CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 66Information and Cyber SecurityInformation Technology Governance and StrategySupply Chain Resilience and Risk Management

A Review on Risk Management in Information Systems: Risk Policy, Control and Fraud Detection

Open access
Taherdoost, Hamed·2021·Electronics
DOI 10.3390/electronics10243065
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Businesses are bombarded with great deals of risks, vulnerabilities, and unforeseen business interruptions in their lifetime, which negatively affect their productivity and sustainability within the market. Such risks require a risk management system to identify risks and risk factors and propose approaches to eliminate or reduce them. Risk management involves highly structured practices that should be implemented within an organization, including organizational planning documents. Continuity planning and fraud detection policy development are among the many critically important practices conducted through risk management that aim to mitigate risk factors, their vulnerability, and their impact. Information systems play a pivotal role in any organization by providing many benefits, such as reducing human errors and associated risks owing to the employment of sophisticated algorithms. Both the development and establishment of an information system within an organization contributes to mitigating business-related risks and also creates new types of risks associated with its establishment. Businesses must prepare for, react to, and recover from unprecedented threats that might emerge in the years or decades that follow. This paper provides a comprehensive narrative review of risk management in information systems coupled with its application in fraud detection and continuity planning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/electronics10243065

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Multiple Pakistani banks are beginning to integrate new and emerging technologies into their operations, such as robotics process automation, AI-powered virtual assistants, and machine learning algorithms for fraud detection and risk management.

    “In its 2024 Financial Stability Review, the SBP reported that multiple Pakistani banks are beginning to integrate new and emerging technologies into their operations, such as robotics process automation, AI-powered virtual assistants, and machine learning algorithms for fraud detection and risk management (Vieira and Sehgal 2018; Taherdoost 2021; Adelakun 2023).”

    From AI-driven financial fraud detection in Pakistan’s banking sector: bridging strategic intent and operational implementation (2026) · cites this paper as Taherdoost 2021

    Section 7, “Risk Control and Fraud Detection” (page unavailable), says financial organizations are increasingly using data-driven systems for automatic fraud detection. It does not identify Pakistani banks, report findings from the SBP’s 2024 Financial Stability Review, or describe their adoption of robotic process automation, AI-powered assistants, or machine-learning algorithms. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Inadequate training directly impacts the "perceived ease of use" factor of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which impacts employee's confidence in utilizing AI output and applying it to make decisions in their day-to-day work activities.

    “Inadequate training directly impacts the “perceived ease of use” factor of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which impacts employee’s confidence in utilizing AI output and applying it to make decisions in their day-to-day work activities (Taherdoost 2021).”

    From AI-driven financial fraud detection in Pakistan’s banking sector: bridging strategic intent and operational implementation (2026) · cites this paper as Taherdoost 2021

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 2 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 61 · Cited by 66

Research works printed but not linked: 65

  1. Nikoloski, K. The role of information technology in the business sector. Int. J. Sci. Res. (IJSR) 2014, 3, 303-309.
  2. Rochmah, T.N.; Fakhruzzaman, M.N.; Yustiawan, T. Hospital staff acceptance toward management information systems in Indonesia. Health Policy Technol. 2020, 9, 268-270. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Lucas, H.C., Jr. Performance and the use of an information system. Manag. Sci. 1975, 21, 908-919. [CrossRef] · DOI
  4. Abe, S.; Ozawa, M.; Kawata, Y. Science of Societal Safety: Living at Times of Risks and Disasters; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2019.
  5. Juntunen, M.; Lehenkari, M. A narrative literature review process for an academic business research thesis. Stud. High. Educ. 2021, 46, 330-342. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  6. Zhu, T.; Haugen, S.; Liu, Y. Risk information in decision-making: Definitions, requirements and various functions. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2021, 72, 104572. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Aven, T.; Zio, E. Foundational issues in risk assessment and risk management. Risk Anal. 2014, 34, 1164-1172. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  8. Hansson, S.O.; Aven, T. Is risk analysis scientific? Risk Anal. 2014, 34, 1173-1183. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  9. Aven, T.; Heide, B. Reliability and validity of risk analysis. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2009, 94, 1862-1868. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Veres, O.; Ilchuk, P.; Kots, O.; Rishnyak, I.; Rishniak, H. Development of an Information System to Minimize the Risks of Personnel Management. In Conference on Computer Science and Information Technologies; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 939-958.
  11. Chinazirova, S.; Tlekhurai-Berzegova, L.; Buller, E.; Kadakoeva, G. Development of an information system for the assessment of industrial and environmental risks of the enterprise. Econ. Sci. 2020, 3, 45-49.
  12. Thompson, K.M.; Deisler, P.F., Jr.; Schwing, R.C. Interdisciplinary vision: The first 25 years of the Society for Risk Analysis (SRA), 1980-2005. Risk Anal. Int. J. 2005, 25, 1333-1386. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. Lowrance, W.W.; Klerer, J. Of Acceptable risk: Science and the Determination of Safety. J. Electrochem. Soc. 1976, 123. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Kaplan, S.; Garrick, B.J. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Anal. 1981, 1, 11-27. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  15. Aven, T.; Renn, O. On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. J. Risk Res. 2009, 12, 1-11. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Lemos, F. On the definition of risk. J. Risk Manag. Financ. Inst. 2020, 13, 266-278.
  17. Ward, S.; Chapman, C. Stakeholders and uncertainty management in projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2008, 26, 563-577. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Chen, J. Risk communication in cyberspace: A brief review of the information-processing and mental models approaches. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2020, 36, 135-140. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  19. Humayun, M.; Niazi, M.; Jhanjhi, N.; Alshayeb, M.; Mahmood, S. Cyber security threats and vulnerabilities: A systematic mapping study. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2020, 45, 3171-3189. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Finne, T. Information systems risk management: Key concepts and business processes. Comput. Secur. 2000, 19, 234-242. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Sherer, S.A.; Alter, S. Information systems risks and risk factors: Are they mostly about information systems? Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2004, 14, 2. [CrossRef] · DOI
  22. Goldstein, J.; Benaroch, M.; Chernobal, A. IS-Related Operational Risk: An Exploratory Analysis. In Proceedings of the AMCIS, Toronto, ON, Canada, 14-17 August 2008.
  23. Tefera, A.; Bekele, B. Periodontal disease status and associated risk factors in patients attending a tertiary hospital in northwest Ethiopia. Clin. Cosmet. Investig. Dent. 2020, 12, 485. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Westerman, R.; Kuhnt, A.-K. Metabolic Risk Factors and Fertility Disorders: A Narrative Review of the Female Perspective. Reprod. Biomed. Soc. Online 2022, 14, 66-74. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Samimi, A.; Samimi, M. Investigation of Risk Management in Food Industry. Int. J. Adv. Stud. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2020, 9, 195-204.
  26. Stackpole, C.S. A User's Manual to the PMBOK Guide; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
  27. Suroso, J.S.; Fakhrozi, M.A. Assessment of information system risk management with octave allegro at education institution. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2018, 135, 202-213. [CrossRef] · DOI
  28. Stoneburner, G.; Goguen, A.; Feringa, A. Risk management guide for information technology systems. Nist Spec. Publ. 2002, 800, 800-830.
  29. Boiko, A.; Shendryk, V.; Boiko, O. Information systems for supply chain management: Uncertainties, risks and cyber security. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019, 149, 65-70. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Longerstaey, J.; Spencer, M. Riskmetricstm-Technical Document; Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York: New York, NY, USA, 1996; Volume 51, p. 54.
  31. Benjamin, C.W.; Chou, H.-Y.; Wu, M.B.; Chang, D.H. The Risks of Risk Management. In Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE International Conference on Management of Innovation and Technology, Singapore, 21-23 June 2006; pp. 708-712.
  32. Chalmers, J.; Armour, M. The Delphi Technique; Springer: Singapore, 2019. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Kaveh, A.; Rahami, H.; Shojaei, I. Swift analysis of linear and non-linear structures and applications using reanalysis. In Swift Analysis of Civil Engineering Structures Using Graph Theory Methods; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 201-245.
  34. Zhang, Y.; Guan, X. Selecting project risk preventive and protective strategies based on bow-tie analysis. J. Manag. Eng. 2018, 34, 04018009. [CrossRef] · DOI
  35. Brown, D.F.; Dunn, W.E. Application of a quantitative risk assessment method to emergency response planning. Comput. Oper. Res. 2007, 34, 1243-1265. [CrossRef] · DOI
  36. Kumar, L.; Jindal, A.; Velaga, N.R. Financial risk assessment and modelling of PPP based Indian highway infrastructure projects. Transp. Policy 2018, 62, 2-11. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. Fang, C.; Marle, F.; Xie, M.; Zio, E. An integrated framework for risk response planning under resource constraints in large engineering projects. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2013, 60, 627-639. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Alsmadi, I.; Burdwell, R.; Aleroud, A.; Wahbeh, A.; Al-Qudah, M.; Al-Omari, A. Security and access controls: Lesson plans. In Practical Information Security; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 53-71.
  39. Beres, Y.; Baldwin, A.; Mont, M.C.; Shiu, S. On identity assurance in the presence of federated identity management systems. In Proceedings of the 2007 ACM workshop on Digital Identity Management, Fairfax, VA, USA, 2 November 2007; pp. 27-35.
  40. Yeluri, R.; Castro-Leon, E. Identity management and control for clouds. In Building the Infrastructure for Cloud Security; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 141-159.
  41. Blyth, M. Business Continuity Management: Building an Effective Incident Management Plan; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009.
  42. Moşteanu, D.; Roxana, N. Management of disaster and business continuity in a digital world. Int. J. Manag. 2020, 11, 169-177.
  43. Moşteanu, N.R.; Faccia, A.; Cavaliere, L.P.L. Disaster Management, Digitalization and Financial Resources: Key factors to keep the organization ongoing. In Proceedings of the 2020 4th International Conference on Cloud and Big Data Computing, Liverpool, UK, 26-28 August 2020; pp. 118-122.
  44. Moşteanu, N.R. Challenges for Organizational Structure and design as a result of digitalization and cybersecurity. Bus. Manag. Rev. 2020, 11, 278-286. [CrossRef] · DOI
  45. Lindström, J.; Samuelsson, S.; Hägerfors, A. Business continuity planning methodology. Disaster Prev. Manag. Int. J. 2010, 19, 243-255. [CrossRef] · DOI
  46. Yang, C.-H.; Lee, K.-C. Developing a strategy map for forensic accounting with fraud risk management: An integrated balanced scorecard-based decision model. Eval. Program Plan. 2020, 80, 101780. [CrossRef] · DOI
  47. Lahuta, P.; Kardoš, P.; Hudáková, M. Integrated Risk Management System in Transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 55, 1530-1537. [CrossRef] · DOI
  48. Jafar, E.; Taneja, U. Business continuity planning-A survey of hospitals in Delhi. J. Public Health 2017, 25, 699-709. [CrossRef] · DOI
  49. Civča, D.; Atstāja, D.; Koval, V. Business continuity plan testing methods in an international company. Restruct. Manag. Increase Compet. Trading Co. Latv. 2021, 5, 341.
  50. Sasaki, H.; Maruya, H.; Abe, Y.; Fujita, M.; Furukawa, H.; Fuda, M.; Kamei, T.; Yaegashi, N.; Tominaga, T.; Egawa, S. Scoping review of hospital business continuity plans to validate the improvement after the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami. Tohoku J. Exp. Med. 2020, 251, 147-159. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  51. Niemimaa, M.; Järveläinen, J.; Heikkilä, M.; Heikkilä, J. Business continuity of business models: Evaluating the resilience of business models for contingencies. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 49, 208-216. [CrossRef] · DOI
  52. Setiawan, A.; Wibowo, A.; Susilo, A.H. Risk analysis on the development of a business continuity plan. In Proceedings of the 2017 4th International Conference on Computer Applications and Information Processing Technology (CAIPT), Kuta Bali, Indonesia, 8-10 August 2017; pp. 1-4.
  53. Pourhabibi, T.; Ong, K.-L.; Kam, B.H.; Boo, Y.L. Fraud detection: A systematic literature review of graph-based anomaly detection approaches. Decis. Support Syst. 2020, 133, 113303. [CrossRef] · DOI
  54. Hooi, B.; Shin, K.; Song, H.A.; Beutel, A.; Shah, N.; Faloutsos, C. Graph-based fraud detection in the face of camouflage. ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data (TKDD) 2017, 11, 1-26. [CrossRef] · DOI
  55. Karpoff, J.M. The future of financial fraud. J. Corp. Financ. 2021, 66, 101694. [CrossRef] · DOI
  56. Files, R.; Martin, G.S.; Rasmussen, S.J. Regulator-cited cooperation credit and firm value: Evidence from enforcement actions. Account. Rev. 2019, 94, 275-302. [CrossRef] · DOI
  57. Samociuk, M.; Iyer, N.; Doody, H. A Short Guide to Fraud Risk: Fraud Resistance and Detection; Routledge: London, UK, 2017.
  58. Stojanović, B.; Božić, J.; Hofer-Schmitz, K.; Nahrgang, K.; Weber, A.; Badii, A.; Sundaram, M.; Jordan, E.; Runevic, J. Follow the trail: Machine learning for fraud detection in Fintech applications. Sensors 2021, 21, 1594. [CrossRef] [PubMed] · DOI
  59. Temuçin, T.S.; Erbaş, S.; Anıl, A. Using Big Data in Internal Fraud Detection. TIDE Acad. Res. 2021, 3, 55-82.
  60. Todorović, Z.; Tomaš, D.; Todorović, B. Anti-Fraud Strategy. Economics 2020, 8, 69-78. [CrossRef] · DOI
  61. Suh, J.B.; Shim, H.S. The effect of ethical corporate culture on anti-fraud strategies in South Korean financial companies: Mediation of whistleblowing and a sectoral comparison approach in depository institutions. Int. J. Law Crime Justice 2020, 60, 100361. [CrossRef] · DOI
  62. Dolan, S.; Hawkins, S.; Albrecht, C.; Richley, B. Raising the ethical bar: Ethical audits and positive culture transformation. The European Business Review. 11 January 2021. Available online: https://www.europeanbusinessreview.com/raising-the-ethical-bar- ethical-audits-and-positive-culture-transformation/ (accessed on 10 November 2021).
  63. Jackson, P.M. Debate: Fraud risk management in the public sector. Public Money Manag. 2013, 33, 6-8. [CrossRef] · DOI
  64. Sofia, I.P. The impact of internal control and good corporate governance on fraud prevention. In Proceedings of the International Seminar on Accounting Society, Kota Tangerang Selatan, Indonisea, 21 November 2020.
  65. Reporting, D.F. Three pillars of fraud deterrence and detection. Strateg. Financ. 2015, 96, 17-18.

Authors
Taherdoost, H.
Affiliations
University Canada West (CA)
Corresponding author
Taherdoost, Hamed
ORCID
Taherdoost, Hamed
Venue
Electronics
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2021-12-09
Volume
10
Issue
24
Pages
3065
ISSN
2079-9292 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/electronics10243065
OpenAlex
W4200454308
Cited by
66
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 1
FWCI
7.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Electronics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information and Cyber Security
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Supply Chain Resilience and Risk Management
Keywords
IT risk management, risk policy, risk control, fraud detection, business continuity planning, organizational risk, information system vulnerabilities, business disruption, risk mitigation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review