The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2053-4620.htm

Big data
Big data analytics adoption model analytics
for small and medium enterprises adoption
model
Parisa Maroufkhani
Azman Hashim International Business School, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Wan Khairuzzaman Wan Ismail Received 3 February 2020
Revised 2 March 2020
Sulaiman AlRajhi School of Business, Sulaiman Al-Rajhi University, Accepted 6 April 2020
Al Bukayriyah, Saudi Arabia, and
Morteza Ghobakhloo
Department of Industrial Engineering, Minab Higher Education Center,
Hormozgan University, Bandarabas, Iran

Abstract
Purpose – Big data analytics (BDA) is recognized as a turning point for firms to improve their performance.
Although small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are crucial for every economy, they are lagging far
behind in the usage of BDA. This study aims to provide a single and unified model for the adoption of BDA
among SMEs with the integration of the technology–organization–environment (TOE) model and resource-
based view.
Design/methodology/approach – A survey of 112 manufacturing SMEs in Iran was conducted, and the
data were analysed using structural equation modelling to test the model of this study.
Findings – The results offer evidence of a BDA mediation effect in the relationship between technological,
organizational and environmental contexts, and SMEs performance. The findings also demonstrated that
technological and organizational elements are the more significant determinants of BDA adoption in the
context of SMEs. In addition, the result of this study confirmed that BDA adoption could enhance the
financial and market performance of SMEs.
Practical implications – Providing a single unified framework of BDA adoption for SMEs enables them
to appreciate the importance of most influential elements (technology, organization and environment) in the
adoption of BDA. Also, this study may encourage SMEs to be more willing to use BDA in their businesses.
Originality/value – Although there are studies on BDA adoption and firm performance among large
companies, there is a lack of empirical research on SMEs, in particular, based on the TOE model. SMEs differ
from large companies in terms of the availability of resources and size. Therefore, this study aimed to initiate
a conceptual framework of BDA adoption for SMEs to assist them to be able to take advantage of the
adoption of such technology.
Keywords SMEs, Big data analytics, Firm performance, Technology adoption,
Resource-based view, TOE model
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The current world, which is prevailed by globalization, knowledge, fast speed of
digitalization and information dissemination and competition, has transformed the mode of
businesses (Bouwman et al., 2018). This modern technological era is compounded with a
high amount of financing in computerizing and data processing in different industries. With Journal of Science and Technology
Policy Management
these technological advancements, the utilization and implementation of new Information © Emerald Publishing Limited
2053-4620
Technology (IT) applications and techniques become a considerable strength for DOI 10.1108/JSTPM-02-2020-0018
JSTPM socioeconomic changes (Bresnahan and Yin, 2017; Mariadason, 2014; Tambotoh et al., 2015).
Therefore, the adoption of innovative technologies can produce more business advantages
and opportunities not only to large corporations but to small- and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs) as well. Even SMEs are looking for ways and methods to enrich their competitive
positioning in the market and enhance their productivity (Premkumar, 2003; Ghobakhloo
et al., 2012).
In the light of digitalization, where everybody uses new digital technologies such as
smartphones and social media, technology in terms of raw data has become accessible
primarily to grasp, keep, analyze and use at a lower cost (Alsghaier et al., 2017). Thus, a
ubiquitous and ever-increasing digital record, commonly termed big data, is getting
generated by each individual around the world (Müller et al., 2016). Big data has currently
been acknowledged as one of the pillars of future technology and has the potential to offer
firms with excellent business value (Raguseo and Vitari, 2018). Despite the many benefits of
big data analytics (BDA), less research has taken place about how companies can adopt it
and create business value from such a technology. Thus, there is a lack of understanding on
how businesses deal with the process of BDA implementation and value generation (Mikalef
et al., 2019).
Recent studies have also claimed that a notable number of firms cannot be prosperous to
leverage value from the opportunities that BDA may produce for their companies, and some
scholars even denied the notion that companies could gain performance enhancement
through BDA (Mikalef et al., 2019). As such, there might be an inadequate understanding
and contradictory views about how businesses can use BDA and benefit from such
investments (Wamba et al., 2017). Also, the promises of BDA are not adequately explored by
companies such as SMEs (Mikalef et al., 2019). This study investigates how SMEs benefit
from business values of BDA adoption. It aims at providing a single and unified model for
the adoption of BDA among SMEs with the integration of the technology–organization–
environment (TOE) model and resource-based view (RBV) of the firm. By doing so, the more
influential context in terms of TOE for the adoption of BDA among SMEs could be
determined. Subsequently, the impact of BDA adoption on the performance of SMEs was
examined. Finally, this study evaluates the role of BDA as a mediator between TOE
contexts and firm performance. More precisely, this study addresses the following research
questions:

RQ1. To what extent could TOE contexts affect the adoption of BDA among SMEs in
Iran?
RQ2. What is the impact of BDA adoption on SMEs’ performance? And
RQ3. To what extend does BDA adoption mediate the direct relationships between
TOE-based factors and business performance among Iranian SMEs?

2. Big data analytics and small and medium enterprises

Like entrepreneurs, SMEs are risk takers and innovative (Dana and Dana, 2005). What
makes them distinguished from other companies is their entrepreneurial growth-oriented
mind (Dana, 1995). Furthermore, SMEs act as the main element of economic growth by
creating job opportunities and being innovative and productive (OECD, 2017; Talebi et al.,
2012; Singh, 2019). Moreover, in a globalized environment, one of the effective methods to
reduce poverty and inequality in developing countries is developing and improving the
position of SMEs in the marketplace (Talebi et al., 2012).
 According to Emami and Dimov (2017), entrepreneurs tend to make an independent Big data
decision and be creative to add value to the customers and consequently, to the economy. analytics
Entrepreneurs should look for the opportunity to increase their competitive advantage in the
market by being more innovative by changing the current status of the market and adding
adoption
new values to the marketplace (Emami, 2017; Emami and Khajeheian, 2019). Therefore, model
adopting new technology within SMEs could be one of the critical strategies to upgrade their
status in the marketplace and become more innovative and productive (Iqbal et al., 2018;
Singh, 2019). The attention of current scholars toward SMEs to help these enterprises to be
innovative and to be able to take advantage of new technologies has been increased. For
example, in the area of cloud computing adoption (Asiaei and Rahim, 2019), mobile
marketing adoption (Eze Sunday et al., 2019), and mobile commerce (Nayati Utami et al.,
2019).
BDA is a newly emerged strategy for SMEs growth, which enables them to make better
decisions about market and customers’ needs by relying on analytical tools. That also will
help them to increase their competitive status in the market (Sen et al., 2016). According to
OECD (2017), BDA is a turning point to the business processes development, so there is a
need for SMEs to think, seriously, about BDA adoption. SMEs can derive value from
voluminous data by receiving the assistance of big data service providers. The adoption of
big data in SMEs can be fruitful in tackling the important challenges of businesses (EPU,
2017). Using big data and its analytical techniques are not only for large enterprises.
Nowadays, small businesses also can use the advantages and hidden values of the high
amounts of online and offline data to make reliable decisions in line with the objective of
their businesses (Ogbuokiri et al., 2015). Embracing big data could be useful for SMEs, as
this technology can improve the confidence of SMEs by implementing real-time solutions to
issues that every business may encounter (Sen et al., 2016). The use of BDA enables SMEs to
have better performance, as they are more flexible than large companies (Ogbuokiri et al.,
2015). It is reported that competition is one of the main reasons for SMEs to adopt BDA
(Tien et al., 2020). The acute sense of competition among SMEs in the market would force
them to embrace the adoption of BDA to increase operational performance and stay
competitive (Malaka and Brown, 2015; Tien et al., 2020). In the case of Iran, the speed of
creating big data is rapidly increasing, and that is a need for all Iranian companies,
including SMEs, to know how to take advantage of big data values and how direct it to the
improvement of their performance (ITRC, 2018).
While many large organizations have long been utilizing big data to enhance
their competitiveness (Mandal, 2018), SMEs lagged in using BDA technologies (Tien et al.,
2020; Coleman et al., 2016). Previous studies also highlight this point that SMEs are expected
to consider adopting BDA in their businesses (Iqbal et al., 2018; Maroufkhani et al., 2019).
Considering the role of SMEs in emerging economies, the adoption of BDA as a new type of
innovation among SMEs should not be understated. According to Maroufkhani et al. (2019),
most of the current literature emphasized the importance of BDA in large companies (Akter
et al., 2016; Wamba et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2018).
However, majority of SMEs are reluctant to utilize big data techniques in their
businesses, or they fail to have practical use of BDA investments, which is mainly due to
lack of understanding and knowledge about big data (Oussous et al., 2018; Iqbal et al., 2018).
The failure of BDA is often the result of big data’s unique resource capabilities. For example,
deprived IT infrastructure, inappropriate skills, fragile support from top management,
inadequate technologies to support high volume unstructured data, blurred strategy to align
business and IT strategy and limited financial support lead SMEs not willing to adopt new
technologies such as BDA (Shin, 2016; Coleman et al., 2016; Christina and Stephen, 2017).
JSTPM Due to the challenges and the scarcity of BDA adoption within SMEs, knowledge on how
SMEs would be able to adopt big data and take advantage of its analytical tools becomes
essential. Drawing on the RBV, this paper aims to examine the impact of each context of the
TOE model on BDA adoption, and the mediating role of BDA adoption in the relationship
between TOE contexts and firm performance.
The paper is organized as follows: the next section discusses the conceptual model and
hypothesis development followed by the research methodology and empirical findings.
Finally, the discussion and conclusion sections outline the research and practical
implications and conclude the study.

3. Conceptual model and hypotheses

This study uses the TOE model to assess BDA in SMEs. The hypotheses and the model are
depicted in Figure 1. The dotted lines show the indirect effects. The TOE model is prevalent
in scrutinizing issues related to technology or innovation adoption, such as the adoption of
BDA (Garmaki et al., 2016). The model, established by Tornatzky et al. (1990), was
developed to be a consolidative framework, which offers a general theoretical foundation in
the adoption/diffusion of technology in businesses. It generally measures different
technological, organizational and environmental factors that assist the process of adoption/
diffusion of various technologies (Ghobakhloo et al., 2011a). TOE model is reconcilable with
the diffusion of innovation theory, as it concentrates on both internal and external features

Relative Advantage
(RA)

Compatibility
(CMP)

Complexity (CPX)

Technological
Risk and Insecurity Context (TC)

Traialability (TR)
H6

Observability (OBS)
H1
Financial
H7 Performance (FP)

H8 H4

Top management
Support (TM)
Organizational Big data Analytics
H2
Context (OC) Adoption (BDA)
Organizational
Readiness (OR)
H9 H5
H10
Market Performance
(MP)
H3

H11
Competitive
Pressure (CP)

Figure 1. External Support Environmental

(ES) Context (EC)
Conceptual
framework Government
Regulations (GR)
of organizations in terms of technological, organizational and environmental elements Big data
(Baker, 2011). analytics
Several reasons support the choice of applying TOE in the current study. First, the TOE
model includes the environmental context, ignored by the Innovation Diffusion Theory. The
adoption
incorporation of the environmental context increases the power of the TOE model to be model
superior to the latter and discuss intra-organization innovation adoption much better than
others (Maduku et al., 2016). Second, the TOE framework explains how the technological,
organizational and environmental contexts affect the adoption of technology and also how
these three contexts affect the decisions and performance of companies (Baker, 2012). Third,
the TOE model is a flexible contextual theory which can be used in different contexts and
allows researchers to include and exclude the technological, organizational and
environmental factors that are in line with the context of their studies (Grant and Yeo, 2018).
Fourth, the TOE model renders a more strong empirical and theoretical basis and support
for organizational level studies (Alshamaila et al., 2013b). Finally, the TOE model has been
recognized as the most frequently-used technology adoption theory among scholars
(Oliveira and Martins, 2011; Hsu et al., 2014; Maduku et al., 2016). Therefore, the TOE model
is the most applicable theory for the context of SMEs, as it delivers rich and vibrant views to
deal with SMEs (Awa et al., 2015).
This study draws on RBV and capability building view to examine the effect of BDA
adoption on SMEs’ performance. RBV is suitable in acknowledging firm technological
activities through the theoretical standpoints of organizational resources and capabilities
(Ramdani and Kawalek, 2007). A focal point of RBV is that the firm performance depends
highly on the elements or qualities of a firm’s capabilities or resources (Barney, 1991).
Grounding on the RBV as well as capability-building theory, BDA denotes a capability or an
intangible resource for firms by which companies gain business value and improve their
performance.

3.1 Technological context

This context can have a significant effect on technology adoption in SMEs (Dosi, 1990).
Relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, risk and insecurity, trialability and
observability constitute the context of technology that influences BDA adoption in SMEs.
Rogers (1983) has defined the relative advantage “as the degree to which an innovation is
perceived as being better than the idea it supersedes”. Prior studies such as Ramdani et al.
(2013) and Priyadarshinee et al. (2017) propose that relative advantage is a crucial element of
the technological context that is capable of encouraging or discouraging the adoption of
technology. The primary decision-makers of enterprises evaluate the consequences or
advantages of applying BDA to make sure if this technology has a relative advantage over
current systems (Alshamaila et al., 2013a; Chen et al., 2015). In a highly competitive
marketplace, the benefits that BDA may generate for companies make significant
motivations for adopting this technology.
Compatibility is an imperative leading element for technology and innovation adoption
(Chen et al., 2015). Rogers defined compatibility as “the degree to which the innovation is
perceived as consistent with the existing values, past experiences, and needs of the potential
adopter” (Agrawal, 2015). Similarly, in Tornatzky and Klein’s (1982) study, compatibility
was measured as one of the most important determinants in the post-adoption phases of
innovation diffusion. The main concern of business founders might be that if the adopted
innovation is consistent with values and the history of their corporations (Rogers, 1983).
Consequently, it is essential for SMEs that innovation is consistent with their existing
JSTPM values and needs. Therefore, the compatibility of technology adoption may reflect its
congruity with the culture and business practices of an organization (Zhu et al., 2006).
According to Lee (2004), complexity is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as
relatively difficult to understand and use. Chen et al. (2015) testified that technology
innovation would be less likely to be implemented if it is perceived as being more ambitious
and challenging to implement. Adopting a new technology may put SMEs into challenges,
for example, altering the processes in which they work together. To promote the chance of
adoption, the new technology must be easy to use (Rogers, 2003). Employees have or gain
knowledge about new technology either. The more new technology is complex, the more risk
involved in the process of adoption. Thereby decision-makers will be in a dilemma about
adopting the innovation (Sahin, 2006). Some of the current studies coined that complexity is
a substantial factor in the adoption of an innovation (Alshamaila et al., 2013a; Premkumar
and Roberts, 1999).
Risk could be defined as the degree to which the results of incorporating an innovation in
an organization might be insecure (Tiwana and Bush, 2007). A study regarding cloud
computing adoption within SMEs (Harindranath et al., 2008) indicated that cloud computing
innovation is hugely dependent on the level of risk. The risk may imply that there should be
a lack of sufficient understanding about a specific innovation which could lead to less
predictable outcomes. As discussed before, the cloud is a host for big data. Therefore, the
privacy and security act as predictors of BDA, which may influence its adoption. It is argued
that the primary concern of business owners when the adoption of cloud computing services
comes up, is privacy and security (Ostlund, 1974). The significant reason for enterprises’
concern is data management and storage because users of cloud computing give the cloud
supplier full control over their data and they will be worried whether the supplier exercise
proper care of their business, secure the data, and do backups for them (Alshamaila et al.,
2013a). Priyadarshinee et al. (2017) figured out that the security concern is one of the
principal factors when companies come to the idea of adoption of cloud computing and big
data as the companies have to share their data with third parties. Nevertheless, this can be
addressed by building a trustable relationship with service suppliers.
From this point of view, security concern refers to the risks that occur in outsourcing. In
other words, these are the risks linked to the use of third-party tools and assistance for big
data solution (Benlian and Hess, 2011) or cloud computing services adoption
(Priyadarshinee et al., 2017). Generally, companies who are willing to use the advantages of
big data in their businesses may need to begin with outsourcing the whole initiatives of big
data or part of it. For example, the result of a study worked on BDA adoption indicates that
most of the companies use outsourcing, first, as they still suffer from the lack of enough
capability to build and sustain big data environment within their own businesses, second,
due to newness of big data related innovations (Wood, 2013). However, the requirement of
outsourcing may raise the issue of security or privacy. Since outsourcing requires
companies to share their data with vendors and external suppliers, there is risk of losing the
control over their information. This study concludes that the factor of risk and insecurity
will significantly influence BDA adoption.
Trialability is the extent to which an IT innovation is possible to try (Salleh and
Janczewski, 2016). Priyadarshinee et al. (2017) have defined trialability “as the degree to
which an innovation may be experimented with on limited basis.” Trialability is one of the
key factors for early adopters, including SMEs (Moore and Benbasat, 1991; Rogers, 2003;
Moghavvemi et al., 2012) because, from the initial stage, they know how effective the
innovation is. Therefore, it can be a chance for early innovators to reduce the level of
insecurity (Ramdani and Kawalek, 2007). According to Alshamaila et al. (2013a), the more
quickly the innovation can be exposed, the more easily and speedy it can be adopted. Rogers Big data
(2003) proposes that trialability is the most vital factor that affects the adoption of the analytics
internet and new online technology among academia. For example, Murphy (2005)
examined Wi-Fi adoption among academy members and figured out that those who did not
adoption
have their device lost the opportunity of experimenting with Wi-Fi technology, which model
resulted in a slighter rate of adoption. The BDA under consideration in this paper is recently
novel to the SMEs. As a result, trialability is predicted to be appropriate.
Observability argues that “the degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to
others” (Jeyaraj et al., 2006). Observability promotes and encourages innovation adoption
within firms. For example, Lu et al. (2009) studied the adoption of cellular phones in Hong
Kong and found that among other technological factors, only observability stayed to have a
significant effect on the adoption. However, in the context of SMEs, observability is the only
attribute of technological factors to have no positive influence on the adoption of IT
innovations (Rogers, 2003) hence the promising light of BDA. In short, all of the
abovementioned factors are considered a technological context. Therefore, we suggest the
following hypothesis:

H1. The technological context influences the adoption of BDA in SMEs.

3.2 Organizational context

In this study, top management support and organizational readiness represent an
organizational factor that influences BDA adoption in SMEs. This context is claimed to have
a high impact on SMEs’ adoption of BDA since previous scholars such as Wei (2001)
revealed that organizational context is a primary factor of the adoption of enterprise
applications in SMEs.
Ramdani and Kawalek (2007) define top management support as the degree to which
managers comprehend and embrace the technological capabilities of a new technology
system. In addition, Ramdani et al. (2013) define top management support as the positive
attitude of CEOs towards technology adoption. Previous studies such as Sanders (2008),
Scupola (2009), Jeyaraj et al. (2006) and Huynh et al. (2012) have advocated that top
management support is one of the key determinants of organizational innovation adoption
so that adoption of a technology without top management support does not have the chance
of successful implementation. For example, in the context of SMEs, top managers are less
likely to adopt new technologies (Chen et al., 2015; Alshamaila et al., 2013a). Top
management in all organizations, including SMEs, can encourage change by collaboration
and strengthening values through a joint vision for the company (Ramdani and Kawalek,
2008).
It is believed that once top managers are optimistic about the possible benefits of
technology adoption to the enterprise, they will be more likely to take action to defend and
support the adoption of a new system (Ramdani and Kawalek, 2007). A constructive attitude
of owners can bring up the confidence that adequate resources will be allocated for adopting
the new technology (Thong, 1999; Liang et al., 2007). By providing support, top managers
can play the facilitator role for arranging the process of change in terms of organizational
norms, values, and cultures, which enables other members of an organization to accept and
adopt the new technology (Premkumar and Potter, 1995; Vahtera, 2008; Karahanna and
Preston, 2013). Top management role can be critical for building a supportive atmosphere
for the adoption of new technologies (Kearns and Sabherwal, 2006; Lim et al., 2013).
According to Premkumar and Roberts (1999), organizational readiness refers to the
extent to which the required organizational resources are available to utilize technology like
JSTPM BDA. That is reported by Eder and Igbaria (2001) that the level of supports that top
management can offer for organizational IT initiatives is dependent on the availability of the
company’s resources. In further studies, organizational readiness is defined as the capability
of companies in managing and investing for the adoption of new technology by providing
sufficient resources such as technical IT capability and expertise (Chen et al., 2015). In the
context of SMEs, studies indicate that financial shortage and lack of technical knowledge
are realized as two of the main elements that hold back information system (IS) development
in small businesses (Taxman et al., 2014). Recent literature indicated that a prosperous
adoption of new technology is severely influential by the degree of preparation of
organizations for the technology (Yoon and George, 2013). Cragg and King (1993) reported
that companies are unable to appropriately apply and maintain a new system such as
information sharing system if they do not devote sufficient organizational assets (e.g.
financial supports and technical skills). It can apply to other types of technology innovation.
Therefore, we suggest the following hypothesis:

H2. The organizational context influences the adoption of BDA in SMEs.

3.3 Environmental context

In the current study, competitive pressure, external support and government regulations are
the environmental factors, as a unified environmental context, which influences BDA
adoption in SMEs. Based on the definition which Oliveira et al. (2014) have developed,
“competitive pressure refers to influences from the external environment that prompt the
organization to use BDA.” It can be the pressure that comes to a company from its
customers, suppliers and competitors.
Tsai et al. (2013) determined competitive pressure as one of the preeminent antecedents
of IS innovations adoption within firms. Competition in an industry is mostly perceived to
have a positive impact on the adoption of IS innovations (Chen et al., 2015). Jeyaraj et al.
(2006) asserted that it should be taken into account by companies that they can adopt new
technologies to compete in the market place. It can be considered a kind of organizational
strategy. There is other evidence that competitive pressure can be an adoption driver
(Gatignon and Robertson, 1989; Premkumar and Ramamurthy, 1995; Grover, 1993). Notably,
Iacovou et al. (1995) stated that competition imposes too many pressures on companies to
seek new options to upgrade their production. For small enterprises, Crook and Kumar
(1998) discovered that competitive pressure could be a crucial predictor for innovation
adoption. Also, this predictor can be one of the practical factors in outsourcing, where
companies crowdsource their IT infrastructure to enhance their effectiveness (Leibenstein,
1976). That is supposed that competitive pressure can assist firms in boosting up their
market share by rendering lower prices (Premkumar and Roberts, 1999).
In the context of SMEs, Lacity and Willcocks (1998) reported in their study that the more
firms feel that they are under pressure to compete, the more they will adopt new technology.
Based on the summary by Majumdar and Venkataraman (1993), out of the ten studies listed,
five of them reported that competition significantly influences technology adoption in SMEs.
External support has been defined as the extent to which vendors or third-parties can
provide technological support for companies to adopt important innovation (Al-Qirim, 2007).
External support from or outsourcing has been found as one of the critical drivers of IS
innovation success (Grandon and Pearson, 2004), which can positively influence IS
innovation adoption (Premkumar and Roberts, 1999). The more outsourcing and third-party
support increase, the more enterprises are likely to adopt new information system
innovations. The willingness of companies to adopt an IS innovation depends on how they
perceive the vendors, and third-parties’ support is available (DeLone, 1988). Premkumar and Big data
Roberts (1999) claimed that firms could increase their innovation adoption abilities by analytics
taking advantage of experiential learning advertised or offered by their supplier, which at
the end may lead to successful firm’s innovation adoption (Ramdani et al., 2009).
adoption
The last factor of the TOE model in this study is government regulation, which has been model
also realized as another imperative element in innovation adoption (Weigelt and Sarkar,
2009; Frambach and Schillewaert, 2002; Williamson, 1983). The regulations imposed by
authorities of governments yield firms to look for technological alternatives. Government
regulations can be in terms of promotions and restrictions. Sometimes these regulations may
encourage firms to adopt a specific type of new technology. In contrast, sometimes, it may
prohibit firms from adopting innovations in certain areas (Umanath and Campbell, 1994; Li,
2008).
Tornatzky et al. (1990) asserted that sometimes government regulations for the adoption
of technology require businesses to have some preconditions, such as some specialized
standards, in place that may impose higher transaction costs on firms to adopt a favourable
technology. Therefore, for example, Stieninger and Nedbal (2014) suggested that
governments can encourage companies for innovation adoption, particularly for e-business
adoption, by supporting firms through the appropriate imposition of tax laws and beneficial
firm development policies. According to previous studies on the role of external support in
technology adoption, we propose the following hypothesis:

H3. The environmental context influences the adoption of BDA in SMEs.

3.4 Big data analytics and firm performance

The firm performance consists of financial and market performance together (Delmas, 2002).
Financial performance is associated with revenue growth and profitability, whereas market
performance refers to upgrading the position of firms in the market place to gain their
completive advantage (Xu et al., 2004; Ren et al., 2017). Profitability, market share, growth,
innovativeness, cost reduction, fast delivery time as compared to competitors are
representative of the potential value resulted from the BDA adoption (Mikalef et al., 2019).
According to Müller et al. (2018), the business value of BDA has a direct effect on firm
performance. Also, some studies found a positive relationship between BDA adoption and
organizational performance (Mikalef et al., 2019; Raguseo and Vitari, 2018; Germann et al.,
2014). For example, the optimization of price and profit intensification (Wamba et al., 2017);
sales maximization, financial productivity, and market share (Wixom et al., 2013); and
return on investment (ROA) (Schroeck et al., 2012; Manyika et al., 2011; Barton and Court,
2012). According to McAfee et al. (2012), big data is a technological capability that enhances
the financial welfare of companies.
Ramaswamy (2013) in their research, in the context of healthcare, claimed that gaining
capability in BDA will help firms to stay competitive through cost reduction. For instance, it
will assist them in reducing the amount of waste and fraud. Also, it can help companies to
improve the level of care quality, such as safety in treatment. A study by Raut et al. (2019)
demonstrates that BDA can enhance companies’ performance via boosting productivity,
either tangible such as less paper reporting or intangible productivity like firm reputation.
Consequently, an organization that builds more excellent BDA capability would be able to
get the best out of its performance. It can be done by facilitating the process of BDA
capability and identifying the most significant factor in terms of technology, organization
and environment. That is to say, having a superior firm performance in a data driven
system would be originated from a perfect combinations of all resources, for example,
JSTPM organizational (BDA management), physical (IT infrastructure), and human (analytical
knowledge) resources which should be unique and inimitable (Srinivasan and Arunasalam,
2013; Wixom et al., 2013). Hence, a significant investment in BDA enables a firm to enhance
its performance.
BDA provides companies with the opportunity to obtain administrative understanding
from the hidden data to build an agile businesses. Those firms with effective use of big data
are more capable of transforming data into meaningful deliverable information in different
parts of the organization. They can facilitate the process of marketing improvement,
product/service and human resource development, and organizational operation
enhancement, eventually enabling organizations to be more innovative (Barton and Court,
2012). In this sense, we propose the following hypotheses:

H4. BDA adoption influences the financial performance of SMEs.

H5. BDA adoption influences the market performance of SMEs.

3.5 Mediating role of big data analytics in the relationship between TOE model and firm
performance
TOE factors, as the predictors of organizational innovation adoption, can improve the
performance of companies by assisting the companies in identifying the most significant
factor of a successful adoption. Successful adoption of any IT/IS innovation leads to
effective business performance (Akter et al., 2016; Dutta and Bilbao-Osorio, 2014). Based on
the TOE model, a company can effectively adopt innovative initiatives if the technological,
organizational, environmental factors can be identified (Fillis et al., 2004; Ahani et al., 2017).
According to Aboelmaged (2014), the TOE model can show how the appropriate drivers of
innovation adoption influence firm performance. TOE context can increase sustainability
performance and competitive capabilities (product cost, quality, flexibility, or deliver) of
SMEs in the manufacturing sector through the adoption of an innovation such as
sustainable manufacturing practices (SMP). Aboelmaged (2018) concur with the argument,
and he further investigated the relationship between the TOE context, precisely the element
of technology and environment, on sale growth as a firm performance measurement. The
result indicated that the environmental element, as compared to the technological one, could
significantly affect the growth of sales in the service sector.
Other studies have found that there a positive relationship between Internet technologies
such as website technologies and firm performance (Schoenherr, 2012; Yeo, 2016; Meroño-
Cerdan and Soto-Acosta, 2007; Meroño-Cerdan and Soto-Acosta, 2005). A study by Soto-
Acosta et al. (2016) shows that innovation adoption in companies can be considered as a
mediating variable in the relationship between the use of e-business and firm performance.
Grounded in RBV, Ren et al. (2017) have statistically confirmed that BDA could increase the
performance of firms and also would play a mediating role in the relationship between data
and information quality and firm performance. Additionally, Raut et al. (2019) found that
BDA adoption could be a mediator between several determinants of BDA adoption in the
manufacturing sector and sustainable business performance.
Following Baron and Kenny (1986), and as a more recent approach on mediation test by
Zhao et al. (2010), there should be a direct relationship between an independent variable and
dependent variable to test a mediating effect within a relationship. In this line, the direct
effect of TOE factors and firm performance delineates that a technology adoption such as
BDA adoption act as the mediating variable. One of the evidence is the result found by Tsou
and Hsu (2015), which is relatively similar to the context of the current research in
technology and innovation adoption. Another study developed by Grant and Yeo (2018) Big data
argued that TOE contexts would affect the performance and decisions of firms in the analytics
context of Information and Communication Technologies. Moreover, a recent study
Narwane et al. (2020) empirically confirmed that innovation such as the cloud of things could
adoption
be a mediator between its determinants and SMEs’ performance. model
Thus, this study attempted to take one step further and evaluate the mediating role of
BDA adoption in the relationship between TOE contexts with firm performance. The review
of the literature in this study demonstrated that empirical analysis of the mediating role of
BDA remains sparse. Therefore, the focus of this study is theoretical development, based on
the existent evidence available, to explain the mediating effect of BDA adoption between
TOE contexts and firm performance in a single framework. Therefore, this study proposes
the following hypotheses:

H6. The BDA adoption has a mediating effect on the relationship between the
technological context and the financial performance of SMEs.
H7. The BDA adoption has a mediating effect on the relationship between the
technological context and the market performance of SMEs.
H8. The BDA adoption has a mediating effect on the relationship between the
organizational context and the financial performance of SMEs.
H9. The BDA adoption has a mediating effect on the relationship between the
organizational context and the market performance of SMEs.
H10. The BDA adoption has a mediating effect on the relationship between the
environmental context and the financial performance of SMEs.
H11. The BDA adoption has a mediating effect on the relationship between the
environmental context and the market performance of SMEs.

4. Methodology
4.1 Scale development and sampling
To test the hypotheses developed in this study, we distributed a questionnaire to a sample of
Iranian manufacturing SMEs located in industrial parks, namely, Sahmsabad and
Abbasabad, of Tehran province. The measurement instrument (questionnaire) consisted of
two sections. The first section evaluates the overall profile of respondents. For the second
section, we employed a five-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1 representing
“strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree,” which all items obtained from previous studies.
Before sending the final questionnaire, a few initial tests were performed to ensure the
accuracy of the analysis. First, a pilot study was conducted on a sample of 30 firms to test
the ambiguity of the questions in the instrument, and to confirm the reliability and validity
of the measurements. Based on the comments by experts in the initial stage, a few
measurement items were eliminated, and some questions were rephrased for better clarity.
Eventually, the questionnaire was revised by replacing shorter and simpler questions to
improve the reliability of responses. The final version of the questionnaire is shown in
Appendix.
The appropriate sample size for structural equation modelling (SEM) using partial least
squares (PLS) should be between 100 to 200 (Kline, 2005). In addition, Bryant and Yarnold
(1995) recommended that the number of the sample has to be five times the number of
variables. Hatcher (1994) also pointed on the use of “rule of 100” as the minimum sample size
JSTPM or not less than five times the number of variables, whichever is higher. Therefore, we
distributed 161 questionnaires among Iranian SMEs operated in manufacturing sectors and
located in industrial parks of Tehran province. One hundred twelve questionnaires were
found suitable to be used in the analysis, as they are able to evaluate their experience of
BDA adoption and oversee the process of adoption in their businesses. As shown in Table 1,

(%)

Education
Primary qualification 4
Secondary qualification 7
Diploma 34
Undergraduate degree 53
Postgraduate degree (Master/PhD) 3
Age
18–25 years old 4
26–33 years old 31
34–41 years old 38
42–49 years old 19
50 years old or older 7
Gender
Male 90
Female 10
Number of employees
1–10 employees 14
11–49 employees 60
50–99 employees 21
100–149 employees 5
Sector type
Food and beverages 13
Wood and wood products (except furniture) 2
Chemical 9
Rubber and plastic 9
None-metal minerals 16
Basic metals 12
Fabric metals 10
Machinery and equipment 15
Office equipment 2
Electrical machineries and equipment 6
Radio, TV and communication tools 2
Optical and medical instrumental and watch 4
Position
Executive/senior manager 42
Chief executive manager/owner 58
Big data experience
< 1 year 10
1–2 years 46
Table 1. 2–3 years 30
Profile of survey 3–4 years 12
respondents 4þ years 3
out of 112 valid questionnaires, more than half of the respondents were owners or CEOs of Big data
the companies. The sample of respondents, which is male-dominated, has tertiary education analytics
of at least one for every two individuals. Based on the results obtained in Table 1, the
majority of the SMEs, more than three quarters, have had between 1 to 3 years of experience
adoption
in BDA adoption. model

5. Empirical findings
To perform the structural equation modelling technique, a two-step procedure was applied
(Soto-Acosta et al., 2016). The first step was to estimate the measurement model, and the
second step was testing the structural model. The measurement model was constructed to
confirm the reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the construct. The
second step was to verify the structural model by testing the hypotheses proposed in this
study.
To calculate the second-order hierarchical TOE-BDA model, this study applied Partial
Least Squares-Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) because it determines hierarchical
model by eliminating the ambiguity of irrelevant solutions employing its flexible
assumptions (Chen et al., 2015; Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). PLS path modelling calculates
the hierarchical model with less complexity (Hair et al., 2011; Hulland et al., 2010). For
instance, Edwards (2001) developed a second-order TOE model, using PLS path modelling,
to estimate the impact of technological, organizational and environmental context for the
adoption of enterprise applications in SMEs. Besides, PLS can handle comparatively small
sample sizes (Wetzels et al., 2009).
There are two different ways to calculated hierarchical modelling, which depend on the
relationship among latent variables and manifest variables, that is, hierarchical-reflective
modelling and hierarchical-formative modelling. In the reflective model, the latent variables
reflect the manifest variables (LVs ! MVs), while in the formative one, the manifest
variables form the latent variables (MVs ! LVs). When second-order hierarchical latent
variables involved, four types of modellings can be named based on the relationship
between the first-order latent variables and their manifest variables and the second-order
latent variables and the first-order latent variables (Chin, 1998).
As outlined in Ren et al. (2017), the reflective–reflective Type I model and the formative–
formative Type IV model are the conventional reflective and formative models explained
above. In the formative–reflective Type III model, the higher-order construct is a concept of
a few formative lower-order constructs, and in the reflective–formative Type II model, the
lower-order concepts are reflective constructs that form a general construct. In this study,
the reflective lower-order concepts form the TOE contextual constructs. Hence, the proposed
TOE-BDA model is a hierarchical reflective–formative Type II model. To perform the
analyses, we used PLS 3.0 and applied nonparametric bootstrapping (Becker et al., 2012)
with 5,000 replications to calculate the standard errors (Becker et al., 2012).

5.1 Measurement model

To estimate the structural model, we start by evaluating the measurement model through
reliability and validity analyses. Table 2 reports the descriptive statistics of constructs. The
17 constructs of this study with their relevant abbreviations are summarized. The results
show that the mean values of constructs range between 1.835 to 4.397, where risk and
insecurity, a measure of technological factor, has the lowest mean while transactional value,
a measure of big data analytic adoption, has the highest mean. For each construct,
convergent validity and discriminant validity were performed using the Cronbach’s alpha,
composite reliability and average variance extracted (AVE). Factor loadings of items were
JSTPM Construct Abbreviation Mean SD

Strategic value BDA.SV 4.363 0.606

Transactional value BDA.TV 4.397 0.517
Transformational value BDA.TRF 3.763 0.657
Informational value BDA.IV 3.890 0.834
Relative advantage: TC.RA 4.000 0.561
Compatibility TC.CMP 3.964 0.694
Complexity TC.CPX 2.244 0.755
Risk and insecurity TC.US 1.835 0.741
Trialability TC.TR 3.955 0.767
Observability TC.OBS 3.855 0.815
Top management support OC.TM 3.817 0.712
Organizational readiness OC.OR 3.989 0.742
Competitive pressure EF.CP 4.024 0.731
External support EF.ES 4.104 0.842
Government regulation EF.GR 3.536 0.821
Market performance MP 3.775 0.705
Financial performance FP 3.868 0.847
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics Note: BDA 5 Big Data Analytics, TC 5 Technological Context, OC 5 Organizational Context, EC 5
of constructs Environmental context

tested to explore whether each item loads significantly on the constructs. Each item with the
loading value of 0.5 was retained for the analysis, as suggested by Efron and Tibshirani
(1994). Items with outer loadings below 0.5 were removed. In the initial model, shown in
Table 3, three measurement items showed loadings of less than 0.5, thus, they were removed
from the model. For adequate convergent validity, the AVE value of 0.5 or more verifies that
a latent variable can explain at least 50% of the variance of its indicators (Hair et al., 2016).
The AVE values in Table 3 suggest that convergent validity exists with the values of more
than 0.5 on average. The values of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliabilities were all
greater than 0.787, above the threshold value of 0.70 (Hair et al., 2013), indicating that the
constructs have satisfactory reliability.
A common method bias could be a potential problem (Chin, 1998). Hence we carried
Harman’s one-factor test. The untabulated results reveal that the first factor captured only
37.54% of the total variance, below the threshold of 50%, as suggested by Hair et al. (2011),
indicating that the common method bias would not be an issue in this research.
Additionally, the untabulated results of the correlation matrix indicate that the highest inter-
construct correlation obtained using the heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations is below
0.90, and the results of Fornell-Larcker criteria show that the square root of average variance
extraction is higher than the inter-construct correlations. The results assert that there is no
violation of discriminant validity, and it is less likely that there is a common method bias
since an extremely high correlation of 0.90 and above does not exist between constructs.

5.2 Structural model

The results of R2 are reported in Table 4 to determine the accuracy of the predictions. The R2
values of BDA adoption, financial performance and market performance are 0.694, 0.680 and
0.582, respectively. These results verify that explanatory variables explain more than 50%
of variances. The structural model results are depicted in Table 4. The results show that
environmental context ( b = 0.235, p < 0.01), organizational context ( b = 0.320, p < 0.001)
 Big data
Initial Modified Composite
Construct Item loading loading Cronbach’s a reliability AVE
analytics
adoption
Informational value BDA.IV1 0.894 0.894 0.886 0.930 0.815
BDA.IV2 0.931 0.931
model
BDA.IV3 0.883 0.883
Strategic value BDA.SV1 0.814 0.814 0.808 0.887 0.723
BDA.SV2 0.838 0.838
BDA.SV3 0.897 0.897
Transformational value BDA.TRF1 0.766 0.765
BDA.TRF2 0.699 0.699 0.787 0.860 0.608
BDA.TRF3 0.795 0.795
BDA.TRF4 0.850 0.851
Transactional value BDA.TV1 0.846 0.857 0.855 0.912 0.776
BDA.TV2 0.289 deleted
BDA.TV3 0.921 0.932
BDA.TV4 0.856 0.852
Competitive pressure EF.CP1 0.874 0.874 0.841 0.904 0.758
EF.CP2 0.878 0.878
EF.CP3 0.860 0.860
Government regulation EF.GR1 0.890 0.890 0.865 0.917 0.787
EF.GR2 0.878 0.878
EF.GR3 0.894 0.894
External support EF.ES1 0.903 0.903 0.909 0.943 0.846
EF.ES2 0.936 0.936
EF.ES3 0.921 0.921
Organizational readiness OC.OR1 0.792 0.792 0.886 0.922 0.747
OC.OR2 0.896 0.896
OC.OR3 0.901 0.901
OC.OR4 0.862 0.862
Top management support OC.TM1 0.827 0.827 0.862 0.906 0.708
OC.TM2 0.838 0.838
OC.TM3 0.870 0.870
OC.TM4 0.829 0.829
Compatibility TC.CMP1 0.882 0.883 0.796 0.880 0.709
TC.CMP2 0.795 0.793
TC.CMP3 0.847 0.848
Complexity TC.CPX1 0.839 0.840 0.794 0.878 0.706
TC.CPX2 0.863 0.863
TC.CPX3 0.818 0.819
Observability TC.OBS1 0.797 0.797 0.918 0.939 0.755
TC.OBS2 0.880 0.881
TC.OBS3 0.901 0.901
TC.OBS4 0.889 0.888
TC.OBS5 0.874 0.873
Relative advantage TC.RA1 0.781 0.813 0.858 0.903 0.700
TC.RA2 0.832 0.837
TC.RA3 0.844 0.849
TC.RA4 0.287 deleted
TC.RA5 0.817 0.848 Table 3.
TC.RA6 0.379 deleted
The results of
(continued) convergent validity
JSTPM
Initial Modified Composite
Construct Item loading loading Cronbach’s a reliability AVE

Trialability TC.TR1 0.798 0.797 0.896 0.923 0.708

TC.TR2 0.812 0.812
TC.TR3 0.922 0.922
TC.TR4 0.830 0.831
TC.TR5 0.838 0.838
Risk and insecurity TC.US1 0.831 0.831 0.879 0.917 0.734
TC.US2 0.891 0.891
TC.US3 0.858 0.857
TC.US4 0.847 0.847
Financial performance FP1 0.881 0.881 0.935 0.950 0.838
FP2 0.933 0.933
FP3 0.929 0.928
FP4 0.917 0.917
Market performance MP1 0.902 0.903 0.792 0.870 0.634
MP2 0.906 0.906
MP3 0.796 0.798
MP4 0.519 0.516

Note: BDA 5 Big Data Analytics, TC 5 Technological Context, OC 5 Organizational Context, EC 5

Table 3. Environmental context

Table 4.
Variable R2 R2 adjusted
Coefficient of
determination of Big data analytics adoption 0.694 0.686
endogenous Financial performance 0.680 0.668
constructs Market performance 0.582 0.567

and technological context ( b = 0.377, p < 0.001) have significant positive effects on big data
analytics adoption. TOE contextual variables significantly increase the adoption of big
data analytic among SMEs, and thus, H1, H2, and H3 are supported. Additionally, big data
analytics adoption significantly positively affects financial and market performance ( b =
0.392, p < 0.001, and b = 0.321, p < 0.05, respectively). As such, H4 and H5 are supported.
The direct effects of IV and DV are also reported in Table 5. The results show that
environmental and organizational contexts influence financial performance, and
technological context affects market performance. Table 6 reports the indirect effects
between IV and DV.
The results reveal that big data analytics adoption significantly mediates the
relationships of organizational and technological context variables and financial and market
performance. While big data analytics adoption mediates environmental context and
financial performance, it does not have any effect on the relationship between environmental
context and market performance. Full mediation effects are observed between
environmental context and market performance ( b = 0.103, p < 0.05), and technological
context and financial performance ( b = 0.148, p < 0.01). Hence, hypotheses H6, H8, H9,
H10 and H11 are supported while H7 is rejected.
Hypothesis Relationship Path coefficients Decision
Big data
analytics
Path a adoption
H1 EC ! BDA 0.235** Supported
H2 OC ! BDA 0.320*** Supported model
H3 TC ! BDA 0.377*** Supported
Path b
H4 BDA ! FP 0.392*** Supported
H5 BDA ! MP 0.321* Supported
Path c 0
– EC ! FP 0.248** –
– EC ! MP 0.127 –
– OC ! FP 0.228* –
– OC ! MP 0.004 –
– TC ! FP 0.051 –
– TC ! MP 0.387*** –

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; BDA 5 Big Data Analytics, TC 5 Technological Context, OC Table 5.
5 Organizational Context, EC 5 Environmental context, FP 5 Financial Performance, MP 5 Market Path coefficients and
Performanc hypothesis testing

Hypothesis Relationship Path coefficients Decision

H6 EC ! BDA ! FP 0.092* Supported

H7 EC ! BDA ! MP 0.076 Not supported
H8 OC ! BDA ! FP 0.126** Supported
H9 OC ! BDA ! MP 0.103* Supported
H10 TC ! BDA ! FP 0.148** Supported
H11 TC ! BDA ! MP 0.121* Supported

Notes: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; BDA 5 Big Data Analytics, TC 5 Technological Context, OC
5 Organizational Context, EC 5 Environmental context, FP 5 Financial Performance, MP 5 Market Table 6.
Performance Indirect effect

6. Discussion
While the growth of BDA technology is continuously increasing, the conditions under which
such technology ends up with business value creation for SMEs remain fundamentally
ambiguous in empirical research., The majority of the publications in the context of SMEs
have focused on different technology adoption, and rarely the technology of BDA is covered,
while BDA could be effective to adopt if industries would be able to increase the capability
of their BDA investment. Therefore, SMEs are left behind as compared to large companies,
while they are the main contributors to economic growth and need to upgrade their business
environment by adopting modern organizational innovation. However, only a small number
of companies, even large organizations, have been successful in gaining the full potential of
BDA adoption in their businesses (Mikalef et al., 2019).
The main objective of this study is to explore what factors, in terms of technology,
organization and environment, may affect the adoption of BDA among SMEs and whether
BDA enables SMEs to enhance their performance. SMEs’ issues in adopting e-commerce have
been due to skills shortages, weak management practices and inadequate training for human
JSTPM resources and financial barriers in Iran (Ghobakhloo et al., 2011b). Arasti et al. (2014) suggested
that SMEs in Iran need much higher infrastructural and financial support to benefit from IT
and developing their capabilities to contribute to economic development. Further studies show
that the main issues for ICT adoption among Iranian SMEs are lack of environmental support
(Akbari and Alipour Pijani, 2013; Tatfi, 2011). In this sense, the current study explored how
TOE contextual variables affect SMEs’ decision to adopt new emerging technology such as
BDA in Iran and how BDA influence their performance. This study statically found that the
adoption of BDA depends on three primary contexts, which are technology, organization and
environment. The result of the current research is compatible with the previous study by
Ramdani et al. (2013) showing that technological, organizational and environmental contexts
could impact the adoption of enterprises applications among SMEs.
The result of this study indicated that the business value originated from BDA improves
the performance of SMEs in Iran. However, only the EC ! BDA ! MP with a path
coefficient of 0.076 was not supported. More precisely, this study claims that technological
and organizational elements are more significant variables that would help SMEs to gain
business value from the adoption of BDA and increase their performance. The findings of
this research are considerably distinguishable from the current literature in the area of BDA
and its business value. Our results show that all the factors studied in this study such as
relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, risk and insecurity, trialability, observability,
top management support, organizational readiness, competitive pressure, external support
and government regulation must be emphasized in manufacturing sector of SMEs to have a
successful usage of BDA in their businesses.
The researchers assert that BDA does not require a large organization to make an effect.
The realm of BDA is no longer limited to larger companies. Smaller firms can experience
digital transformations and create capabilities for the use of vast scale data analytics. There
should be an opportunity for SMEs to overcome the challenges faced across the industry for
making business values of BDA. To gain business value from BDA, SMEs do not need to
provide their businesses with technical skills. SMEs have the opportunity of taking
advantage of BDA by the outsourcing of some resources like technical skills. However, the
role of government and top managements’ support for the initiation of BDA is undeniable.
Effective use of BDA can be considered as a capability for SMEs to encourage them to
adopt it in different sectors and industries. What makes the adoption of BDA notable among
SMEs is that they need to know how to deal with technological, organizational and
environmental aspects to using the business values of BDA. Many scholars have already
started to imply the significance of all these elements in order to mature their BDA
capabilities (Mikalef et al., 2019). However, among SMEs, the factors might be different,
which the majority of the current literature has not distinguished them. Finally, the findings
of this study suggest that SMEs should consider BDA as a significant strategy to make sure
that they can improve the performance of their firms. As such, SMEs need to consider the
factors that may influence the adoption of such a strategy. However, they must be aware
that some differences may arise, depending on the specific sectors in which they want to
invest (Raguseo and Vitari, 2018).

6.1 Theoretical and practical implications

The current study would be useful for decision-makers within the manufacturing sector and
scholars, as it is substantial evidence on the TOE drivers of BDA adoption and their
relationship with SMEs’ performance. As one of the main theoretical implications, the
unified model of BDA for SMEs, allows the Iranian SMEs to gain knowledge about BDA
adoption. Grounding in RBV theory, this study attempted to examine the mediating role of
BDA adoption between TOE variables and SMEs’ performance. While drawing on the RBV Big data
of the firm, the current study considered TOE contexts as intangible capabilities of SMEs analytics
decision-makers, which could directly influence the performance of firms. Besides, BDA
adoption itself can be regarded as a knowledge capability and resource for SMEs to improve
adoption
their performance. Narwane et al. (2020) very recently found that cloud of things would be a model
mediator for SMEs to improve their performance. In Narwane et al.’s (2020) study, the
determinants are similar to the TOE factors, although the these scholars did not categorize
the factors within s TOE framework.
The findings also offer a guideline for policymakers in developing countries. Most of the
developed countries have already initiated applicable programs for technology adoption,
and developing countries must follow suit. Therefore, they need more studies, guidelines
and models to assist SMEs to take advantage of new technologies. Decision-makers of SMEs
need to enhance their understanding and knowledge about the effective adoption of BDA in
the manufacturing environment. Previous studies indicated that organizations that could
increase their BDA capabilities, in particular technological and organizational ones, have
been more capable to boost up their performance consequently (Mikalef et al., 2019).
Further, organizations need to improve their data-driven culture to increase their ability
to have a successful digital transformation (Rialti et al., 2018a; Rialti et al., 2018b). The
current study also supports the notion that practitioners must first initiate a coherent and
unambiguous data-driven culture and infrastructure if they aim to benefit from BDA. As
such, SMEs would be able to build and maintain a resilient data-driven culture if they
attempt to change the mindset of employees toward a data-driven mindset. Therefore, they
capitalize on the adoption of BDA in their businesses. Besides, SMEs are different from large
companies in terms of availability of resources and support. Thus, it highlights the role of
service providers and external support from the government and partners.
According to Narwane et al. (2020), developing countries face critical challenges such as
inadequate IT resources, weak communication and an insufficient pool of experts. As such,
the role of external supports and also internal support from the CEOs and their
representatives would be vital to creating a digital environment and adopting new
technologies. SMEs can make proper and logical decisions and use the opportunities to
receive assistance from vendors and the government to invest more in using modern digital
technologies. Governments also need to create conducive environments and adequate
enforcements for SMEs for the adoption of new and advanced technologies. Due to economic
instability and sanctions imposed on Iran, policymakers need to pay more attention to SMEs
and provide adequate support. Training, educational programs and financial assistance
might be appropriate ways to increase the confidence of SMEs that they would be able to
catch the benefits BDA. That is because of the common belief that exists among Iranians
that a supportive environment can increase entrepreneurial traits of SMEs in Iran and,
therefore, encourage them to take more entrepreneurial actions, for example, embracing
newly emerged technologies for further development (Emami and Khajeheian, 2019).

7. Conclusion and future directions

In this study, the direct relationship between TOE contexts and BDA adoption, and BDA
adoption and firm performance (financial and market) were investigated among Iranian
SMEs. Additionally, the indirect effects of TOE contexts and firm performance through
BDA adoption were explored. The findings reveal that TOE contexts have significant
positive effects on BDA adoption, and BDA adoption further improves the performance of
SMEs. The empirical results show that the adoption of BDA in SMEs mediates the impacts
of TOE contexts on financial performance. Concerning market performance, BDA adoption
JSTPM only mediates the effects of organizational and technological contexts on market
performance. Full mediations were observed in the relationship between organizational
context and market performance and technological context and financial performance, where
the direct effects of these relationships were insignificant. The environmental context does not
have any relationship with market performance in both direct and indirect estimations.
While the aim of this study is deemed to be achieved, the limitations should delineate the
future directions. First, this study approached only one key informant in each SME, that is, the
owner, CEO, or senior executive. The present study did not seek information from employees
who are involved in BDA in the firms. Future studies may collect data from at least two
informants per SMEs, one from the top-level managers and one from the employees.
Furthermore, this study investigates the context of Iranian manufacturing SMEs, and therefore
the findings could not be generalized to other countries and sectors. Future researchers may
proceed with a similar approach in other developing countries and different industries and
sectors. According to Emami and Khajeheian (2019) and Javidan and Dastmalchian (2003), due
to close historical ties that exist between Iran and some South Asian as India, Indonesia, the
Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand, future studies can replicate this research model among
countries above. It may also help to validate the finding of the current study.
Future scholars may consider different determinants or technological,
organizational and environmental factors as the TOE model is flexible. By doing so,
researchers can include and exclude the elements that are compatible with the context
of their studies and, therefore, it may deliver different results. Finally, the present
empirical study used a quantitative method of research in which the answers given by
respondents were limited to the alternatives provided in the survey. Hence, future
researchers can provide more reliable findings through a focus group and observation
or qualitative methodology.

References
Aboelmaged, M.G. (2014), “Predicting e-readiness at firm-level: an analysis of technological,
organizational and environmental (TOE) effects on e-maintenance readiness in
manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 34 No. 5,
pp. 639-651.
Aboelmaged, M.G. (2018), “The drivers of sustainable manufacturing practices in Egyptian SMEs and
their impact on competitive capabilities: a PLS-SEM model”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 175, pp. 207-221.
Agrawal, K.P. (2015), “Investigating the determinants of big data analytics (BDA) adoption in Asian
emerging economies”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2015 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Ahani, A., Rahim, N.Z.A. and Nilashi, M. (2017), “Forecasting social CRM adoption in SMEs: a
combined SEM-neural network method”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 75, pp. 560-578.
0
Akbari, M. and Alipour Pijani, A. (2013), “ICT Adoption: a case study of SMEs in Tehran (Iran)”, The
International Journal of Humanities, Vol. 20, pp. 93-121.
Akter, S., Wamba, S.F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2016), “How to improve firm
performance using big data analytics capability and business strategy alignment?”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 182, pp. 113-131.
Al-Qirim, N. (2007), “The adoption of eCommerce communications and applications technologies in small
businesses in New Zealand”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 462-473.
Alsghaier, H., Akour, M., Shehabat, I. and Aldiabat, S. (2017), “The importance of big data analytics in
business: a case study”, American Journal of Software Engineering and Applications, Vol. 6
No. 4, pp. 111-115.
Alshamaila, Y., Papagiannidis, S. and Li, F. (2013a), “Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the North Big data
East of England: a multi-perspective framework”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 250-275.
analytics
Alshamaila, Y., Papagiannidis, S. and Li, F. (2013b), “Cloud computing adoption by SMEs in the North
adoption
East of England: a multi-perspective framework”, Journal of Enterprise Information model
Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 250-275.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, p. 411.
Arasti, Z., Zandi, F. and Bahmani, N. (2014), “Business failure factors in Iranian SMEs: Do successful
and unsuccessful entrepreneurs have different viewpoints?”, Journal of Global Entrepreneurship
Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 10.
Asiaei, A. and Rahim, N.,Z. (2019), “A multifaceted framework for adoption of cloud computing in Malaysian
SMEs”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 708-750.
Awa, H.O., Ojiabo Ojiabo, U. and Emecheta, B., C. (2015), “Integrating TAM, TPB and TOE
frameworks and expanding their characteristic constructs for e-commerce adoption by SMEs”,
Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 76-94.
Baker, J. (2011), “The technology–organization–environment framework”, in Dwivedi, Y.K., Wade, M.R.
and Schneberger, S.L. (Eds), Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital
Society, Vol. 1, Springer, New York, NY.
Baker, J. (2012), “The technology–organization–environment framework”, in Dwivedi, Y.K., Wade, M.R.
and Schneberger, S.L. (Eds), Information Systems Theory: Explaining and Predicting Our Digital
Society, Vol. 1, Springer, New York, NY.
Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, p. 1173.
Barton, D. and Court, D. (2012), “Making advanced analytics work for you”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 90 No. 10, pp. 78-83.
Becker, J.-M., Klein, K. and Wetzels, M. (2012), “Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-SEM: Guidelines
for using Reflective-Formative type models”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 45 Nos 5/6, pp. 359-394.
Benlian, A. and Hess, T. (2011), “Opportunities and risks of software-as-a-service: findings from a
survey of IT executives”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 232-246.
Bouwman, H., Nikou, S., Molina-Castillo, F.J. and DE Reuver, M. (2018), “The impact of digitalization on
business models”, Digital Policy Regulation and Governance, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 105-124.
Bresnahan, T. and Yin, P.-L. (2017), “Adoption of new information and communications technologies in
the workplace today”, Innovation Policy and the Economy, Vol. 17, pp. 95-124.
Bryant, F.B. and Yarnold, P. R. (1995), “Principal-components analysis and exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis”.
Chen, D.Q., Preston, D.S. and Swink, M. (2015), “How the use of big data analytics affects value creation in
supply chain management”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 4-39.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, Modern
Methods for Business Research, Vol. 295, pp. 295-336.
Christina, O.C. and Stephen, K. (2017), “Facilitating knowledge management through filtered big data: SME
competitiveness in an agri-food sector”, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 21, pp. 156-179.
Coleman, S., Göb, R., Manco, G., Pievatolo, A., Tort-Martorell, X. and Reis, M.S. (2016), “How can SMEs
benefit from big data? Challenges and a path forward”, Quality and Reliability Engineering
International, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 2151-2164.
JSTPM Cragg, P.B. and King, M. (1993), “Small-firm computing: motivators and inhibitors”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 47-60.
Crook, C.W. and Kumar, R.L. (1998), “Electronic data interchange: a multi-industry investigation using
grounded theory”, Information and Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 75-89.
Dana, L.-P. (1995), “Entrepreneurship in a remote sub-Arctic community”, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 57-72.
Dana, L.P. and Dana, T.E. (2005), “Expanding the scope of methodologies used in
entrepreneurship research”, International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 79-88.
Delmas, M.A. (2002), “The diffusion of environmental management standards in Europe and in the
United States: an institutional perspective”, Policy Sciences, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 91-119.
Delone, W.H. (1988), “Determinants of success for computer usage in small business”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 51-61.
Dosi, G. (1990), “Finance, innovation and industrial change”, Journal of Economic Behavior and
Organization, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 299-319.
Dutta, S. and Bilbao-Osorio, B. (2014), “The global information technology report 2014 – rewards and
risks of big data”, INSEAD and World Economic Forum, pp. 35-93.
Eder, L.B. and Igbaria, M. (2001), “Determinants of intranet diffusion and infusion”, Omega, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 233-242.
Edwards, J.R. (2001), “Multidimensional constructs in organizational behavior research: an integrative
analytical framework”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 144-192.
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R.J. (1994), An Introduction to the Bootstrap, CRC press.
Emami, A. (2017), “Gender risk preference in entrepreneurial opportunity: evidence from Iran”,
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 147-169.
Emami, A. and Dimov, D. (2017), “Degree of innovation and the entrepreneurs’ intention to create value:
a comparative study of experienced and novice entrepreneurs”, Eurasian Business Review, Vol. 7
No. 2, pp. 161-182.
Emami, A. and Khajeheian, D. (2019), “Social norms and entrepreneurial action: the mediating role of
opportunity confidence”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 1, p. 158.
EPU (2017), “Chapter 3: Five strategic thrusts and national-level initiatives”, Malaysia Productivity
Blueprint, Economic Planning Unit.
Etsebeth, E.E. (2013), Trialability, perceived risk and complexity of understanding as determinants of
cloud computing services adoption, Dissertation (MBA), University of Pretoria.
Eze Sunday, C., Chinedu-Eze, V., C., Bello, A., O., Inegbedion, H., Nwanji, T. and Asamu, F. (2019),
“Mobile marketing technology adoption in service SMEs: a multi-perspective framework”,
Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 569-596.
Fillis, I., Johannson, U. and Wagner, B. (2004), “Factors impacting on e-business adoption and
development in the smaller firm”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and
Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 178-191.
Frambach, R.T. and Schillewaert, N. (2002), “Organizational innovation adoption: a multi-level
framework of determinants and opportunities for future research”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 163-176.
Garmaki, M., Boughzala, I. and Wamba, S.F. (2016), The Effect of Big Data Analytics Capability on Firm
Performance, PACIS, p.301.
Gatignon, H. and Robertson, T.S. (1989), “Technology diffusion: an empirical test of competitive
effects”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 35-49.
Germann, F., Lilien, G.L., Fiedler, L. and Kraus, M. (2014), “Do retailers benefit from deploying
customer analytics?” Journal of Retailing, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 587-593.
Ghobakhloo, M., Arias-Aranda, D. and Benitez-Amado, J. (2011a), “Adoption of e-commerce Big data
applications in SMEs”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 111 No. 8, pp. 1238-1269.
analytics
Ghobakhloo, M., Hong, T.S., Sabouri, M.S. and Zulkifli, N. (2012), “Strategies for successful information
technology adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises”, Information, Vol. 3 No. 1, adoption
pp. 36-67. model
Ghobakhloo, M., Sabouri, M.S., Hong, T.S. and Zulkifli, N. (2011b), “Information technology adoption in
small and medium-sized enterprises; an appraisal of two decades literature”, Information, Vol. 3
No. 1, pp. 53-80.
Gupta, H. and Barua, M.K. (2016), “Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs
using best-worst multi criteria decision making method”, Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, Vol. 107, pp. 69-79.
Grandon, E.E. and Pearson, J.M. (2004), “Electronic commerce adoption: an empirical study of small and
medium US businesses”, Information and Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 197-216.
Grant, D. and Yeo, B. (2018), “A global perspective on tech investment, financing, and ICT on
manufacturing and service industry performance”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 43, pp. 130-145.
Grover, V. (1993), “An empirically derived model for the adoption of customer-based
interorganizational systems*”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 603-640.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling:
rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46
Nos 1/2, pp. 1-12.
Hair Jr, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage publications.
Harindranath, G., Dyerson, R. and Barnes, D. (2008), ICT in Small Firms: Factors Affecting the
Adoption and Use of ICT in Southeast England SMEs, ECIS, pp. 889-900.
Hatcher, L. (1994), Step-by-Step Approach to Using the SAS System for Factor Analysis and Structural
Equation Modeling, SAS Institute, Cary, Nc.
Hsu, P.-F., Ray, S. and Li-Hsieh, Y.-Y. (2014), “Examining cloud computing adoption intention, pricing
mechanism, and deployment model”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 34
No. 4, pp. 474-488.
Hulland, J., Ryan, M.J. and Rayner, R.K. (2010), “Modeling customer satisfaction: a comparative
performance evaluation of covariance structure analysis versus partial least squares”, Handbook
of Partial Least Squares, Springer.
Huynh, M.Q., Huy, L.V., Rowe, F. and Truex, D. (2012), “An empirical study of determinants of E-
commerce adoption in SMEs in Vietnam: an economy in transition”, Journal of Global
Information Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 23-54.
Iacovou, C.L., Benbasat, I. and Dexter, A.S. (1995), “Electronic data interchange and small
organizations: adoption and impact of technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 465-485.
Iqbal, M., Kazmi, S.H.A., Manzoor, A., Soomrani, A.R., Butt, S.H. and Shaikh, K.A. (2018), “A study of big
data for business growth in SMEs: opportunities and challenges”, International Conference on
Computing, Mathematics and Engineering Technologies (iCoMET), 3-4 March 2018 2018. 1-7.
ITRC (2018) [Analytical report on big data survey in Iran] ‫[ ﺍﯾﺮ ﺍﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻫﺎ ﺩﺍﺩﻩ ﮐﻼﻥ ﭘﯿﻤﺎﯾﺶ ﺗﺤﻠﯿﻠﯽ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﺵ‬Online],
Communication and Technology Research Institute: Iranian Telecommunication Research
Center, available at: www.ict.gov.ir/fa/newsagency/20948 (accessed January 2019).
Javidan, M. and Dastmalchian, A. (2003), “Culture and leadership in Iran: the land of individual
achievers, strong family ties, and powerful elite”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 17
No. 4, pp. 127-142.
JSTPM Jeyaraj, A., Rottman, J.W. and Lacity, M.C. (2006), “A review of the predictors, linkages, and biases in IT
innovation adoption research”, Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-23.
Karahanna, E. and Preston, D.S. (2013), “The effect of social capital of the relationship between the CIO
and top management team on firm performance”, Journal of Management Information Systems,
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 15-56.
Kearns, G.S. and Sabherwal, R. (2006), “Strategic alignment between business and information
technology: a knowledge-based view of behaviors, outcome, and consequences”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 129-162.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Guilford,
New York, NY.
Lacity, M.C. and Willcocks, L.P. (1998), “An empirical investigation of information technology sourcing
practices: lessons from experience”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 363-408.
Lai, Y. (2018), “Understanding the determinants of big data analytics (BDA) adoption in logistics and
supply chain management”, The International Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29,
pp. 676-703.
Lee, J. (2004), “Discriminant analysis of technology adoption behavior: a case of internet technologies in
small businesses”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 44, pp. 57-66.
Leibenstein, H. (1976), Beyond Economic Man: A New Foundation for Microeconomics, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Li, Y.-H. (2008), “An empirical investigation on the determinants of e-procurement adoption in Chinese
manufacturing enterprises. Management science and engineering”, ICMSE 2008. 15th Annual
Conference Proceedings, International Conference on, 2008, IEEE, pp. 32-37.
Liang, H., Saraf, N., Hu, Q. and Xue, Y. (2007), “Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of
institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31,
pp. 59-87.
Lim, J.-H., Stratopoulos, T.C. and Wirjanto, T.S. (2013), “Sustainability of a firm’s reputation for
information technology capability: the role of senior IT executives”, Journal of Management
Information Systems, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 57-96.
Limthongchai, P. and Speece, M. (2003), “The effect of perceived characteristics of innovation on e-
commerce adoption by SMEs in Thailand”, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference
on Global Business and Economic Development, January 2003, Bangkok, Thailand.
Lu, Y., Quan, J. and Cao, X. (2009), “The perceived attributes of Wi-Fi technology and the diffusion gap
among university faculty members: a case study”, Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 24, p. 5.
Maduku, D.K., Mpinganjira, M. and Duh, H. (2016), “Understanding mobile marketing adoption
intention by South African SMEs: a multi-perspective framework”, International Journal of
Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 711-723.
Majumdar, S.K. and Venkataraman, S. (1993), “New technology adoption in US telecommunications:
the role of competitive pressures and firm-level inducements”, Research Policy, Vol. 22 Nos 5/6,
pp. 521-536.
Malaka, I. and Brown, I. (2015), “Challenges to the organisational adoption of big data analytics: a case
study in the South African telecommunications industry”, Proceedings of the 2015 annual
research conference on South African institute of computer scientists and information
technologists, pp. 1-9.
Mandal, S. (2018), “An examination of the importance of big data analytics in supply chain agility
development”, Management Research Review, Vol. 41, pp. 1201-1219.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Institute, M.G., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C. and Byers, A.H.
(2011), Big Data: The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity, McKinsey.
Mariadason, S. (2014), Socio-Economic Impact of Information and Communication Technology, A Case Big data
Study of Kerala Marine Fisheries Sector.
analytics
Maroufkhani, P., Wagner, R., Wan Ismail, W.K., Baroto, M.B. and Nourani, M. (2019), “Big data
analytics and firm performance: a systematic review”, Information, Vol. 10 No. 7, p. 226.
adoption
Mcafee, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Davenport, T.H., Patil, D. and Barton, D. (2012), “Big data: the
model
management revolution”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 90 No. 10, pp. 60-68.
Meroño-Cerdan, A.L. and Soto-Acosta, P. (2005), “Examining e-business impact on firm
performance through website analysis”, International Journal of Electronic Business, Vol. 3
No. 6, pp. 583-598.
Meroño-Cerdan, A.L. and Soto-Acosta, P. (2007), “External web content and its influence on
organizational performance”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 66-80.
Mikalef, P., Boura, M., Lekakos, G. and Krogstie, J. (2019), “Big data analytics and firm performance:
findings from a mixed-method approach”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 98, pp. 261-276.
Moghavvemi, S., Hakimian, F., Feissal, T. and Faziharudean, T.M. (2012), “Competitive advantages through
IT innovation adoption by SMEs”, Socialin_es Technologijos/Social Technologies, Vol. 2, pp. 24-39.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting
an information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 192-222.
Müller, O., Fay, M. and Vom Brocke, J. (2018), “The effect of big data and analytics on firm
performance: an econometric analysis considering industry characteristics”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 488-509.
Müller, O., Junglas, I., Brocke, J.V. and Debortoli, S. (2016), “Utilizing big data analytics for information
systems research: challenges, promises and guidelines”, European Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 289-302.
Murphy, E. (2005), “Issues in the adoption of broadband-enabled learning”, British Journal of
Educational Technology, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 525-536.
Narwane, V.S., Raut, R.D., Mangla, S.K., Gardas, B.B., Narkhede, B.E., Awasthi, A. and Priyadarshinee,
P. (2020), Mediating Role of Cloud of Things in Improving Performance of Small and Medium
Enterprises in the Indian Context, Annals of Operations Research.
Nayati Utami, H., Siti Astuti, E., Maulani Ramadhan, H., Trialih, R. and Alief Aprilian, Y. (2019), “The
interests of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) actor in using mobile commerce in
effort to expand business network”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management,
Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 493-508.
OECD (2017), “Enhancing the contributions of SMEs in a global and digitalised economy”, Meeting of
the OECD Council at Ministerial Level.
Ogbuokiri, B., Udanor, C. and Agu, M. (2015), “Implementing bigdata analytics for small and medium
enterprise (SME) regional growth”, IOSR Journal of Computer Engineering, Vol. 17, pp. 35-43.
Oliveira, T. and Martins, M.F. (2011), “Literature review of information technology adoption models at
firm level”, Electronic Journal of Information Systems Evaluation, Vol. 14, p. 110.
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M. and Espadanal, M. (2014), “Assessing the determinants of cloud computing
adoption: an analysis of the manufacturing and services sectors”, Information and Management,
Vol. 51 No. 5, pp. 497-510.
Ostlund, L.E. (1974), “Perceived innovation attributes as predictors of innovativeness”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 23-29.
Oussous, A., Benjelloun, F.-Z., Ait Lahcen, A. and Belfkih, S. (2018), “Big data technologies: a survey”,
Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 431-448.
Premkumar, G. and Potter, M. (1995), “Adoption of computer aided software engineering (CASE)
technology: an innovation adoption perspective”, Acm Sigmis Database, Vol. 26 Nos 2/3,
pp. 105-124.
JSTPM Premkumar, G. (2003), “A meta-analysis of research on information technology implementation in
small business”, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 91-121.
Premkumar, G. and Ramamurthy, K. (1995), “The role of interorganizational and organizational factors
on the decision mode for adoption of interorganizational systems*”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 26
No. 3, pp. 303-336.
Premkumar, G. and Roberts, M. (1999), “Adoption of new information technologies in rural small
businesses”, Omega, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 467-484.
Priyadarshinee, P., Raut, R.D., Jha, M.K. and Kamble, S.S. (2017), “A cloud computing adoption in
Indian SMEs: scale development and validation approach”, The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 221-245.
Raguseo, E. and Vitari, C. (2018), “Investments in big data analytics and firm performance: an empirical
investigation of direct and mediating effects”, International Journal of Production Research,
Vol. 56 No. 15, pp. 1-16.
Ramaswamy, S. (2013), “What the companies winning at big data do differently”, available at: https://
hbr.org/2013/06/what-the-companies-winning-at (accessed March 2018).
Ramdani, B. and Kawalek, P. (2007), “SME adoption of enterprise systems in the northwest of
England”, IFIP International Working Conference on Organizational Dynamics of Technology-
Based Innovation, Springer, 409-429.
Ramdani, B. and Kawalek, P. (2008), “Exploring SMEs adoption of broadband in the northwest of
England”, Handbook of Research on Global Diffusion of Broadband Data Transmission, IGI
Global.
Ramdani, B., Chevers, D., A. and Williams, D. (2013), “SMEs’ adoption of enterprise applications: a
technology-organisation-environment model”, Journal of Small Business and Enterprise
Development, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 735-753.
Ramdani, B., Kawalek, P. and Lorenzo, O. (2009), “Predicting SMEs’ adoption of enterprise systems”,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 22 Nos 1/2, pp. 10-24.
Raut, R.D., Mangla, S.K., Narwane, V.S., Gardas, B.B., Priyadarshinee, P. and Narkhede, B.E. (2019),
“Linking big data analytics and operational sustainability practices for sustainable business
management”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 224, pp. 10-24.
Ren, S.J.-F., Wamba, S.F., Akter, S., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2017), “Modelling quality dynamics,
business value and firm performance in a big data analytics environment”, International Journal
of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 17, pp. 5011-5026.
Rialti, R., Marzi, G., Ciappei, C. and Pellegrini, M. (2018a), “Organizational resilience and big data
analytics: Could analytical, automatic, adaptive and agile information systems open the cage?”,
LAEMOS conference 2018.
Rialti, R., Marzi, G., Silic, M. and Ciappei, C. (2018b), “Ambidextrous organization and agility in big data
era: the role of business process management systems”, Business Process Management Journal,
Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 1091-1109.
Rogers, E.M. (1983), Diffusion of Innovations, THE FREE PRESS, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press.
Sahin, I. (2006), “Detailed review of rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-
related studies based on Rogers’ theory. TOJET: the Turkish online ”, Journal of Educational
Technology, Vol. 5, pp. 14-23.
Salleh, K.A. and Janczewski, L.J. (2016), “Adoption of big data solutions: a study on its security
determinants using Sec-TOE framework”, International Conference on Information
Resources Management (CONF-IRM), Association for Information Systems AIS Electronic
Library (AISeL).
Sanders, N.R. (2008), “Pattern of information technology use: the impact on buyer–suppler coordination Big data
and performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 349-367.
analytics
Schoenherr, T. (2012), “The role of environmental management in sustainable business development: a
multi-country investigation”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1,
adoption
pp. 116-128. model
Schroeck, M., Shockley, R., Smart, J., Romero-Morales, D. and Tufano, P. (2012), “Analytics: the real-
world use of big data”, IBM Global Business Services, Vol. 12, pp. 1-20.
Scupola, A. (2009), “SMEs’ e-commerce adoption: perspectives from Denmark and Australia”, Journal
of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 22 Nos 1/2, pp. 152-166.
Sen, D., Ozturk, M. and Vayvay, O. (2016), “An overview of big data for growth in SMEs”, Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 235, pp. 159-167.
Shin, D.-H. (2016), “Demystifying big data: anatomy of big data developmental process”,
Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 40 No. 9, pp. 837-854.
Shin, D.-H. and Shin, Y.-J. (2016), “Why do people play social network games?”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 27, pp. 852-861.
Singh, D. (2019), “Implementation of technology innovation in MSMEs in India: case study in select
firms from Northern region”, Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, Vol. 10
No. 3, pp. 769-792.
Soto-Acosta, P., Popa, S. and Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016), “E-business, organizational innovation and
firm performance in manufacturing SMEs: an empirical study in Spain”, Technological and
Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 885-904.
Srinivasan, U. and Arunasalam, B. (2013), “Leveraging big data analytics to reduce healthcare costs”,
IT Professional, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 21-28.
Stieninger, M. and Nedbal, D. (2014), “Diffusion and acceptance of cloud computing in SMEs: towards a
valence model of relevant factors”, 47th HI International Conference on System Sciences,
pp. 3307-3316.
Talebi, K., Tajeddin, M., Rastgar, A.A. and Emami, A. (2012), “Internationalization of SMEs and
organizational factors in a developing country: a case study of ICT industry of Iran”, International
Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 2222-6990.
Tambotoh, J.J.C., Manuputty, A.D. and Banunaek, F.E. (2015), “Socio-economics factors and
information technology adoption in rural area”, Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 72, pp. 178-185.
Tatfi, S.A.M. (2011), “The factors hindering innovation at Iranian SMEs”, World Applied Sciences
Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 1635-1641.
Taxman, F.S., Henderson, C., Young, D. and Farrell, J. (2014), “The impact of training interventions on
organizational readiness to support innovations in juvenile justice offices”, Administration and
Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 177-188.
Thong, J.Y.L. (1999), “An integrated model of information systems adoption in small businesses”,
Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 187-214.
Tien, E.L., Ali, N.M., Miskon, S., Ahmad, N. and Abdullah, N.S. (2020), Big Data Analytics Adoption
Model for Malaysian SMEs, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 45-53.
Tiwana, A. and Bush, A.A. (2007), “A comparison of transaction cost, agency, and knowledge-based
predictors of IT outsourcing decisions: a U.S.-Japan cross-cultural field study”, Journal of
Management Information Systems, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 259-300.
Tornatzky, L.G. and Klein, K.J. (1982), “Innovation characteristics and innovation adoption-
implementation: a meta-analysis of findings”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
Vol. EM-29 No. 1, pp. 28-45.
Tornatzky, L.G., Fleischer, M. and Chakrabarti, A.K. (1990), The Processes of Technological Innovation,
Lexington Books.
JSTPM Tsai, M.-C., Lai, K.-H. and Hsu, W.-C. (2013), “A study of the institutional forces influencing the
adoption intention of RFID by suppliers”, Information and Management, Vol. 50 No. 1,
pp. 59-65.
Tsou, H.-T. and Hsu, S.H.-Y. (2015), “Performance effects of technology–organization–environment
openness, service co-production, and digital-resource readiness: the case of the IT industry”,
International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 1-14.
Umanath, N.S. and Campbell, T.L. (1994), “Differential diffusion of information systems technology in
multinational enterprises: a research model”, Information Resources Management Journal, Vol. 7
No. 1, p. 6.
Vahtera, A.M. (2008), “Organisational factors affecting IT innovation adoption in the Finnish early
childhood education”, ECIS, pp. 1106-1116.
Wamba, S.F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S.J.-F., Dubey, R. and Childe, S.J. (2017), “Big data
analytics and firm performance: effects of dynamic capabilities”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 70, pp. 356-365.
Wang, Y., Kung, L. and Byrd, T.A. (2018), “Big data analytics: understanding its capabilities and
potential benefits for healthcare organizations”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
Vol. 126, pp. 3-13.
Wei, R. (2001), “From luxury to utility: a longitudinal analysis of cell phone laggards”, Journalism and
Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 702-719.
Weigelt, C. and Sarkar, M. (2009), “Learning from supply-side agents: the impact of technology solution
providers’ experiential diversity on clients’ innovation adoption”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 37-60.
Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G. and VAN Oppen, C. (2009), “Using PLS path modeling for
assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration”, MIS Quarterly,
pp. 177-195.
Williamson, O.E. (1983), “Organizational innovation: the transaction cost approach”, in Ronen, J. (Ed.)
Entrepreneurship, Lexington Books, Lexington, MA.
Wixom, B.H., Yen, B. and Relich, M. (2013), “Maximizing value from business analytics”, MIS Quarterly
Executive, Vol. 12, pp. 111-123.
Wood, P. (2013), “How to tackle big data from a security point of view [Online],” available at: www.
computerweekly.com/feature/How-to-tackle-big-data-from-a-security-point-of-view (accessed
March 2019).
Xu, S., Zhu, K. and Gibbs, J. (2004), “Global technology, local adoption: a cross-country investigation of
internet adoption by companies in the United States and China”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 13-24.
Xu, W., Ou, P. and Fan, W. (2017), “Antecedents of ERP assimilation and its impact on ERP value: a
TOE-based model and empirical test”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 19, pp. 13-30.
Yeo, T.E.D. (2016), “Communicating legitimacy: how journalists negotiate the emergence of user-
generated content in Hong Kong”, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 93 No. 3,
pp. 609-626.
Yoon, T.E. and George, J.F. (2013), “Why aren’t organizations adopting virtual worlds? ”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 772-790.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J.R., J.G. and Chen, Q. (2010), “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: myths and truths
about mediation analysis”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 197-206.
Zhu, K., Dong, S., Xu, S.X. and Kraemer, K.L. (2006), “Innovation diffusion in global contexts:
determinants of post-adoption digital transformation of European companies”, European
Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 601-616.
Appendix Big data
Big data analytics adoption analytics
Strategic value (Raguseo and Vitari, 2018)
My company has used big data analytics to:
adoption

model
respond more quickly to change;
 create competitive advantage; and
 improve customer relations.
Transactional value (Raguseo and Vitari, 2018)
My company has used big data analytics to:
 enhance savings in supply chain management;
 reduce operating costs;
 reduce communication costs; and
 enhance employee productivity.
Transformational value (Raguseo and Vitari, 2018)
My company has used big data analytics to:
 improve employees’ skill level;
 develop new business opportunities;
 expand capabilities; and
 improve organizational structure and processes.
Informational value (Raguseo and Vitari, 2018)
My company has used big data analytics to:
 enable faster access to data;
 improve management data; and
 improve data accuracy.

Technological context
Relative advantage (Chen et al., 2015; Ghobakhloo et al., 2011a; Premkumar and Roberts,1999)
 Big data analytics improves the quality of work.
 Big data analytics makes work more efficient.
 Big data analytics lowers costs.
 Big data analytics improves customer service.
 Big data analytics attracts new sales to new customers or new markets.
 Big data analytics adoption identifies new product/service opportunities.
Compatibility (Chen et al., 2015; Ghobakhloo et al., 2011a; Thong,1999; Tornatzky and Klein,1982)
 Using big data analytics is consistent with our business practices.
 Using big data analytics fits our organizational culture.
 Overall, it is easy to incorporate big data analytics into our organization.
Complexity (Lai et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2017)

 Learning to use the big data analytics is difficult for employees.

 Big data analytics is difficult to maintain.
 Big data analytics is difficult to operate.
JSTPM Trialability (Etsebeth, 2013; Limthongchai and Speece, 2003; Moore and Benbasat, 1991)
 My company could access to a free trial before making a decision to adopt big data
analytics.
 My company has the opportunity to try a number of big data analytics applications
before making a decision and try out big data analytics software packages on a
sufficiently large scale.
 My company is allowed to use big data analytics on a trial basis long enough to see its
true capabilities.
 It is easy to get out after testing a big data analytics package.
 The start-up cost for using big data analytics is low.
Risk and insecurity (Salleh and Janczewski, 2016; Shin and Shin, 2011)

 The need to outsource big data analytics creates concerns on data security and privacy.
 The need to outsource big data analytics creates vulnerability in access control of the
organization’s information asset.
 The need to outsource big data analytics creates risks through excessive dependency
towards vendor.
 The need to outsource big data analytics complicates the process of implementing
corporate policy in protecting individual privacy and data security.
Observability (Limthongchai and Speece, 2003; Moore and Benbasat, 1991)

 Many competitors or business partners in the market have started using big data
analytics.
 Using big data analytics helps my company to connect with both domestic and
international business partners.
 There are many computers that people in the company can access to use big data
analytics.
 Big data analytics shows improved results over doing business the traditional way.

Organizational context
Top management support (Chen et al., 2015; Lai et al., 2018; Priyadarshinee et al., 2017)

 Our top management promotes the use of big data analytics in the organization.
 Our top management creates support for big data analytics initiatives within the
organization.
 Our top management promotes big data analytics as a strategic priority within the
organization.
 Our top management is interested in the news about using big data analytics adoption.
Organizational readiness (Chen et al., 2015)

 Lacking capital/financial resources has prevented my company from fully exploit big
data analytics.
 Lacking needed IT infrastructure has prevented my company from exploiting big data
analytics.
 Lacking analytics capability prevent the business fully exploit big data analytics.
 Lacking skilled resources prevent the business fully exploit big data analytics.
Environmental context Big data
Competitive pressure (Lai et al., 2018) analytics
 Our choice to adopt big data analytics would be strongly influenced by what competitors adoption
in the industry are doing.
model
 Our firm is under pressure from competitors to adopt big data analytics.
 Our firm would adopt big data analytics in response to what competitors are doing.
External support (Ghobakhloo et al., 2011a; Ghobakhloo et al., 2011b; Li, 2008)
 Community agencies/vendors can provide required training for big data analytics
adoption.
 Community agencies/vendors can provide effective technical support for big data
analytics adoption.
 Vendors actively market big data analytics adoption.
Government regulation (Agrawal, 2015; Gupta and Barua, 2016; Lai et al., 2018; Li, 2008)
 The governmental policies encourage us to adopt new information technology (e.g., big
data analytics).
 The government provides incentives for using big data analytics in government
procurements and contracts such as offering technical support, training and funding for
big data analytics use.
 There are some business laws to deal with the security and privacy concerns over the big
data analytics technology.

Firm performance
Firm market performance (Ren et al., 2017; Raguseo and Vitari, 2018)
Compared with your major competitors, how do you rate your firm’s performance in the following
areas over the past 3 years:
 entering new markets quickly;
 introducing new products or services to the market quickly;
 success rate of new products or services; and
 market share.
Firm financial performance Compared with your major competitors, how do you rate your firm’s
performance in the following areas over the past 3 years:
 improving customer retention;
 improving sale growths; and
 improving profitability.

Corresponding author
Parisa Maroufkhani can be contacted at: parisa.maroufkhani@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com