Technology Analysis & Strategic Management

ISSN: 0953-7325 (Print) 1465-3990 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctas20

Big data analysis adaptation and enterprises’

competitive advantages: the perspective of
dynamic capability and resource-based theories

Siqing Shan, Yiting Luo, Yuan Zhou & Yigang Wei

To cite this article: Siqing Shan, Yiting Luo, Yuan Zhou & Yigang Wei (2018): Big data
analysis adaptation and enterprises’ competitive advantages: the perspective of dynamic
capability and resource-based theories, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31:4,
406-420, DOI: 10.1080/09537325.2018.1516866
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1516866

Published online: 03 Sep 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 40

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctas20
TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1516866

Big data analysis adaptation and enterprises’ competitive

advantages: the perspective of dynamic capability and
resource-based theories
Siqing Shana,b, Yiting Luoa, Yuan Zhouc and Yigang Weia,b
aSchool of Economics and Management, Beihang University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China; bBeijing Key
Laboratory of Emergency Support Simulation Technologies for City Operation, Beijing, People’s Republic of
China; cSchool of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Big data analysis (BDA) adaptation has been spreading unprecedentedly Received 7 December
fast among Chinese enterprises to gain a competitive advantage. Based 2017 Revised 12 July 2018
on the resource-based theory (RBT) and dynamic capability theory (DCT), Accepted 10 August 2018
this study aims to propose a conceptual model to identify the sources of
KEYWORDS
competitive advantages, interrelationship of their components, and the Big data analysis (BDA);
mechanism of obtaining competitive advantage. The results reveal several resource-based theory;
important findings. 1) Different dimensions of dynamic capabilities all have dynamic capabilities theory;
effects on competitive advantage, but they have different paths to influence dynamic capabilities;
these. 2) Two dimensions of dynamic capabilities have direct effects on the competitive advantage;
competitive advantages, and strategy flexibility has indirect effects on structural equation model
these. 3) Three dimensions of resources all indirectly and positively
influence competitive advantages by affecting dynamic capabilities. 4) The
path of resources and dynamic capabilities affecting competitive
advantage are identified. The findings have important implications for
managers that leverage BDA to achieve comparative advantages in
business.

1. Introduction
With the rapid development of information technology, new technologies are leading all industries to
a new information era. At the same time, the amount of data is growing exponentially fast. The term
‘big data’ was originally used to describe large collections of data. Big data analytics (BDA) is emer-
ging as a hot topic among scholars and practitioners. General Electric and Accenture, a well-known
professional consulting company (Columbus 2014), argues that most enterprises are aware of the
importance of BDA to the industry’s competitive landscape in recent years. A report from Manyika et
al. (2011) says that BDA is the next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity.
Resource-based theory deems that there is an essential relationship between the competitive
advantage and the resources and capabilities utilised. The enterprise’s internal resources can be
transformed into capabilities to ensure the improvement of performance. For example, the use of
essential information technology (IT) resources and capabilities often contributes to a competitive
advantage and enhanced enterprise performance (Ashrafi and Mueller 2015). Moreover, resources
and capabilities can serve as the source of competitive advantages to help improve competitive
advantage in the export market (Kaleka 2002; Li et al. 2015). However, with the development of

CONTACT Yigang Wei weiyg@buaa.edu.cn School of Economics and Management, Beihang University,
Beijing, People’s Republic of China; Beijing Key Laboratory of Emergency Support Simulation Technologies for
City Operation, Beijing, People’s Republic of China
© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 406

407 S. SHAN ET AL.

the market economy, enterprises are confronted with increasingly fiercer competitive
environments. Enterprises must try to form a lasting dynamic capability to adapt to
environmental changes and achieve a competitive advantage (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997;
Xu et al. 2017). This process is defined as the concept of dynamic capability theory (DCT).
Some researchers believe that dynamic capabilities are the key to competitive advantage
(Ambrosini and Bowman 2009; Helfat and Peteraf 2009; Zhou et al. 2016).
BDA is one of hottest new technologies to enhance competitive advantages in present
markets. To fit in the information era, increasingly more enterprises worldwide are beginning to
recognise the significance of BDA to determine the needs of customers and obtain increased
benefits. However, in the big data field, the influence of resources and dynamic capabilities to
create value and the for-mation path of competitive advantage has received insufficient research
attention. On the basis of RBT and DCT, the mechanism of obtaining competitive advantage is
a question worthy of further discussion.
Drawing on RBT and DCT, this paper aims to analyze the influencing mechanism of
resources and dynamic capabilities on the competitive advantage in the BDA. To achieve
research objectives, several specific questions are investigated: (1) with the perspective of RBT
and DCT, a theoretical fra-mework is developed to understand the relationship between
resources, dynamic capabilities and competitive advantage; (2) the impact of resources and
dynamic capabilities on competitive advan-tage are examined and the mechanism of obtaining
competitive advantage is clarified; (3) based on empirical findings, some suggestions are
provided on how enterprises can use BDA to gain a com-petitive advantage.

2. Literature review
2.1. Resource-based theory (RBT) and dynamic capability theory (DCT)
Resource-based theory (RBT) emphasises resources as the source of competitive advantage for
enter-prises to ensure long-term and sustained development. The theory describes that an enterprise
is an entity composed of various resources and that the accumulated resources determine the
competitive advantages (Wernerfelt 1984). These valuable, rare, perfectly inimitable, and
heterogeneous resources combine to form the competitive advantage (Peteraf and Barney 2003).
However, enter-prises with similar resources may perform differently and experience different
competitive advan-tages in practice. The combination of resources cannot fully explain the continuing
role of the competitive advantage. Focussing on the role of the capabilities, scholars developed the
core com-petence theory (Prahalad and Hamel 2017). This theory explains that the capabilities are
the combi-nation of the enterprise’s crucial skills and tacit knowledge, including the resources that an
enterprise accumulates over time (Grant 1996; Zhou, Pan, and Urban 2018). Capabilities can be
described as intellectual capital, so it is difficult for other enterprises to imitate or duplicate them.
Enterprises must focus on their own resources to build a unique core capability system and enhance
their core competencies, which depend on the accumulation and utilisation of resources and learning
capabilities within the organisation, to achieve a competitive advantage.
Due to the advancement of society, the emergence of new technology, and the increasing com-
plexity of the market environment, core competencies have difficulty reacting in the dynamic
environment. This rigidity causes enterprises to lose opportunities as well as their competitive advan-
tage. Thus, it seems that innovation has become a key element for enterprises to obtain a competitive
advantage. As a matter of fact, dynamic capability theory was proposed to cope with these changes
(Teece and Pisano 1994; Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997; Li et al. 2016). Dynamic capabilities
empha-sise the integration of resources and the ability to be elastic in the dynamic environment to
overcome the rigidity of the core competencies. Therefore, the effective use of IT, organisation, and
manage-ment resources and capabilities can aid enterprises in improving their creativity and
maintaining a competitive advantage.
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 408

2.2. Competitive advantage and big data analysis

Competitive advantage was first introduced in the field of strategic management when Porter devel-oped
the theory and established the famous competitive advantage model (Porter 1989). As men-tioned by
Porter, differentiation, cost, and focus are the three strategies for achieving a competitive advantage (Porter
2008). Currently, the competitive advantage is generally realised through obtaining lower costs and higher
profits. The source of a competitive advantage is the enterprise’s unique resources and capabilities (Baum
and Dobbin 1991). Enterprises control the various resources that help them achieve a competitive
advantage (Reed and Defillippi 1990; Chen et al. 2017).
The attempts to put big data into practice have become more extensive. On the one hand, some studies
mainly focus on the definition and characteristics of big data (Erevelles, Fukawa, and Swayne 2016; Goes
2014). On the other hand, big data are studied to provide new information to create value and help making
decisions. BDA has been applied to various fields. For example, in the field of health-care, researchers use
BDA to explore benefits and risks that are not obvious in the clinical trials (Mcguire, Manyika, and Chui
2012). To offer citizens better services, governments in some countries have developed projects that apply
big data to improve efficiency and transparency (Kim, Trimi, and Chung 2014). Additionally, BDA offers
real-time data for analyzing markets and making decisions to minimise risks and create new opportunities
(Charles and Gherman 2013; Zhou et al. 2018; Liu et al. 2017). The use of big data becomes an important
way to help enterprises outperform their compe-titors (Akter et al. 2016; Li and Zhou 2018). Based on the
analysis of consumer demand, enterprises can develop new products and services and even improve their
business model with the help of BDA (Purcell 2013). Furthermore, studies have shown that the ability to
predict the impact of information technology on business performance will be better from the perspective
of resources (Oh and Pin-sonneault 2007; Zhou, Zhang, and Ding 2015). To sum up, big data analysis can
optimise business processes and increase business opportunities. It also plays an important role in
improving customer service and increasing customer value.
Based on the theory of resources and capabilities, there is also some research progress in the
field of big data implementation. For example, Akter et al. (2016) show a model drawing on the RBT
and view of sociomaterialism to confirm the value of big data analysis capabilities (BDAC) and their
impact on firm performance (FPER). FPER includes customer retention, sales growth, profitability,
and return on investment (Akter et al. 2016; Kong et al. 2017). This model consists of three
dimensions of capa-bilities (management, technology, and talent). Wamba et al. (2017) proposed a
model drawing on the RBT and DCT to examine the direct effects of BDAC on firm performance.
Gupta and George (2016) identify tangible, human and intangible resources to build a BDA capability,
and show results that BDA capability leads to good firm performance. However, there is also literature
showing that in the implementation of big data technology, some big data-related resources that may
not meet the RBT may generate minimal impacts on competitive advantage (Braganza et al. 2017).
In summary, whether or not big data technology can generate a competitive advantage for enterprises
and the working mechanism is still under discussion.

3. Research model and hypotheses

3.1. Resources
Currently, big data technology has become an essential and attractive part of information technol-
ogy. A large number of scholars have identified that IT human resources, IT knowledge resources
and IT relationship resources play an important role in obtaining IT value (Ashrafi and Mueller 2015;
Huang et al. 2006; Ross 1996). IT human resources indicate that employees need to obtain the
necessary knowledge to address the problems involved in the use of BDA (Huang et al. 2006; Ross
1996). IT knowledge resources are retained and can be reused within the organisation, and IT
knowledge resources are one of the most important resources (Ashrafi and Mueller 2015). IT
409 S. SHAN ET AL.

relationship resources enable enterprises not only to set up a strong connection between IT and business
but also to maintain a good relationship with customers, partners and suppliers. A strong partnering
relationship between IT and business management is effective and essentially important for the generation
of IT capabilities (Ross 1996). Bhatt and Grover have proved that relationship infra-structure (relationships
between IT and business managers) has a significant effect on competitive advantage through empirical
research (Bhatt and Grover 2005; Zhou et al. 2015). The accessible com-munication between IT and
business groups will help enterprises adapt to the changes in business due to BDA. Additionally,
information sharing and an open culture can reduce the risks when imple-menting new technology, which
significantly impacts the competitive advantage(Ashrafi and Mueller 2015; Ross 1996; Zhou and Minshall
2014). The sharing and dissemination of information is an essen-tial component of an open culture. An
open culture makes it easier for companies to accept new tech-nological changes and market changes.
Erevelles et al. (2016) argue that decision making has become more evidence-based and that BDA is an
effective tool for scientific decision making. Therefore, an open culture is more conducive to using big data
more effectively.
The implementation of BDA is an innovative process. To ensure that enterprises have
sufficient resources for new technology applications, it requires appropriate idle resources, such
as manage-ment resources and financial resources. Gupta and George (2016) show that basic
resources (time, investment) have a significant impact on BDA capabilities.
Therefore, based on the discussion above, three dimensions of resources were identified.
These key resources are IT technology resources (IT human resources and IT knowledge
resources), IT relationship resources and idle resources.

3.2. Dynamic capability

Dynamic capability emphasises the development of management capabilities, and difficult-to-imitate
combinations of organisational, functional and technological skills. Such capability integrates and
draws upon research in every area (Helfat and Peteraf 2009). First, IT resources are important for
the development of IT capabilities (Grant 1996). IT capabilities, including IT human resource capabili-
ties, IT knowledge capabilities, IT infrastructure and IT support, have a positive impact on the com-
petitive advantage of an enterprise (Bharadwaj 2000; Luftman and Brier 1999; Sambamurthy,
Bharadwaj, and Grover 2003). According to the literature, IT knowledge capabilities and IT human
resources capabilities are both forms of technology capabilities of enterprises. IT knowledge capabili-
ties describe the information technology experience and analysis capabilities, while IT human
resources capabilities explain the professional analysis skills and knowledge regarding big data.
Barreto (2010) explains that dynamic capabilities stress the propensity to sense opportunities and
threats, to make timely decisions, to make market-oriented decisions and to change its resource
base. To respond to the rapid changes in the competitive environment and sense opportunities and
threats easily, enterprises have to develop new technologies or products to meet the various needs
of users. However, conflicts between enterprises’ strategies and the new technology adopted may
become a barrier for business success (Akter et al. 2016; Wei et al. 2016). Thus, building a flexible
business strategy is necessary. To make big data work effectively in organisations and make
decisions quickly, compatibility that consists of using big data to support the strategy and consist-
ency between big data and business goals are two important aspects for enterprises to consider
(Neirotti and Paolucci 2007; Rivard, Raymond, and Verreault 2006).
Based on the discussion above, three dimensions of dynamic capabilities are summarised:
IT tech-nology capabilities, strategy flexibility and compatibility.

3.3. Research hypotheses

As discussed above, all dimensions of resources and dynamic capabilities can influence the competi-tive
advantages of the enterprise when implementing big data technologies. Nevertheless, there is a
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 410

complex process or network for resources and dynamic capabilities that affects competitive
advan-tages (Wade and Hulland 2004). Studies have shown that not only do the resources
create a direct impact on the competitive advantage, but that transforming them into capabilities
is also a way to create a competitive advantage (Teece, Pisano, and Shuen 1997). Resources
must be transformed into capabilities to generate competitive advantage (Sirmon, Hitt, and
Ireland 2007; Sirmon, Gove, and Hitt 2008). In addition, a flexible business strategy may have
a positive impact on compatibility so that more enterprises can achieve advantages.
Based on the RBT and DCT, the hypothesised model is proposed to guide the following
empirical research (see Figure 1).
Based on this discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:
H1. The IT technology resources (H1a), IT relationship resources (H1b), and idle resources (H1c) have
significant effects on strategy flexibility.

H2. The IT technology resources (H2a), IT relationship resources (H2b), and idle resources (H2c) have
significant effects on compatibility.

H3. The IT technology resources (H3a), IT relationship resources (H3b), and idle resources (H3c) have
significant effects on IT technology capabilities.

H4. The IT technology resources are positively associated with the competitive advantage.

H5. The IT relationship resources are positively associated with the competitive advantage.

H6. The idle resources are positively associated with the competitive advantage.

H7. The strategy flexibility is positively associated with the competitive advantage.

H8. The strategy flexibility is positively associated with the competitive advantage.

H9. The IT technology capabilities are positively associated with the competitive advantage.

H10. The strategy flexibility is positively associated with the compatibility.

4. Research methodology
This study is based on empirical model and questionnaire survey data to identify the sources of com-petitive
advantages in BDA. Research findings provide pragmatic and viable suggestions for enter-prises to create
competitive advantage. The dimensions of resources and capabilities are identified as well as their impacts
on the competitive advantage. Therefore, based on RBT and DCT, the model is conceptualised, and a
structural equation model (SEM) is used to verify the hypothesis.

Figure 1. Hypothesised model.

411 S. SHAN ET AL.

4.1. Data collection

A questionnaire was designed to explore the crucial factors that contribute to the implementation
of BDA and create competitive advantages. The design of questionnaires is based on an
extensive lit-erature review on the big data analysis related literature (Ashrafi and Mueller 2015;
Bharadwaj 2000; Huang 2003).
The questionnaire was divided into three parts consisting of 30 questions. Each question included
answers based on a 7-point Likert scale, with 1 being ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 being ‘strongly agree’
(Dawes 2012). A questionnaire sample is provided in the Appendix. This study invited 10 practitioner
experts and academics to conduct pilot studies in order to ensure the validity of the questionnaire. These
individuals are university faculty and MBAs who have rich work experience in the IT field. According to the
experts’ suggestions, five questions in the questionnaire that appeared redundant and overlapping were
removed. The questionnaire was refined according to the results of the pretest.
Data collection was conducted during June 2015 and June 2016. 350 questionnaires were distrib-
uted to 85 information-related enterprises and institutions. On average, each enterprise or institution
received 4–5 questionnaires. These surveyed enterprises are selected from a number of enterprises
and institutions that have cooperative relationship with us. And there is no restriction on the selection
of employees, such as position, gender, and age , etc. The questionnaire was distributed either in
paper or electronic versions. In the end, 304 responses were collected. The response rate was
86.9%. After careful analysis, 219 valid questionnaires were considered to be correctly completed
and suitable for further analysis. Among all 304 questionnaires, 85 questionnaires were eliminated
with some missing questions or with the same answers of all or most of the questions. Table 1 pro-
vides information on the respondents, with 21.56% working in manufacturing, 52.29% in service
activities and 26.15% in manufacturing and services. Table 1 also describes the respondents’ job
pos-ition, responsibilities, and working experiences. Most respondents are first-line managers or
general staff.

4.2. Analysis and results

The structural equation model is implemented in two steps. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
is first used to test the measurement model in terms of reliability and validity. Second, a
structural mod-elling method (path analysis) is developed to test all the hypotheses. IBM SPSS
AMOS version 24 is used in this paper in order to test SEM.

4.2.1. Measurement model

First, the dimensions of the resources and dynamic capabilities are identified before applying
confi-rmatory factor analysis (CFA). The principal component analysis with a factor rotation is
used. Accord-ing to the results, three factors’ initial eigenvalues are above 1 in resources
constructs, and the cumulative variance explains 74.163% of the total, while the three factors’
initial eigenvalues are above 1 in dynamic capabilities constructs, and the cumulative variance
explains 73.842% of the total. Therefore, the results indicate that these factors can represent
the resources and dynamic capabilities.
Based on confirmatory factor analysis, the loadings of all the items were checked. The items
below 0.5 were removed to ensure that the model has a good convergence (Fornell and Larcker
1981). Here, the lowest loading is 0.606.
The measurement model is evaluated by reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity (Ashrafi
and Mueller 2015). Cronbach’s alpha (α > 0.7) is used to test the reliability, and the items below 0.7 must
be removed (Cho, Hong, and Hyun 2009). The minimum value of the model is 0.827 for compatibility. Next,
the convergent validity was measured by using composite reliability (CR) and the average variance
extracted (AVE) (Fornell and Larcker 1981; Igbaria 1993). Regarding the CR, a value above 0.7 is
acceptable (Nunnally and Bernstein 1994). If the average variance
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 412

Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents.

Variable Frequency Percentage
Number of employees in enterprise (Enterprise Size)
1–500 74 33.94
500–1000 54 24.77
1000–2000 25 11.47
2000+ 65 29.82
Industry
Manufacturing 47 21.56
Service activities 114 52.29
Manufacturing and service activities 57 26.15
Job position
Senior manager 4 1.83
Middle manager 44 20.18
First-line manager 57 26.15
Other positions 113 51.83
Annual income of this enterprise
0–6 hundred million RMB 94 43.12
6–60 hundred million RMB 67 30.73
60–600 hundred million RMB 39 17.89
Over 600 hundred million RMB 18 8.26
Responsibilities
Accounting and finance 15 6.88
Human resource management 7 3.21
Information systems 84 38.53
Marketing 23 10.55
Research and development 39 17.89
Others 50 22.94
Experience (in this enterprise)
Less than 3 years 115 52.75
3–10 years 81 37.16
Over 10 years 22 10.09
Age of the enterprise
Less than 10 years 73 33.49
11–20 years 80 36.7
21–40 years 50 22.94
Over 41 years 15 6.88

extracted (AVE) is above 0.5, the convergent validity is good. In this model, the lowest AVE is
0.5673, and the lowest CR is 0.8364 for compatibility, which satisfies the limitation (see Table
2) and discri-minant validity (square root of AVE is greater than the correlations), as shown in
Table 3. The results show the good discriminant validity.
To conclude, the measurement model has convincing reliability, convergent validity and
discrimi-nant validity.

4.2.2. Structural model

First, the model’s fit is checked for the structural model. The model χ2 = 817.307 (df = 390, p < 0.001).
The CMIN/df equals 2.096, which is below the acceptable value of 3 (Browne and Cudeck 1989;
Fornell and Larcker 1981). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) is 0.071, which is
below 0.08 (Browne and Cudeck 1992) while the standard root mean-square residual (SRMR) is
0.0708, which is below 0.08 (Lantos 2006). Thus, the RMSEA and SRMR satisfy the threshold. CFI,
GFI and TLI are also used to measure the model fit. The results show that the CFI is 0.912 (> 0.9),
GFI is 0.804, and TLI is 0.902 (> 0.9) (Browne and Cudeck 1992). Although the GFI is below 0.9, it
is close to the threshold, and the rest of the statistics are acceptable. The fitting of the structural
equation model can be measured by multi-criteria. In this paper, the performance of the above
measures is sufficient to prove the structural model fits the data.
Based on the results of the analysis, conclusions can be drawn regarding the acceptance or rejec-tion
of our hypotheses. Table 4 shows the standardised path coefficients (β), the CR (t), and the p for
 413 S. SHAN ET AL.

Table 2. Confirmatory factor analysis results.

Constructs Items Standardised Loadings α CR AVE
IT technology resources tr1 0.606 0.874 0.8804 0.5987
tr2 0.822
tr3 0.847
tr4 0.828
tr5 0.740
IT relationship resources rr1 0.727 0.846 0.8439 0.5751
rr2 0.779
rr3 0.795
rr4 0.730
Idle resources ir1 0.890 0.944 0.9445 0.8099
ir2 0.930
ir3 0.891
ir4 0.888
IT technology capabilities tc1 0.725 0.857 0.8583 0.603
tc2 0.745
tc3 0.792
tc4 0.839
Compatibility c1 0.621 0.827 0.8364 0.5673
c2 0.886
c3 0.837
c4 0.631
Strategy flexibility sf1 0.885 0.931 0.9217 0.7469
sf2 0.927
sf3 0.825
sf4 0.815
Competitive advantage ca1 0.741 0.89 0.8818 0.5995
ca2 0.755
ca3 0.734
ca4 0.843
ca5 0.793

Table 3. Correlations and Square Root of AVE.

Idle IT technology Strategy IT relationship IT technology Competitive
resources resources flexibility resources Compatibility capabilities advantage
Idle resources 0.900
IT technology 0.598 0.774
resources
Strategy 0.721 0.532 0.864
flexibility
IT relationship 0.715 0.678 0.551 0.758
resources
Compatibility 0.494 0.420 0.517 0.552 0.753
IT technology 0.624 0.689 0.700 0.700 0.482 0.777
capabilities
Competitive 0.285 0.270 0.306 0.318 0.437 0.348 0.775
advantage

all hypotheses. The results show that not all the hypotheses are supported. These resources appear to
have no direct and positive effect on the competitive advantage. In contrast, the resources all transfer into
dynamic capabilities to enhance the competitive advantage. However, it should be noted that the items of
competitive advantage in this study remain consistent with resources and capabilities; they are subjective
views of the respondents, not summarised from the objective data after the implementation of big data.
Regarding the dimensions of dynamic capabilities, IT technology capa-bilities have a direct and positive
effect on the competitive advantage (β = 0.179, t = 2.116, p = 0.034), which supports H9. Moreover,
compatibility has a significant direct effect on the competitive advan-tage as well, which supports H8 (β =
0.351, t = 4.016, p < 0.001). These results show that competitive
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 414

Table 4. Structural model results.

Standardised Estimate CR p Hypothesis Conclusion
IT technology resources→Strategy flexibility 0.144 2.025 <0.05 H1a Supported
IT relationship resources→ Strategy flexibility −0.014 −0.141 0.888 H1b Not supported
Idle resources→ Strategy flexibility 0.635 8.186 <0.001 H1c Supported
IT technology resources→Compatibility 0.159 1.638 0.101 H2a Not supported
IT relationship resources→ Compatibility 0.383 4.406 <0.001 H2b Supported
Idle resources→ Compatibility −0.167 −1.364 0.173 H2c Not supported
IT technology resources→IT technology capabilities 0.362 4.182 <0.001 H3a Supported
IT relationship resources→ IT technology capabilities 0.334 3.316 <0.001 H3b Supported
Idle resources→ IT technology capabilities 0.169 1.975 <0.05 H3c Supported
IT technology resources→Competitive advantage 0.112 1.031 0.302 H4 Not supported
IT relationship resources→ Competitive advantage −0.211 −1.380 0.168 H5 Not supported
Idle resources→ Competitive advantage −0.221 −1.947 0.052 H6 Not supported
Strategy flexibility→Competitive advantage 0.001 0.008 0.993 H7 Not supported
Compatibility→ Competitive advantage 0.351 4.016 <0.001 H8 Supported
IT technology capabilities→ Competitive advantage 0.179 2.116 <0.05 H9 Supported
Strategy flexibility→Compatibility 0.305 3.747 <0.001 H10 Supported
Note: n = 218; model fit: χ2 = 817.307 (df = 390, p < 0.001), CMIN/df = 2.096, RMSEA = 0.071, SRMR =
0.0708, CFI = 0.912, GFI = 0.804, TLI = 0.9.

advantages can be directly affected by IT technology capabilities and compatibility. These two dimensions
of dynamic capabilities in enterprises are pivotal for enhancing competitive advantage. However, the
strategy flexibility has a positive effect on compatibility (β = 0.305, t = 3.747, p < 0.001), which supports
H10. Some hypotheses regarding the relationship between dimensions of resources and dynamic
capabilities are supported. Specifically, idle resources (β = 0.635, t = 8.186, p < 0.001) and IT technology
resources (β = 0.144, t = 2.025, p = 0.043) have a direct and positive impact on strategy flexibility. IT
technology resources (β = 0.362, t = 4.182, p < 0.001), idle resources (β = 0.169, t = 1.975, p = 0.048) and
IT relationship resources (β = 0.334, t = 3.316, p < 0.001) also have a direct and positive impact on IT
technology capabilities. Moreover, IT relationship resources (β = 0.383, t = 4.406, p < 0.001) have a direct
and positive impact on compatibility. So H1a, H1c, H3a, H3b, H3c and H2b are supported. However, other
hypotheses are shown to be insignificant.
Figure 2 shows the result of the structural model with the hypotheses that have been validated,
and their standardised path coefficients and covariances are depicted. According to the modification
indices (M.I) offered by AMOS, there are correlation relationships between all resources. It can be
con-cluded that idle resources and IT technology resources have an impact on strategy flexibility,
and the impact of idle resources is greater than that of IT technology resources. However, the IT
relationship resources have no direct and significant impact on strategy flexibility. Compatibility is
affected by the IT relationship resources, as well as the impact of strategy flexibility. IT relationship
resources and strategy flexibility have a relatively large path coefficient on compatibility.

Figure 2. Structural model.

415 S. SHAN ET AL.

In addition, empirical results also verify the standardised total effects, standardised direct and
indirect effects of variables (see Tables 5–7). From Tables 5–7, only compatibility and IT
technology capabilities have direct impacts on competitive advantages. The standardised direct
effects of the two dimensions of capabilities on competitive advantages are 0.351 and 0.179,
respectively. In con-trast, IT technology resources, IT relationship resources, idle resources,
and strategy flexibility influence competitive advantages in an indirect way; the standardised
indirect effects are 0.080, 0.194, 0.098 and 0.107 respectively.

5. Conclusion and discussion

5.1. Theoretical contributions
This empirical research has several theoretical contributions for the adoption of BDA. First, with a
focus on the information technology and innovation abilities of enterprises and DCT, this research
identifies the source of competitive advantages, including three dimensions of resources (IT technol-
ogy resources, IT relationship resources and idle resources) and three dimensions of dynamic capa-
bilities (IT technology capabilities, compatibility and strategy flexibility).
In this article, the working mechanism of how resources and capabilities influence the
competitive advantage of enterprises is explored. A theoretical and testable framework is
proposed based on the RBT and DCT. The study also shows the direct and indirect impacts of
different resources and dynamic capabilities on the competitive advantage in detail.

Table 5. Standardised total effects.

IT technology Idle IT relationship Strategy IT technology
resources resources resources flexibility Compatibility capabilities
Strategy flexibility 0.144 0.635 0 0 0 0
Compatibility 0.044 0.194 0.383 0.305 0 0
IT technology 0.362 0.169 0.334 0 0 0
capabilities
Competitive 0.080 0.098 0.194 0.107 0.351 0.179
advantage

Table 6. Standardised direct effects.

IT technology Idle IT relationship Strategy IT technology
resources resources resources flexibility Compatibility capabilities
Strategy flexibility 0.144 0.635 0 0 0 0
Compatibility 0 0 0.383 0.305 0 0
IT technology 0.362 0.169 0.334 0 0 0
capabilities
Competitive 0 0 0 0 0.351 0.179
advantage

Table 7. Standardised indirect effects.

IT technology Idle IT relationship Strategy IT technology
resources resources resources flexibility Compatibility capabilities
Strategy flexibility 0 0 0 0 0 0
Compatibility 0.044 0.194 0 0 0 0
IT technology 0 0 0 0 0 0
capabilities
Competitive 0.080 0.098 0.194 0.107 0 0
advantage
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 416

All dimensions of resources are found to affect competitive advantage indirectly through dynamic
capabilities. Idle resources are the main influencing factors for strategy flexibility. When there is a
shortage of resources for enterprises, it is difficult to improve business from a strategic perspective.
Flexibility is based on the fact that enterprises have enough idle resources to support enterprises to
adapt to the changes in market environment and user needs. The major influencing factors in the
development of IT technology capabilities are IT technology resources and IT relationship resources.
The strong connection between IT technology resources and IT technology capabilities is obvious,
but the experiment also proves the importance of IT relationship resources. IT relationship resources
include not only the relationship between the enterprise business and the customer but also the
relationship between business and IT, which has a very important impact on the IT technology capa-
bilities. In comparison to the strategy flexibility, idle resources’ direct effect on IT technology capabili-
ties is very small, although it is a significant impact.
Moreover, compatibility is primarily a measure of the degree of compatibility between business
and big data, so the establishment of IT relationship resources has a significant impact on compat-
ibility. As for competitive advantage, IT technology capabilities and compatibility influence competi-
tive advantage directly. To gain competitive advantage through big data technology, IT-related
technology capabilities are indispensable. This is a rigid condition for enterprise development that
conforms to the actual situation. In this experiments, the impact of compatibility is even more impor-
tant. Whether the business is compatible with big data is a very important factor to obtain a competi-
tive advantage. When the company’s business is not suitable for the development of information
technology, even if it has sufficient technical capabilities, it may not bring good results. Strategy flexi-
bility influences competitive advantage through compatibility. Strategy flexibility indicates the adap-
tability of the enterprise. When the ability of the enterprise to adjust the business direction is strong,
it can enhance the compatibility between information technology and business. That is to say, when
the company does not currently have a business and information technology fit, but the company
wants to implement big data to provide help, the degree of strategy flexibility can be considered. The
strategy flexibility of the enterprise can also indirectly generate competitive advantage through the
improvement of compatibility.

5.2. Managerial contributions

Estimation results confirm that our framework can help enterprises gain competitive advantages by
BDA in practice. Thus, enterprises can gain a competitive advantage by improving these important
dimensions of resources and dynamic capabilities. For example, recruitment and training can be an
effective way to obtain IT technology capabilities, which have a direct and positive impact on the
competitive advantage. Similarly, IT relationship resources play a pivotal role in enhancing com-
patibility, which promotes the connection between IT and business. Thus, these three dimensions of
resources all contribute to the improvement of IT technology capabilities. In addition, enterprises can
also enhance compatibility by improving the capabilities of strategy flexibility. Finally, these dimen-
sions of resources and dynamic capabilities have a positive impact on competitive advantages,
including the increase in business opportunities and the improvement in the quality of services and
customer experience.

5.3. Limitations and future research directions

There are some limitations to the study. First, there are some limitations on the sample of question-naire
survey, in terms of the small size of sample and sampling errors. The survey used non-random sampling,
based on respondents with established contacts, rather than random sampling. In addition, although this
study surveyed over 200 responders who work in manufacturing and service enter-prises, the sample size
is not large enough to represent the options and characteristics of different enterprises in different
industries, regions, and countries. Second, the model focuses on internal
417 S. SHAN ET AL.

resources and dynamic capabilities and does not take external policies into account. To make
improvements, future study should consider integrating more external factors such as policy
effects into an investigation. Third, in this study, the items of competitive advantage are
consistent with resources and capabilities. These items reflect the subjective views of the
respondents before adopting the big data. They can also be considered in subsequent studies
according to the actual situation. Fourth, the model does not discuss the effect of the size of
enterprises or the types of indus-tries. Future studies should address these limitations.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Beijing Key Laboratory of Emergency Support Simulation
Technol-ogies for City Operations. Besides, the authors also thank the anonymous reviewers for insightful
comments that helped us improve the quality of the paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 71771010; 71471008)
and Beijing Council of Science and Technology (Grant No. Z161100005016037), MOE (Ministry of Education in
China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (Grant No. 18YJC840041) and National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 91646102, L1724034, L16240452, L1524015, 71203117).

Notes on contributors
Siqing Shan is Professor in Department of Information system, school of economics and management, Beihang
Univer-sity. His research interests include information system management, datamining, and data warehouse.
Yiting Luo is MSc. student in Department of Information system, school of economics and management, Beihang
University.
Yuan Zhou is an Associate Professor at the School of Public Policy and Management, Tsinghua University, China, and he serves
as the Assistant Director of Chinese Institute of Engineering Development Strategies. His recent research interests include public
policy, innovation policy, and technology innovation management. His ongoing projects involve ‘Big-data methods to support
innovation and technology foresight’, ‘Public demonstration projects for strategic emerging indus-tries in China’, ‘Strategic
roadmapping methods for new energy technologies in China’, ‘Technological trajectories for climate change mitigation in Europe,
China and India’, and ‘High-value engineering network in Europe and China’, etc.
Yigang Wei is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Applied Economics, School of Economics and Management,
Beihang University, China. His research interests focussed on smart city and urban sustainable development.

References
Akter, S., S. F. Wamba, A. Gunasekaran, R. Dubey, and S. J. Childe. 2016. “How to Improve Firm Performance
Using Big Data Analytics Capability and Business Strategy Alignment?” International Journal of Production
Economics 182, December: 113–131.
Ambrosini, V., and C. Bowman. 2009. “What are Dynamic Capabilities and are They a Useful Construct in
Strategic Management?” International Journal of Management Reviews 11 (1): 29–49.
Ashrafi, R., and J. Mueller. 2015. “Delineating it Resources and Capabilities to Obtain Competitive Advantage
and Improve Firm Performance.” Journal of Information Systems Management 32 (1): 15–38.
Barreto, I. 2010. “Dynamic Capabilities: A Review of Past Research and an Agenda for the Future.” Journal of Management
36 (1): 256–280.
Baum, J. A. C., and F. Dobbin. 1991. “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage.” Journal of Management 17
(1): 3–10.
Bharadwaj, A. S. 2000. “A Resource-based Perspective on Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: An
Empirical Investigation.” MIS Quarterly 24 (1): 169–196.
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 418

Bhatt, G. D., and V. Grover. 2005. “Types of Information Technology Capabilities and Their Role in Competitive Advantage:
An Empirical Study.” Journal of Management Information Systems 22 (2): 253–277.
Braganza, A., L. Brooks, D. Nepelski, M. Ali, and R. Moro. 2017. “Resource Management in Big Data Initiatives: Processes
and Dynamic Capabilities.” Journal of Business Research 70: 328–337.
Browne, M. W., and R. Cudeck. 1989. “Single Sample Cross-validation Indices for Covariance Structures.”
Multivariate Behavioral Research 24 (4): 445–455.
Browne, M. W., and R. Cudeck. 1992. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit - Institute for Social and Economic
Research (ISER).” Clinical & Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology 7 (2): 161–167.
Charles, V., and T. Gherman. 2013. “Achieving Competitive Advantage Through Big Data. Strategic Implications.”
Middle East Journal of Scientific Research 16: 1069–1074.
Chen, L., Y. Zhou, D. Zhou, and L. Xue. 2017. “Clustering Enterprises Into Eco-industrial Parks: Can Interfirm
Alliances Help Small and Medium-sized Enterprises?” Journal of Cleaner Production 168: 1070–1079.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09. 104.
Cho, K. M., T. H. Hong, and C. T. Hyun. 2009. “Effect of Project Characteristics on Project Performance in Construction
Projects Based on Structural Equation Model.” Expert Systems with Applications 36 (7): 10461–10470.
Columbus, L. 2014. “84% of Enterprises See Big Data Analytics Changing Their Industries’ Competitive
Landscapes in the Next Year, Forbes.” Accessed September 9, 2017.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2014/10/19/84-of-enterprises-see-big-data-analytics-changing-
their-industries-competitive-landscapes-in-the-next-year/ #13c6ae4017de.
Dawes, J. 2012. “Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scale Points Used? An Experiment Using
5-point, 7-point and 10-point Scales.” International Journal of Market Research 50 (50): 61–77.
Erevelles, S., N. Fukawa, and L. Swayne. 2016. “Big Data Consumer Analytics and the Transformation of
Marketing.” Journal of Business Research 69 (2): 897–904.
Fornell, C., and D. F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and
Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.
Goes, P. B. 2014. “Big Data and is Research.” MIS Quarterly 38 (3): III–VIII.
Grant, R. M. 1996. “Toward a Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm.” Strategic Management Journal 17 (S2): 109–122.
Gupta, M., and J. F. George. 2016. “Toward the Development of a Big Data Analytics Capability.” Information &
Management 53 (8): 1–16.
Helfat, C. E., and M. A. Peteraf. 2009. “Understanding Dynamic Capabilities: Progress Along a Developmental Path.”
Strategic Organization 7 (1): 91–102.
Huang, Z. 2003. Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Adoption Decision for Interorganizational Information Systems (ios):
An Investigation of Internet Edi (i-edi). Memphis: The University of Memphis.
Huang, S. M., C. S. Ou, C. M. Chen, and B. Lin. 2006. “An Empirical Study of Relationship between it Investment and
Firm Performance: A Resource-based Perspective.” European Journal of Operational Research 173 (3): 984–999.
Igbaria, M. 1993. “User Acceptance of Microcomputer Technology: An Empirical Test.” Omega 21 (93): 73–90.
Kaleka, A. 2002. “Resources and Capabilities Driving Competitive Advantage in Export Markets: Guidelines for Industrial
Exporters.” Industrial Marketing Management 31 (3): 273–283.
Kim, G. H., S. Trimi, and J. H. Chung. 2014. “Big-data Applications in the Government Sector.” Communications
of the ACM 57 (3): 78–85.
Kong, D., Y. Zhou, Y. Liu, and L. Xue. 2017. “Using the Data Mining Method to Assess the Innovation Gap: A
Case of Industrial Robotics in a Catching-up Country.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 119: 80–
97. doi:10.1016/ j.techfore.2017.02.035.
Lantos, G. P. 2006. “Resolving the Capability–rigidity Paradox in New Product Innovation.” Journal of Product
Innovation Management 23 (3): 289–291.
Li, M., and Y. Zhou. 2018. “Visualizing the Knowledge Profile on Self-powered Technology.” Nano Energy 51: 250–259.
doi:10.1016/j.nanoen.2018.06.068.
Li, X., Y. Zhou, L. Xue, and L. Huang. 2015. “Integrating Bibliometrics and Roadmapping Methods: A Case of Dye-sensitized
Solar Cell Technology-based Industry in China.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 97: 205–222.
Li, X., Y. Zhou, L. Xue, and L. Huang. 2016. “Roadmapping for Industrial Emergence and Innovation Gaps to Catch-up: A
Patent Analysis of OLED Industry in China.” International Journal of Technology Management 72: 105–143.
Liu, P., Y. Zhou, D. K. Zhou, and L. Xue. 2017. “Energy Performance Contract Models for the Diffusion of Green-
manufac-turing Technologies in China: A Stakeholder Analysis from SMEs’ Perspective.” Energy Policy 106:
59–67. doi:10.1016/j. enpol.2017.03.040.
Luftman, J., and T. Brier. 1999. “Achieving and Sustaining Business-it Alignment.” California Management Review 42 (1):
109–122.
Manyika, J., M. Chui, B. Brown, J. Bughin, R. Dobbs, C. Roxburgh, and A. H. Byers. 2011. Big Data: The Next Frontier for
Innovation, Competition, and Productivity. New York: McKinsey Global Institute.
Mcguire, T., J. Manyika, and M. Chui. 2012. “Why Big Data is the New Competitive Advantage.” Ivey Business Journal 76: 1.
Neirotti, P., and E. Paolucci. 2007. “Assessing the Strategic Value of Information Technology: An Analysis on the Insurance
Sector.” Information & Management 44 (6): 568–582.
419 S. SHAN ET AL.

Nunnally, J. C., and I. H. Bernstein. 1994. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oh, W., and A. Pinsonneault. 2007. “On the Assessment of the Strategic Value of Information Technologies: Conceptual
and Analytical Approaches.” MIS Quarterly 31 (2): 239–265.
Peteraf, M. A., and J. B. Barney. 2003. “Unraveling the Resource-based Tangle.” Managerial & Decision Economics 24 (4):
309–323.
Porter, M. E. 1989. “From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy.” In Readings in Strategic Management,
edited by D. Asch and C. Bowman, 234–255. London: Macmillan Education UK.
Porter, M. E. 2008. “The Five Competitive Forces that Shape Strategy.” Harvard Business Review 86 (1): 78–93.
Prahalad, C. K., and G. Hamel. 2017. “The Core Competence of the Corporation.” Harvard Business Review 68 (3): 275–292.
Purcell, B. 2013. “The Emergence of ‘Big Data’ Technology and Analytics.” Journal of Technology Research 4: 1.
Reed, R., and R. J. Defillippi. 1990. “Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive
Advantage.” Academy of Management Review 15 (1): 88–102.
Rivard, S., L. Raymond, and D. Verreault. 2006. “Resource-based View and Competitive Strategy: An Integrated Model of
the Contribution of Information Technology to Firm Performance.” Journal of Strategic Information Systems 15 (1): 29–
50.
Ross, J. W. 1996. “Develop Long-term Competitiveness Through it Assets.” Sloan Management Review 38 (2): 31–42.
Sambamurthy, V., A. Bharadwaj, and V. Grover. 2003. “Shaping Agility Through Digital Options: Reconceptualizing the
Role of Information Technology in Contemporary Firms.” MIS Quarterly 27 (2): 237–263.
Sirmon, D. G., S. Gove, and M. A. Hitt. 2008. “Resource Management in Dyadic Competitive Rivalry: The Effects of Resource
Bundling and Deployment.” Academy of Management Journal 51 (5): 919–935.
Sirmon, D. G., M. A. Hitt, and R. D. Ireland. 2007. “Managing Firm Resources in Dynamic Environments to Create Value:
Looking Inside the Black Box.” Academy of Management Review 32 (1): 273–292.
Teece, D., and G. Pisano. 1994. “The Dynamic Capabilities of Firms: An Introduction.” Industrial & Corporate Change 3 (3):
537–556.
Teece, D., G. Pisano, and A. Shuen. 1997. “Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management.” Strategic
Management Journal 18 (7): 509–533.
Wade, M., and J. Hulland. 2004. “Review: The Resource-based View and Information Systems Research: Review, Extension,
and Suggestions for Future Research.” MIS Quarterly 28 (1): 107–142.
Wamba, S. F., A. Gunasekaran, S. Akter, J. F. Ren, R. Dubey, and S. J. Childe. 2017. “Big Data Analytics and Firm Performance:
Effects of Dynamic Capabilities.” Journal of Business Research 70: 356–365.
Wei, Y., C. Huang, J. Li, and L. Xie. 2016. “An Evaluation Model for Urban Carrying Capacity: A Case Study of China’s Mega-
cities.” Habitat International 53: 87–96. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2015.10.025.
Wernerfelt, B. A. 1984. “A Resource-based View of the Firm.” Strategic Management Journal 5 (2): 171–180.
Xu, G., Y. Wu, T. Minshall, and Y. Zhou. 2017. “Exploring the Innovation Ecosystems Across Science, Technology
and Business: A Case of 3D Printing in China.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017. 06.030.
Zhou, Y., X. Li, R. Lema, and F. Urban. 2016. “Comparing the Knowledge Bases of Wind Turbine Firms in Asia and Europe:
Patent Trajectories, Networks, and Globalisation.” Science and Public Policy 43 (4): 476–491. doi:10.1093/scipol/scv055.
Zhou, Y., and T. Minshall. 2014. “Building Global Products and Competing in Innovation: The Role of Chinese University
Spin-outs and Required Innovation Capabilities.” International Journal of Technology Management 64 (2/3/4): 180.
doi:10.1504/IJTM.2014.059929.
Zhou, Y., M. Pan, and F. Urban. 2018. “Comparing the International Knowledge Flow of China’s Wind and Solar Photovoltaic (PV)
Industries: Patent Analysis and Implications for Sustainable Development.” Sustainability 10 (6): 1883.
Zhou, Y., M. Pan, D. K. Zhou, and L. Xue. 2018. “Stakeholder Risk and Trust Perceptions in the Diffusion of Green
Manufacturing Technologies: Evidence From China.” The Journal of Environment & Development 27 (1): 46–
73. doi:10.1177/1070496517733497.
Zhou, Y., G. Xu, T. Minshall, and P. Liu. 2015. “How Do Public Demonstration Projects Promote Green-Manufacturing
Technologies? A Case Study from China.” Sustainable Development 23 (4): 217–231. doi:10.1002/sd.1589.
Zhou, Y., H. Zhang, and M. Ding. 2015. “How Public Demonstration Projects Affect the Emergence of New Industries: An
Empirical Study of Electric Vehicles in China.” Innovation 17 (2): 159–181. doi:10.1080/14479338.2015.1011051.
 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 420

Appendix

Constructs and items

Competitive Advantages
1: We think the use of big data analysis can increase business opportunities.
2: We think the use of big data analysis can improve customer service.
3: We think the use of big data analysis can enhance competitiveness.
4: We think the use of big data analysis can increase customer value.
5: We think the use of big data analysis can enhance the reputation.

1: Our business has the necessary technical, managerial and other skills to use big data analysis.
2: We have adequate development experience based on web applications.
3: Our current information system is flexible.
4: Our current information systems can be tailored to our customers’ needs.
5: Our enterprise informatization construction is good.

1: We have a very open and trusting relationship with our suppliers.

2: We have the overall business plan to redesign the marketing and process of sales.
3: Our enterprise has a culture of information sharing.
4: We have a long-term strategic plan for information technology.

1: Our enterprise has sufficient financial resources to invest in innovation activities.

2: Our enterprise has many available resources to run into innovation activities.
3: Our enterprise is able to obtain resources in a short time to support new strategic activities.
4: Our enterprise has sufficient management resources to support new strategic activities.

1: When deciding to use big data analysis, we can learn everything we need.
2: Our past experience has led us to believe that big data can be successfully implemented.
3: Our enterprise has good performance in providing information technology support.
4: Our enterprise has expertise in business analysis software related to big data.

1: When the market environment or competitor requirements change, our enterprise can re-plan strategy quickly.
2: When the environment changes, we have a series of feasible strategic measures to address change.
3: When production tasks change, we have the ability to provide new products and services quickly and easily.
4: Our enterprise has a large number of products and service improvements every year.

1: The changes brought by big data are consistent with our enterprise philosophy.
2: The changes brought by big data are consistent with the current practice of our enterprise.
3: The development of big data is the same as the experience of a similar system in our enterprise.
4: The use of big data analysis is matched with our enterprise’s top priority.