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

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2059-5891.htm

Moderating
The impact of business analytics role of
capabilities on innovation, industry
dynamism
information quality, agility and
firm performance: the moderating
role of industry dynamism Received 25 January 2022
Revised 17 April 2022
Accepted 1 May 2022
Adeyl Khan, Md. Shamim Talukder and Quazi Tafsirul Islam
Department of Management, North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh, and
A.K.M. Najmul Islam
LUT School of Engineering Science, LUT University, Kouvola, Finland

Abstract
Purpose – As businesses keep investing substantial resources in developing business analytics (BA)
capabilities, it is unclear how the performance improvement transpires as BA affects performance in many
different ways. This paper aims to analyze how BA capabilities affect firms’ agility through resources like
information quality and innovative capacity considering industry dynamism and the resulting impact on firm
performance.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper tested the research hypothesis using primary data
collected from 192 companies operating in Bangladesh. The data were analyzed using partial least squares-
based structural equation modeling.
Findings – The results indicate that BA capabilities improve business resources like information quality
and innovative capacity, which, in turn, significantly impact a firm’s agility. This paper also found out that
industry dynamism moderates the firms’ agility and, ultimately, firms’ performance.
Practical implications – The contribution of this work provides insight regarding the role of business
analytics capabilities in increasing organizational agility and performance under the moderating effects of
industry dynamism.
Originality/value – The present research is to the best of the authors’ knowledge among the first studies
considering a firm’s agility to explore the impact of BA on a firm’s performance in a dynamic environment.
While previous researchers discussed resources like information quality and innovative capability, current
research theoretically argues that these items are a leveraging point in a BA context to increase firm agility.
Keywords Resource-based view, Business analytics, Firm performance, Organizational agility,
Industry dynamism
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Business analytics (BA) is an integrated approach to capturing, processing, managing,
analyzing and modeling data to generate practical insights into making decisions (Fosso
Wamba et al., 2015). BA tools such as data warehouses, online analytical processing, data
VINE Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management Systems
This research funded by the North South University, Dhaka, Bangladesh. Grand Approved ID: © Emerald Publishing Limited
2059-5891
CTRG-20/SBE/30. DOI 10.1108/VJIKMS-01-2022-0027
VJIKMS mining, data visualization and interactive dashboards (Kristoffersen et al., 2021) examine
historical data for sophisticated decision-making (Ramanathan et al., 2017). BA provides
organizations with operational, tactical and strategic decision-making capabilities, and it
has been instrumental in diverse industries, including manufacturing, retail, health care,
banking and insurance, drawing ever increased attention from academics and professionals
(Dubey et al., 2016; Wamba et al., 2017; Gupta et al., 2020). It enables organizations to
anticipate and adapt to changes based on market demands (Is ık et al., 2013), can facilitate
policy formulation (Santiago Rivera and Shanks, 2015) and can act as a “competitive
differentiator” (Jeble et al., 2018). A favorable association between BA and organizational
performance is commonplace in information technology (IT) governance and business
management domain (Ramakrishnan et al., 2012; Viaene and Van den Bunder, 2011).
There is substantial evidence that investment in business analytics produces business
performance, and this phenomenon persists across industries (Trkman et al., 2010; Gupta
and George, 2016; Ashrafi et al., 2019). Though academics and professionals agree that BA
produces higher performance (Shollo and Galliers, 2016; Wamba et al., 2017), they are not
clear how BA influences organizational agility and performance (Sharma et al., 2014). Few
researchers discuss the higher performance by considering its mechanism (Wang et al.,
2018) and agree that it requires a more in-depth study of BA value analysis (Sharma et al.,
2014). The usefulness of BA makes it necessary to understand better how BA affects
organizational performance, and a few studies have endeavored to do so (Sharma et al., 2014;
Abbasi et al., 2016; Gunasekaran et al., 2017).
Quite a few efforts have been made during recent years to better understand the
mechanism of BA performance. Popovic and Habjan (2012) examined the “availability,
quality and use” of information as factors of an information system’s performance. Akter
et al. (2016) have put forward a three-tier hierarchical model considering management,
technology and talent capability to explore the effect of big data analytics on organizational
performance. Ji-fan Ren et al. (2017) used a computational model to investigate the
relationship between big data analytics capabilities, business success and process-oriented
dynamic abilities. They used the resource-driven approach and identified system quality
and data quality as a pair of critical factors for improving organizational performance and
identified business value as a mediator. Torres et al. (2018) considered a dynamic
capabilities approach to understand BA’s role in enhancing business efficiency. Other
researchers reasoned that it is necessary for innovation within an organization with BA
capabilities (innovation potential of an institution to carry out innovative practices) (Wang,
2015).
As per the discussion above, there are many unsolved questions on the mechanism of
how an improved BA capability affects an organization’s agility and performance (Dubey
et al., 2018; Holsapple et al., 2014). Strategic alignment with the different mechanisms boosts
organizational performance and agility has long been considered a mediator (Tallon and
Pinsonneault, 2011). Agility, in this context, is described as sensing and responding with
ease, pace and versatility to opportunities and threats that an organization faces.
Some researchers further argued that business intelligence-induced performance gains in
specific industries are more promising than others (Chakravarty et al., 2013). Researchers
considered contextual elements like velocity and volatility as moderating factors within
industries (Chen et al., 2014). Industries where innovation plays a significant role are often
unpredictable, and BA can significantly impact business performance (Park et al., 2017).
This study aims to understand better the impact of business analytics on an
organization’s agility and performance by introducing a new perspective to understand how
BA’s capabilities impact organizational performance. The proposed research model focuses Moderating
on answering the following research question: role of
RQ1. How does business analytics promote an organization’s agility and performance? industry
dynamism
RQ2. How does industry dynamism influence the relationship between firm agility and
performance?
To address this question, we develop an integrated research model based on resource-based
theory to explore the effect of BA on organizational agility and performance by examining
innovation capability and information quality. We also follow this direction to determine
how industry dynamism moderates the link between firm agility and performance. We
validate the research framework with a survey of 192 companies using partial least squares-
based structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) and focus on a wide section of industries in
the context of a developing country.

2. Conceptual framework
2.1 Resource-based view theory
The resource-based view theory (RBT) is often considered the most widely applied firm
performance theory, explained through the resources companies own and control (Barney,
2001). The theory posits that firms achieve performance gains by acquiring tangible and
intangible organizational resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable and nonsubstitutable
(Barney, 2001). Amit and Schoemaker (1993) define resources as tradable and nonspecific
firm assets and capabilities as nontradable firm-specific abilities to integrate, deploy and use
resources within the firm. The RBT explains that the bundling of resources helps develop
capabilities, therefore, the strength of a firm’s capabilities is determined by the resources on
which they are developed (Makadok, 2001).
More recent studies (Ployhart, 2021; Shaw, 2021) analyzed how human resources can be a
source of competitive advantage both individually and collectively by developing a
heuristic-based performance framework. They further analyzed individual performance by
considering knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics. Assensoh-Kodua (2019)
considered the collective performance in a globalized and highly competitive environment
and identified learning – knowledge creation, sharing and utilization – as the key and
provided a conceptual framework for competitive advantage in a turbulent environment.
Khan et al. (2018) integrated the concepts of Lean, Green, and Agile into the RBT discussing
sustainability performance and proposed a framework in this regard. These frameworks are
viable by using one or more enterprise-level integrated information systems to identify
opportunities in a turbulent environment and bundle internal resources and capabilities for
superior performance. The RBT is a well-accepted theory in other business disciplines,
including operations management (Bromiley and Rau, 2016), supply chain management
(Barney, 2012) and marketing (Srivastava et al., 2001). More than three decades of studies
involving empirical testing have thus established the RBT as a prevailing paradigm for
empirically examining the effect of organizational resources on firm agility and performance
(Barney et al., 2011).
As this study aims to identify the relationship between BA capabilities and innovation
capabilities and information quality, as well as to explore how BA capabilities impact
performance gains, necessary organizational resources that will enable firms to develop
their BA capabilities need to be identified. Therefore, the choice of the RBT as the
underlying theoretical framework of this study is deemed appropriate.
VJIKMS 2.2 Business analytics capability
Emerging in the 2000s, BA can be regarded as a collection of technologies, methods and
applications that enable business data analysis to promote more sound and data-driven
decisions (Chen and Li, 2017; Seddon et al., 2017). Related to BA, the term big data analytics
describes the new methods and applications used for (big) data sets that are too large and
complex for traditional methods (Chen et al., 2012). In this study, big data analytics and BA
are regarded as unified terms (Mikalef et al., 2018). Effectively leveraging business data for
value creation requires companies to focus beyond the technical aspects of implementing
BA (Vidgen et al., 2017). Becoming data-driven is complex and multifaceted, necessitating
changes to multiple organizational resources with involvement from several managerial
levels. Addressing this, the concept of a business analytics capability has emerged to
indicate a firm’s proficiency in effectively leveraging its data, technology and talent toward
the generation of data-driven insight (Mikalef et al., 2018).
However, effectively leveraging and transforming data into business value and
actionable insights requires companies to go beyond the technical aspects of data
characteristics (Vidgen et al., 2017). Becoming a data-driven organization is a complex and
multifaceted task requiring the transformation of multiple organizational resources with
attention from several levels of managers. To address these challenges and provide
guidelines for practitioners, scholars have introduced the concept of a business analytics
capability to indicate an organizations’ ability to leverage data for increased strategic and
operational insight (Mikalef et al., 2018). Mikalef et al. (2018) define business analytics
capability (BAC) as a firm’s proficiency in capturing and analyzing data toward the
generation of insights by effectively managing its data, technology and talent. Present BA
research streams in information system (IS) have put considerable efforts into defining the
building blocks, or resources, of a firm’s BAC through the resource-based view (RBV).

2.3 Agility
Organizations must adapt rapidly to sudden and unpredictable changes to be agile (Tan
et al., 2017). The word agility is used in multiple studies at different business levels,
including organization, management, business process and supply chain (Son et al., 2014).
Teece et al. (2016) described it as “an organization’s ability to efficiently and effectively
redeploy/redirect its resources to value development and higher yield (and capture) activities
as warranting internal and external circumstances.” The common factor here is the
organization’s ability to address and respond to unexpected changes quickly and efficiently.
Within the supply chain realm, it is the capability to adapt supply chain strategies and
operations to address environmental threats and opportunities (Jeble et al., 2018). It is the
ability of a system to meet customer needs in a fast, efficient and stable manner and it is
critical for competitive advantage (Dubey et al., 2016). From a competitive context, agility is
the capacity to perceive and adapt to opportunities by innovation and rapid redesign to
leverage market trends (Kitchens et al., 2018).
A majority of related studies ignored agility as the possible result and considered only
the performance (Devaraj and Kohli, 2003). With a few exceptions, prior studies have not
addressed the link between information technology and organizations’ agility in a detailed
manner (Dutta et al., 2014). In these studies, the researchers treated the agility link as a
“black box” (Huang et al., 2014). It is necessary to understand how IT capabilities and BA
guides a business to become agile (Viaene and Van den Bunder, 2011). Researchers,
including Seo and La Paz (2008), recognized that agility contains multiple mechanisms.
Researchers cited customer agility, partnering agility and operational agility as the
primary constituent of organizational agility (Sambamurthy et al., 2003). Customer agility
refers to recognizing the ever-changing customer demand and the ability to meet those Moderating
(Krotov et al., 2015). Partnering agility refers to data flow across supply chain partners using role of
electronic data interchange technologies that orchestrate complex operations responding to industry
changing business needs (Khayer et al., 2020). Operational agility refers to the rapid
adjustment of existing procedures or processes within an organization (Krotov et al., 2015).
dynamism
These agilities are interrelated as operational and partnering agility is often required to
respond to shifting customer demand.

2.4 Information quality

The opportunity to use all the available information is vital for improving organizational
performance (Olszak, 2016). The quality of information is central to achieve this (Chae, 2014;
Petter and McLean, 2009). Information often manifests itself as reports or on-screen data
(Shen et al., 2017), and BA systems have delivered high-quality information for business
decision-making in most cases (Fink et al., 2017). Shen et al. (2017) stated that high-quality
decisions are contingent on the information quality of BA. In addition, Popovic and Habjan
(2012) have shown that the information quality is contingent on the BA maturity level.
Another research by Côrte-Real et al. (2017) concluded that a vast amount of information
could be processed using BA for decision-making as an opportunity for the organizations to
be agile.

2.5 Innovation capability

Prior studies have considered mainly creativity, a precondition for innovation, as one of the
significant strategic advantages derived from the use of IS (Wang et al., 2018). In the context
of BA, innovation means an organization’s capability to find solutions to current and future
problems in an ever-changing market (Song, 2015). Wang and Dass (2017) considered
innovation as “the capacity of an organization to generate, embrace and introduce new
ideas, processes, goods or services.” IT capabilities, an essential element of innovation, rely
on implementing IT resources within an enterprise to enhance the innovative capabilities of
organizations (Wang et al., 2018). For example, Zain et al. (2005) also concluded that the IT
capabilities of an organization enhance the performance of an organization by supporting
innovative activities.

2.6 Industry dynamism

Various innovation research deemed a dynamic, unpredictable and uncertain external
environment as a moderator that influences the firm’s innovation and performance (Garg
et al., 2003; Jansen et al., 2009). The contingency perspective in the RBV literature suggests
that the nature and dynamism of specific industries and markets influence the effectiveness
of an organization’s resources and capabilities operating there (Barney, 2001; Penrose, 1959;
Priem and Butler, 2001). Various other researchers have reflected the integration of
institutional theory and RBT to develop and explain theoretical models within a dynamic
industry (Dubey et al., 2020; Krajewski and Ritzman, 2005). We argue that in a dynamic
industry with a higher level of unpredictable and uncertain changes (Robert Baum and
Wally, 2003; Melville et al., 2007; Sirmon et al., 2007) the positive effect of organizational
agility on firm performance will be more substantial. Thus, industry dynamism was added
as a moderator to examine their impact on the path of organizational agility and
organizational performance.
VJIKMS 3. Research model
Drawing on the RBV, this study proposes the research model shown in Figure 1. In IS
research, both tangible assets (like data and technology) and intangible and human assets
(like data-driven culture and managerial skills) are regarded as resources based on the
definition of Piccoli and Ives (2005). These resources are also specifically mentioned in the
widely used classification of BA resources by Gupta and George (2016) and expands upon
the highly influential work by Mata et al. (1995) and Wixom and Watson (2001). BAC is
conceptualized as a higher-order construct, with each dimension comprising more than one
subdimension. This classification is consistent with the framework of Grant (1991), and the
dimensions of human skills, tangible resources and intangible resources are widely used in
IT capability literature (Bharadwaj, 2000; Chae, 2014). We argue that to develop a strong
BAC, organizations have to invest in all three types of resources. As such, the effect of BAC
on firm performance is fully mediated by firms’ innovation capability, information quality
and firm agility. We modeled industry dynamism as moderators in the link between agility
and organizational performance. Finally, organizational performance is measured
considering multiple control variables, namely the organization’s size, IT budget and
industry type. The following diagram introduces the proposed research model, and we
provided further details in the following sections.

3.1 Hypotheses development

BA’s primary mission is to allow managers to make informed decisions by providing
prompt and pertinent information in a user-friendly manner (Elbashir et al., 2008; Popovic
and Habjan, 2012). Organizations seek to collect data timely and accurately to analyze it and
prepare analytics (information) for making business decisions (Sahay and Ranjan, 2008;
Trieu, 2017). Researchers observed that BA provided decision-makers with detailed
information about the market, enabling them to execute more successful actions. To
understand the link, researchers developed a BA skills typology (Delen and Demirkan,
2013). Yet, other researchers like Gustavsson and Jonsson (2008) studied the favorable effect
on information quality in an organization. BA and IT, in particular, are used to prepare high-
quality information in a timely fashion for better decision-making (LaValle et al., 2010).
Considering this, we make the following hypothesis:

H1. BA capabilities have a positive influence on organization information quality.

Organizations process their data, collected from internal and external sources, to identify
market opportunities and exploit them in new ways (Sivarajah et al., 2017). Past studies

Information quality Industry

Tangibles dynamism
Resources Financial
Performance
H1 H3
H6

Operational
Human Skills
Business Analytics Firm agility H5 Firm performance Performance
capabilities

H4 Market
H2 Performance
Intangibles Control Variables
Resources
Customer Partnering Operational Firm Size
Innovative capability Agility Agility Agility Annual Sales
IT Budget
Figure 1. Industry type
Proposed research First Order Second Order
framework
have shown that organizations’ content recognition from available data are essential to Moderating
constantly find new market opportunities and innovate (Wang and Dass, 2017). Researchers role of
found out that organizations with higher innovative capabilities can gain more know-how in
the industry, making it difficult for the competitors to replicate it (Tamer Cavusgil et al.,
industry
2003). Organizations seek to build innovation capabilities via multiple business applications, dynamism
including BA (March and Hevner, 2007).
Using BA systems, organizations can be more innovative and test new ideas using
simulation until they are ready to launch them (Rud, 2009). BA allows them to create
additional information and ideas (Sivarajah et al., 2017). BA tools improve their creative
ability and turn them into innovation (Bayo-Moriones and Lera-Lopez, 2007). BA systems
offer a comprehensive view of both their internal and external conditions for organizations
toward developing novel responses to existing problems as well as opportunities. Is ık et al.
(2013) inferred that organizations are very dependent on the capability of their BA system to
make more strategic decisions by discovering new opportunities. Because of the above, we
make the following hypothesis:

H2. BA capabilities have a positive influence on organization innovation capability.

Agile businesses can easily recognize and respond to unforeseen developments in a market
(Roberts and Grover, 2012). Even though agility is generally recognized, studies on this
construct are relatively few (Roberts and Grover, 2012). We also have limited knowledge of
how the quality of information enhances transactions and improves organizational
performance (Popovic and Habjan, 2012). Information quality lays the foundation for
enlightened decision-making (Shen et al., 2017). It manifests how precisely an organization can
detect industry and environmental conditions and guide employee’s decision-making
processes (Ashrafi et al., 2019). Alternatively, the quality of information defines organizations’
reactions to environmental changes. It is reasonable to state that information quality plays an
important role in detecting a changing environment and delivers insight leading to superior
decision-making across an organization. The quality of information and agility of an
organization have shown a positive correlation (Zain et al., 2005). We, therefore, propose:

H3. Information quality has a positive influence on the firm’s agility.

Innovation is a crucial element for an organization to transform in response to
environmental changes (Rud, 2009). This internal ability provides a structure in which
companies can quickly innovate (Yu et al., 2013). Similarly, research by Rosenbusch et al.
(2011) shows that an organizations’ capability to cope with changes is contingent on its
ability to innovate. Capacity to innovate appears as the main differentiating factor for
competitive gain, and in some other cases, it is critical for survival (Rud, 2009). Laursen and
Thorlund (2016) claimed that the use of BA in the operations of businesses gives enterprises
leading knowledge and makes them more competitive by reacting to environmental
changes. Business agility follows innovative capacity (Esterhuizen et al., 2012); agile
organizations should cope with the changes quickly and innovatively (van Oosterhout et al.,
2006). To this effect, Tan et al. (2017) found out that using IT capabilities enhances the
capacity for ongoing improvement and provides a supportive environment for
organizational agility. Therefore, we postulate:

H4. Innovative capability has a positive influence on the firm’s agility.

Agility is often perceived to have a significant effect on the success of a business (Overby
et al., 2006). If an organization is willing to adjust, it will have a better chance of countering
VJIKMS unexpected changes quickly and successfully (Ganguly et al., 2009). Accordingly,
organizations consider agility as a performance objective instead of a technical or
organizational trait (Yauch, 2011). Agility and related attributes have a verifiable impact on
business performance (Côrte-Real et al., 2017). Researchers also found that versatility, a
related attribute, positively affects efficiency in diverse business environments (Gligor et al.,
2015). Similarly, there is a positive relation connecting agility to the dynamic capabilities of
an organization (Teece et al., 2016). We consider that an organization’s agility is not an
objective in itself but a way to improve the overarching aim of the performance. That is why
we propose:

H5. Firm’s agility has a positive influence on the firm’s performance.

3.2 Moderating effect of industry dynamism

Industry dynamism arises due to constant changes in technological, sociopolitical and
environmental aspects in the region in which the business operates (Melville et al., 2007). A
turbulent environment is challenging to forecast, and the uncertainty makes it difficult for
managers to make decisions. Yet, in a turbulent situation, managers need to make quick
decisions (Melville et al., 2007) to prevent products or services from becoming obsolete
(Dubey et al., 2020). Customers purchasing behavior data often reflects the change in their
preferences. In such a situation, organizations need to adopt new operating processes and
technologies to continuously innovate to support the changing demands of products and
services (Dubey et al., 2020). On a similar note, researchers concluded that organizations
require agility in their supply chains to provide superior value and ensure uninterrupted
service to customers in turbulence and uncertainty (Shen et al., 2017). Brynjolfsson et al.
(2013) noted that organizations must prepare and develop special capabilities to operate in
turbulent environments.
As Roberts and Grover (2012) argued, organizations that respond slowly to changes in
the market may lose opportunities or lag behind competitors. Similarly, Phuong et al. (2012)
stated that organizations operating in turbulent environments need to use advanced IT-
based solutions such as BA and AI to process information quickly (Dubey et al., 2020).
Hence, agility could be a suitable trait to act as a special capability in achieving competitive
advantage in a turbulent environment. In this regard, the outcome of Tallon and
Pinsonneault (2011) showed that agility has a more significant impact on firm performance
in a volatile environment than in a stable one. Therefore, we propose:

H6. Industry dynamism positively moderates the relationship between agility and the
firm’s performance.

3.3 Control variables

The research model has included five control variables: organization size (number of
employees), annual sales, IT budget and industry type to reduce the variance in firm
performance. According to Ashrafi et al. (2019), the probability of having higher financial
and labor resources in large organizations may lead to variations in organization
performance. Zhang et al. (2016) stated that firms with larger annual sales volumes are likely
to exhibit superior performance. IT budget is taken as a control variable since the
magnitude of this particular budget might conceivably affect firm performance (Ilmudeen
and Bao, 2018). Similarly, this study includes industry type as a control variable to address
variations in performance that might occur due to industry-specific physiognomies such as Moderating
industry environment and market competition intensity (Oliveira et al., 2014). role of
industry
4. Methodology
4.1 Measures and survey instruments
dynamism
This study used the survey technique based on the questionnaires because it allows result
generalization, enables direct reproduction and enhances the concurrent research on a
multitude of constructs (Pinsonneault and Kraemer, 1993). In addition, surveys have been a
proven way to correctly capture the consistent trend and establish connections among
variables in this study. Recommendations by Straub et al. (2004) emphasized the
significance of surveys for generalizing results in exploratory research. The base of the
constructions and related survey questions used in this research are based on established
constructs from previous research to support their validity.
The business analytics capability contains three first-order reflective constructs. The
business analytics capability’s first-order constructs are tangible resources (seven items),
intangible resources (five items) and human skills (nine items) were adopted from
Kristoffersen et al. (2021) and Mikalef and Gupta (2021) . Information quality (four items)
and innovative capability (four items) were considered based on the work of Ashrafi et al.
(2019). The firm agility encompasses three first-order formative constructs, namely,
operational agility (three items), customer agility (three items) and partnering agility (three
items) were considered based on the work of Felipe et al. (2020) and Khayer et al. (2020).
Lastly, the firm performance contains three first-order formative constructs, namely
financial performance (three items), operational performance (three items) and market
performance (three items) were adopted from the work of Gupta et al. (2020) and
Kristoffersen et al. (2021). The only moderation variable, industry dynamism (three items),
was adopted from Bag et al. (2021) study. The details of the measurement items used in this
research are presented in Appendix 1. In addition, please see Table 1 for the development
and dimension structure of the second-order construct. The five-point Likert scale, a highly
accepted method used in wide-ranging empirical research, where no standard estimate
exists to quantify conceptions like capabilities and resources, was used for all constructs
and items (Kumar et al., 1993).
We initially generated 54 items to attempt to tap regarding abovementioned constructs.
A pilot survey was done among 35 senior IT and business managers in Bangladeshi firms
who were asked to read and evaluate the different survey questions and suggest if any of the
questions were unclear, confusing or making less sense. Based on pilot study results, four
ambiguous items were deleted and minor changes in the language of the survey questions

Second order Type First order (subdimensions) Type

Business analytics capabilities Formative Tangible resources Reflective

Human resources Reflective
Intangible resources Reflective
Firm agility Formative Operational agility Reflective
Customer agility Reflective
Partnering agility Reflective
Firm performance Formative Financial performance Reflective Table 1.
Operational performance Reflective Latent constructs
Market performance Reflective and subdimensions
VJIKMS were undertaken. This study has ethical approval from the North South University
Institutional Review Board, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
Finally, data were collected from the IT managers, chief information officers or higher
officials from randomly selected Bangladeshi firms. We distributed questionnaires to about
250 different local and foreign companies in Bangladesh. The researchers randomly chose
respondents and organizations from their personal and professional networks.
Consequently, a convenience sampling method was used in this study as a sampling
technique. Among the distributed questionnaires, we received 192 valid responses for
further analysis. Appendix 2 shows the profile of the responding organizations.

4.2 Data analysis

Various fields such as marketing, business strategy and psychology have applied SEM for
data analysis (Astrachan et al., 2014). Both covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) and the PLS-
SEM are used extensively for modeling (Hair et al., 2013). In the exploratory aspect of the
interaction between different variables, PLS-SEM is better suited for confirmatory studies
than CB-SEM (Hair et al., 2013). PLS-SEM improves the performance of parameter
estimation (Hair et al., 2013). In addition, PLS-SEM models do not require normally
distributed data (Kock, 2015). Finally, as the proposed research model builds more on
exploratory theory building, rather than theory testing, PLS-SEM is a better alternative than
CB-SEM. The SmartPLS 3.0 software analyzed the collected data using the PLS-SEM
method. In terms of sample size requirements, the total of 192 respondents meant that the
sample exceeded both requirements of ten times the largest number of formative indicators
used to measure one construct and ten times the largest number of structural paths directed
at a particular latent construct in the model (Hair et al., 2011). We calculated the sample size
with the help of G*Power (version 3.1.9.4) software (Faul et al., 2007), considering a two-
tailed t-test for a multiple regression model. The calculation showed we need a minimum
sample size of 159 to test the hypothesis.

5. Results
5.1 Common method bias
Following the recommendations given by Schwarz et al. (2017), we endeavored to control the
common method bias (CMB) problem during the research design phase. To do this, we
applied both procedural remedies and statistical tests. For procedural remedies, we tried to
increase the questionnaire readability by using clear and concise language, avoiding
complicated and double-barreled questions, defining ambiguous or unfamiliar terms and
labeling all scale points, not just the ends (Podsakoff et al., 2003). We assured the
participants that their identities and responses would remain entirely anonymous, which
would cause them to be less likely to edit their responses and have less evaluation
apprehension. This assurance and other interactions with the participant emphasized
answering honestly in the survey question.
Besides, we applied Harman’s single-factor approach to identify the number of factors
critical for the description of variance by applied the principal axis factor analysis (Harman,
1976). The test results suggested that a single construct was responsible for 34.68% of the
total variance, which is far below the recommended 50% (Podsakoff et al., 2003). Therefore,
the CMB problem was not serious in this study.

5.2 Multicollinearity
We assessed whether multicollinearity was an issue between indicators of the latent
constructs. Although the present multicollinearity is desirable among indicators that are
modeled as reflective, it is problematic in the case of formative measurements. The Moderating
thresholds for multicollinearity are typically set at below values of 10 (MacKenzie et al., role of
2011), however, Petter et al. (2007) recommend a more restrictive cutoff value of 3.3. We
examined variance inflation factor values for first order and second order with all values
industry
being below the most conservative cutoff point of 3.3 (see Table 2), which demonstrated that dynamism
multicollinearity was not a concern in this study (Cenfetelli and Bassellier, 2009).

5.3 Assessment of the measurement model

We assessed the measurement model through construct reliability, convergent validity and
discriminant validity. For construct reliability, we tested the Cronbach’s alpha and
composite reliability (CR) values to measure the reliability of each of the core variables in the
measurement model. The results indicate that all Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from
0.723 to 0.892 and CR values ranging from 0.721 to 0.894 were higher than the suggested
value of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2006). Thus, the requirement of internal reliability of the
measurement model was adequately fulfilled, as shown in Table 2.
We used average variance extraction (AVE) and the values of item loadings to assess the
convergent validity of constructs. The AVE values were higher than the recommended
values of 0.5 (shown in Table 1), showing that the measurement model had good
convergence validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The loadings of variables were more than
0.7, indicating that all items had good indicator reliability (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) (see
Table 2).
Furthermore, to test the discriminant validity of the measurement model, we compared
the square root of the AVE for each variable and its corresponding correlation coefficients
with other variables. As shown in Table 3, diagonals (italic face) represent the square root of
AVE for each variable, and they are larger than the corresponding correlation coefficients,
which shows that the measurement model had good discriminatory validity (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981).
Heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) is an estimate for factor correlation (more precisely,
an upper boundary), and the HTMT criterion was used to assess discriminant validity. As
presented in Table 4, all HTMT values are below the threshold value of 0.85, which
warrants discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2016).

5.4 Assessment of the structural model

Hair et al. (2017) suggested assessing the structural model by looking at the beta ( b ), R2 and
the corresponding t-values via a bootstrapping procedure with a resample of 5,000.
Moreover, they recommend reporting the effect sizes (f2) as well as the predictive relevance
(Q2) values. As Sullivan and Feinn (2012) argue, the p-value determines whether the effect
exists, but it does not reveal the size of the effect. The structural model assessment shown in
Table 6 and Figure 2 indicates the hypothesis tests. The relationship between BA
capabilities and information quality (H1) ( b = 0.46, t = 10.47) was supported. The data
confirmed H2, which suggested a significant, positive relationship between BA capabilities
and innovative capability ( b = 0.44, t = 9.26). Likewise, the data confirmed H3, in which
information quality was found to have a significant positive relationship with firm agility
( b = 0.48, t = 9.60). The analysis results supported H4, indicating that innovative capability
and firm agility are positively related ( b = 0.42, t = 8.52). H5 was also supported,
suggesting that firm agility and firm performance are positively related ( b = 0.67, t = 16.38).
Lastly, the data showed that the relationship between firm agility and firm performance was
positively moderated by industry dynamism ( b = 0.21, t = 3.23). Moreover, the data
VJIKMS Constructs Items Loadings Weight t-value VIF a CR AVE

Customer agility CA1 0.767 0.324 16.165 1.657 0.763 0.837 0.652
CA2 0.755 0.228 17.227 1.782
CA3 0.832 0.342 21.779 2.569
Financial performance FP1 0.728 0.164 18.075 1.483 0.771 0.758 0.678
FP2 0.739 0.423 25.875 1.104
FP3 0.754 0.451 26.334 2.382
Human skills HS1 0.835 0.173 17.334 1.047 0.892 0.894 0.595
HS2 0.774 0.157 16.197 2.925
HS3 0.783 0.158 15.308 1.693
HS4 0.779 0.159 15.978 1.784
HS5 0.792 0.157 15.371 2.658
HS6 0.756 0.165 16.146 1.815
HS7 0.834 0.159 15.646 2.175
HS8 0.788 0.146 13.898 2.026
HS9 0.747 0.158 18.629 1.908
Industry dynamism ID1 0.804 0.366 37.244 2.611 0.827 0.721 0.695
ID2 0.805 0.264 17.189 2.605
ID3 0.764 0.175 15.147 1.982
Innovation capability INC1 0.781 0.336 14.226 1.380 0.814 0.790 0.618
INC2 0.863 0.242 18.474 1.493
INC3 0.763 0.263 22.496 1.594
INC4 0.854 0.216 17.986 1.784
Information quality INQ1 0.783 0.216 21.123 2.358 0.769 0.891 0.568
INQ2 0.784 0.183 27.172 2.903
INQ3 0.795 0.327 21.698 1.238
INQ4 0.763 0.287 19.587 1.286
Intangible resources IR1 0.825 0.227 16.788 1.554 0.723 0.828 0.557
IR2 0.758 0.278 20.662 1.642
IR3 0.757 0.295 22.229 2.709
IR4 0.744 0.277 23.491 2.591
IR5 0.727 0.206 12.841 1.649
Market performance MP1 0.779 0.122 18.611 1.613 0.769 0.848 0.657
MP2 0.768 0.445 19.797 1.537
MP3 0.763 0.158 20.099 1.615
Operational agility OA1 0.757 0.131 16.264 2.112 0.867 0.891 0.741
OA2 0.765 0.394 19.832 2.566
OA3 0.749 0.346 17.807 1.752
Operational performance OP1 0.761 0.144 22.589 1.535 0.854 0.839 0.769
OP2 0.862 0.144 21.969 2.628
OP3 0.758 0.166 21.562 2.268
Partnering agility PA1 0.872 0.201 17.953 2.629 0.793 0.821 0.721
PA2 0.778 0.242 21.885 3.261
PA3 0.764 0.265 23.408 2.376
Tangible resources TR1 0.729 0.192 17.617 1.434 0.862 0.831 0.696
TR2 0.876 0.229 16.615 1.192
TR3 0.779 0.185 13.368 1.546
TR4 0.863 0.216 13.809 2.033
TR5 0.764 0.213 19.191 2.177
Table 2. TR6 0.738 0.128 16.214 1.453
Evaluation of TR7 0.776 0.240 13.684 1.467
measurement model
reflective constructs Notes: AVE = Average variance extracted; CR = Composite reliability; a = Cronbach’s alpha
Construct CA FP HS ID INC INQ IR MP OA OP PA TR
Moderating
role of
CA 0.815 industry
FP 0.756 0.818
HS 0.573 0.768 0.827 dynamism
ID
0.011
0.058
0.09 0.714
INC 0.024
0.055
0.04 0.763 0.768
INQ 0.804 0.713 0.627
0.007
0.009 0.826
IR 0.625 0.621 0.667 0.005 0.048 0.695 0.723
MP 0.486 0.623 0.473 0.029 0.017 0.495 0.388 0.851
OA 0.716 0.652 0.679
0.086
0.065 0.696 0.694 0.474 0.758
OP 0.682 0.647 0.676
0.073
0.079 0.743 0.718 0.315 0.669 0.861
PA 0.012 0.025 0.018 0.708 0.726 0.007 0.026 0.014 0.084 0.096 0.724
TR 0.234 0.125 0.323 0.112 0.452 0.123 0.413 0.124 0.421 0.343 0.563 0.683 Table 3.
Notes: CA = Customer agility; FP = Financial performance; HS = Human skills; ID = Industry dynamism; IC = Correlations of the
Innovation capability; IQ = Information quality; IR = Intangible resources; MP = Market performance; OA = constructs and
Operational agility; OP = Operational performance; PA = Partnering agility; TR = Tangible resources square root of AVE

Construct CA FP HS ID INC INQ IR MP OA OP PA TR

CA
FP 0.801
HS 0.683 0.723
ID 0.074 0.147 0.142
INC 0.068 0.126 0.124 0.812
INQ 0.865 0.822 0.765 0.075 0.059
IR 0.738 0.820 0.870 0.097 0.092 0.839
MP 0.744 0.101 0.113 0.125 0.120 0.824 0.818
OA 0.551 0.835 0.597 0.095 0.068 0.570 0.484 0.542
OP 0.825 0.841 0.834 0.117 0.113 0.831 0.825 0.577 0.652 Table 4.
PA 0.668 0.810 0.87 0.075 0.099 0.736 0.786 0.532 0.729 0.779 Heterotrait–
TR 0.078 0.124 0.145 0.829 0.843 0.108 0.119 0.092 0.124 0.128 0.734 monotrait ratio

Information quality Industry

(R 2 = 21%) dynamism

0.46** 0.21**

Firm performance
Business Analytics Firm agility (R 2 = 65%) 0.67** (R 2 = 45%)
capabilities

0.44**
Control Variables
Innovative capability Firm Size (0.03 ns)
2 Annual Sales (0.02 ns)
(R = 19%)
IT Budget (0.05 ns)
Figure 2.
Industry type 0.01 ns) PLS analysis results
for the research
model
Notes: ** Significant at the 1%, * significant at the 5% levels; ns = not significant
VJIKMS confirmed that all the control variables were found not significant such as firm size ( b =
0.03), annual sales ( b = 0.02), IT budget ( b = 0.05) and industry type ( b = 0.01).
This study also assessed effect sizes (f2), which determine whether an exogenous latent
construct has a substantial, moderate or weak impact on an endogenous latent construct
(Gefen et al., 2011). Cohen (1988) suggested as a guideline measure, a magnitude of f2 at 0.35
(large effects), 0.15 (medium effects) and 0.02 (small effects). The result of f2 (Table 6) shows
two relationships with large effect sizes and the remaining relationships with medium effect
sizes.
This study used the blindfolding procedure to examine the power of the proposed
research model regarding predictive relevance. Hair et al. (2017) recommended that the
blindfolding procedure should only be used on endogenous constructs with a reflective
measurement. If the value of Q2 is greater than 0, then the predictive relevance of
the proposed model exists for a certain endogenous construct (Fornell and Larcker, 1981;
Hair et al., 2017). As Table 6 shows, all the values of Q2 range from 0.36 to 0.55 (greater
than 0), which indicates an adequate predictive relevance for the proposed model.
The confirmatory composite analysis examines the overall fit of the measurement
(saturated) model (Benitez et al., 2020). Based on Benitez et al. (2020) guidelines, the
confirmatory composite analysis checks the adequacy of the composite model (i.e. higher-
order model) by comparing the empirical correlation matrix with the model-implied
correlation matrix. This is done by examining the standardized root means square residual
(SRMR), unweighted least squares (ULS) discrepancy (dULS) and geodesic discrepancy (dG)
to evaluate the goodness of saturated model fit (Henseler et al., 2014). The value of the SRMR
was 0.048, which is lower than the threshold of 0.080 (Henseler et al., 2014). In addition, all
discrepancy measures (i.e. dULS and dG) were below the 95% quantile of their
corresponding reference distribution (Table 5). The results demonstrate that the
measurement structure of the composite construct is correct.

5.5 Moderating effect testing

We tested the moderating effect to see whether atmosphere promotion strategy stimuli can
strengthen or weaken the relationship between firm agility and firm performance. To
determine such effect, we used SmartPLS moderating effect tool with the product indicator
approach recommended by Chin et al. (2003). In PLS-SEM analysis, moderating effect exists
if the path coefficient of interaction effect is significant. Taking into account the positive
moderating effects, the steeper slope of the pink line compared with the blue line illustrates
that an increase in firm agility is associated with a larger (smaller) increase in firm
performance when industry dynamism is high (low) as the result shown in Figure 3.

6. Discussion
In this investigation, the empirical results demonstrate that BA capabilities increase
organizational agility and enable businesses to sense and respond to market changes
quickly. The result is a more robust organizational performance. Improved information
quality produced an increased sensing capability and innovation capability produced a

Name Value 95% Bootstrap quantile Threshold value

SRMR 0.048 0.058 <0.08

Table 5. d-G 0.502 0.539 <95% bootstrap quantile
Goodness of fit (GoF) d-ULS 0.187 0.233 <95% bootstrap quantile
 Moderating
role of
industry
dynamism

Figure 3.
The moderation effect
of industry
dynamism

quick response capability. The results also show that the relationship between agility and
performance can vary by considering the moderating effect of industry dynamism. Our
findings on the relationship between BA capabilities, information quality, innovation
capability and agility are consistent with prior research and add value by offering new
insights into how BA improves performance.
Based on the results (see Table 6), the hypothesized path H1 between BA capabilities and
information quality was supported. The data confirmed H2, which suggested a significant,
positive relationship between BA capabilities and innovative capability. Likewise, the data
confirmed H3, in which information quality showed a significant positive relationship with
agility. Likewise, the data confirmed H4, indicating that innovative capability and agility
are positively related. H5 was also supported, suggesting that organizational agility
(ORGA) and an organization’s performance (ORGP) are positively related.
Furthermore, to address the moderation effects, H6 of industry dynamism between firm
agility and firm performance, the two-stage approach using an interaction term of industry
dynamism  firm agility with standardized indicators were applied (Hair et al., 2017;
Fassott et al., 2016). The model obtained an explanatory power of 45% with the significant
path coefficient of 0.21 (t = 3.23) for industry dynamism  firm agility ! firm performance.
Finally, turning to research control variables, the study showed that the proposed control
variables (industry type, firm size, firm age and IT budget) do not depict a significant
influence. In other words, firms of a different industry type or size do not significantly differ
regarding the relationship between firm agility and firm performance. Therefore, we can

Hypotheses Path b t-value Decision f2 Q2 R2 Inner VIF

H1 BA ! IQ 0.46 10.47 Supported 0.27 0.55 0.21 1.00

H2 BA ! IC 0.44 9.26 Supported 0.24 0.36 0.19 1.00
H3 IQ ! ORGA 0.48 9.60 Supported 0.41 0.53 0.65 1.64
H4 IC ! ORGA 0.42 8.52 Supported 0.31 0.46 1.64 Table 6.
H5 ORGA ! ORGP 0.67 16.38 Supported 0.82 0.41 0.45 1.90 Structural model
H6 (ORGA ! ORGP)  ID 0.21 3.23 Supported results
VJIKMS stipulate that the development of BA capabilities can be similarly beneficial for various
industries and organization sizes.

7. Implications and future research

7.1 Implications for research
In this study, we attempted to understand the use of BA in the organizational setting by
adopting the theoretical lens of the RBT, a well-established theory in strategic management
which has a long tradition of providing useful insights on IT-business value research. The
objective of adopting this theoretical perspective was to understand the resources that need
to effectively leverage BA technologies and to realize performance as well as agility of
organizations. We used the RBT to identify and categorize the different resources that are
relevant in the organizational setting of BA, therefore guaranteeing that a holistic
perspective is adopted. Furthermore, we analyzed the mechanism and how information
quality and innovation supports detecting and adapting to market conditions, mainly
contributing to agility and, finally, business performance. It demonstrates that the BA
capability influences both information quality and innovation and positively correlates with
agility. Ours is one of the pioneering research that links agility to performance within an
organization, increasing the knowledge base of the BA research domain.
Following the established theoretical framework provided by the RBT, this study
extends the existing body of research in the IS community by adopting it within the context
of BA to explain what resources organizations need to develop to realize business value
from their BA investments. We follow the reasoning and argumentation of Wade and
Hulland (2004), who suggest that the RBT can provide benefits to the IS community as:
 The RBT provides the foundation for specifying firm-level resources.
 It allows for distinctions between cross-functional, as well as technical and
nontechnical firm-level resources.
 It enables researchers to systematically test the relationship between the aggregate
of resources into capabilities, with key performance outcomes.

By building on these strengths of the RBT, we have been able to further the explanatory
power and generalizability of the RBT to the emerging field of BA.
Furthermore, the outcome of this study adds further theoretical knowledge by analyzing
and measuring the moderating effect of industry dynamism on the relationship between
organizational agility and performance. Based on our analysis, the positive impact of
organizational agility on performance is evident only in highly turbulent business
environments. The study exposes that organizations operating in these environments face
several difficulties in either market or technological aspects and need a swift response. The
results show that organizations with higher capability in responding to environmental
changes have higher performance than others. Therefore, agility would make a
differentiating trait between organizations within a high uncertainty industry.

7.2 Implications for practice

Although BA capabilities play an essential role in improving organizational performance
Germann et al. (2013), the empirical evidence for interpreting the mechanism is incomplete.
This study explains how superior BA capabilities can improve agility by increasing
information quality and innovative capability. The results show strong links between BA
and information quality (H1). This finding confirms that only relevant and high-quality
information helps firms adapt to business environments (Chen et al., 2014; Rouhani et al.,
2016). The results also show strong links between information quality and firm agility (H3). Moderating
This link furthers the finding of other researchers, e.g. Sambamurthy et al. (2003), who role of
discussed how IT supports agility and information quality through digital options (IT-
enabled capabilities). Various other studies stated that firms rely on their information
industry
systems to provide high-quality information (Chen et al., 2012; Popovic et al., 2018). High- dynamism
quality information derived from BA systems provides managers an understanding of the
current state of the business and, more importantly, helps them recognize business threats
and opportunities. Xu et al. (2016) also argued that BA provides high-quality information
and provides opportunities for firms to tailor their responses based on changing
environments. The research findings are valuable in helping managers understand the
paramount role of BA capabilities in achieving quality information and agility; in other
words, BA-enabled information often has higher quality and could help managers make
swift and fitting decisions.
Similarly, the outcome of our research has revealed that BA capabilities improve innovative
capability, which is positively related to firms’ agility. According to Tamer Cavusgil et al.
(2003) and Leal-Rodríguez et al. (2014), innovation capability enables firms to respond faster to
the changing environment. BA seems to be the driving force in pursuing fast and innovative
measures in the volatile marketplace (Chen et al., 2014; Lu et al., 2011; Popovic et al., 2018). BA
assimilates new knowledge across business departments and equips managers with new
knowledge to react to market changes. In this regard, Howson (2007) observed that data
accessibility is less critical than how organizations consume it. Considering this finding,
managers should understand the significant role of appropriate data processing and analysis to
discover new knowledge and promptly respond to opportunities and challenges (Sivarajah
et al., 2017). Thus, firms with a higher potential to innovate have more chances to continuously
develop their products and services responding to changing market inclinations.
Moreover, this research finds that the impact of BA capabilities on innovation capability
is relatively more significant than that of information quality. This strength may be due to
the comprehensive nature of BA that connects various IT tools and techniques to support
decision-making. Nowadays, firms with capable IT systems and software aiding their
business processes can achieve adequate information quality. However, they need to rely on
the capability of BA to provide appropriate answers to questions like “What is happening?,”
“What will happen?” or “What is the best way to respond?” to innovate their product,
services and business models.
Our analysis also proves the moderating effect of industry dynamism on the link
between agility and performance. Previous studies have demonstrated that enterprise
agility has limited impact in relatively stable environments (Overby et al., 2006; Nevo and
Wade, 2010). Alternatively, the positive effect of agility on performance is more effective in a
relatively uncertain context with rapid changes in technology or market demands and where
organizations encounter several difficulties in forecasting and responding to these changes.
Although a firm’s limited level of agility may be permissible in a nonturbulent environment,
this may not be the case in the presence of technological changes (Overby et al., 2006). The
above highlights how organizational agility could be a competitive advantage in an
uncertain environment.

8. Limitations and avenues for future research

The study has several limitations. First, there may be other capabilities and ways that can
lead to higher organizational performance. Second, because of the cross-sectional nature of
this study (the study verified the required data for the hypotheses through completing a
questionnaire at one specific point in time), we cannot fully understand the dynamics among
VJIKMS BA capabilities, agility and performance over time. Third, the study questioned only one
developing country, i.e. Bangladesh, compared with most other relevant studies in
developed countries (DeGroote and Marx, 2013; Sambamurthy et al., 2003; Tallon and
Pinsonneault, 2011). Findings across developing and developed countries should be
generalized with caution as several issues, such as cultural and structural differences
between developed and developing countries, may cause variations in research outcomes;
sanctions-related matters in the specific context of Bangladesh should also be considered
(Yayla and Hu, 2012; Zare Ravasan and Mansouri, 2016). However, for the constructs (as
also discussed in Section 4.1), we believe that none of the concerns mentioned above has any
significant impact on the generalizability of the research outcomes, even more so because
Bangladesh’s management system seems to be a hybrid of Western, ancient and Islamic
styles (Abdolvand and Sepehri, 2016). Fourth, BA is a relatively new term, and in
Bangladesh it does not seem to be a clearly established academic definition (Bichler et al.,
2017). Reviewing the literature shows that BA includes several functions and tools to
support the strategic decision-making process by preparing an appropriate decision-support
environment; the present paper only mentioned BA on a conceptual level and did not delve
into the functional details. Thus, one could criticize the study for its discriminatory power
for different types of BA capabilities within a firm.
This research provides several topics for future studies. First, subsequent studies could
replicate our methods in other contexts (e.g. developed countries) and compare the results
with this study or use a longitudinal study to address the limitations of the cross-sectional
nature of this study. In-depth case studies would also be beneficial to provide a further
understanding. In addition, further research could examine other possible ways in which BA
capabilities increase firms’ performance. In all these efforts, it is essential to clearly define
the BA construct in such a way as to avoid tautological findings. For example, if BA is
defined as a tool that brings better decision-making or “delivering the right decision support
to the right people at the right time” Laursen and Thorlund (2016), then any impact of BA on
information quality is tautological. Further research should acknowledge the specifics of
modern BA applications (i.e. descriptive, predictive and prescriptive applications) and
separately analyze the impact of specific analytics methods, techniques and models, such as
data cleansing and data mining methods, on various facets of performance. Such research
would provide more detailed guidelines on what kind of BA an organization in a particular
situation should consider improving the likelihood of its performance.

References
Abbasi, A., Sarker, S. and Chiang, R.H. (2016), “Big data research in information systems: toward an
inclusive research agenda”, Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 17 No. 2,
p. 3.
Abdolvand, N. and Sepehri, M.M. (2016), “Antecedents of strategic information systems alignment in
Iran”, Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 80-103.
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.
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Ashrafi, A., Zare Ravasan, A., Trkman, P. and Afshari, S. (2019), “The role of business analytics
capabilities in bolstering firms’ agility and performance”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 47, pp. 1-15.
Assensoh-Kodua, A. (2019), “The resource-based view: a tool of key competency for competitive Moderating
advantage”, Problems and Perspectives in Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 143-152.
role of
Astrachan, C.B., Patel, V.K. and Wanzenried, G. (2014), “A comparative study of CB-SEM and PLS-
SEM for theory development in family firm research”, Journal of Family Business Strategy, Vol. 5
industry
No. 1, pp. 116-128. dynamism
Bag, S., Pretorius, J.H.C., Gupta, S. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2021), “Role of institutional pressures and
resources in the adoption of big data analytics powered artificial intelligence, sustainable
manufacturing practices and circular economy capabilities”, Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, Vol. 163, p. 120420.
Barney, J. (2012), “Purchasing, supply chain management and sustained competitive advantage:
the relevance of resource-based theory”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48 No. 2,
pp. 3-6.
Barney, J.B. (2001), “Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: a ten-year retrospective on the
resource-based view”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 643-650.
Barney, J.B., Ketchen, D.J. and Wright, M. (2011), “The future of resource-based theory: revitalization or
decline?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 1299-1315.
Bayo-Moriones, A. and Lera-Lopez, F. (2007), “A firm-level analysis of determinants of ICT adoption in
Spain”, Technovation, Vol. 27 Nos 6/7, pp. 352-366.
Benitez, J., Henseler, J., Castillo, A. and Schuberth, F. (2020), “How to perform and report an impactful
analysis using partial least squares: guidelines for confirmatory and explanatory is research”,
Information and Management, Vol. 57 No. 2, p. 103168.
Bharadwaj, A. (2000), “A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm
performance: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 169-196.
Bichler, M., Heinzl, A. and van der Aalst, W.M.P. (2017), “Business analytics and data science: once
again?”, Business and Information Systems Engineering, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 77-79.
Bromiley, P. and Rau, D. (2016), “Operations management and the resource based view: another view”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 95-106.
Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y.J. and Rahman, M.S. (2013), Competing in the Age of Omnichannel Retailing,
MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Cenfetelli, R.T. and Bassellier, G. (2009), “Interpretation of formative measurement in information
systems research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 689-707.
Chae, B. (2014), “A complexity theory approach to IT-enabled services (IESs) and service innovation:
business analytics as an illustration of IES”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 57, pp. 1-10.
Chakravarty, A., Grewal, R. and Sambamurthy, V. (2013), “Information technology competencies,
organizational agility, and firm performance: enabling and facilitating roles”, Information
Systems Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 976-997.
Chen, X. and Li, S. (2017), “Understanding continuance intention of mobile payment services: an
empirical study”, Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 287-298.
Chen, H., Chiang, R.H. and Storey, V.C. (2012), “Business intelligence and analytics: from big data to big
impact”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 1165-1188.
Chen, Y., Wang, Y., Nevo, S., Jin, J., Wang, L. and Chow, W.S. (2014), “IT capability and organizational
performance: the roles of business process agility and environmental factors”, European Journal
of Information Systems, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 326-342.
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (2003), “A partial least squares latent variable modeling
approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte Carlo simulation study and an
electronic-mail emotion/adoption study”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 189-217.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.), Routledge, New York.
VJIKMS Côrte-Real, N., Oliveira, T. and Ruivo, P. (2017), “Assessing business value of big data analytics in
European firms”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 379-390.
DeGroote, S.E. and Marx, T.G. (2013), “The impact of IT on supply chain agility and firm performance:
an empirical investigation”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 33 No. 6,
pp. 909-916.
Delen, D. and Demirkan, H. (2013), “Data, information and analytics as services”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 359-363.
Devaraj, S. and Kohli, R. (2003), “Performance impacts of information technology: is actual usage the
missing link?”, Management Science, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 273-289.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Wamba, S.F. and Papadopoulos, T. (2016), “The impact of big
data on world-class sustainable manufacturing”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 84 Nos 1/4, pp. 631-645.
Dubey, R., Altay, N., Gunasekaran, A., Blome, C., Papadopoulos, T. and Childe, S.J. (2018), “Supply
chain agility, adaptability and alignment”, International Journal of Operations and Production
Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 129-148.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S.J., Bryde, D.J., Giannakis, M., Foropon, C., Roubaud, D. and
Hazen, B.T. (2020), “Big data analytics and artificial intelligence pathway to operational
performance under the effects of entrepreneurial orientation and environmental dynamism: a
study of manufacturing organisations”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 226,
p. 107599.
Dutta, A., Lee, H. and Yasai-Ardekani, M. (2014), “Digital systems and competitive responsiveness: the
dynamics of IT business value”, Information and Management, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 762-773.
Elbashir, M.Z., Collier, P.A. and Davern, M.J. (2008), “Measuring the effects of business intelligence
systems: the relationship between business process and organizational performance”,
International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 135-153.
Esterhuizen, D., Schutte, C.S.L. and Du Toit, A.S.A. (2012), “Knowledge creation processes as critical
enablers for innovation”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 354-364.
Fassott, G., Henseler, J. and Coelho, P.S. (2016), “Testing moderating effects in PLS path models with
composite variables”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 9, pp. 1887-1900.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G. and Buchner, A. (2007), “G*power 3: a flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences”, Behavior Research
Methods, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 175-191.
Felipe, C.M., Leidner, D.E., Roldan, J.L. and Leal-Rodríguez, A.L. (2020), “Impact of IS capabilities on
firm performance: the roles of organizational agility and industry technology intensity”, Decision
Sciences, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 575-619.
Fink, L., Yogev, N. and Even, A. (2017), “Business intelligence and organizational learning: an empirical
investigation of value creation processes”, Information and Management, Vol. 54 No. 1,
pp. 38-56.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fosso Wamba, S., Akter, S., Edwards, A., Chopin, G. and Gnanzou, D. (2015), “How ‘big data’ can make
big impact: findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 165, pp. 234-246.
Ganguly, A., Nilchiani, R. and Farr, J.V. (2009), “Evaluating agility in corporate enterprises”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 118 No. 2, pp. 410-423.
Garg, V.K., Walters, B.A. and Priem, R.L. (2003), “Chief executive scanning emphases, environmental
dynamism, and manufacturing firm performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 8,
pp. 725-744.
Gefen, D., Rigdon, E.E. and Straub, D. (2011), “Editor’s comments: an update and extension to SEM Moderating
guidelines for administrative and social science research”, Mis Quarterly, pp. 3-14.
role of
Germann, F., Lilien, G.L. and Rangaswamy, A. (2013), “Performance implications of deploying
marketing analytics”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 114-128.
industry
Gligor, D.M., Esmark, C.L. and Holcomb, M.C. (2015), “Performance outcomes of supply chain agility:
dynamism
when should you be agile?”, Journal of Operations Management, Vols 33/34 No. 1, pp. 71-82.
Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy
formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-135.
Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S.F., Childe, S.J., Hazen, B. and Akter, S. (2017),
“Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain and organizational performance”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 308-317.
Gupta, M. and George, J.F. (2016), “Toward the development of a big data analytics capability”,
Information and Management, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1049-1064.
Gupta, S., Drave, V.A., Dwivedi, Y.K., Baabdullah, A.M. and Ismagilova, E. (2020), “Achieving superior
organizational performance via big data predictive analytics: a dynamic capability view”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 90, pp. 581-592.
Gustavsson, M. and Jonsson, P. (2008), “Perceived quality deficiencies of demand information and their
consequences”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 11 No. 4,
pp. 295-312.
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, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall.
Hair, J.F., Jr, Matthews, L.M., Matthews, R.L. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), “PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use”, International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, Vol. 1
No. 2, pp. 107-123.
Harman, H.H. (1976), Modern Factor Analysis, University of Chicago Press.
Henseler, J., Hubona, G. and Ray, P.A. (2016), “Using PLS path modeling in new technology research:
updated guidelines”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 2-20.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T.K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D.W., Ketchen, D.J., Hair,
J.F., Hult, G.T.M. and Calantone, R.J. (2014), “Common beliefs and reality about PLS: comments on
Rönkkö and Evermann (2013)”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 182-209.
Holsapple, C., Lee-Post, A. and Pakath, R. (2014), “A unified foundation for business analytics”, Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 64, pp. 130-141.
Howson, C. (2007), Successful Business Intelligence, Tata McGraw-Hill Education, New Delhi.
Huang, P.-Y., Pan, S.L. and Ouyang, T.H. (2014), “Developing information processing capability for
operational agility: implications from a Chinese manufacturer”, European Journal of Information
Systems, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 462-480.
Ilmudeen, A. and Bao, Y. (2018), “Mediating role of managing information technology and its impact on
firm performance: insight from China”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 118
No. 4, pp. 912-929.
ık, Ö., Jones, M.C. and Sidorova, A. (2013), “Business intelligence success: the roles of BI capabilities
Is
and decision environments”, Information and Management, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 13-23.
Jansen, J.J., Tempelaar, M.P., Van den Bosch, F.A. and Volberda, H.W. (2009), “Structural differentiation
and ambidexterity: the mediating role of integration mechanisms”, Organization Science, Vol. 20
No. 4, pp. 797-811.
VJIKMS Jeble, S., Dubey, R., Childe, S.J., Papadopoulos, T., Roubaud, D. and Prakash, A. (2018), “Impact of big
data and predictive analytics capability on supply chain sustainability”, The International
Journal of Logistics Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 513-538.
Ji-Fan Ren, S., Fosso Wamba, S., 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.
Khan, M.P., Talib, N.A. and Kowang, T.O. (2018), “Development of sustainability framework based on
the theory of resource based view”, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and
Social Sciences, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 636-647.
Khayer, A., Bao, Y. and Nguyen, B. (2020), “Understanding cloud computing success and its impact on
firm performance: an integrated approach”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 120
No. 5, pp. 963-985.
Kitchens, B., Dobolyi, D., Li, J. and Abbasi, A. (2018), “Advanced customer analytics: strategic value
through integration of relationship-oriented big data”, Journal of Management Information
Systems, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 540-574.
Kock, N. (2015), “Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment approach”,
International Journal of e-Collaboration, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 1-10.
Krajewski, L.J. and Ritzman, L.P. (2005), Operations Management: Process and Value Chains, Pearson
Education, New York, NY.
Kristoffersen, E., Mikalef, P., Blomsma, F. and Li, J. (2021), “The effects of business analytics
capability on circular economy implementation, resource orchestration capability,
and firm performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 239,
p. 108205.
Krotov, V., Junglas, I. and Steel, D. (2015), “The mobile agility framework: an exploratory study of
mobile technology enhancing organizational agility”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied
Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-17.
Kumar, N., Stern, L.W. and Anderson, J.C. (1993), “Conducting inter organizational research using key
informants”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1633-1651.
Laursen, G.H. and Thorlund, J. (2016), Business Analytics for Managers: Taking Business Intelligence
beyond Reporting, John Wiley and Sons, NJ.
LaValle, S., Hopkins, M.S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R. and Kruschwitz, N. (2010), “Analytics: the new path
to value”, MIT Sloan Management Review, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-25.
Leal-Rodríguez, A.L., Roldan, J.L., Ariza-Montes, J.A. and Leal-Millan, A. (2014), “From potential
absorptive capacity to innovation outcomes in project teams: the conditional mediating role of
the realized absorptive capacity in a relational learning context”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, pp. 894-907.
Lu, Y., Yang, S., Chau, P.Y. and Cao, Y. (2011), “Dynamics between the trust transfer process and
intention to use mobile payment services: a cross-environment perspective”, Information and
Management, Vol. 48 No. 8, pp. 393-403.
MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, P.M. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2011), “Construct measurement and validation
procedures in MIS and behavioral research: integrating new and existing techniques”, MIS
Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 293-334.
Makadok, R. (2001), “Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent
creation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 387-401.
March, S.T. and Hevner, A.R. (2007), “Integrated decision support systems: a data warehousing
perspective”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 1031-1043.
Mata, F.J., Fuerst, W.L. and Barney, J.B. (1995), “Information technology and sustained competitive
advantage: a resource-based analysis”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 487-505.
Melville, N., Gurbaxani, V. and Kraemer, K. (2007), “The productivity impact of information technology Moderating
across competitive regimes: the role of industry concentration and dynamism”, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 229-242.
role of
Mikalef, P. and Gupta, M. (2021), “Artificial intelligence capability: conceptualization, measurement
industry
calibration, and empirical study on its impact on organizational creativity and firm dynamism
performance”, Information & Management, Vol. 58 No. 3, p. 103434.
Mikalef, P., Pappas, I.O., Krogstie, J. and Giannakos, M. (2018), “Big data analytics capabilities: a
systematic literature review and research agenda”, Information Systems and e-Business
Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 547-578.
Nevo, S. and Wade, M.R. (2010), “The formation and value of IT-enabled resources: antecedents and
consequences of synergistic relationships”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 163-183.
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.
Olszak, C.M. (2016), “Toward better understanding and use of business intelligence in organizations”,
Information Systems Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 105-123.
Overby, E., Bharadwaj, A. and Sambamurthy, V. (2006), “Enterprise agility and the enabling role of
information technology”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 120-131.
Park, Y., El Sawy, O.A. and Fiss, P. (2017), “The role of business intelligence and communication
technologies in organizational agility: a configurational approach”, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 18 No. 9, p. 1.
Penrose, L.S. (1959), “Self-reproducing machines”, Scientific American, Vol. 200 No. 6, pp. 105-117.
Petter, S. and McLean, E.R. (2009), “A meta – analytic assessment of the DeLone and McLean is success
model: an examination of is success at the individual level”, Information and Management,
Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 159-166.
Petter, S., Straub, D. and Rai, A. (2007), “Specifying formative constructs in information systems
research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 623-656.
Phuong, T.T., Molla, A. and Peszynski, K. (2012), “Enterprise system-enabled organizational agility
capability: a construct and measurement instrument”, Proceedings of the 16th Pacific Asia
Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), 2012, pp. 1-16.
Piccoli, G. and Ives, B. (2005), “IT-dependent strategic initiatives and sustained competitive advantage:
a review and synthesis of the literature”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 747-776.
Pinsonneault, A. and Kraemer, K. (1993), “Survey research methodology in management information
systems: an assessment”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 75-105.
Ployhart, R.E. (2021), “Resources for what? Understanding performance in the resource-based view and
strategic human capital resource literatures”, Journal of Management, Vol. 47 No. 7,
pp. 1771-1786.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.-Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method biases in
behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, p. 879.
Popovic, A. and Habjan, A. (2012), “Exploring the effects of information quality change in road
transport operations”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 112 No. 9,
pp. 1307-1325.
Popovic, A., Hackney, R., Tassabehji, R. and Castelli, M. (2018), “The impact of big data analytics on
firms’ high value business performance”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 209-222.
Priem, R.L. and Butler, J.E. (2001), “Is the resource-based ‘view’ a useful perspective for strategic
management research?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 22-40.
VJIKMS Ramakrishnan, T., Jones, M.C. and Sidorova, A. (2012), “Factors influencing business intelligence (BI)
data collection strategies: an empirical investigation”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 486-496.
Ramanathan, R., Philpott, E., Duan, Y. and Cao, G. (2017), “Adoption of business analytics and impact
on performance: a qualitative study in retail”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 28 Nos 11/12,
pp. 985-998.
Robert Baum, J. and Wally, S. (2003), “Strategic decision speed and firm performance”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 1107-1129.
Roberts, N. and Grover, V. (2012), “Investigating firm’s customer agility and firm performance: the
importance of aligning sense and respond capabilities”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 65
No. 5, pp. 579-585.
Rosenbusch, N., Brinckmann, J. and Bausch, A. (2011), “Is innovation always beneficial? A meta-
analysis of the relationship between innovation and performance in SMEs”, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 441-457.
Rouhani, S., Ashrafi, A., Zare Ravasan, A. and Afshari, S. (2016), “The impact model of business
intelligence on decision support and organizational benefits”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 19-50.
Rud, O.P. (2009), Business Intelligence Success Factors: Tools for Aligning Your Business in the Global
Economy, John Wiley and Sons, NJ.
Sahay, B.S. and Ranjan, J. (2008), “Real time business intelligence in supply chain analytics”,
Information Management and Computer Security, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 28-48.
Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A. and Grover, V. (2003), “Shaping agility through digital options:
reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 237-263.
Santiago Rivera, D. and Shanks, G. (2015), “A dashboard to support management of business analytics
capabilities”, Journal of Decision Systems, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 73-86.
Schwarz, A., Rizzuto, T., Carraher-Wolverton, C., Roldan, J.L. and Barrera-Barrera, R. (2017),
“Examining the impact and detection of the ‘urban legend’ of common method bias”, ACM
SIGMIS Database: The DATABASE for Advances in Information Systems, Vol. 48 No. 1,
pp. 93-119.
Seddon, P.B., Constantinidis, D., Tamm, T. and Dod, H. (2017), “How does business analytics contribute
to business value?”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 237-269.
Seo, D. and La Paz, A. (2008), “Exploring the dark side of is in achieving organizational agility”,
Communications of the ACM, Vol. 51 No. 11, pp. 136-139.
Sharma, R., Mithas, S. and Kankanhalli, A. (2014), “Transforming decision-making processes: a
research agenda for understanding the impact of business analytics on organisations”,
European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 433-441.
Shaw, J.D. (2021), “The Resource-Based view and its use in strategic human resource management
research: the elegant and inglorious”, Journal of Management, Vol. 47 No. 7, pp. 1787-1795.
Shen, C.-C., Chang, R.-E., Hsu, C.J. and Chang, I.C. (2017), “How business intelligence maturity enabling
hospital agility”, Telematics and Informatics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 450-456.
Shollo, A. and Galliers, R.D. (2016), “Towards an understanding of the role of business intelligence
systems in organisational knowing”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 339-367.
Sirmon, D.G., Hitt, M.A. and Ireland, R.D. (2007), “Managing firm resources in dynamic environments
to create value: looking inside the black box”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 32 No. 1,
pp. 273-292.
Sivarajah, U., Kamal, M.M., Irani, Z. and Weerakkody, V. (2017), “Critical analysis of big data
challenges and analytical methods”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 70, pp. 263-286.
Son, I., Lee, D., Lee, J.-N. and Chang, Y.B. (2014), “Market perception on cloud computing initiatives in Moderating
organizations: an extended resource-based view”, Information and Management, Vol. 51 No. 6,
pp. 653-669.
role of
Song, Z-h. (2015), “Organizational learning, absorptive capacity, imitation and innovation”, Chinese
industry
Management Studies, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 97-113. dynamism
Srivastava, R.K., Fahey, L. and Christensen, H.K. (2001), “The resource-based view and marketing: the
role of market-based assets in gaining competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27
No. 6, pp. 777-802.
Straub, D., Boudreau, M.-C. and Gefen, D. (2004), “Validation guidelines for is positivist research”,
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 1, p. 24.
Sullivan, G.M. and Feinn, R. (2012), “Using effect size – or why the P value is not enough”, Journal of
Graduate Medical Education, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 279-282.
Tallon, P.P. and Pinsonneault, A. (2011), “Competing perspectives on the link between strategic
information technology alignment and organizational agility: insights from a mediation model”,
MIS Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 463-486.
Tamer Cavusgil, S., Calantone, R.J. and Zhao, Y. (2003), “Tacit knowledge transfer and firm innovation
capability”, Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 6-21.
Tan, F.T.C., Tan, B., Wang, W. and Sedera, D. (2017), “IT-enabled operational agility: an
interdependencies perspective”, Information and Management, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 292-303.
Teece, D., Peteraf, M. and Leih, S. (2016), “Dynamic capabilities and organizational agility: risk, uncertainty,
and strategy in the innovation economy”, California Management Review, Vol. 58 No. 4, pp. 13-35.
Torres, R., Sidorova, A. and Jones, M.C. (2018), “Enabling firm performance through business intelligence and
analytics: a dynamic capabilities perspective”, Information and Management, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 822-839.
Trieu, V.H. (2017), “Getting value from business intelligence systems: a review and research agenda”,
Decision Support Systems, Vol. 93, pp. 111-124.
Trkman, P., McCormack, K., de Oliveira, M.P.V. and Ladeira, M.B. (2010), “The impact of business
analytics on supply chain performance”, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 318-327.
van Oosterhout, M., Waarts, E. and van Hillegersberg, J. (2006), “Change factors requiring agility and
implications for IT”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 132-145.
Viaene, S. and Van den Bunder, A. (2011), “The secrets to managing business analytics projects”, MIT
Sloan Management Review, Vol. 53 No. 1, p. 65.
Vidgen, R., Shaw, S. and Grant, D.B. (2017), “Management challenges in creating value from business
analytics”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 261 No. 2, pp. 626-639.
Wade, M. and Hulland, J. (2004), “Review: the resource-based view and information systems research:
review, extension, and suggestions for future research”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 107-142.
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, X. (2015), “The architecture design of the wearable health monitoring system based on internet of
things technology”, International Journal of Grid and Utility Computing, Vol. 6 Nos 3/4, pp. 207-212.
Wang, X. and Dass, M. (2017), “Building innovation capability: the role of top management innovativeness
and relative-exploration orientation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 76, pp. 127-135.
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.
Wixom, B.H. and Watson, H.J. (2001), “An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data
warehousing success”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 17-41.
VJIKMS Xu, Z., Frankwick, G.L. and Ramirez, E. (2016), “Effects of big data analytics and traditional marketing
analytics on new product success: a knowledge fusion perspective”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 69 No. 5, pp. 1562-1566.
Yauch, C.A. (2011), “Measuring agility as a performance outcome”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 384-404.
Yayla, A.A. and Hu, Q. (2012), “The impact of IT-business strategic alignment on firm performance in a
developing country setting: exploring moderating roles of environmental uncertainty and
strategic orientation”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 373-387.
Yu, Y., Dong, X.-Y., Shen, K.N., Khalifa, M. and Hao, J.-X. (2013), “Strategies, technologies, and
organizational learning for developing organizational innovativeness in emerging economies”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 12, pp. 2507-2514.
Zain, M., Rose, R.C., Abdullah, I. and Masrom, M. (2005), “The relationship between information
technology acceptance and organizational agility in Malaysia”, Information and Management,
Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 829-839.
Zare Ravasan, A. and Mansouri, T. (2016), “A dynamic ERP critical failure factors modelling with FCM
throughout project lifecycle phases”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 65-82.
Zhang, S., Zhao, L., Lu, Y. and Yang, J. (2016), “Do you get tired of socializing? An empirical explanation
of discontinuous usage behaviour in social network services”, Information and Management,
Vol. 53 No. 7, pp. 904-914.

Further reading
O’brien, R.M. (2007), “A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors”, Quality and
Quantity, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 673-690.
Appendix 1. Measurement items Moderating
Construct Items Sources role of
industry
Human skills HS1. The organization has access to internal and external Kristoffersen et al. (2021)
talent with the right technical skills to support BA work and Mikalef and Gupta dynamism
HS2. Our data scientists have the right skills to accomplish (2021)
their jobs successfully
HS3. Our data scientists are effective in data analysis,
processing and security
HS4. Our data scientists are provided with the required
training to deal with BA applications
HS5. Our managers are able to understand business problems
and direct BA initiatives to solve them
HS6. Our managers are able to work with data scientists,
other employees and customers to determine opportunities
that BA might bring to our organization
HS7. Our managers are able to anticipate future business
needs of functional managers, suppliers and customers and
proactively design BA solutions to support these needs
HS8. Our managers are capable of coordinating BA-related
activities in ways that support the organization, suppliers and
customers
HS9. We have strong leadership to support BA initiatives and
managers demonstrate ownership of and commitment to BA
projects
Intangible IR1. We are able to anticipate and plan for the organizational Kristoffersen et al. (2021)
resources resistance to change and Mikalef and Gupta
IR2. We are capable of communicating the reasons for change (2021)
to the members of our organization
IR3. We are able to make the necessary changes in human
resource policies for process reengineering
IR4. In our organization we have a strong proclivity for high-
risk projects (with chances of very high returns)
IR5. We typically adopt a bold aggressive posture to
maximize the probability of exploiting potential opportunities
Tangible TR1. We have access to very large, unstructured or fast- Kristoffersen et al. (2021)
resources moving data for analysis and Mikalef and Gupta
TR2. We integrate data from multiple internal sources into a (2021)
data warehouse or mart for easy access
TR3. We have the capacity to share our data across business
units and organizational boundaries
TR4. We are able to obtain data at the right level of
granularity to produce meaningful insights
TR5. We have the necessary technology to support BA
applications (e.g. CPUs and GPUs)
TR6. We have explored BA infrastructure to ensure that data
is secured from to end-to-end with state-of-the-art technology
TR7. The BA project has enough resources to get the work
done
Information To what extent do you agree with the following items in your Ashrafi et al. (2019)
quality organization
Table A1.
(continued)
VJIKMS
Construct Items Sources

IQ1. The output information is timely.

IQ2. The output information is accurate.
IQ3. The output information is complete.
IQ4. The output information is reliable.
Innovative Compared with your major competitors, how good is your Ashrafi et al. (2019)
capability organization’s capability in the following areas
IC1. To innovate on business and managerial processes
IC2. To make continuous improvement on product and
service quality
IC3. To develop and adopt new technologies that enhance
market offerings
IC4. To develop new products and services with cutting-edge
technology
Financial FP1. We decreased manufacturing/operational costs Kristoffersen et al. (2021)
performance FP2. We increased annual turnover
FP3. We increased market share
Operational OP1. Productivity has exceeded compared with competitors Gupta et al. (2020)
performance OP2. Profit rate has exceeded compared with competitors
OP3. Sales revenue has exceeded compared with competitors
Market MP1. Exploring new markets more quickly than competitors Gupta et al. (2020)
performance MP2. Introducing new products or services into the market
faster than competitors
MP3. Market share has exceeded that of competitors
Industry Our company is more flexible than our competitors in Bag et al. (2021)
dynamism changing our organizational structure
ID1. Our product and services become outdated quickly
ID2. Our organization continuously introduces new products
and services
ID3. Our organization introduces new operating processes
Operational OA1. We fulfill demands for rapid response, special requests Felipe et al. (2020) and
agility of our customers whenever such demands arise; our Khayer et al. (2020)
customers have confidence in our ability.
OA2. We can quickly scale up or scale down our production/
service levels to support fluctuations in demand from the
market.
OA3. Whenever there is a disruption in supply from our
suppliers, we can quickly make necessary alternative
arrangements and internal adjustments.
Customer CA1. We are quick to make and implement appropriate Felipe et al. (2020) and
agility decisions in the face of market/customer changes. Khayer et al. (2020)
CA2. We constantly look for ways to reinvent/reengineer our
organization to better serve our marketplace.
CA3. We treat market-related changes and apparent chaos as
opportunities to capitalize quickly.
Partnering We collect detailed information about its suppliers and Felipe et al. (2020) and
agility service providers. Khayer et al. (2020)
We work with external suppliers to create high-value
products and services.
We can switch suppliers to avail of lower costs, better quality
Table A1. or improved delivery times.
Appendix 2. The demographics of the participants and firms Moderating
role of
Descriptions Frequency (%) industry
Respondents
dynamism
Owner/CEO 91 47.40
IT manager 101 52.60
Work experience (years)
0–2 29 15.10
3–5 44 22.92
6–10 77 40.10
More than 10 42 21.88
Firm age
Less than 1 23 11.98
2–5 34 17.71
6–10 64 33.33
11–20 46 23.96
More than 20 25 13.02
Firm size (Employees)
16–50 45 23.44
50–100 34 17.71
100–200 66 34.38
More than 200 47 24.48
Industry type
Service 68 35.42 Table A2.
Manufacturing 124 64.58

Corresponding author
Md. Shamim Talukder can be contacted at: shamim.talukder@northsouth.edu

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