Journal of Decision Systems

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]/journals/tjds20

The mediating role of knowledge management

and information systems selection management
capability on Big Data Analytics quality and firm
performance

Oluseyi Peter Obitade

To cite this article: Oluseyi Peter Obitade (2022) The mediating role of knowledge
management and information systems selection management capability on Big Data
Analytics quality and firm performance, Journal of Decision Systems, 32:1, 201-241, DOI:
10.1080/12460125.2021.1966162

To link to this article: [Link]

Published online: 07 Sep 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 564

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

[Link]
JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS
2023, VOL. 32, NO. 1, 201–241
[Link]

The mediating role of knowledge management and

information systems selection management capability on Big
Data Analytics quality and firm performance
Oluseyi Peter Obitade
Business Analytics and Mis, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study draws on organizational learning and strategic decision- Received 18 March 2021
making theory to develop a conceptual framework to explore how Accepted 5 August 2021
the selection measures of BDA systems and external support part­ KEYWORDS
ners are linked to BDA system quality, and how these influence Big data analytics; cloud
firms’ competitive position. Through a cross-sectional survey of 523 computing; DevOps; agile;
IT professionals from the US, UK, and India, using path analysis and information system criteria;
structural equation modeling, we found that the information sys­ knowledge management;
tems selection process, enhanced by knowledge management cap­ third-party consultant;
abilities, is positively related to the BDA system quality and firms’ software vendor criteria;
performance. However, inconsistent with prior studies on transac­ business values and
tional systems, we found no support for the hypothesis that soft­ competitive advantage
ware vendor criteria influence BDA quality. Also, in selecting
systems and external facilitators, organizations appear to be pivot­
ing towards parameters that are considered “emerging”, such as
cloud computing, DevOps, and agile experiences, as they increase
the likelihood of unlocking business value from BDA.

Introduction
Big data analytics (BDA) has been widely recognised as instrumental to realising perfor­
mance gains across firms and industries (Galetsi et al., 2020; Ghasemaghaei, 2020; Ranjan
& Foropon, 2021). It is not surprising then that a growing number of firms are focusing
their investments on BDA, with the aim of deriving vital insights that, ultimately, provides
them with a competitive edge (Buhalis & Volchek, 2021; Holmlund et al., 2020; Mikalef
et al., 2020).
The application of BDA in facilitating organisational decision-making has attracted much
attention over the past few years. In particular, recent studies have demonstrated empiri­
cally that BDA improves organisational capabilities, such as agility, innovation, and com­
petitive performance (Dong & Yang, 2020). It is not surprising then that more than 85% of
Fortune 500 companies have invested in BDA (Gartner, 2017). Also, as an illustration of the
increased interest in BDA adoption, Gartner (2017) reported that BDA global revenue was
$18.3 billion in 2017, and it is forecasted to increase to $22.8 billion by the end of this year.

CONTACT Oluseyi Peter Obitade petetola@[Link] Business Analytics and Mis, University of North Texas,
Denton, TX, USA
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
202 O. P. OBITADE

Although the research on BDA potential in organisations is one of the most extensively
studied areas of research in the Information Systems (IS) literature, a review of current
BDA literature reveals several gaps that deserve research attention. First, while big data
analytics have been extensively studied by both scholars and practitioners alike (Wamba
et al., 2017; Zareravasan and Ashrafi, 2019; Holmlund et al., 2020; Ranjan and Foropon,
202); however, research efforts to date have been largely concentrated on examining the
business value of big data analytics and other technical solutions for analysing amassed
data (Mikalef et al., 2019; Grover et al., 2018; Buhalis & Volchek, 2021). Therefore, there is
general lack of understanding of the mechanisms through which organisations derive
competitive benefits from BDA. In particular, there is scarce research on the critical
internal processes and decisions that are necessary for organisations to successfully
adopt and leverage BDA for performance gains.
Second, knowledge management and its effects on organisational learning process
have been a subject of intense examination for several decades. Despite all the research
around knowledge management, a significant portion of the previous works have been
largely theoretical (Gold et al., 2001, Laupase, 2003, Syed-Ikhsan and Rowland, 2004). The
limited empirical works (Abubakar et al., 2019; Iqbal et al., 2019; Schniederjans et al., 2020)
that have highlighted the enabling capabilities of KM have mostly been generic or holistic
in perspective. Thus, still under-research are the specific organisational process and
capabilities that KM enhances. In particular, we have limited understanding of the effects
of KM on the information systems selection capability. Last, although big data analytics
has been widely recognised as having the potential to improve firms’ performance,
conditions under which BDA could be deployed for competitive gains have not been
widely studied across countries and regions. These present gaps that this research intends
to bridge.
Third, organisations desiring to leverage BDA for competitive gains not only need to
select and acquire BDA systems, but they also have to successfully implement and
support the deployed solutions to unlock the strategic value of BDA. While scholars
have demonstrated the importance of external facilitators’ selection criteria of successful
implementation of transactional systems, such as Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
applications (Wang & Chen, 2006), no study has provided an in-depth analysis of the
influence of external facilitators selection measures on decision support systems such as
BDA system quality. Given the complexities of big data technologies and its fundamental
difference from transactional systems, understanding the factors that influence BDA
capability to deliver desired competitive benefits is both practically important and theo­
retically significant.
Finally, the unique challenges and opportunities surrounding BDA adoption and use
have not been fully explored in a multi-country setting. While BDA has been a popular
research area among practitioners and scholars, a significant number of the studies
focused on a single country, mostly the United States (Dong & Yang, 2020; Holmlund
et al., 2020; Maroufkhani et al., 2020; Mikalef et al., 2020).
In response, this study examines the relationship among an organisation’s knowledge
management capabilities, information system selection management capabilities and
BDA quality and firm performance. Based on a review of literature, twelve BDA system
selection parameters were identified and analysed. The findings support the hypothesis
that the selection management process, enhanced with internal knowledge management
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 203

capabilities, is instrumental to firms’ ability to select BDA solutions that align with
organisations’ goals and strategic objectives, critical factors to harnessing the competitive
value of BDA. Hence, this study brings novel insights regarding BDA adoption and use by
extending the literature on the critical success factors of BDA systems.
Further, we investigate the association between selection measures of external sup­
port partners and BDA quality. The results provide some evidence that the criteria
selected for third-party consultants are positively associated with an organisation’s ability
to harness competitive benefits from BDA adoption. However, inconsistent with prior
studies on ERP systems, we found no support for the hypothesis that software vendor
selection parameter influence BDA quality.
To extend our understanding of the relationship between the criteria selected for BDA
implementation and BDA quality, we disaggregated and analysed selection criteria along
two categories: emerging and traditional. Emerging technologies and service offerings
are selection criteria that are recent technological innovations and services or/and have
recently received renewed attention from practitioners and scholars alike. Hence, there
are two purposes for this analysis. The first is to determine whether the renewed interests
align with organisations interests in these constructs. In essence, we attempt to ascertain
the practical implications or whether companies shared similar interests or consider them
as important as the IS and professional literature appear to suggest. Second, we conduct
the analysis to ascertain whether these constructs deserve renewed attention or lived up
to the hype – that is whether they have higher positive impacts on BDA quality and
business values than traditional measures. The results support the hypotheses and show
that organisations appear to be pivoting towards adopting emerging measures, such as
cloud computing, DevOps, Agile, etc., and for good reasons, as they are likely to have
higher impacts on BDA quality and competitive benefits than traditional measures.
However, unlike other emerging criteria, the results show that Software-as-a-Service
(SaaS) has no impacts on BDA quality. In doing so, the findings not only confirm the
importance of certain external partners to the adoption process, but also demonstrate
empirically the influence of new technological innovations and service offerings on
information systems adoption and use, an under-explored area in IS research.
To address the multi-country gap in BDA literature, we empirically tested the model
that leverages multi-country setting. The results show variations in perceived BDA quality
across firms and countries. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to use
multi-region survey to empirically assess the role of system and external facilitators in
enhancing BDA adoption and the direct and indirect effects on firm [Link],
the selection of appropriate systems and infrastructure as well as partnering with the best
fit and most experienced vendor and high-quality third-party consultant are contributing
factors for deriving expected benefits from BDA adoption and use.

Theoretical background
Research in IS literature has long indicated that certain capabilities are required to make
effective use of technology (Premkumar et al., 2015; Zahra & George, 2002; Li et al., 2019).
Accordingly, we propose organisational learning and strategic decision-making theory as
relevant IT capabilities to examine the relationship between knowledge management
capability, information system selection management capability and BDA quality.
204 O. P. OBITADE

Organizational learning is described as learning by experience that enables an organisa­

tion to adapt to changing environmental factors (Cyert & March, 1963). Previous works
have proposed OL as a decision-making model that is associated with knowledge
(Castaneda et al., 2018; Garvin et al., 2008). For instance, Argote (2011) posited that OL
could be understood from tripartition perspective especially as it relates to knowledge –
knowledge creation, knowledge retention and knowledge transfer. Thus, OL is concerned
with how organisations leverage internal knowledge to improve their performance.
However, for the knowledge acquired to be beneficial to organisations, managers have
to leverage it in decision-making. Decision-making is described as the generation of
alternatives and choosing the most fitting alternative to address an issue or problem
(Elgendy et al., 2021; Lai & Ishizaka, 2020; Tabesh & Vera, 2020).
Based on the aforementioned research, we argue that firms utilise organisations
learning capability to acquire and process pertinent information derived from both the
internal and external sources relating to BDA systems and third-party facilitator quality.
The acquired knowledge is then leveraged in determining the BDA system and external
facilitators that are best aligned with a firm’s strategic objectives. Hence, we postulate that
organisational learning and strategic decision-making theory are complimentary and are
foundational constructs to understand the relationship between information system
selection management capability and BDA quality.

Information and strategic decision-making process

Decision-making is a process of making a choice from a number of alternatives to achieve
a desired outcome (Eisenfuhr, 2011). Decision-making capability has been described as
the process and pattern of response exhibited by individuals when faced with a problem
or situation (Scott & Bruce, 1995). To broaden this definition, extant literature has identi­
fied three key elements of decision-making. First, decision-making involves making
a choice from multiple options. Second, decision-making is a process that involves
more than simply a final choice from among alternatives. Finally, the ‘desired outcome’
involves a purpose or target resulting from the mental activity that the decision maker
engages in to reach a final decision.
Other scholars have considered decision-making as the process of evaluating and
choosing alternatives based on the values and preferences of the decision-maker
(Harrison, 1996)
A common theme from these definitions is that decision-making implies that there are
alternative choices to be considered, and in such a case we want not only to identify as
many of these alternatives as possible but to choose the one that best fits with our goals,
objectives, desires, values, and so on (Jou et al., 1996 ; Harrison, 1996).
Decision-making in today’s dynamic and rapidly changing business environment is
a major challenge to organisations. Thus, managers bear the heavy burden of making
optimal decisions. Therefore, management team is being required to making decisions
which routinely affect the value and viability of firms. Strategic management literature has
documented that top executives tend to make strategic decisions using a structured
approach which involves careful evaluation of context, alternatives, and consequences.
Scholars have referred to this type of decision-making process as ‘rational process’
(Noorderhaven, 1995; Weirich, 2004). Rational decision is preferred when managers are
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 205

faced with strategic decisions relating, for example, to determining how to react to market
trends, competition, and innovative technologies. In such decision, pertinent information
helps to reduce uncertainty attributed to constantly changing business environment
(Nutt, 2005).
Complimenting this assertion, other scholars argued that adopting a rational decision-
making approach allows managers to make strategic decisions without being prejudiced
by their own or others’ opinion. Instead, they follow strictly a structured process of
carefully considering the decision-making context, alternative options, and the implica­
tions of decision reached (Baum & Wally, 2003; Weirich, 2004). Hence, rational decision
making is considered as astructured approach wherein decision is made only after
rigorous evaluation of several distinct options (Citroen, 2011).
At the centre of rational decision-making process is the availability of information
relevant to decisions being considered. Adopting rational approach to decision-making
assumes that information is available that enables managers to choose the best alter­
natives for their organisation. Information such as market trend, competitors’ actions,
customers’ demands, changes in technologies and regulations are some of the inputs that
are relevant to an organisation’s decision-making process and public affairs (Auster &
Choo, 1996; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Enhancing the rational decision-making process is
the internal structures and routines which can help improve the flow of information
across a firm and helps speed up decision-making process. Hence, we postulate that
information about BDA systems and external solution facilitators are important inputs in
the solution selection decisions.

Organisational learning
Organizational Learning (OL) is considered to have originated from the paper published in
the 1960s by Cyert and March (1963). The authors proposed OL as a decision-making
model. In particular, they postulated OL as learning by experience that enables an
organisation to adapt to changing environmental factors. Since theorised, OL has been
explored in disparate context and defined in various settings. For instance, Fiol and Lyles
(1985) regarded OL as changes that occur due to organisational experience. Others
considered OL as processes involved in the acquisition and creation of new knowledge
(Huber, 1991). Scholars extended the definition and described organisational learning as
an individual’s contributions to new knowledge, organisational structures and routines
that influence application of knowledge and learning, and the way in which such envir­
onment contributes to innovation derived on subsequent learning processes (Argote &
Miron-Spektor, 2011). Other researchers opined that OL relates to the integration of
knowledge acquisition and organisational change based on an organisation’s action or
response to environmental factors (Castaneda et al., 2018; Garvin et al., 2008).
Organizational learning has also been described in social settings as a process wherein
individuals interact within an organisational structure to create meaning and knowledge
from relationships with other individuals and internal routines (Brown & Duguid, 1991).
Scholars have noted that while some organisational learning could be observed in
changes in work routines, others are not easily evident and involve such constructs as
learning that improves decision-making or innovative changes.
206 O. P. OBITADE

One theme that is apparent in OL literature is that OL focuses on individuals and their
interactions in socio-organisational settings. The interactions include collaborations with
other learners in an organisation; each individual interacting on the basis of their prior
learning or acquired knowledge that is relevant in the certain context. Thus, organisa­
tional learning extends beyond the combination of individuals’ knowledge and learning
capabilities, it is also perceived as continuous processing even when the particular
interaction ends. An area of interest in the OL literature is how learning in an organisation
is captured and stored. In exploring this issue, scholars posited that learning generated
from individual interactions or persistence knowledge are sometimes captured in explicit
form and coded into formal policies, procedures, and other data collection mechanisms
(Crossan et al., 1999). In other situations, the captured knowledge or learning is main­
tained in implicit format such as in an organisation’s memory, informal communication
channels, culture, and organisational routines (Brown & Duguid, 1991).
Contributing to the literature, other scholars have examined the relationship between
knowledge management and OL. Castaneda et al. (2018) explored the interactions
between the two concepts and concluded that both are related and are instrumental to
achieving organisational goals. According to Argote and Miron-Spektor (2011), OL com­
prises three sub-processes – creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge. Incidentally,
other scholars have used same constructs to extend our understanding of knowledge
management (Lin, 2014). Recent studies have broadened the concept of OL by identifying
and documenting six sub-processes – acquisition, distribution, interpretation, integration,
organisational memory, and knowledge institutionalisation (Flores et al., 2012). Popova-
Nowak and Cseh (2015) considered OL as social process or experiments in which indivi­
dual members participate in organisational collective situated practices and routines; the
interaction and collaboration, in turn, reproduce and expand learning in an organisation.
To explain the concept further, Argote (2011) distinguished between individual learn­
ing and organisational learning. He noted OL evolves in multiple stages. It starts first when
individuals embed new knowledge into their organisation’s knowledge repositories such
as organisational routines, processes socio-organisational networks and databases
(VVillamizar Reyes & Castañeda Zapata, 2014). In the next phase, the acquired knowledge
is disseminated and applies across the organisational structure. Hence, OL could be
expressed as enabler of collaboration between individual and organisational structure
in a way that enhances a firm’s overall performance (Burton et al., 2015).

Business values of BDA

BDA has been demonstrated to be instrumental to organisations’ ability to maintain
competitive advantage. A review of recent literature on BDA shows that a significant
portion is devoted to exploring and confirming the competitive values of BDA (Ciampi
et al., 2021; Hajli et al., 2020). For instance, Mikalef et al. (2019) found that BDA is a major
competitive differentiator as it facilitates better informed decision-making. Along this line
of literature, Galetsi et al. (2020) confirmed the hypotheses that BDA could provide critical
patients’ information and analytics that could be used by clinicians, healthcare providers-
suppliers, and health policy makers. Ghasemaghaei (2020) found that the impact of
bigness of data on big data analytics adoption use varied. Their results showed that
BDA has positive valence on data accessibility and negative valence on subjects such as
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 207

data security concern and task complexity. Also, they reported that data security concern
is not a major factor in an organisation’s decision to leverage BDA capabilities. Ferraris
et al. (2019) investigated the adoption of BDA among varying organisations. They docu­
mented that firms that use BDA are more likely to experience a higher operational
performance than organisations that lack BDA capabilities. They also noted that organisa­
tional knowledge management capabilities can lead to deriving competitive benefits
from BDA. Ardito et al. (2019) argued that BDA could significantly improve firms’ perfor­
mance especially in terms of efficiency of supply chains networks.

Critical success factors for BDA adoption

Despite the growing number of firms launching Big Data initiatives, studies have demon­
strated that organisations are struggling to translate the potential of BDA capabilities into
business value (Ghasemaghaei, 2020; Mikalef et al., 2019). In essence, BDA may or may not
improve business competition (Merendino et al., 2018).
Recent studies not only highlighted several challenges faced by organisations imple­
menting BDA to improve their performance, but also provided critical success factors
deemed necessary to use BDA for competitive gains. For instance, Barchiesi and Colladon
(2019) proposed combining text mining, social networks, and Big Data analytics for
analysing stakeholders’ attitudes. Mikalef et al. (2019) explore the configurations of
resources and contextual factors that are essential to obtain value from big data analytics
adoption. Using data from chief information officers and IT managers of Greek firms, they
found that certain organisational resources and conductive environment have to be
present to unlock BDA competitive values among healthcare organisations.
Further, Upadhyay and Kumar (2020) extend the BDA literature by examining the
mediatory effects of organisational culture and internal processes on BDA adoption and
firms’ performance. They demonstrated that organisational culture and internal analytical
knowledge are pivotal organisational capability necessary to translating BDA capabilities
into superior firms’ performance. In their study, Mikalef et al. (2019) posited that to derive
performance gains from BDA requires diffusion of these technologies into organisational
processes, structure, and operations.

Research model
Development and research model
This paper adopts an IT-enabled approach to the knowledge management and organisa­
tional learning theory of firms and seeks to establish boundary conditions for the value of
certain information technology (IT) capabilities. Organizational learning has been
described as ‘the principal means of achieving strategic renewal of an enterprise’
(Crossan et al., 1999). Crossan et al. (2011) considered OL as the tension between two
seemingly opposing constructs – acquisition and assimilation of new knowledge (feed
forward) on one hand, and the exploitation of existing knowledge (feedback) on the
other. With the appropriate balance, scholars have argued that firms could leverage OL
processes not only to improve the performance of existing routines, but can also be
208 O. P. OBITADE

instrumental to creating new knowledge that is utilised to develop and market innovation
technologies (Brix & Peters, 2015).
To understand the relationship between information systems selection management
capability and big data analytics capabilities (BDAC), we first refine the conceptualisation
and measurement of knowledge management capability (KMC) as a latent construct
reflected in its three dimensions: acquisition, conversion, and application. In addition to
the KM capabilities, the model explores information systems selection management
capability (ISSMC) to conceptualise three constructs associated with solution selection:
BDA system, software vendor and third-party consultant. Lastly, the model investigates
the relationship among KMC, ISSMC, BDAC and two firms’ performances indicators –
operational and financial performance.

Explanatory variables: knowledge management capabilities

The first step in this model is to define the explanatory variable. Following recent research,
we utilise knowledge management capabilities (KMC) as the explanatory variable to
examine its effect on an organisation’s performance. One of the critical aspects of IT
function is to develop and maintain sufficient knowledge of internal IT resources and
capabilities, while being kept abreast of new innovative technologies. This is critical in the
information age as technologies are constantly evolving in the ever-changing technolo­
gical landscape.

IT-enabled transformation
In this section, we explore the effects of IT-enabled capabilities in the research model. We
defined IT-enabled transformation capabilities as organisational capabilities that utilise
knowledge management capabilities and information systems selection capabilities to
enhance firms’ performance. In our model, information systems selection management
and BDA are considered as the intermediate IT capabilities. The first organisational
capability is information systems selection management capability. We focus on three
constructs relating to IS selection process – BDA selection criteria, software vendor
selection criteria and third-party consultant acquisition criteria. Also, to better understand
the effects of these constructs on firms’ performance, we examine the effects of selection
management capabilities on BDA capabilities.

Outcomes
To conceptualise the ultimate outcomes of the model, we utilise a two-dimensional view
of competitive advantage – strategic performance and financial performance. Following
previous research, we consider improved firms’ performance as the extent to which a firm
can effectively use BDA to achieve superior organisational performance. It is conceptua­
lised that information systems selection management capabilities can be instrumental to
enhancing BDA quality; thereby, it serves as the critical link to unlocking business values
from BDA. Information systems selection management capabilities achieve this by
improving the quality of BDA.
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 209

Information Systems Selection Management, BDA Quality, and Competitive Advantage

H9
Information Systems Selection
Knowledge Management Management Capabilities
Capabilities Competitive Advantage
BDA system
selection Criteria
Acquisition H5
Vendor selection Strategic
H1 performance
criteria
Conversion H6
BDA Quality
Consultant selection H8
criteria H7
Application Financial performance

Emerging and Traditional

criteria
Control Variables
BDA system
H2 Industry
selection criteria
National culture
Vendor selection H3
criteria Transformational
Leadership
Technological
Consultant selection H4 Turbulence
criteria

Figure 1. Research Model.

Overall, this model proposes that knowledge of new innovative technologies acquired
from both internal and external sources improves decision-making in the solution selec­
tion process, which in turn, improves BDA quality, ultimately enhancing a firm’s compe­
titive position. As shown in Figure 1, our model adopted a linear progress path that is
initiated by explanatory variables to practices; this proceeds to the intermediate out­
comes (information systems selection management capabilities and BDA quality, which
are considered ‘benefits’), and finally leads to improvement in an organisation’s market
and financial performance (‘business value’ in the model).

Knowledge management and BDA solution selection management capabilities

Software selection deals with the processes, methods and tools used by firms to make
decisions on which software to choose from the wide range of available decision support
systems on the market. Hence, the selection of a software system is considered as one of
the steps in the process of software acquisition by an organisation. Due to the complexity
of the business environment and the diversity of BDA alternatives, BDA system selection
should be done correctly with the required rigour to produce systems that complement
a firm’s business operations and IT environments.
To ensure successful adoption, therefore, organisations need to develop information
systems selection management capability that ensure the BDA functionalities selected
would be the best fit for them and should take into consideration their unique capabilities
and business environments. Thus, the decision parameters used in the systems and
external partners’ selection process need to be aligned with strategic organisational
objectives, as incompatible solutions or partnerships could lead to failure to deploy
information system with acceptable quality. Studies have demonstrated that for organisa­
tions to make strategic decisions effectively, there should be availability of pertinent
210 O. P. OBITADE

information in their knowledgebase (Citroen, 2011). Davenport (2014) defined knowledge

as the combination of contextual information, framed experience and value that
enhances innovation and pristine experience. Knowledge is also regarded as organisa­
tional culture, skills, reputation, intuition, and codified theory that influences human
behaviour and thought (Hall & Andriani, 2003). In essence, to make strategic decisions,
organisations not only need versatility and prowess, but also access to knowledge
management with capabilities to support excellent decision-making.
The strategic importance of knowledge in a firm has led to renewed interests among
scholars on how knowledge is managed in an organisation. Knowledge management has
been described as the process involved in acquiring, managing, and sharing knowledge
across an organisation in a way that enhances a firm’s performance (Nonaka & Takeuchi,
1995). De Long (1997) considered knowledge management as the capturing, dissemina­
tion, and application of knowledge. Other studies have associated KM with important
organisational structures and processes including a firm’s culture, technologies and
human resources practices and processes (Du Plessis, 2007). In their study, Alavi and
Leidner (2001) noted four processes involved in knowledge managements – creation,
retrieval/storage, transfer, and application. These processes are instrumental to an orga­
nisation’s ability for creating, disseminating, and leveraging acquired knowledge in
decision making.
In line with previous studies, we opine that knowledge acquired and disseminated
within an organisation about the innovative technologies functionalities, software ven­
dors offerings and the required technical skills needed to deploy the BDA are essential
inputs into the system selection decision-making process. Based on these arguments, we
propose the following:

H1: Knowledge management capabilities have a positive effect on systems selection

decision.

BDA software selection

Extant literature posited that companies should take into consideration the perceived
functionalities of Information Technologies (IT) in their selection and purchase of informa­
tion systems (Al-Mashari et al., 2003). Tsai et al. (2009) asserted that companies utilise
a variety of criteria to ascertain and select IT solutions that are considered suitable for their
organisation. To assist organisations with selecting appropriate parameters, previous
works have documented some of the criteria considered critical to information systems
implementation success. For instance, Kumar et al. (2003) identified system functionality,
system reliability, and fit with the organisation’s technical environment as the three most
essential criteria in the solution selection process. In their study, Youakim and Jean (2007)
recommended security capabilities as essential in selecting solutions with adequate
protection for an organisation’s information assets and resources.
Based on a review of literature, this study examines twelve BDA system selection
criteria that have been demonstrated by research to be relevant to understanding new
technology adoption. Seven of these measures are considered traditional, while five are
regarded as emerging criteria. Five new technologies that meet the requirements of
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 211

‘emerging’ are investigated in this study: cloud computing, customer success stories,
usability, privacy, and security. Until now, these criteria have not been examined together
in a single study relating to BDA adoption and use.
The explosive growth of the Internet and the resultant general acceptance of social
media and other current technologies have led to renewed interests in certain selection
criteria among scholars and practitioners. To this end, this study categorised selection
criteria identified by previous works into two: emerging and traditional. Criteria that are
associated with new innovative technologies or constructs, for this study, are regarded as
‘emerging’ metrics, while criteria that have been studied extensively in the past decades
are considered as ‘traditional’. Hence, one of the purposes of this study is to determine
whether the renewed interests align with organisations interests in these constructs.
To deploy BDA applications on a large-scale requires considerably enormous proces­
sing power and larger input data such that traditional in-house solutions are either too
expensive or too deficient for storage and efficient processing. In contrast, cloud comput­
ing makes hundreds or thousands of high-end machines available for computing at an
affordable price (Delen & Demirkan, 2013). BDA demands predictions and other analytical
functionalities that can be efficiently performed with adequate allocation of computing
resources using cloud technology (Buyya et al., 2015).
Data captured and processed by BDA systems can contain sensitive information,
especially Personal Identifiable Information (PII). Therefore, sufficient protection is essen­
tial to prevent unauthorised leakage and unethical use of personal data, since
unauthorised leakage of such information poses a severe threat to privacy.
Consequently, privacy concerns, if not adequately addressed, could lead to a regulatory
backlash, dampening the data economy and stifling innovation (Tene & Polonetsky, 2011).
The growing popularity and development of data mining technologies bring serious
threats to the security of an individual’s sensitive information (Nelson & Olovsson, 2016).
Yi et al. (2014) argued that BDA has unique challenges that are not evident in other
systems. For instance, Abawajy et al. (2014) asserted that the distributed architecture of
BDA makes the system vulnerable to cyber-attack. The detailed list of these criteria by
their categories is provided in Table 1.
We predict that the renewed interests from scholars for emerging system selection
parameters could be interpreted as indications of their greater influence in BDA adoption
and use. Hence, organisations are likely to show preference for these measures in their
system selection process. Therefore, we hypothesise as follows

Table 1. Sample data by industry.

Industry Expected Observed
Computer/Consulting 93 89
Energy 61 55
Finance/Banking 49 44
Manufacturing 41 32
Retail 62 56
Healthcare 79 74
Services 96 104
Utilities 19 23
Others 41 46
Total 541 523
T-test P > 0.10
212 O. P. OBITADE

H2: Organizations are pivoting towards selecting emerging BDA criteria in their system
selection decisions.

Vendor selection criteria

Similar to the BDA system selection criteria, the selection of the system vendor affects BDA
system quality. Previous studies have identified criteria that are essential in choosing the
best-fit partner. For instance, Tarafdar and Zhang (2005) identified technical support
competencies, system upgrades, service responsiveness, knowledge transfer capabilities,
and user training as essential criteria in vendor selection. Other essential criteria docu­
mented in the same study are the vendor’s industry experience with IT expertise and
domain knowledge as well as the number of deployments. For companies with global
operations, the extent to which a vendor could provide solution support to international
operations is a critical requirement (Tsai et al., 2011). Verville and Halingten (2003)
proposed three supplier evaluation criteria: size, financial stability, and reputation.
To extend our understanding of the critical factors of BDA deployment, this study
adopted and updated the vendor selection criteria identified by previous studies to
incorporate recent technological innovations and service offerings. One of such recent
new vendor services is Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) is
a cloud service in which a vendor provides software functionality to customers via the
Internet (Zheng et al., 2017). BDA software providers are among the vendors that have
introduced pay-as-you-go cloud technology services to offer BDA analytical services to
customers over the cloud (Zheng et al., 2017). SaaS provides several benefits to organisa­
tions deploying cloud-based BDA system. Some of the value propositions of the SaaS
model include no purchase costs, free maintenance, accessibility through the Internet,
and high system availability (Bi & Cochran, 2014). Based on the literature, this study
selected seven criteria to investigate (see Table 2).We predict that the benefits of

Table 2. Descriptive statistics.

Pilot (study 1) Study 2
Industries N = 126 N = 523
Computer/Consulting 13% 17%
Energy 11% 11%
Finance/Banking 12% 8%
Manufacturing 8% 6%
Retail 8% 11%
Healthcare 12% 14%
Services 17% 20%
Utilities 11% 4%
Others 8% 9%
Total BDA experience
Less than 3 years 62% 64%
3–6 years 36% 34%
More than 6 years 2% 2%
Number of employees
Fewer than 1000 9% 8%
Between 1001 and 2500 17% 19%
Between 2501 and 5000 32% 29%
More than 5000 42% 44%
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 213

leveraging the SaaS model will make it an important selection criterion for organisations
that have successfully deployed the BDA system. Consequently, we hypothesise as
follows:

H3: Organizations are more likely to select BDA software vendor criteria that are consid­
ered emerging.

Consultant selection criteria

Many organisations are leveraging the services of external consultants to help not only
with the BDA system selection, but also with the implementation process and in the
technical evaluation of the chosen solution. Consultants are hired for their training and
experience with the BDA systems (Tsai et al, 2013). Because of the variability in skills and
experiences of consultants regarding the BDA system, their selection is a complex deci­
sion-making process.
To assist organisations in the selection process, previous works have documented
some of the most critical skills that a qualified consultant must possess. For instance,
Wang and Chen (2006) suggested that consultants must possess sufficient technical
knowledge and industry-specific expertise as well as have the capability and willingness
to transfer system knowledge and best business practices to their clients. Luo and
Liberatore (2009) reported that the consultant’s domain knowledge and the fee charged
were vital to the perceived implementation success. Cheung et al. (2002) identified
previous implementation experience, adopted project methodologies, timely delivery of
essential services, and agreed-upon costs as some of the desirable consultant qualities.
Other studies have identified system knowledge and industry specific expertise as some
of the desired selection criteria or skills expected from competent consultants.
Along with the traditional criteria, three of the recent (emerging) consultant qualifica­
tions are examined in this study. More specifically, this research investigates the effects of
knowledge of the agile methodology, experience with participating in the DevOps team,
and experience deploying the BDA system in a cloud environment on BDA deployment
outcome. These criteria have not been examined together in a single study, and their
effects on BDA implementation outcome have not been investigated until now.
The growing acceptance and adoption of cloud computing, DevOps, and the agile
project methodology as methods of deploying software faster, cheaper, and with higher
quality suggest that organisations will need consultants that possess the relevant skills
and experience to deploy BDA in such environments. Thus, we predict that these criteria
would be used as critical measures by organisations to evaluate consultant skills and
experiences. Consequently, we hypothesise as follows:

H4: Organizations are pivoting towards selecting consultants’ criteria that are considered
emerging.
214 O. P. OBITADE

BDA solution criteria and BDA quality

The popularity of the BDA systems, especially with regard to BDA capabilities to enhance
an organisation’s competitive position, has led to a plethora of solutions being offered for
organisations to harness the potential competitive advantage attributed to the adoption
of BDA systems. The proliferation and the diverse nature of these functionalities pose
some challenges to organisations planning to implement these systems. Thus, the selec­
tion of BDA technologies involves more than merely evaluating a few solutions. It requires
developing appropriate selection criteria that are aligned with the strategic objectives of
the organisation.
Studies have shown that the quality of a system is associated to deriving expected
benefits from the implemented solutions (Kumar et al., 2003; Popovič et al., 2012; Wang &
Chen, 2006). However, achieving quality BDA is not easy for most organisations. The
challenges are due to several factors. First, no two companies are the same; thus, different
companies need different solutions that reflect their organisation goals, objectives, and
capabilities. Companies also have different IT functions, infrastructure, and technical
environment. For instance, while some organisations are saddled with predominantly
legacy applications and platforms, others are early adopters of the newest technological
innovations. Hence, a company desiring to deploy quality BDA systems need to take into
consideration their organisational capabilities, structure, and processes in selecting the
BDA functionalities that best fit their business environment.
Second, no two BDA solutions are the same. The capabilities of the BDA systems vary
significantly; thus, a firm has to select capabilities that are aligned with their unique
business operations and IT infrastructure. For instance, some BDA software works on-
premises, while others are designed for cloud computing. Also, while some offer adequate
or appropriate privacy protection for sensitive customer or business data, others have less
privacy protection capabilities. Similarly, regarding configurations for security, while some
have enhanced security capabilities, others provide limited protection to strategic infor­
mation assets.
In essence, the criteria used in BDA selection process have a considerable influence on
organisations’ efforts to adopt and use BDA with appropriate quality. High-quality system
in turn helps in achieving organisational objectives from BDA adoption and use. Hence, to
achieve the business values from BDA, the deployed solution has to be of an acceptable
quality, which partly depends on the parameters used in the BDA selection process.
Therefore, we hypothesise as follows:

H5: BDA solution criteria is positively related to BDA quality.

Vendor selection criteria and BDA quality

External facilitator selection is one of the strategic decisions that companies implement­
ing IS systems must address (Zeydan et al., 2011). The partner selection process has been
demonstrated to be strategic because such decision affects not only IS implementation
outcome but also overall business performance (Chai et al., 2013). Yu and Wong (2015)
described external facilitator selection as the process of finding and determining the best
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 215

IT partners to provide organisations with the best IT services based on a combination of

quality, cost, quantity, and time. Therefore, the vendor selection process focuses on the
level and quality of services offered by the vendor during the implementation process and
after the system goes live. This process should be done carefully in order to obtain the
competitive advantage that leads to cost savings and increase the likelihood of BDA
implementation success (Zeydan et al., 2011).
Extending this line of literature further, Somers and Nelson (2004) found that IT
projects failed because of insufficient or lack of proper training from the vendor. Thus,
the quality of the training the vendor offers is a critical factor for an organisation to
develop the necessary organisational capabilities to use and support the systems. Other
studies have posited that for an IS project to be successful, it is necessary to select external
facilitators that can align with the strategic needs of an organisation (Yu & Wong, 2015). In
essence, to ensure successful deployment of BDA with the desired quality, organisations
need to partner with software vendors that possess the essential technical and service
capabilities necessary to provide adequate support during BDA system implementation.
Also, external partners are instrumental in ensuring that appropriate system knowledge is
transferred to their clients and that companies implementing BDA develop sufficient
organisational capabilities to maintain the deployed BDA systems; these are critical to
the adoption and use of high-quality BDA systems. Therefore, we hypothesise as follows:

H6: BDA vendor criteria is positively related to BDA quality.

Consultant selection criteria and BDA quality

The newness of the BDA technologies means that most organisations lack the internal
knowledge and experience necessary for successful BDA adoption. Therefore, organisa­
tions might need the expertise of external consulting firms to assist with the technical and
solution evaluation and deployment of BDA systems. However, the proliferation and
varying levels of expertise and experience make selecting qualified consultants
a challenge to most organisations.
Thus, a robust decision-making process for facilitator selection requires the considera­
tion of both the company needs and the skills and experience of the partners.
Hence, selecting the appropriate criteria for third party consultant is one of the factors
that determine whether the BDA systems are deployed with the desired quality necessary
to provide critical market insights that could be leveraged in decision-making. In their
study, Ko (2010) argued that the quality of knowledge transfer by consultants as well as
their ability to respond to changing business requirements and improve client organisa­
tional capabilities are essential criteria in determining consultant quality, which has
implications on deployed system quality. Hence, the determination of appropriate partner
selection criteria for BDA plays an important role in determining the quality of BDA
system. Therefore, we hypothesise as follows:

H7: Consultant selection criteria is positively related to BDA quality.

216 O. P. OBITADE

BDA competitive benefits

The BDA capabilities are essential for organisations because business challenges rarely
show up in the appearance of a perfect data problem, and even when data are abundant,
practitioners have difficulties incorporating them into their complex decision-making
process. With its predictive and discovery capabilities, BDA allows firms to discover new
customer segments, identify the best suppliers, associate products of affinity, and under­
stand sales seasonality (Marr, 2015). Using different types of analytic tools, such as data
visualisation, natural language processing, data mining, statistical analysis, and BDA,
enables a firm to obtain new critical information about its competition and broader
economic environment from existing data repository (Mikalef et al., 2019). In particular,
BDA allows a firm to find new knowledge that is either internal or external to the firm, to
effectively track sources of knowledge and to create a catalogue of internal organisational
knowledge. Also, BDA capabilities enable an organisation to use their existing knowledge
more effectively to track and respond to demands from customers, partners, employees,
and suppliers. Cao et al. (2015) noted that BDA is an essential IT resource that allows an
organisation to improve the organisational capability to create, transfer, and store knowl­
edge from diverse sources. Therefore, we hypothesise as follows:

H8: Big data analytics is positively associated with superior firm performance.

Mediating role of information systems selection management capability on BDA

quality and competitive advantage
Extant literature has shown that organisations are currently struggling to identify selec­
tion criteria that could guide their decision-making in the adoption of new technologies
(Cataldo et al., 2011). Neaga et al. (2015) reported that organisations’ inability to develop
the necessary adoption criteria is responsible for their implementation of the wrong
technology, which in some cases could lead to an organisation lagging their rivals in
leveraging technological innovations that are considered critical to survival in today’s
competitive business environment.
In today’s highly dynamic business environment, failure to obtain critical operational
information promptly could lead to poor business decisions. The cascading effect of poor
decisions would be detrimental to an organisation’s competitive position. Hence, deriving
the competitive benefits from BDA adoption, therefore, depends to a large extent on the
parameters used in selecting BDA solutions and external facilitators. Thus, having appro­
priate selection criteria is the first important step in deploying BDA with appropriate
quality, which is instrumental in deriving the expected strategic benefits from BDA
adoption.
Third, the negative effects of selecting wrong capabilities on the quality of the systems
and the derived benefits from the solution could be significant. Specifically, selecting
inappropriate BDA solutions could lead to cost overrun, schedule delays of BDA projects
and the deployment of a system with poor or unacceptable quality. Hence, using
incompatible criteria could not only negatively affect the BDA implementation outcome,
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 217

but could also negatively affect firm’s operational and market performance. Therefore, we
hypothesise as follows:

H9: Information systems selection management capability is positively related to organi­

sational competitive position.

Method
Data collection
This research utilises survey data collected from IT professionals and business managers
with BDA experience from the US, UK, and India. Data was collected through a web-based
survey distributed from a sampling frame of randomly selected organisations through
LinkedIn platform that were either implementing big data analytics or that had already
completed the BDA implementation process. Random sampling has been suggested by
previous studies to ensure that the study participants reflect a true representation of the
population of interest in order to reduce the bias towards a particular industry or specific
organisational or respondent characteristic (Kerlinger et al., 2000).
The research instrument for this study was adopted from the model and scales
developed by previous works (Côrte-Real et al., 2020; Schilke, 2014; Tsai et al., 2012;
Veríssimo & Lacerda, 2015). However, the items were slightly altered to fit this research
context. To ensure the questionnaires’ validity and clarity, personal interviews were
conducted with 16 BDA managers, BDA consultants from two top consulting firms, and
business managers with extensive experience in BDA deployment projects. The ques­
tionnaire was then modified to incorporate their feedback.
Two studies were conducted – study I and study II. Data collected from a pilot study
was utilised for instrument validation and factorial validity, while data from the main
survey was used for the confirmatory analysis of the measurement properties and for
hypotheses testing. Based on the results from the pilot study (study I), data for the main
survey (study II) were collected from a new sample, with the scale properties re-examined
and refined to incorporate feedback from the pilot study. Both studies data were collected
from IT and business professionals with ‘free’ and ‘paid’ membership in LinkedIn.
During the past two decades we have witnessed explosive growth and general
acceptance of social media as an important means of communication and relationship
building among various groups including IT professionals. One such medium that is
widely used by IT and business professionals is LinkedIn. With over 700 million active
users in 2020 from over 200 countries, LinkedIn is the leading social media platform used
by IT and business managers for collaborating and maintaining professional relationships.
Unlike other social media platforms, LinkedIn is designed specifically for employees and
managers of companies with diverse skills and from varying industries to create and
maintain professional relationship. The acceptance of this platform has led to the emer­
gence of various professional IT and business groups with global membership. Hence the
platform is becoming an important medium to reach potential participants for practice
and academic studies.
218 O. P. OBITADE

Pilot study
The data for the pilot study was collected from IT professionals and business managers
from the US, UK, and India who were members of one of the largest groups dedicated
exclusively to professionals in LinkedIn with big data experience – the Big Data and
Analytics group on LinkedIn. There were approximately 374,892 total members as of
June 2019 when the data was collected. The survey was sent to 712 members who were
identified as both business and IS executives based on their profiles (including job titles).
In total, 126 responses (17.6%) were received. Respondents represented a diverse range of
affiliated industries, including energy, financial services, manufacturing, computing and
information services, and healthcare.

Main study
For the main study, organisations that had completed BDA deployment were targeted as
subjects for this study. Prospective participants were reached through two of the largest
of such groups (by membership) – the Big Data Analytics, Business Intelligence, &
Visualisation Experts Community, and the Data Science group. A new survey was created.
The survey link was then sent to the potential subjects: 2,126 members who were both
business and IT executives. A total of 523 responses (24.6%) were received. The responses
were examined to ensure that those who had participated in the pilot study did not
respond to the main survey. The data from study II was used for confirmatory analysis and
to test the study hypotheses (as shown in Figure 1).
The survey data was collected in ‘two waves’ based on the date returned, with later
respondents serving as a surrogate for non-respondents. The first wave included those
surveys received within 3 weeks of the initial online contact, while the second wave
included those received after the follow-up email. The first survey was sent to respon­
dents on 12 June 2019, and resulted in a total of 394 responses, out of which 42
incomplete responses were discarded, leaving 352 usable responses. Subsequent
requests (and reminders) were sent two months later, which produced an additional
197 responses, out of which 26 were discarded with 171 usable responses, for a total
of 523.

Non-response bias
As with studies that utilise online surveys, non-response bias presented a potential
problem for this study. In line with prior works (Gupta & George, 2016; Tsai et al., 2012),
two methods were used to test for non-response bias. In the first test, the survey
respondents’ attributes were compared with all the individuals who received the survey,
using the respondents’ industry. Next, the respondents’ observed frequencies were
compared with expected frequencies based on the surveyed respondents. As shown in
Table 1, the t-test indicates no significant difference between the respondents and the list
of all surveyed participants by professional background.
In the second non-response bias test, the characteristics of the early and late responses
were compared with each other. A test of differences of proportion was conducted to
compare the responses from the data sources using characteristics such as firm size,
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 219

industry classification, and official position of the respondents. The test results show that
none of the differences are significant. While the above tests cannot guarantee the
absence of non-response bias, they do suggest that the respondents represent the
population surveyed.

Model measures
The study instruments were measured using survey questions asking participants
whether their firms use big data analytics capabilities for deriving insight on customers
and improve operational performance. The questions were adapted from previous stu­
dies. In line with previous studies (Tsai et al., 2012), the selection criteria instruments were
measured using two separate metrics. First, the respondents were asked to answer YES/
NO to indicate selection criteria that were used in their selection process. Second, a seven-
point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (extremely unimportant) to 7 (extremely important)
were used. Also, a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (substantial deterioration)
to 7 (substantial improvement) were used to measure BDA performance improvement
level and its importance.
The research constructs were operationalised through definitions of the constructs.
Following Gold et al. (2001), we operationalise knowledge management capability as
a construct composed of three first-order constructs: (1) acquisition (2) conversion (3)
application. Information system selection capability is conceptualised by three first-order
dimensions: BDA systems selection criteria, software vendor selection criteria and third-
party selection criteria. These constructs were adopted from instruments developed by
(Tsai et al., 2012). Consistent with the work of other researchers (Côrte-Real et al., 2020;
Tsai et al., 2012), BDA System quality was operationalised as first-level measurement
consisting of multiple items.
To conceptualise the ultimate outcomes or the business value of the model (BDA net
benefits), we utilise the two-dimensional view of competitive advantage. Competitive
advantage is regarded as a firm’s ability to achieve greater success than its current or
potential rivals (Peteraf & Barney, 2003). Superior firm performance is one of the most
extensively studied indicator of competitive advantage (Schilke, 2014). Following Schilke
(2014), we operationalise competitive advantage as a construct composed of two first-
order dimensions: (1) strategic performance (qualitative dimension) and (2) financial
performance (quantitative dimension). This construct has been recommended to study
BDA (Côrte-Real et al, 2017).

Control variables
This paper includes some control variables that are considered necessary to properly
explain the relationship among the variables of interest. We add four variables to control
for regional differences in organisational systems and structures that might influence
competitive advantage. First, types of industry were added to control for the potential
effect of diversification. Studies have demonstrated that the type of industry that firms
operate in influence their decision to develop certain organisational capabilities
(Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009). Transformational leaders have been shown to influence
firm adoption and use of new technologies (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2009), hence, we add
220 O. P. OBITADE

a variable to control for transformation leadership. Last, as one of the most recent
innovative technologies, BDA can influence not only the type of usage of these technol­
ogies, but also their effect on firms’ competitive position. Therefore, following Drnevich
and Kriauciunas (2011) and Corte-real et al. (2020), we add turbulent technological
environment as a control variable. National culture is added as a control variable to reflect
the multi-region setting of this study. This variable is operationalised using Hofstede’s
cultural dimensions – Type I and Type II (Type I: the U.S. and UK; Type II: India). The
measurement items are shown in Appendix A.

Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the study sample. The sample firms were
distributed across a wide range of industry sectors. Based on the number of employees,
the sample firms are a good representation of the diversity of firms from small to large
organisations. Their IT departments, on average, has 12 employees. The average budget
of the sample was about 1.2 percent of sales revenue. The IS executives had, on average,
26 years of professional experience. Also, over 64 percent of the responding business
executives with job titles such as vice president, president, directors, and senior manager.
On average, they had been involved in strategic planning development for 11.4 years.
Similarly, about 82 percent of the IS participants were Vice president of IT, IT Director, Data
Science Manager, Senior Data Scientists, Project Manager, Data Engineering Lead. Taken
together, these attributes indicate that the respondents are high ranking within their
organisation and were highly competent to answer the questions of this study.

PLS analysis
Partial least squares (PLS) path modelling was used to assess the proposed model and test
the hypotheses. PLS was chosen because of its inherent advantages over other statistical
techniques. Chin et al. (2003) argued in favour of PLS as it can be leveraged to test the
measurement and structural model concurrently. PLS has also proven to be robust
enough to detect violations of homogeneity and the normal distribution of the data
set. To derive meaningful statistical reference from the PLS technique, Wixom and Watson
(2001) recommended a minimum sample size that is 10 times greater than (1) either the
number of independent variables affecting a single dependent variable or (2) the number
of items included in the most formative construct. This paper examines the effects of
three BDA constructs as independent variables, so based on the recommendation, this
study requires a minimum sample size of 30. Thus, the sample size of 523 fulfils the
requirement. This paper uses SmartPLS version 3.3.2. to analyse the research model.
SmartPLS has been utilised by previous works to perform Structural Equation Modelling
(SEM) using the partial least squares (PLS) path modelling method (Işık et al., 2013;
Popovič et al., 2012).
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 221

Measurement model
Previous studies have recommended assessing the model according to the model’s
construct validity and the internal consistency between the items (Henseler et al., 2009).
As noted by Hair et al. (2011), internal consistency is a widely used indicator of reliability.
In line with this literature, this study utilises Cronbach’s alpha to assess it, and uses
exploratory factor analysis to determine the dimensionality of the instruments. The
Cronbach’s alpha values for all constructs are proven satisfactory after item purifications.
In line with previous studies, predictor and predicted variables were assessed for
construct validity through convergent and discriminant validity, as well as composite
reliability (Hair et al., 2013). Convergent validity was assessed according to the Average
Variance Extracted (AVE) and communality. Fornell and Larcker (1981) recommended that
the communality and AVE values for the variables be 0.5 or higher. As shown in Table 3 all
the constructs satisfy the required condition.
Following Chin’s (1998) recommendation, the discriminant validity of the constructs is
assessed by comparing the square root of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) asso­
ciated with each construct with the correlations among the constructs to determine
whether that square root is greater than the recommended value. As shown in Table 3,
the values of each construct are greater than the off-diagonal values, which is in line with
acceptable results for the discriminant validity test. Moores and Chang (2006) recom­
mended that the values of composite reliability for each construct be above 70%, and the
results inTable 3 meet these criteria. Podsakoff and Organ (1986) recommended conduct­
ing the Harman’s single-factor test to determine the potential for common method bias.
The results show that a single factor accounted for 31% of the variance, which is less than
the suggested 50% variance. Therefore, these results suggest that this study dataset is
devoid of the common method bias.

Structural model analysis

The structural model is assessed by examining the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF), path
coefficient, t-value, and variance explained (R2) to empirically validate the hypotheses
postulated in Section 3. The VIFs ranging from 1.15 to 2.21 are less than 3, the recom­
mended cut-off point (Hair et al., 2013), indicating little or no multicollinearity among the
constructs. Also, AVE and the correlation among the constructs are within the recom­
mended range.

Table 3. Correlation matrix, composite reliability, and AVE.

Composite BDA system Consultant Vendor BDA BDA
Construct Reliability AVE KM Criteria selection selection quality Benefits
Knowledge 0.72 0.681 0.611
management
BDA System 0.82 0.72 0.223 0.623
selection
Consultant 0.78 0.57 0.402 0.217 0.701
selection crit.
BDA Vendor 0.91 0.69 0.244 0.408 0.502 0.698
selection crit.
BDA quality 0.81 0.66 0.589 0.392 0.292 0.412 0.745
BDA Benefits 0.87 0.61 0.301 0.249 0.301 0.213 0.429 0.694
222 O. P. OBITADE

Further, to obtain reliable results and t-values, the bootstrapping method in the
SmartPLS software was used to generate 5,000 random samples, which is in line with
the 5,000 resamples recommended by Hair et al. (2013). The t-tests were used to assess
the significance of the hypotheses results and the sign of the model path coefficients. The
predictive validity of the relationships between the constructs was assessed using
R-squared values. In addition to R-squared, two additional tests were performed to assess
the model fit in the PLS analysis. First, as suggested by Duarte et al. (2010),
a supplementary assessment of goodness-of-fit in PLS using the Stone-Geisser test of
predictive relevance was performed. Second, in line with previous works (Işık et al., 2013),
the Qsquare was calculated for the study constructs. The Qsquare test is recommended to
determine how well the missing data can be restored in the PLS model. A score greater
than zero is considered appropriate to assess the predictive relevance of the model. The
square root of the BDA constructs is 0.2344, and the total variance attributed to the model
3 constructs is 41.2 percent. These test results are within the suggested acceptable range.

Hypotheses testing
To determine the relationship between the variables of interests for this study, nine
hypotheses were developed and tested. As shown in Table 4, the results of the regression
to test the effects of knowledge management on information systems selection manage­
ment decision (H1) is positive and significant (0.298, p < 0.001). Also, H2 test the impacts
of BDA emerging criteria is positive and significant (0.311, p < 0.001). The result of
Hypothesis 3 (vendor selection parameters) is positive and significant (0.277, p < 0.001).
The result of Hypothesis 4 (consultant selection parameters) is positive and significant
(0.326, p < 0.001).
To provide an in-depth understanding of the relationship between selection criteria
and BDA quality, we developed and tested three hypotheses. As shown in Table 4,
Hypothesis 5 (BDA system criteria influence on BDA quality) coefficient is positive and
significant (0.189, p < 0.001). The support for hypothesis 6 (vendor criteria influence on
BDA quality) for vendor selection criteria, is weak (0.092, p > 0.05). The coefficient of
Hypothesis 7 (consultant selection criteria influence on BDA quality) is positive and
significant (0.411, p < 0.001). The coefficient of Hypothesis 8 (BDA benefits) is positive
and significant (0.398, p < 0.001). The coefficient of Hypothesis 9 (moderating effects of
selection criteria on BDA quality and BDA benefits) is positive and significant (0.411,

Table 4. Hypotheses testing results.

Hypothesis Constructs Path coefficients t-values R-square Decision
H1 Knowledge management 0.298 2.121*** 0.62 supported
H2 BDA system criteria 0.311 2.412*** 0.68 supported
H3 Vendor selection criteria 0.277 1.172*** 0.64 supported
H4 Consultant selection criteria 0.326 4.218** 0.62 supported
H5 BDA system criteria/BDA quality 0.189 2.634*** 0.63 supported
H6 Vendor selection/BDA quality −0.092 1.122* 0.69 not supported
H7 Consultant selection/BDA quality 0.411 2.891** 0.67 supported
H8 BDA benefits 0.398 3.523*** 0.71 supported
H9 System selection criteria/BDA quality/Benefits 0.411 2.716*** 0.68 supported
* p < 10%; ** p < 5%; *** p < 1%; number of respondents: 523
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 223

Table 5. Testing results concerning BDA system selection criteria.

Column A Column B
BDA System selection criteria p-Value
Consider or Frequency Important to BDA Quality
not
Consultant’s suggestions No 230 .005
Yes 258
Meet business requirements No 22 0.139***
Yes 501
*Usability No 122 0.213***
Yes 401
Total cost of ownership (implementation and support No 105 0.023
costs)
Yes 418
*Customer success stories No 179 0.142**
Yes 344
Ease of integration with other systems (ERP, CRM, SCM No 224 0.099
etc.)
Yes 229
Ease of deployment and maintenance No 147 0.107
Yes 276
Provisions of best practices No 179 0.101
Yes 211
Implementation time No 189 0.129
Yes 248
*Advanced security features No 59 0.512***
Yes 464
*Privacy Protection No 78 0.441***
Yes 441
Flexibility to changes in business requirements No 178 0.085*
Yes 323
*Compatibility with cloud technology No 66 0.489***
Yes 398
* p < 10%; ** p < 5%; *** p < 1%; number of respondents: 523
* emerging criteria

Table 6. Testing results concerning BDA solution selection vendor criteria.

BDA Vendor selection criteria p-Value
Consider or not Frequency Important to BDA Quality
Global market position No 314 0.087
Yes 201
Vendor market reputation and share No 349 0.072
Yes 169
Training support provided by vendor No 98 0.154**
Yes 422
Financial position No 211 0.124
Yes 267
Technical support and experience No 112 0.101
Yes 378
Production support after go-live No 82 0.205***
Yes 441
*Solution-as-a-Service (SaaS) offering No 288 0.089
Yes 159
* p < 10%; ** p < 5%; *** p < 1%; number of respondents: 523
* Emerging criteria

p < 0.001). In a nutshell, all paths (except for the vendor selection criteria) displayed
a significant effect, with p-values less than 0.05.
224 O. P. OBITADE

Table 7. Testing results concerning BDA consultant selection criteria.

Column A Column B
BDA consultant selection criteria p-Value
Consider or Frequency Important to BDA Quality
not
Consulting fee No 123 0.098
Yes 298
Consultant domain knowledge No 201 0.127
Yes 311
*Experience with Agile team No 82 0.613***
Yes 438
*Experience with DevOps model No 73 0.419***
Yes 423
Consultant BDA experience No 74 0.214**
Yes 447
Consultant industry experience No 199 0.145
Yes 311
Consultant support after go-live No 183 0.177
Yes 298
*Experience deploying in cloud and on-premise No 85 0.532***
Yes 438
BDA project methodologies, approaches, and No 209 0.081
templates
Yes 278
* p < 10%; ** p < 5%; *** p < 1%; number of respondents: 523
* emerging criteria

Additional tests
As shown in Table 5, column B, the results of hypothesis 7a testing demonstrates that
emerging BDA system criteria such as usability, customer success stories, advanced
security features, privacy protection and compatibility with cloud technology are positive
and significant. increase BDA quality than traditional measures) is positive and significant.
The results of hypothesis 8b in Table 6, column B, shows that relationship between
emerging vendor criteria and BDA quality is negative and significant. Last, Table 7, column
B, show that experience with agile team, experience with DevOps and experience deploy­
ing BDA solution in both cloud and on-premise are positively significant (hypothesis 8 c).

Discussion
This paper attempts to fill some of research gaps by investigating mechanisms through
which BDA can result in business value. A large stream of research has demonstrated that
BDA can be leveraged for competitive gains (Mikalef et al., 2020; Rouhani & Rotbei, 2021).
However, previous studies have focused almost exclusively on the ultimate outcome of
BDA adoption – business values. Thus, lacking in the literature is the understanding of
critical intermediate capabilities and processes that can turn potential to measurable
values. In particular, to date, there has been little attention given to improving our
understanding of the internal capability necessary to select BDA functionalities that fit
into organisational goals. In the same vein, the mechanisms required to determine
appropriate criteria for selecting qualified third-party facilitators are an under researched
area in BDA literature.
To address these gaps, we build theoretically on the well-established theory of orga­
nisational learning and strategic decision-making view to emphasise that certain
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 225

mechanisms are needed for organisations to unlock BDA business values. Specifically, we
examined one of these intermediate capabilities – information system selection manage­
ment capability. Using survey data from 523 executive-level technology managers, this
study empirically shows a strong positive relationship between information system
selection capability (ISSC) and BDAC quality. The findings support our hypotheses that
for BDA to generate critical insights and market intelligence, the systems functionalities
and components have to be selected based on organisational structure and capabilities,
properly implemented and absorbed into organisational routines and business opera­
tions. In essence, choosing appropriate BDA systems and implementation partners are
indispensable and achieved through selection method and criteria that best align with
firms’ performance [Link] this end, this study makes an important contribution to
BDA literature by presenting ISSC as an intermediate construct and a prerequisite that
serves as critical determinant of BDA quality and means through which firms derive
business benefits from their BDA investments.
Further, there is currently a limited understanding of the relationship between knowl­
edge management capability and information system selection capability. Unlike pre­
vious research on KM that has been either theoretical or empirical holistic, this study
disaggregates the KM enabling capabilities by examining specific internal capabilities that
KM enhances. We demonstrate that knowledge of the BDA functionalities and third-party
skills gained from KM capabilities improve information systems selection management
capability, which in turn, helps firms select systems and third-party facilitators that are
best aligned with their strategic objectives. To this end, we build on the notion of
a knowledge management as a necessary enabler that enhances a firm’s internal solution
selection process, which, in turn, strengthens BDA quality and firms’ performance.
A large body of research that have explored the strategic importance of BDA have been
mostly limited to a single country (Alaskar et al., 2020; Ghasemaghaei, 2020; Holmlund
et al., 2020). In fact, most of the prior research works have focused on how US-based
companies are leveraging BDA to improve firms’ performance (Buhalis & Volchek, 2021;
Mikalef et al., 2019). In essence, the condition under which firms in other countries
generate business values from BDA has been hitherto under-explored in IS literature. It
is therefore timely to examine the mechanisms through which BDA creates business value
in multi-country settings. In response, this paper documents that BDA is being leveraged,
with varying degrees of system quality across regions and countries.
This study adds to the limited body of knowledge that have examined the effects of
information systems selection management capability on the quality of the IS system and
the eventual benefits derived from such a solution. Specifically, the findings provide some
interesting insights into the association between information systems selection manage­
ment capabilities and BDA success. Although organisations implement big data systems
to improve their competitive position and to support their decision-making activities,
studies have shown that the expected benefits are not always realised (Sharma & Yetton,
2003), especially if organisations neglect organisational factors that are necessary for
successful BDA adoption. Therefore, to achieve the desired business objectives, organisa­
tions must put in place an information systems selection management process that
ensures the selection of criteria and systems that are best suited for them.
To better understand the influence of external facilitator selection measures on BDA
success, this paper analyzes these qualities from two perspectives: emerging and
226 O. P. OBITADE

traditional. Emerging technologies and service offerings are those that are considered
recent inventions or/and have recently received renewed attention from practitioners and
scholars alike. Hence, there are two purposes for this analysis. The first is to determine
whether the renewed interests align with organisations’ interests in these constructs. In
essence, we attempt to ascertain the practical implications or whether companies share
similar interests or consider them as important as the IS and professional literature appear
to suggest. The second is to ascertain whether these constructs deserve renewed atten­
tion or lived up to the hype, that is, whether they have higher positive impacts on BDA
quality and business values than traditional measures.
As shown in Table 4, results of H1 demonstrate that knowledge management capabil­
ities have positive effects on firm’s ability to select solutions that best fit with their
organisation structure and routines. Also, organisations appear to prefer emerging criteria
to traditional measures in selecting BDA systems, third party consultants and software
vendors. Specifically, companies seem to be pivoting and selecting criteria such as cloud
computing, agile project methodology, enhanced privacy protection, DevOps, and other
emerging parameters. Hence, these results support hypotheses H2, H3 and H4.
In essence, the findings provide some evidence that suggests that organisations
appear to be pivoting from predominantly traditional solution criteria in favour of more
recent technology and service offering (emerging) measures. The emerging or recent
measures include the cloud, the SaaS model, usability, security, and privacy. Security has
been extensively studied as a critical selection criterion. The increased acceptance of the
Internet as a means of communication and business as well as the resultant exponential
growth of successful cybersecurity attacks have translated security and privacy into
a major determinant of BDA adoption. In essence, the recent spate of data breaches in
major companies has increased the importance of privacy and data protection. The results
also show that emerging selection criteria are associated with higher BDA success than
the traditional measures.
Studies have demonstrated that organisations are pivoting towards adopting cloud
computing (Neaga et al., 2015). Instead of purchasing and hosting IT infrastructure
themselves, organisations are shifting to a lease model that provides them access to
shared cloud computing resources. The resource-elasticity offered by cloud providers
eliminates the up-front costs of procuring and maintaining an internally hosted infra­
structure and removes delays by allowing organisations to scale up their computing
resources on demand (Pradhananga et al., 2015). Cloud-hosting also offers cost savings,
achieved through economies of scale. Thus, for a BDA adoption to be considered success­
ful, such a system has to have a technical structure that is compatible with hosting in the
customer technical environment.
The tests developed to determine the effects of selection criteria on BDA quality were
conducted along two dimensions – holistic and disaggregated levels. Hypotheses H5, H6,
and H7 were designed to determine the effects of selection parameters at the holistic
level. To ascertain whether certain parameters (emerging criteria) have higher impacts on
BDA quality than others (traditional measures), the constructs were disaggregated and
tested at the individual levels. The purpose is to provide an in-depth analysis of the
relationship between these constructs, thereby enhancing our understanding of the
influence of system and partner selection criteria on BDA quality and competitive
benefits.
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 227

As shown in Table 5, out of thirteen BDA system selection criteria examined, seven of
them are positively related to system quality. In particular, five of the six criteria consid­
ered, for the purpose of this study, as emerging are significant (usability, cloud hosting,
security and privacy features, customer success stories). However, only two of the tradi­
tional measures (meet business requirements and changing business requirements) are
significant. Thus, the results support Hypotheses 5. Similarly, the results for Hypothesis H6
provide some evidence that emerging criteria such as knowledge of Agile methodology,
DevOps, and skills in deploying BDA in cloud environment significantly contribute to BDA
quality.
An unexpected result is that total cost of ownership appears not to be significant. This
is inconsistent with the results of previous studies (Tsai et al., 2012, 2011) that have
examined transactional systems such as ERP. A potential explanation for the surprising
results might be that organisations are willing to invest more on BDA capabilities than ERP
systems. This might be because the perceived competitive benefits of BDA might out­
weigh the concern of cost overrun.
Hypothesis H6 is not significant. This suggests that software vendor selection criteria
have limited influence on BDA quality. These results are inconsistent with previous works
showing that software selection parameters in Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) appli­
cations are significant to system quality (Verville and Halingten, 2002; Tsai et al., 2012).
A potential reason for the inconsistency is that there might be little or no considerable
differentiating factors among BDA software vendor qualities compared to transactional
systems.
Also, unlike other constructs, emerging vendor selection criteria, such as SaaS, appear
not to have a significant influence on BDA quality compared with traditional measure. In
fact, the relationship appears to be negative. Thus, the results suggest that traditional
criteria appear to have a higher influence on BDA quality than emerging criteria. There are
some potential explanations for these results. First, organisations might be more influ­
enced or interested in their cloud hosting platforms (IaaS and PaaS) than hosting their
BDA on vendor cloud infrastructure (SaaS). The second potential reason is that the SaaS
option might not be available for all BDA systems. Hence, fewer organisations have
adopted the SaaS model and derived higher benefits than other deploying platforms.
Finally, since this is a multi-country study, it is conceivable that SaaS offerings are not
available in all countries of interests. Also, some countries’ statutory requirements and
regulations prevent processing of data in another country. In essence, local content
regulation might prevent some countries from adopting SaaS deployment model.
Further studies might be necessary to explore these issues further.
Further analysis was conducted to determine the reasons behind the change in
selection criteria preference. This is necessary because while it is important to understand
the deliberations in selection criteria, it is equally important to understand the reasons
why participants prefer certain criteria over another. To this end, the participants were
asked to provide an explanation for their chosen criteria and to indicate the selection
criteria that best represented their decision. Also, they were asked to provide additional
comments. As shown in Figure 2, top justifications for the shift are as follows: to increase
the likelihood of successful BDA deployment; in response to competitor’s pivoting, which
is critical to maintaining competitive edge; to ensure enhanced information security and
228 O. P. OBITADE

Figure 2. Justifications for Pivoting.

Figure 3. BDA quality and competitive benefits.

privacy; and to provide leverage for newer technologies to increase the probability of BDA
project success.
Last, Figure 3 shows the BDA quality and competitive benefits by [Link] results
show variations in perceived BDA quality across firms and countries. Specifically, the
univariate analysis shows that BDA quality appears to be higher among US firms, while
Indian companies are likely to be more successful in harnessing BDA competitive benefits
than companies in other countries.

Theorerical implications
From the analytical results, there are three main streams of findings. First, the paper
contributes to the limited research on the necessary organisational capabilities for suc­
cessful implementation and use of big data analytics technologies. While a significant
number of studies on BDA have focused almost exclusively on technological perspectives
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 229

and the business value of BDA, this paper provides some empirical results that demon­
strate that knowledge management capabilities (KMC) contribute to improvement in an
organisation’s information system selection process. Thus, this paper becomes the first
study to empirically establish the link between KMC and information systems selection
management capabilities.
Second, this paper adds to the body of research that outlines how information systems
selection management capability increase the probability of IT solutions implementation
quality. While prior studies have demonstrated the effects of traditional measures, this
study extends the literature by identifying and examining criteria that have not been
empirically studied together in IS literature and/or have not been investigated with regard
to BDA adoption. These added criteria include system selection criteria (usability, custo­
mer success stories, advanced security features, privacy protection, and compatibility with
cloud technology); vendor selection criteria (Solution-as-a-Service model); consultant
selection criteria (experience with deploying in the cloud environment, experience work­
ing with DevOps and agile teams). These criteria have not been examined together in
a single study, and their effects on BDA implementation outcome have not been inves­
tigated until now. The results suggest that these criteria increase the probability of BDA
success better than other criteria. It is not surprising then that organisations prefer them
to others.
Third, the unique challenges and opportunities surrounding BDA adoption and use
have not been fully explored in a multi-country setting. This paper extends our under­
standing of successful BDA adoption by empirically testing some critical BDA success
factors in a multi-country setting. The results show variations in perceived BDA quality
across firms and countries. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper to use
multi-region survey to empirically assess the influence of BDA system and external
facilitator selection criteria on BDA quality and its impacts on firm performance.

Practical implications
Primarily, the results confirm the findings of other studies that demonstrate the impor­
tance of essential organisational capabilities in BDA deployment to improve firms’ com­
petitive position. In particular, the results suggest to managers that simply adopting BDA
technologies might not be enough to improve firm performance. Certain internal selec­
tion processes are pivotal to organisations’ utilisation of BDA technologies to achieve the
desired business value. More specifically, while there are several internal processes that
are critical to success, decision criteria in solution selection are an essential input in
ensuring successful BDA deployment. In particular, to be successful, organisations need
to assemble a group of managers with the required IT and business experience to develop
and utilise decision criteria that align well with organisational capabilities and strategic
objectives. Also, the findings suggest that managers should pay more emphasis on newer
selection criteria to increase the probability of BDA implementation success.
Lastly, the results provide support for the importance of good-fit and experienced
external facilitators in the implementation process. One of the lessons learned from this
study’s participants is that organisations planning to deploy BDA require a best-fit
partnership with vendors and external consultants to help with the implementation and
support process. Also, the results demonstrate that it will be incredibly challenging for
230 O. P. OBITADE

organisations to effectively deploy BDA with only internal resources. In essence, an

organisation needs to leverage the project management knowledge and expertise of
third-party consultants to achieve the desired benefits from BDA adoption.

Conclusion, limitations, and future research

There are some limitations to this study. First, the results only reflect the perspectives of
participants from three countries; other countries, or cultural contexts, might produce
different results. Second, there is an obvious survey bias in the sample; the study results
only captured the opinions of users that agreed to participate in the survey. Third, this
research model focused solely on IS success constructs out of other factors affecting the
success of BDA systems. Other IS success factors may produce different results. Despites
these limitations, this study provides an empirically tested model that can be leveraged to
achieve expected business benefits from BDA adoption. Future research could extend this
study by examining the effects of selection criteria in other countries and comparing BDA
success factors in a multi-cultural study.
Due to the potential impacts of BDA on firm’ performance, further study is needed to
adequately document the critical success factors to improve BDA quality. There are
numerous follow-up efforts that could be pursued to extend the findings of this study.
We highlight three of these future research areas in this study. First, while we examined an
intermediate capability – information system selection capabilities, future studies could
investigate other internal capabilities that are essential to unlocking business values from
BDA investments. Additionally, future studies could extend the literature to include
a larger sample comprising respondents from a larger number of countries to determine
whether information system selection management capability is still relevant in a larger
sample. Future studies could employ different research methodologies at the country
level, such as in-depth case studies, archival data, or longitudinal field research, instead of
solely self-reported data. This would provide another means of collecting additional data
that can be used to confirm the results of this study.

Conclusion
The need to leverage the full potential of the rapidly expanding data volume, velocity, and
variety has led to a significant evolution of techniques and technologies for data storage,
analysis, and visualisation (Dong & Yang, 2020). This research confirms that information
systems selection management capability directly affects the quality of BDA system. By
confirming the study success model, the results show that enhanced system and service
quality have a positive effect on user satisfaction. Overall, the selection of appropriate
systems and infrastructure as well as partnering with the best fit and most experienced
vendor and high-quality third-party consultant are contributing factors for deriving
expected benefits from BDA adoption and use.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 231

References
Abawajy, J., Kelarev, A., & Chowdhury, M. (2014). Automatic generation of meta classifiers with large
levels for distributed computing and networking. Journal of Networks, 9(9), 2259–2268. https://
[Link]/10.4304/jnw.9.9.2259-2268
Abubakar, A.M., Elrehail, H., Alatailat, M.A., & Elçi, A. (2019). Knowledge management,
decision-making style and organizational performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 4(2),
104–114. [Link]
Adams, F.G., & Graham, K.W. (2017). Integration, knowledge creation and B2B governance: The role
of resource hierarchies in financial performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 63, 179–191.
[Link]
Alaskar, T.H., Mezghani, K., & Alsadi, A.K. (2020). Examining the adoption of Big data analytics in
supply chain management under competitive pressure: Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Journal of
Decision Systems, 1–21. [Link]
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D.E. (2001). Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management
systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107–136. [Link]
org/10.2307/3250961
Al-Mashari, M., Al-Mudimigh, A., & Zairi, M. (2003). Enterprise resource planning: A taxonomy of
critical factors. European Journal of Operational Research, 146(2), 352–364. [Link]
1016/S0377-2217(02)00554-4
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009). What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in
strategic management? International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(1), 29–49. [Link]
org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00251.x
Ardito, L., Scuotto, V., Del Giudice, M., & Petruzzelli, A.M. (2019). A bibliometric analysis of research
on Big Data analytics for business and management. Management Decision, 57(8), 1993–2009.
[Link]
Argote, L. (2011). Organizational learning research: Past, present and future. Management Learning,
42(4), 439–446. [Link]
Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011). Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge.
Organization Science, 22(5), 1123–1137. [Link]
Auster, E., & Choo, C.W. (1996). Managing information for the competitive edge. Neal-Schuman.
Retrieved December 29, 2008.
Barchiesi, M.A., & Colladon, A.F. (2019). Big data and big values: When companies need to rethink
themselves. Journal of Business Research.
Baum, J., & Wally, S. (2003). Strategic decision speed and firm performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 24(11), 1107–1129. [Link]
Bi, Z., & Cochran, D. (2014). Big data analytics with applications. Journal of Management Analytics, 1
(4), 249–265. [Link]
Brix, J. (2017). Exploring knowledge creation processes as a source of organizational learning:
A longitudinal case study of a public innovation project. Scandinavian Journal of Management,
33(2), 113–127. [Link]
Brix, J., & Peters, L.S. (2015). Exploring an innovation project as a source of change in organization
design. Journal of Organization Design, 4(1), 29–43. [Link]
Brown, J.S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward
a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57. https://
[Link]/10.1287/orsc.2.1.40
Buhalis, D., & Volchek, K. (2021). Bridging marketing theory and big data analytics: The taxonomy of
marketing attribution. International Journal of Information Management, 56, 102253. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2020.102253
Burton, R., Obel, B., & Haakonsson, D. (2015). How to get the matrix organization to work. Journal of
Organization Design JOD, 4(3), 37–45. [Link]
Buyya, R., Ramamohanarao, K., Leckie, C., Calheiros, R.N., Dastjerdi, A.V., & Versteeg, S. (2015,
December). Big data analytics-enhanced cloud computing: Challenges, architectural elements,
232 O. P. OBITADE

and future directions. In 2015 IEEE 21st International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems
(ICPADS) (pp. 75–84). IEEE.
Cao, G., Duan, Y., & Li, G. (2015). Linking business analytics to decision making effectiveness: A path
model analysis. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 62(3), 384–395. [Link]
1109/TEM.2015.2441875
Castaneda, D.I., Manrique, L.F., & Cuellar, S. (2018). Is organizational learning being absorbed by
knowledge management? A systematic review. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 299–
325. [Link]
Cataldo, A.J., McQueen, R.J., & Sepulveda, M. (2011). Big it for small companies: Quick-scan method
makes up for lack of resources. Industrial Engineer, 43(5), 48–54.
Chai, J., Liu, J.N., & Ngai, E.W. (2013). Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection:
A systematic review of literature. Expert Systems with Applications, 40(10), 3872–3885. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2012.12.040
Cheung, F.K., Kuen, J.L.F., & Skitmore, M. (2002). Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of
architectural consultants. Construction Management & Economics, 20(7), 569–580. [Link]
10.1080/01446190210159818
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L., & Newsted, P.R. (2003). A partial least squares latent variable modeling
approach for measuring interaction effects: Results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an
electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Information Systems Research, 14(2), 189–217. https://
[Link]/10.1287/isre.14.2.189.16018
Ciampi, F., Demi, S., Magrini, A., Marzi, G., & Papa, A. (2021). Exploring the impact of big data analytics
capabilities on business model innovation: The mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation.
Journal of Business Research, 123, 1–13. [Link]
Citroen, C.L. (2011). The role of information in strategic decision-making. International Journal of
Information Management, 31(6), 493–501. [Link]
Côrte-Real, N., Ruivo, P., & Oliveira, T. (2020). Leveraging internet of things and big data analytics
initiatives in European and American firms: Is data quality a way to extract business value?
Information & Management, 57(1), 103141. [Link]
Crossan, M.M., Lane, H.W., & White, R.E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition
to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522–537. [Link]
2202135
Crossan, M.M., Maurer, C.C., & White, R.E. (2011). Reflections on the 2009 AMR decade award: Do we
have a theory of organizational learning? Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 446–460.
[Link]
Cyert, R.M., & March, J.G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm, 2(4), 169–187.
Davenport, T. (2014). Big data at work: Dispelling the myths, uncovering the opportunities. Harvard
Business Review Press.
De Long, D. (1997). Building the knowledge-based organization: How culture drives knowledge
behaviors. Centers for Business Innovation–Working Paper, 1–29.
Delen, D., & Demirkan, H. (2013). Data, information and analytics as services.
Dong, J.Q., & Yang, C.H. (2020). Business value of big data analytics: A systems-theoretic approach
and empirical test. Information & Management, 57(1), 103124. [Link]
11.001
Drnevich, P.L., & Kriauciunas, A.P. (2011). Clarifying the conditions and limits of the contributions of
ordinary and dynamic capabilities to relative firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 32
(3), 254–279. [Link]
Du Plessis, M. (2007). The role of knowledge management in innovation. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 11(4), 20–29. [Link]
Duarte, P.O., Alves, H.B., & Raposo, M.B. (2010). Understanding university image: A structural
equation model approach. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 7(1), 21–36.
[Link]
Eisenfuhr, F. (2011). Decision making. springer.
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 233

Elgendy, N., Elragal, A., & Päivärinta, T. (2021). DECAS: A modern data-driven decision theory for big
data and analytics. Journal of Decision Systems, 1–37. [Link]
1894674
Ferraris, A., Mazzoleni, A., Devalle, A., & Couturier, J. (2019). Big data analytics capabilities and
knowledge management: Impact on firm performance. Management Decision, 57(8), 1923–
1936. [Link]
Fiol, C.M., & Lyles, M.A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4),
803–813. [Link]
Flores, L.G., Zheng, W., Rau, D., & Thomas, C.H. (2012). Organizational learning: Subprocess identi­
fication, construct validation, and an empirical test of cultural antecedents. Journal of
Management, 38(2), 640–667. [Link]
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. [Link]
002224378101800104
Galetsi, P., Katsaliaki, K., & Kumar, S. (2020). Big data analytics in health sector: Theoretical frame­
work, techniques and prospects. International Journal of Information Management, 50, 206–216.
[Link]
Garvin, D.A., Edmondson, A.C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business
Review, 86(3), 109.
George, G., Haas, M.R., & Pentland, A. (2014). Big data and management.
Ghasemaghaei, M. (2020). The role of positive and negative valence factors on the impact of bigness
of data on big data analytics usage. International Journal of Information Management, 50,
395–404. [Link]
Gold, A. H., Malhotra, A., & Segars, A. H. (2001). Knowledge management: An organizational
capabilities perspective. Journal of management information systems,18(1), 185–214.
Grover, V., Chiang, R. H., Liang, T. P., & Zhang, D. (2018). Creating strategic business value from big
data analytics: A research framework. Journal of Management Information Systems,35(2), 388–423.
Gupta, M., & George, J.F. (2016). Toward the development of a big data analytics capability.
Information & Management, 53(8), 1049–1064. [Link]
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling:
Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Planning, 46(1–2), 1–12.
[Link]
Hajli, N., Tajvidi, M., Gbadamosi, A., & Nadeem, W. (2020). Understanding market agility for new
product success with big data analytics. Industrial Marketing Management, 86, 135–143. https://
[Link]/10.1016/[Link].2019.09.010
Hall, R., & Andriani, P. (2003). Managing knowledge associated with innovation. Journal of Business
Research, 56(2), 145–152. [Link]
Harrison, E.F. (1996). A process perspective on strategic decision making. Management Decision, 34
(1), 46–53. [Link]
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M., & Sinkovics, R.R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing. Emerald Group Publishing
Limited.
Holmlund, M., Van Vaerenbergh, Y., Ciuchita, R., Ravald, A., Sarantopoulos, P., Ordenes, F.V., &
Zaki, M. (2020). Customer experience management in the age of big data analytics: A strategic
framework. Journal of Business Research, 116, 356–365. [Link]
022
Huber, G.P. (1991). Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures.
Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115. [Link]
Iqbal, A., Latif, F., Marimon, F., Sahibzada, U.F., & Hussain, S. (2019). From knowledge management to
organizational performance. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32(1), 36–59. https://
[Link]/10.1108/JEIM-04-2018-0083
Işık, Ö., Jones, M.C., & Sidorova, A. (2013). Business intelligence success: The roles of BI capabilities
and decision environments. Information & Management, 50(1), 13–23. [Link]
im.2012.12.001
234 O. P. OBITADE

Jou, J., Shanteau, J., & Harris, R.J. (1996). An information processing view of framing effects: The role
of causal schemas in decision making. Memory & Cognition, 24(1), 1–15. [Link]
BF03197268
Kerlinger, F.N., Lee, H.B., & Bhanthumnavin, D. (2000). Foundations of Behavioral Research: The Most
Sustainable Popular Textbook By Kerlinger & Lee (2000).
Ko, D.G. (2010). Consultant competence trust doesn’t pay off, but benevolent trust does! Managing
knowledge with care. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14(2), 202–213. [Link]
13673271011032355
Kumar, V., Maheshwari, B., & Kumar, U. (2003). An investigation of critical management issues in ERP
implementation: Empirical evidence from Canadian organizations. Technovation, 23(10), 793–807.
[Link]
Lai, Y.L., & Ishizaka, A. (2020). The application of multi-criteria decision analysis methods into talent
identification process: A social psychological perspective. Journal of Business Research, 109,
637–647. [Link]
Lin, H.F. (2014). Contextual factors affecting knowledge management diffusion in SMEs. Industrial
Management & Data Systems, 114(9), 1415–1437. [Link]
Luo, W., & Liberatore, M.J. (2009). Achieving it consultant objectives through client project success.
Information & Management, 46(5), 259–266. [Link]
Maroufkhani, P., Tseng, M.L., Iranmanesh, M., Ismail, W.K.W., & Khalid, H. (2020). Big data analytics
adoption: Determinants and performances among small to medium-sized enterprises.
International Journal of Information Management, 54, 102190. [Link]
fomgt.2020.102190
Marr, B. (2015). Big Data: Using SMART big data, analytics and metrics to make better decisions and
improve performance. John Wiley & Sons.
Merendino, A., Dibb, S., Meadows, M., Quinn, L., Wilson, D., Simkin, L., & Canhoto, A. (2018). Big data,
big decisions: The impact of big data on board level decision-making. Journal of Business
Research, 93, 67–78. [Link]
Mikalef, P., Boura, M., Lekakos, G., & Krogstie, J. (2019). Big data analytics and firm performance:
Findings from a mixed-method approach. Journal of Business Research, 98, 261–276. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2019.01.044
Mikalef, P., Krogstie, J., Pappas, I.O., & Pavlou, P. (2020). Exploring the relationship between big data
analytics capability and competitive performance: The mediating roles of dynamic and opera­
tional capabilities. Information & Management, 57(2), 103169. [Link]
05.004
Moores, T.T., & Chang, J.C.J. (2006). Ethical decision making in software piracy: Initial development
and test of a four-component model. Mis Quarterly, 30(1), 167–180. [Link]
25148722
Neaga, I., Liu, S., Xu, L., Chen, H., & Hao, Y. (2015, May). Cloud enabled big data business platform for
logistics services: A research and development agenda. In International Conference on Decision
Support System Technology (pp. 22–33). Springer
Nelson, B., & Olovsson, T., “Security and privacy for big data: A systematic literature review”, Big Data
(Big Data) 2016 IEEE International Conference on, pp. 3693–3702, 2016.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create
the dynamics of innovation. Oxford university press.
Noorderhaven, N.G. (1995). Strategic decision making.
Nutt, P.C. (2005). Search during decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 160(3),
851–876. [Link]
Peteraf, M.A., & Barney, J.B. (2003). Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Managerial and Decision
Economics, 24(4), 309–323. [Link]
Podsakoff, P.M., & Organ, D.W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and
prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. [Link]
Popova-Nowak, I.V., & Cseh, M. (2015). The meaning of organizational learning: A meta-paradigm
perspective. Human Resource Development Review, 14(3), 299–331. [Link]
1534484315596856
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 235

Popovič, A., Hackney, R., Coelho, P.S., & Jaklič, J. (2012). Towards business intelligence systems
success: Effects of maturity and culture on analytical decision making. Decision Support Systems,
54(1), 729–739. [Link]
Pradhananga, Y., Karande, S., & Karande, C. (2015, February). CBA: Cloud-based big data analytics. In
2015 International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation (pp. 47–51).
IEEE.
Ranjan, J., & Foropon, C. (2021). Big data analytics in building the competitive intelligence of
organizations. International Journal of Information Management, 56, 102231. [Link]
1016/[Link].2020.102231
Rouhani, S., & Rotbei, S. (2021). Big data platforms: In the lens of selection and evaluation approach.
Journal of Decision Systems, 1–30. [Link]
Schilke, O. (2014). On the contingent value of dynamic capabilities for competitive advantage: The
nonlinear moderating effect of environmental dynamism. Strategic Management Journal, 35(2),
179–203. [Link]
Schniederjans, D.G., Curado, C., & Khalajhedayati, M. (2020). Supply chain digitization trends: An
integration of knowledge management. International Journal of Production Economics, 220,
107439. [Link]
Scott, S.G., & Bruce, R.A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new
measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818–831. [Link]
0013164495055005017
Sharma, R., & Yetton, P. (2003). The contingent effects of management support and task interde­
pendence on successful information systems implementation. MIS Quarterly, 27(4), 533–556.
[Link]
Smys, S., & Raj, J.S. (2019). Internet of things and big data analytics for health care with cloud
computing. Journal of Information Technology, 1(1), 9–18.
Somers, T.M., & Nelson, K.G. (2004). A taxonomy of players and activities across the ERP project life
cycle. Information & Management, 41(3), 257–278. [Link]
5
Tabesh, P., & Vera, D.M. (2020). Top managers’ improvisational decision-making in crisis: A paradox
perspective. Management Decision, 58(10), 2235–2256. [Link]
Tarafdar, M., & Zhang, J. (2005). Analysis of critical website characteristics: A cross-category study of
successful websites. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46(2), 14–24.
Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2011). Privacy in the age of big data: A time for big decisions. Stanford Law
Review Online, 64, 63.
Tsai, W.H., Lee, P.L., Chen, S.P., Hsu, W., & Lin, T.W. (2009). A study of the selection criteria for
enterprise resource planning systems. International Journal of Business and Systems Research, 3(4),
456–480. [Link]
Tsai, W.H., Lee, P.L., Shen, Y.S., & Lin, H.L. (2012). A comprehensive study of the relationship between
enterprise resource planning selection criteria and enterprise resource planning system success.
Information & Management, 49(1), 36–46. [Link]
Tsai, W.H., Shaw, M.J., Fan, Y.W., Liu, J.Y., Lee, K.C., & Chen, H.C. (2011). An empirical investigation of
the impacts of internal/external facilitators on the project success of ERP: A structural equation
model. Decision Support Systems, 50(2), 480–490. [Link]
Upadhyay, P., & Kumar, A. (2020). The intermediating role of organizational culture and internal
analytical knowledge between the capability of big data analytics and a firm’s performance.
International Journal of Information Management, 52, 102100. [Link]
2020.102100
Veríssimo, J., & Lacerda, T. (2015). The impact of CEOS’ transformational leadership and ethical
integrity on strategic orientation to corporate social responsibility. European Journal of
Management Studies, 20(2), 95–114.
Verville, J., & Halingten, A. (2003). A six-stage model of the buying process for ERP software.
Industrial Marketing Management, 32(7), 585–594. [Link]
00007-5
236 O. P. OBITADE

Villamizar Reyes, M.M., & Castañeda Zapata, D.I. (2014). Relation between organizational climate and
its dimensions and knowledge-sharing behavior among knowledge workers. International
Journal of Psychological Research, 7(2), 64–75. [Link]
Wang, E.T., & Chen, J.H. (2006). Effects of internal support and consultant quality on the consulting
process and ERP system quality. Decision Support Systems, 42(2), 1029–1041. [Link]
1016/[Link].2005.08.005
Weirich, P. (2004). Realistic decision theory: Rules for nonideal agents in nonideal circumstances.
Oxford University Press.
Wixom, B.H., & Watson, H.J. (2001). An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data ware­
housing success. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 17–41. [Link]
Yasmin, M., Tatoglu, E., Kilic, H.S., Zaim, S., & Delen, D. (2020). Big data analytics capabilities and firm
performance: An integrated MCDM approach. Journal of Business Research, 114, 1–15. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2020.03.028
Yi, X., Liu, F., Liu, J., & Jin, H. (2014). Building a network highway for big data: Architecture and
challenges. Ieee Network, 28(4), 5–13. [Link]
Youakim, B., & Jean, S. (2007). Security and risk management in supply chins. Journal of Information
Assurance and Security, 2, 288–296.
Yu, C., & Wong, T.N. (2015). An agent-based negotiation model for supplier selection of multiple
products with synergy effect. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(1), 223–237. [Link]
1016/[Link].2014.07.057
Zareravasan, A., & Ashrafi, A. (2019). An empirical investigation on big data analytics (BDA) and
innovation performance. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Business and
Information Management (pp. 97–101).
Zeydan, M., Çolpan, C., & Çobanoğlu, C. (2011). A combined methodology for supplier selection and
performance evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(3), 2741–2751. [Link]
1016/[Link].2010.08.064
Zheng, X., Fu, M., & Chugh, M. (2017). Big data storage and management in SaaS applications.
 JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS 237

Appendix A

Selected as Importance to Importance to

a criteria (Yes or BDA Quality (1 achieving BDA
Criteria No) to 5) benefits (1–5)
BDA systems selection criteria
Consultant’s suggestions Yes or No 12345 12345
Meet business requirements Yes or No 12345 12345
*Usability Yes or No 12345 12345
Total cost of ownership Yes or No 12345 12345
*Customer success stories Yes or No 12345 12345
Ease of integration with other systems Yes or No 12345 12345
Ease of deployment and maintenance Yes or No 12345 12345
Provisions of best practices Yes or No 12345 12345
Implementation duration Yes or No 12345 12345
*Advanced security features Yes or No 12345 12345
*Privacy Protection Yes or No 12345 12345
*BDA capabilities Yes or No 12345 12345
Flexibility to changes in business requirements Yes or No 12345 12345
*Compatibility with cloud technology Yes or No 12345 12345
* Emerging criteria – criteria that are either new
innovative technologies or service offerings or/and
received recent interests and attention from scholars
BDA Vendor selection criteria Yes or No 12345 12345
Global market position Yes or No 12345 12345
Vendor market reputation and share Yes or No 12345 12345
Training support provided by vendor Yes or No 12345 12345
Financial position Yes or No 12345 12345
Technical support and experience Yes or No 12345 12345
Production support after go-live Yes or No 12345 12345
*Solution-as-a-Service (SaaS) offering Yes or No 12345 12345
* Emerging criteria – criteria that are either new
innovative technologies or service offerings or/and
received recent interests and attention from scholars
BDA consultant selection criteria Yes or No 12345 12345
Consulting fee Yes or No 12345 12345
Consultant domain knowledge Yes or No 12345 12345
*Experience with Agile team Yes or No 12345 12345
*Experience with DevOps model Yes or No 12345 12345
*Consultant BDA experience Yes or No 12345 12345
Consultant industry experience Yes or No 12345 12345
Consultant support after go-live Yes or No 12345 12345
*Experience deploying in cloud and on-premise Yes or No 12345 12345
*BDA project methodologies, approaches and templates Yes or No 12345 12345
* Emerging criteria – criteria that are either new
innovative technologies or service offerings or/and
received recent interests and attention from scholars
Please indicate to which you agree with the following statements (1 = strongly disagree . . . .5 = strongly agree)
238 O. P. OBITADE

Appendix B

Criteria Description
BDA System selection criteria
Consultant’s suggestions Professional suggestions regarding BDA provided by
consultants
Meet business requirements Business requirements
*Usability Interaction design which captures an overall rating of
human computer interaction
Total cost of ownership Total cost of implementing and supporting BDA systems
*Customer success stories Feedbacks from companies that have implemented BDA
Ease of integration with other systems BDA capabilities to integrate with other systems
Ease of deployment and maintenance Ease of deployment and maintenance
Provisions of best practices Availability of best practices and lesion learned from the
vendor or other companies
Implementation time Duration to complete the implementation process
*Advanced security features Advanced security features
*Enhanced Privacy Protection System ability to protect stakeholders – customers,
suppliers and employee’s information
Flexibility to changes in business requirements Ability to make changes to initial business requirements
*Compatibility with cloud technology Capability for the BDA to be deployed and hosted in cloud
environment
* Emerging criteria – criteria that are either new innovative
technologies or service offerings or/and received recent
interests and attention from scholars
External facilitators selection criteria
BDA Vendor selection criteria
Global market position Market share of the software vendor
Vendor market reputation and share software and quality reputation of systems and software
vendor
Training support provided by vendor Training provided by the software vendor on how to use
the system
Financial position Financial viability of the software vendor
Technical support and experience System support provided by the software vendor
Production support after go-live system support provided by the software vendor after
system go-live
*Solution-as-a-Service (SaaS) offering SaaS is a method of software delivery wherein software
vendor provides software functionality to customer via
the Internet
* Emerging criteria – criteria that are either new innovative
technologies or service offerings or/and received recent
interests and attention from scholars
BDA consultant selection criteria
Consulting fee Fees charged by consultants for their services
Consultant domain knowledge Knowledge of the BDA solutions
*Experience with Agile team Experience working with or on Agile team
*Experience with DevOps model Experience with Development and Operations (DevOps)
model
Consultant BDA experience Consultant experience and knowledge of BDA systems
Consultant industry experience Consultant industry experience
Consultant support after go-live Consultant support after BDA system is in production
*Experience deploying in cloud and on-premise Experience deploying in cloud and on-premise
BDA project methodologies, approaches, and templates BDA project methodologies, approaches and templates
 Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements (1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree).
BDA System quality
SQ1 BDA system is reliable Tsai et al., 2012
SQ2 BDA system is flexible Tsai et al., 2012
SQ3 BDA system is easy to use Tsai et al., 2012
SQ4 BDA system information is accurate Tsai et al., 2012
SQ5 BDA systems used provide a complete set of information. Côrte-Real et al., 2020
SQ6 BDA systems produce correct information Côrte-Real et al., 2020
SQ7 The information provided by BDA systems is well formatted. Côrte-Real et al., 2020
SQ8 BDA systems provide the most recent information Côrte-Real et al., 2020
BDA Capabilities
BC1 Advanced analytical capabilities*
BC2 Big data processing and storage*
BC3 Predictive modelling *
BC4 Data visualisation*
BC5 Dashboards, including metrics, key performance indicators (KPI), alerts*
-*created by researcher
Competitive advantage – -
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements (1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree).
Strategic performance SP1 We have gained strategic advantages over our competitors Schilke, 2014
Strategic performance SP2 We have a large market share. Schilke, 2014
Strategic performance SP3 Overall, we are more successful than our major competitors Schilke, 2014
Financial performance FP1 Our EBIT (earnings before interest and taxes) is continuously above the industry average Schilke, 2014
Financial performance FP2 Our ROI (return on investment) is continuously above the industry average. Schilke, 2014
Financial performance FP3 Our ROS (return on sales) is continuously above the industry average Schilke, 2014
Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements (1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree).
Additional questions/validations
BDA quality/Selection Cri. BDA criteria selected were important to BDA Quality*
Vendor criteria selected were important to BDA quality*
Consultant criteria selected were important to BDA quality*
BDA benefits/selection cri. BDA criteria selected were important to achieving BDA benefits*
Vendor criteria selected were important to achieving BDA benefits*
Consultant criteria selected were important to achieving BDA benefits*
We achieve our BDA objectives*
*created by researcher
JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS

Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements (1 = strongly disagree . . . 5 = strongly agree).-
Control Variables
Transformation leadership TL1To what extent does your firm’s leadership team talk about the most important values and beliefs? Veríssimo & Lacerda, 2015
Transformation leadership TL2To what extent does your firm’s leadership team talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished? Veríssimo & Lacerda, 2015
239

(Continued)
 240
O. P. OBITADE

(Continued).
Transformation leadership TL3To what extent does your firm’s leadership team treat workers as individuals rather than just as members of a group? Veríssimo & Lacerda, 2015
Transformation leadership TL4The capacity of our network infrastructure adequacy meets our current business needs. Veríssimo & Lacerda, 2015
Industry Type of industry (Manufacturing or Services)
National Culture Hofteded
Technological turbulence TT1Extent of technological turbulence in the environment Menguc and Auh, 2006
Technological turbulence TT2Leadership in product/process innovation Menguc and Auh, 2006
Technological turbulence TT3Impact of new technology on operations Menguc and Auh, 2006
(1) Items were measured using a 7-point numerical scale (1 is Strongly Disagree, and 7 is Strongly Agree). (VIF > 5).
(2) ** items eliminated due to low loading. (3) *** construct removed due to multicollinearity issues
 Knowledge Management
KM Acquisition
Knowledge Management AC1 Has processes for acquiring knowledge about BDA solution. Gold et al. 2001
Knowledge Management AC2 Has processes for acquiring knowledge about software vendor Gold et al. 2001
Knowledge Management AC3 Has processes for acquiring knowledge about third party consultant. Gold et al. 2001
Knowledge Management KM conversion
Knowledge Management CV1 Has processes for converting knowledge into information for BDA solution decisions Gold et al. 2001
Knowledge Management CV2 Has processes for converting knowledge into information for software vendor decisions Gold et al. 2001
Knowledge Management CV3 Has processes for converting knowledge into information for 3rd party consultants decisions Gold et al. 2001
Knowledge Management KM application
Knowledge Management AP1 knowledge gained about software vendor was used in the decision-making process Gold et al. 2001
Knowledge Management AP2 knowledge gained about software vendors was used in the decision-making process Gold et al. 2001
Knowledge Management AP3 knowledge gained about 3rd party consultants was used in the decision-making process Gold et al. 2001
JOURNAL OF DECISION SYSTEMS
241