical analysis and practical application fosters comprehensive discussions on commercial discoveries. This approach enhances the audience's comprehension of contemporary, applied, and rigorous information management practices, which extend across entire enterprises and their intricate supply chains.