| Literature DB >> 36211908 |
Xiangmeng Huang1, Shuai Yang1, Junbin Wang1,2, Fengli Lin1, Yunfei Jiang1,3.
Abstract
With the development of network technology, enterprises face the explosive growth of data every day. Therefore, to fully mine the value of massive data, big data analysis (BDA) technology has become the key to developing the core competitiveness of enterprises. However, few empirical studies have investigated the influencing mechanism of the BDA capability of an enterprise on its operational performance. To fill this gap, this study explores how BDA technology capability influences enterprise operation performance, based on dynamic capabilities theory and resource-based theory. It proposes the key variables, including the connectivity, compatibility, and modularization of big data analysis technical capability, enterprise's operational performance, and the fit between data and tools, to establish a model and study the correlation between the variables. The results highlight the mediating role of data-tool fit in the relationships between BDA capability and the enterprise's operational performance, which is a major finding that has not been underlined in the extant literature. This study provides valuable insight for operational managers to help them in mobilizing BDA capability for enterprises' operational management and improving operational performance.Entities:
Keywords: BDA technology capability; dynamic capabilities views; enterprise operation performance; fit between data and tools; resource-based view theory
Year: 2022 PMID: 36211908 PMCID: PMC9540540 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.948764
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Summary of literature on BDA related to enterprise operational performance.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Dutta and Bose ( | Case Study (1 case) | To achieve operational efficiency and obtained improved decision making as informed by market |
| Ortega ( | Questionnaire to 50 SME owners | To reduce costs relating to manufacturing processes and to tailor strategies to fit each targeted customer segment and product or service |
| Morabito ( | Literature review | To achieve operational efficiency by cutting costs and to provide safer and more effective online transactions and security of supply chain |
| Palanimalai and Paramasivam ( | Literature review | To have better cost savings, to obtain enhanced security and result in optimal performance |
| Bernard ( | Case study | To achieve operational efficiency |
| Bravo and Appelkvist ( | Literature review, Interviews with 11 employees of 5 firms | To improve decision making capability |
| Das ( | Case studies, 5 Cases; Interpretive research paradigm | To increase operational efficiency and cost reductions, to improve business processes and to enhence co-creation |
| Elia et al. ( | Systematic Literature Review involving 49 articles | To generate more revenue, increasre productivity and obtain cost efficiency |
| Jayashankar et al. ( | Semi-Structured Interview with 10 respondents | To take optimal oprerational decisions and gain competitive advantages |
Figure 1Conceptual framework.
Variables and measuring items.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Connectivity (Akter et al., | BDA1-1 | Compared to our competitors in our industry, our enterprise has the most advanced analytical systems available |
| BDA1-2 | All remote office branches and mobile offices are connected to the central office for analysis | |
| BDA1-3 | Our organization utilizes open systems network mechanisms to enhance analytical connectivity | |
| BDA1-4 | There are no identifiable communication bottlenecks within our enterprise when it comes to sharing analytical insights | |
| Compatibility (Akter et al., | BDA2-1 | Software applications can be easily transported and used across multiple analysis platforms |
| BDA2-2 | Our user interface provides transparent access to all platforms and applications | |
| BDA2-3 | Analytics-driven information is seamlessly shared across our enterprise, no matter where it is | |
| BDA2-4 | Our enterprise provides multiple analytics interfaces or entry points to external end users | |
| Modularity (Akter et al., | BDA3-1 | Reusable software modules are widely used in the development of new analytical models |
| BDA3-1 | End users leverage object-oriented tools to create their own analysis applications | |
| BDA3-1 | Use object-oriented techniques to reduce the development time of new analysis applications | |
| BDA3-1 | The application can be adapted to meet the various requirements of the analysis task | |
| Data-Tool fit (Vogel and Feldman, | D-T1 | In our enterprise there is a good fit between the analytical tools we have access to and the data we process |
| D-T2 | The present analytical tools my enterprise has access to fulfill our data analysis needs | |
| D-T3 | The analytical tools that my enterprise currently has access to provide pretty much everything that we need to analyze our data properly | |
| Enterprise Operational Performance (EOP) (Srinivasan and Swink, | EOP1 | Delivery on time |
| EOP2 | Order fulfillment lead time | |
| EOP3 | Inventory turnover ratio | |
| EOP4 | Capacity utilization |
Profile of research respondents.
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Automobile | 23 | 7% |
| Energy | 24 | 8% | |
| Biochemical engineering | 18 | 6% | |
| Electronic & electric | 27 | 9% | |
| Food | 26 | 8% | |
| Steel | 13 | 4% | |
| Petrifaction | 8 | 3% | |
| Pharmaceuticals | 22 | 6% | |
| IT | 24 | 8% | |
| Real estate | 13 | 4% | |
| Machine manufacturing | 25 | 8% | |
| Service | 42 | 13% | |
| Public institutions | 51 | 16% | |
| Enterprise size (number of employees) | 1–99 | 105 | 33% |
| 100–499 | 98 | 31% | |
| 500–999 | 65 | 21% | |
| 1,000–2,999 | 22 | 7% | |
| 3,000–7,999 | 11 | 4% | |
| >8,000 | 15 | 5% | |
| Age of enterprise | < 1 year | 30 | 10% |
| 1–3 years | 79 | 25% | |
| 3–5 years | 63 | 20% | |
| 5–10 years | 74 | 23% | |
| >10 years | 70 | 22% | |
| Respondents' position | Senior management | 17 | 5% |
| Middle-level manager | 62 | 20% | |
| Front-line manager | 58 | 18% | |
| Executive staff | 179 | 57% |
Construct validity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0002 | 0.056 | 0.914 | 0.933 | 0.965 | 0.966 | 0.958 |
Reliability and validity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Connectivity | BDA1-1 | 0.861 | 0.854 | 0.8743 | 0.6351 |
| BDA1-2 | 0.860 | ||||
| BDA1-3 | 0.844 | ||||
| BDA1-4 | 0.771 | ||||
| Compatibility | BDA2-1 | 0.871 | 0.854 | 0.8629 | 0.6127 |
| BDA2-2 | 0.826 | ||||
| BDA2-3 | 0.820 | ||||
| BDA2-4 | 0.818 | ||||
| Modularity | BDA3-1 | 0.869 | 0.868 | 0.8706 | 0.6279 |
| BDA3-2 | 0.834 | ||||
| BDA3-3 | 0.855 | ||||
| BDA3-4 | 0.826 | ||||
| Data-Tool fit | D-T1 | 0.878 | 0.843 | 0.859 | 0.604 |
| D-T2 | 0.871 | ||||
| D-T3 | 0.869 | ||||
| Enterprise operational performance (EOP) | EOP1 | 0.831 | 0.882 | 0.8378 | 0.6328 |
| EOP2 | 0.867 | ||||
| EOP3 | 0.858 | ||||
| EOP4 | 0.880 |
Discriminant validity.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EOP | 0.6351 | ||||
| Connectivity | 0.073*** | 0.6127 | |||
| Compatibility | 0.077*** | 0.092*** | 0.6279 | ||
| Modularity | 0.073*** | 0.084*** | 0.085*** | 0.604 | |
| Data-Tool fit | 0.074*** | 0.077*** | 0.077*** | 0.076*** | 0.6328*** |
| The square root of the AVE | 0.7969 | 0.7828 | 0.7924 | 0.7772 | 0.7955 |
* indicates p < 0.1, ** indicates p < 0.01, *** indicates p < 0.001.
Coefficients estimates.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Connectivity | 0.652 | 15.224*** | 0.194 | 2.877*** | 0.047 | 0.708 | −0.045 | −0.747 |
| Compatibility | 0.559 | 8.289** | 0.383 | 5.593*** | 0.344 | 5.679*** | ||
| Modularity | 0.392 | 6.684*** | 0.187 | 3.331*** | ||||
| Data-tool fit | 0.436 | 9.438*** | ||||||
|
| 231.772 | 175.231 | 148.011 | 164.618 | ||||
|
| 0.425 | 0.528 | 0.587 | 0.679 | ||||
*p < 0.1.
**p < 0.01.
***p < 0.001.
Mediation model validation for data-tool fit.
|
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| BDA | 9.7498 | 0.0000 | 20.3989 | 0.0000 | 17.584 | 0.0000 |
| Data-Tool fit | 9.3983 | 0.0000 | ||||
|
| 0.6646 | 0.5699 | 0.4961 | |||
|
| 310.0853 | 416.1132 | 309.1971 | |||
Proportion of mediating, direct and total effect.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mediating effect of data-tool fit | 0.107 | 0.017 | 0.077 | 0.143 | 40.47% |
| Direct effect of data-tool fit | 0.158 | 0.021 | 0.115 | 0.198 | 59.53% |
| Total | 0.265 | 0.014 | 0.238 | 0.291 | 100% |
Hypotheses test results.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
| H1 | The connectivity of BDA technology capability has a significant positive impact on enterprise operational performance | Supported |
| H2 | The compatibility of BDA technology capability has a significant positive impact on enterprise operational performance | Supported |
| H3 | The modularity of BDA technology capability has a significant positive impact on enterprise operational performance | Supported |
| H4 | Data-tool fit has a significant positive impact on enterprise operational performance | Supported |
| H5 | Data-tool fit has a significant positive impact on enterprise operational performance | Supported |