4.5 Article

A new theoretical understanding of big data analytics capabilities in organizations: a thematic analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIG DATA
卷 8, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1186/s40537-021-00543-6

关键词

Big Data; Organization; Systematic literature review; Big Data Analytics capabilities; Big Data Analytics; Organizational Development Theory; Organizational Climate; Organizational Culture; Organizational Capacity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the usage of Big Data Analytics (BDA) in the industry. Despite the recognized need for BDA capability in organizations, few studies have effectively communicated an understanding of BDA capabilities, limiting our theoretical knowledge of using BDA in the organizational domain. This research explores past literature on the classification of BDA and its capabilities, and proposes a novel empirical research model to improve the effectiveness and enhance the usage of BDA applications in various Organizations.
Big Data Analytics (BDA) usage in the industry has been increased markedly in recent years. As a data-driven tool to facilitate informed decision-making, the need for BDA capability in organizations is recognized, but few studies have communicated an understanding of BDA capabilities in a way that can enhance our theoretical knowledge of using BDA in the organizational domain. Big Data has been defined in various ways and, the past literature about the classification of BDA and its capabilities is explored in this research. We conducted a literature review using PRISMA methodology and integrated a thematic analysis using NVIVO12. By adopting five steps of the PRISMA framework-70 sample articles, we generate five themes, which are informed through organization development theory, and develop a novel empirical research model, which we submit for validity assessment. Our findings improve effectiveness and enhance the usage of BDA applications in various Organizations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据