International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

Management theory and big data literature: From a review to a research T

agenda
⁎
Paula de Camargo Fiorinia,b, , Bruno Michel Roman Pais Selesa,
Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbourb, Enzo Barberio Marianoa, Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbourb
a
Sao Paulo State University, Production Engineering Department, Av. Eng. Luiz Edmundo C. Coube 14-01, Bauru, Sao Paulo 17033-360, Brazil
b
Montpellier Business School, Montpellier Research in Management, 2300, Avenue des Moulins, 34185, Montpellier, Cédex 4, France

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this study is to enrich the existing state-of-the-art literature on the impact of big data on business
Big data growth by examining how dozens of organizational theories can be applied to enhance the understanding of the
Big data analytics effects of big data on organizational performance. While the majority of management disciplines have had
Organizational theory research dedicated to the conceptual discussion of how to link a variety of organizational theories to empirically
Firms’ performance
quantified research topics, the body of research into big data so far lacks an academic work capable of sys-
Research agenda
tematising the organizational theories supporting big data domain. The three main contributions of this work
are: (a) it addresses the application of dozens of organizational theories to big data research; (b) it offers a
research agenda on how to link organizational theories to empirical research in big data; and (c) it foresees
promising linkages between organizational theories and the effects of big data on organizational performance,
with the aim of contributing to further research in this field. This work concludes by presenting implications for
researchers and managers, and by highlighting intrinsic limitations of the research.

1. Introduction
Over the past years, the volume, variety, velocity and value of the
massive amounts of data that firms deal with has increased ex-
ponentially (Fosso Wamba, Akter, Edwards, Chopin, & Gnanzou, 2015).
In this context, the concept of “big data” has emerged, defined as the
organizational use of such vast data to support more accurate decision-
making processes (Davenport, 2014; Goes, 2014). Consequently, by
using big data, firms can increase organizational performance
(Raguseo, 2018; Yaqoob et al., 2016), which can signify increased
competitive advantages (Kubina, Varmus, & Kubinova, 2015). Big data
can be applied to all business functions, such as marketing (Shirdastian,
Laroche, & Richard, 2017).
While technologies supporting big data have been developing ra-
pidly (McAfee & Brynjolfsson, 2012; Rodríguez-Mazahua et al., 2016),
academic research on the effects of this phenomenon on firms’ perfor-
mance is still in its infancy (Raguseo, 2018; Sena, Demirbag, Bhaumik,
& Sengupta, 2017). On the other hand, companies are speeding up the
adoption of big data technologies (Santos et al., 2017). In this context, it
is possible to highlight the fact that the understanding of how
organizational theories are being applied to big data research is still
lacking.
According to Glaser and Strauss (2009), the theories are important
lenses through which to analyze various issues, and they can enable
deeper arguments. The organizational theories have several implica-
tions in various disciplines, including information systems, as already
shown in classic works (De Loff, 1995). In addition, certain theories can
help to support findings and discussions about the implications of big
data in organizational contexts, like the implications for organizational
performance. Thus, considering the importance of the theories to un-
derstand better the implications of big data in organizational contexts
and the lack of studies on the subject, the research question that guides
this work is: which organizational theories have been applied to un-
derstand the effects of big data on organizational performance?
Therefore, the main goal of this study is to enrich the existing state-
of-the-art literature on the impact of big data on business growth by
examining the application of organizational theories to understand how
big data affects organizational performance. While other emerging to-
pics (Sarkis, Zhu, & Lai, 2011) and other management disciplines
(Jackson, Schuler, & Jiang, 2014) have had studies dedicated to

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: paula.fiorini@unesp.br (P. de Camargo Fiorini), bruno_seles@yahoo.com.br (B.M. Roman Pais Seles),
c.chiappetta-jabbour@montpellier-bs.com (C.J. Chiappetta Jabbour), enzo@feb.unesp.br (E. Barberio Mariano),
a.sousa-jabbour@montpellier-bs.com (A.B.L. de Sousa Jabbour).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.07.005
Received 24 May 2018; Received in revised form 15 July 2018; Accepted 15 July 2018
Available online 30 July 2018
0268-4012/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.
understanding organizational theories supporting their development,
the body of research into big data lacks an academic work capable of
systematising the organizational theories supporting big data scholar-
ship. To achieve the proposed goal, a structured literature review was
adopted, similar to those research methods employed by Seuring and
Müller (2008); Lage Junior and Godinho Filho (2010); Seuring and
Gold (2012); Jabbour (2013); Mariano, Sobreiro, and Rebelatto,
(2015), and Gaur and Kumar (2018). This work also is inspired by
previous systematized reviews which have implications for information
systems, such as Kapoor et al. (2014a), Kapoor et al. (2014b), Dwivedi
et al. (2017a).
The unique contributions of this work to better understanding the
link between big data and organizational performance can be sum-
marised thus:
• This work addresses the application of dozens of organizational
theories to big data research.
• This work offers research avenues on how to link dozens of orga-
nizational theories to empirical research in big data.
• This work identifies promising linkages between organizational
theories and the effects of big data on organizational performance,
with the aim of contributing to further research in this field.
This paper is organized as follows: following this introduction
(Section 1), the research method is presented (Section 2). Next, a the-
oretical background of the main concepts is provided (Section 3). Sec-
tion 4 presents the core of this paper, the organizational theories linked
to big data studies. Lastly, the conclusion (Section 5) explains the im-
plications of this study for theory and practice.
2. Research method
Inspired by Sarkis et al. (2011), this work revises literature on big
data, and highlights how management theory can be used to enhance
big data research. The research method adopted was an integrative – or
structured – literature review (Huisingh, 2012). This method was in-
itially applied by Lage Junior and Godinho Filho (2010) and later
employed by other studies, for instance, Jabbour (2013); Mariano et al.
(2015); Seuring and Gold (2012), and examined in detail by Gaur and
Kumar (2018).
A literature review approach is suitable for emerging topics, such as
big data, because, this approach classifies the literature of a research
domain, helps understanding a topic in comprehensive perspective, and
sheds light on research gaps aiming moving a theme forward (Fosso
Wamba et al., 2015; Gunasekaran, Ngai, & McGaughey, 2006; Ngai &
Gunasekaran, 2007). The steps of the integrative literature review are
presented in Fig. 1.
In the sequence, the details of the integrative literature review will
be presented: the search for articles; the selection of articles; and the
data extraction from articles.
2.1. Search for articles
The first step was the definition of the research question, as pre-
sented in Section 1. Based on the research question, the general and
specific objectives were defined too (the second step, see Fig. 1). The
third step was the definition of the combinations of keywords to use in
the searches.
The combinations of keywords used in the searches are in the
Table 1. The first combination was determined to capture articles about
Big Data that used theories in general (without specification of theory).
Instead, the second combination was applied to capture articles about
Big Data that used specific organizational theories. All the two searches
were carried out on the Scopus database – the Scopus’ advanced search
tool was utilized. The utilization of the Scopus database is advanta-
geous since it indexes about 70% more sources than the Web of Science
113
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
(Brzezinski, 2015) and provides more comprehensive coverage of the
latest literature (Harzing & Alakangas, 2016).
Using the first combination of keywords in the search, 541 articles
were identified. In the second search 150 articles were identified. After
the exclusion of repeated articles (articles that appeared in both sear-
ches), the total number identified was 588. However, all these articles
were refined by document type: article, article in press and review.
Finally, the number of selected articles were 285. All the searches were
conducted in October 2017.
2.2. Selection of articles
The following steps applied were the definition of the Inclusion
Criteria (IC) and Search Filters (SF1 and SF2). The IC was defined as:
articles about big data that applied some organizational theory to study
an organizational context, for example, an organization and/or its
processes.
All the 285 articles were submitted to search filter 1 (SF1), which
consisted of reading the title, abstract, and keywords of the studies.
Articles passed through SF1 only if they demonstrated potential for
meeting the inclusion criteria (IC). Among the 285 articles, only 95
passed through SF1. These 95 articles were then submitted to search
filter 2 (SF2): a full reading of the articles. As with SF1, only those that
met the IC went through SF2. Of the 95, 41 passed through SF2 for fully
meeting the IC. Finally, 41 studies in the literature were identified as
capable of responding to the defined research question (Table 2).
2.3. Data extraction from articles
The final steps of the integrative literature review were the in-depth
reading and analysis of the papers to identify the contributions and the
gaps for future research. All 41 articles were analyzed in detail ac-
cording to how they have applied management theories to underpin the
research.
3. Theoretical foundation
3.1. Big data
Big data has been seen as a revolution in business and management
(Dwivedi, et al., 2017a, 2017b; Erevelles, Fukawa, & Swayne, 2016;
Frizzo-Barker, Chow-White, Mozafari, & Ha, 2016; McAfee &
Brynjolfsson, 2012), with implications for a varity of contemporary
management topics (Acharya, Singh, Pereira, & Singh, 2018; Gupta,
Kar, Baabdullah, & Al-Khowaiter, 2018; Hashem et al., 2016; Ragini,
Anand, & Bhaskar, 2018). It has attracted enormous attention world-
wide because of its huge potential to transform ways of doing business,
management and research (Akter, Fosso Wamba, Gunasekaran, Dubey,
& Childe, 2016; Berner, Graupner, & Maedche, 2014; Chen & Zhang,
2014; Popovič, Hackney, Tassabehji, & Castelli, 2016). Big data de-
serves being studied further as this also can signify risks for companies
if not properly implemented (Raguseo, 2018). As any kind of IT, big
data has its adoption challenges (Dwivedi et al., 2015).
The concept of big data can be defined as the use of massive
amounts of data to support different types of decision-making
(Davenport, 2014; Goes, 2014). It is often characterized among scholars
and practitioners by the notion of several “Vs”. The big data “Vs” have
evolved from the classical three – volume, variety, and velocity – to the
two more recent additional Vs – veracity and value (Fosso Wamba et al.,
2015). Whereas volume and variety refer to the large amount and the
several sources and types of data, velocity refers to the rapid rate at
which data is generated (Dubey et al., 2017). Veracity, in turn, re-
presents the unreliability inherent in some sources of data, which re-
quires analysis in order to gain reliable predictions (Gandomi & Haider,
2015). Finally, value refers to the extent to which big data generates
worthwhile insights and benefits through data analysis (Fosso Wamba
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al. International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129

Step 1 – Definition of the research Step 2 – Definition of the general and

question specific objectives

Step 4 – Search for articles on databases Step 3 – Definition of the combinations

by keywords of keywords to use in the searches

Step 5 – Definition of the Inclusion

Step 6 – Article selection by reading the
Criteria (IC) and Search Filters (SF1 and
title, keywords and abstracts
SF2)

Step 8 – Analysis of organizational

theory application in big data-related Step 7 – Article selection by full reading
studies and identification of gaps

Fig. 1. Steps to the integrative literature review.

et al., 2015). Table 2

The analysis of such large amounts of data is called, in general Final number of articles selected.
terms, big data analytics (BDA). It consists of a combination of multiple Analysis Criteria Results (No. of
information technology-enabled resources with the purpose of dis- articles)
covering knowledge, supporting decision-making, predicting outcomes,
Total of articles identified in the database search refined 285
and, consequently, creating competitive advantage (Barbosa, Vicente,
by document type
Ladeira, & Oliveira, 2018; Davenport, Morison, & Harris, 2010). While Articles selected after reading through the title, abstract, 95
the classical 3 Vs features present significant challenges to data ana- and keywords
lysis, the additional 2 Vs are those which offer the potential value for Final number of selected articles after the full reading 41
firms to make better business decisions and achieve competitive ad-
vantages (Erevelles et al., 2016; Xie, Wu, Xiao, & Hu, 2016).
The opportunities associated with big data technologies in different firms which do not develop the resources and capabilities to use big
organizations have helped to create significant interest in this research data applications will struggle to develop a sustainable competitive
field (Chen & Zhang, 2014; Chen, Chiang, & Storey, 2012). These data advantage.
processing and analytical technologies can be applied in various high- In this context, where big data has the power to impact diverse
impact areas such as e-commerce, market intelligence, operations businesses, it is argued that its tools and philosophies are being spread
management, decision-making, supply chain and logistics, sustain- across numerous research areas and studied through the lenses of var-
ability, e-government, healthcare, and security (Chen et al., 2012; ious theories.
Manyika et al., 2011). Erevelles et al. (2016) highlight the fact that

Table 1
Combination of keywords.
Searches Combination of keywords

First combination (TITLE-ABS-KEY("big data") AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY("lens") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("theoretical lens") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("organizational theory") OR TITLE-
ABS-KEY("theory")) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY("organization") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("organisation") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("enterprise") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY
("firm") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("company") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("business")))
Second combination (TITLE-ABS-KEY("big data") AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY("Affective events theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Agency theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Attribution
theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Behavioral decision theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Chaos theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Complexity theory") OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY("Contingency theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Critical theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Decision theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Deconstruction theory") OR
TITLE-ABS-KEY("Diffusion of innovation theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Discourse theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Dynamic Capabilities") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY
("Ecological modernization ") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Equity theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Evolutionary theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Exchange theory") OR
TITLE-ABS-KEY("Expectancy theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Feminist theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Formal theories") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Game theory")
OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("General economic theories") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Goal-setting theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Human capital theory") OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY("Industrial organization") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Industrial economics") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Information theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Information
asymmetry") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Institutional theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Interpretive theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Knowledge Based View") OR
TITLE-ABS-KEY("Labeling theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Labor process theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Leadership theories") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY
("Modernization theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Multi-level theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Natural resource based view") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Network
theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Organizational theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Path dependency theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Philosophy of Science") OR
TITLE-ABS-KEY("Sociology of knowledge") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Population ecology theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Practice theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY
("Prospect theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Psycho-Dynamics Theories") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Referent cognition theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Reinforcement
theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Resource based view") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Resource dependence theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Signaling theory") OR
TITLE-ABS-KEY("Social capital theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Social cognitive theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Social construction theory") OR TITLE-ABS-
KEY("Social embeddedness theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Social exchange theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Social identity theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Social
learning theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Social network theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Stakeholder theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Structuration theory") OR
TITLE-ABS-KEY("Tournament theory") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("Transaction costs theory")) AND (TITLE-ABS-KEY("organization") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY
("organisation") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("enterprise") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("firm") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("company") OR TITLE-ABS-KEY("business")))

114
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.
3.2. Organizational theories
According to Bacharach (1989, p. 496), a theory is “a statement of
relations among concepts within a set of boundary assumptions and
constraints”. The purposes of theoretical statements are to organize and
to communicate clearly (Bacharach, 1989).
Defining and identifying organizational theories are not simple tasks
(Sarkis et al., 2011). However, a theory can be seen as a system of
constructs, variables, hypotheses, and observations (Bacharach, 1989;
Bagozzi & Phillips, 1982). The constructs are related to each other by
propositions and the variables are related to each other by hypotheses.
Furthermore, every theory has its own limitations (Bacharach, 1989).
The phenomenon of interest in an organizational theory en-
compasses all types of organization and their activities, processes, and
environments (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013). The most diverse areas and
disciplines influence organizational theories (Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013).
Organizational theories also have practical applications in many dif-
ferent areas within organizations, as well in the organizational en-
vironment, such as strategy, finance, marketing, information tech-
nology, operations, human resources, communication, natural
environment and supply chain management (SCM) (Akhtar, Khan,
Frynas, Tse, & Rao-Nicholson, 2018; Hatch & Cunliffe, 2013; Sarkis
et al., 2011).
For the purpose of this study, the definition of organizational theory
presented by Sarkis et al. (2011) will be adopted. They define organi-
zational theory as “a management insight that can help explain or de-
scribe organizational behaviors, designs, or structures”.
4. Results and discussion
This section aims to present nineteen theories that have been used
to investigate big data issues. Following the structure and logic of Sarkis
et al. (2011), the focus remained only on theories that have been
mentioned in or linked to at least two published studies related to big
data. In addition, some fundamental organizational theories, such as
contingency theory and stakeholders theory, among others, were also
considered despite having only one study connected to big data, in
order to provide a full overview of the topic.
Each of the next sections begins with a brief definition of the theory
in question, followed by big data literature linked to this theory and
potential directions for future research. Table 3 summarizes the find-
ings of this section and presents a research agenda for each theory.
4.1. Actor-network theory
The term actor-network theory (ANT) first appeared around 1982
(Law, 2009), and was established as a theory in 1990 by Callon (1990).
In the view of ANT, organizations are networks of heterogeneous actors
(Law, 1992) such as a person, a plant or a machine (Whittle & Spicer,
2008). According to Law (1992, p. 386), ANT addresses how these
actors and organizations are constructed from “the bits and pieces out
of which they are composed”.
Hazen, Skipper, Ezell, and Boone (2016) propose the application of
ANT to examine and clarify the nature of big data’s impact on supply
chain sustainability, considering that ANT provides a framework for
understanding how changes in a network (such as a supply chain) im-
pact the actors within it. According to the authors, the theory can be
applied to investigate whether big data predictive analysis (BDPA)
helps or hinders competitive supply chain sustainability efforts. In ad-
dition, this theory can be applied to investigate whether BDPA en-
hances sustainability efforts between and beyond supply chain partners.
Lastly, ANT can be applied to investigate whether actors across the
supply chain contribute to firms’ adoption of BDPA for enhancing
supply chain sustainability measures (Hazen et al., 2016).
115
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
4.2. Agency theory
Agency theory considers the optimal form of contract to control
relationships in which one ‘principal’ – an entity or an organization –
delegates work to another, the ‘agent’ (Eisenhardt, 1985). In economics,
the main idea of agency theory is that the relationship between the
principal and the agent should reflect efficient organization of in-
formation and risk-bearing costs (Eisenhardt, 1989). The theory at-
tempts to solve problems of agency which occur when the principal and
agent pursue different goals and have different risk preferences. Its
main area of analysis is the contract between the parties (Eisenhardt,
1989).
Considering BDA and the supply chain context, two studies apply
agency theory to underpin their analysis. According to Waller and
Fawcett (2013), the theory can be useful to investigate how the pro-
liferation of big data can affect the agency costs associated with the use
of third-party logistics. Hazen et al. (2016) propose a few more gaps
that application of the theory could help to fill out. They propose to
investigate how costs associated with monitoring data from supply
chain partners, used as the basis for BDPA-enabled sustainability in-
itiatives, impact long-term sustainability efforts across the supply chain.
Moreover, it is recommended to examine how BDPA can optimize the
agency relationships required for enhancing supply chain sustain-
ability. Finally, they additionally propose to analyse how BDPA can
affect the agency costs incurred by including third-party providers in
sustainable supply chain processes.
4.3. Contingency theory
Contingency theory states that organizations are open systems that
constantly interact with their environment and adapt to different en-
vironmental pressures. Therefore, organizational characteristics depend
on the environment, the market and the technology adopted (Lawrence
& Lorsch, 1973). The theory focuses on the uncertainties surrounding
organizations in their environment. It establishes that organizations
need to adjust to these environmental conditions since such conditions
can affect their characteristics (e.g. strategies and organizational
structure) (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Chandler, 1990; Donaldson, 2001;
Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967, 1973).
Contingency theory can be applied to study BDA as a technological
condition. Considering the expansion of the internet of things, organi-
zations will need to adapt to the new reality of data in abundance to
compete and survive. In this context, contingency theory could help to
understand the adaptation process and to explain how strategies and
organizational structures are made adequate. Waller and Fawcett
(2013) also suggest using the theory to analyse how big data and SCM
can be used by logistics managers to meet internal needs and adjust to
changes in the supply chain environment.
4.4. Diffusion of innovation theory
Rogers (1995) proposed the diffusion of innovation theory (DOI) to
help understand the adoption process of innovations and to explain how
and why new ideas and technologies spread.
DOI has been used as an underpinning theory in studies about big
data. For example, Ahmad, Ahmad, and Hashim (2016) examined how
the innovative traits of big data itself influence its successful deploy-
ment in organizations. In this case, DOI offered valuable insights into
the characteristics of business intelligence that influence successful
adoption. Drawing on DOI, Soon, Lee, and Boursier (2016) investigated
the key determinants affecting the adoption of big data. The authors
discovered that the accuracy of predictive analytics is the most sig-
nificant determinant affecting the adoption of big data.
These applications of DOI are examples of the importance of the
theory to understanding the innovation diffusion process of adopting
BDA in organizations.
 Table 3
Summary of organizational theories applied to big data-related research and future research directions.
Theory Studies General conceptualization Current big data-related research and application of Future research and application
theory

Actor-network theory Hazen et al. (2016) In the view of ANT, organizations are networks of 1) To examine and clarify the nature of big data’s impact 1) To investigate whether BDPA helps or hinders
heterogeneous actors (Law, 1992) such as a person, a plant on supply chain sustainability, considering that ANT competitive supply chain sustainability efforts (Hazen
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.

or a machine (Whittle & Spicer, 2008). According to Law
(1992, p. 386), ANT addresses how these actors and
organizations are constructed from “the bits and pieces out
of which they are composed”.
Agency theory Hazen et al. (2016) Agency theory considers the optimal form of contract to
Waller and Fawcett control relationships in which one ‘principal’ – an entity or
(2013) an organization – delegates work to another, the ‘agent’
(Eisenhardt, 1985). The theory attempts to solve problems
of agency which occur when the principal and agent pursue
different goals and have different risk preferences. Its main
area of analysis is the contract between the parties
(Eisenhardt, 1989).
Contingency theory Waller and Fawcett Contingency theory states that organizations are open
provides a framework for understanding how changes in a
network (such as a supply chain) affect the actors within it
(Hazen et al., 2016).
1) The theory can be applied to analyse big data’s impact
on agency costs and relationships in a supply chain
context (Waller & Fawcett, 2013; Hazen et al., 2016).
1) The theory can be applied to understand how big data
et al., 2016).
2) To investigate whether BDPA enhances sustainability
efforts between and beyond supply chain partners (Hazen
et al., 2016).
3) To investigate whether actors across the supply chain
contribute to firms’ adoption of BDPA for enhancing
supply chain sustainability measures (Hazen et al., 2016).
1) To investigate how the proliferation of big data can
affect the agency costs associated with the use of third-
party logistics. (Waller & Fawcett, 2013).
2) To investigate how costs associated with monitoring
data from supply chain partners, used as the basis for
BDPA-enabled sustainability initiatives, impact long-term
sustainability efforts across the supply chain (Hazen et al.,
2016).
3) To examine how BDPA can optimize the agency
relationships required for enhancing supply chain
sustainability. (Hazen et al., 2016).
4) To analyse how BDPA can affect the agency costs
incurred by including third-party providers in sustainable
supply chain processes (Hazen et al., 2016).
1) To understand the process of adapting to big data and

116
(2013) systems that constantly interact with their environment and can help organizations or supply chains to adapt to explain how strategies and organizational structures are
adapt to different environmental pressures. (Lawrence & environmental conditions (Waller & Fawcett, 2013). made adequate.
Lorsch, 1973). 2) It also can help to verify the adaptation processes 2) To analyse how big data and SCM can be used by
required for organizations to compete and survive in the logistics managers to meet internal needs and adjust to
new reality of abundant data. changes in the supply chain environment. (Waller &
Fawcett, 2013).
Diffusion of innovation Ahmad et al. (2016), Diffusion of innovation theory helps to understand the 1) The theory underpins the understanding of the process 1) To examine how the innovative traits of big data itself
theory Soon et al. (2016), adoption process of innovations and explain how and why of adopting big data in organizations. influence its successful deployment in organizations
new ideas and technologies spread (Rogers, 1995). (Ahmad et al., 2016).
2) To examine the key determinants affecting the adoption
of big data (Soon et al., 2016).
Dynamic capabilities view Braganza et al. (2017), Dynamic capability has emerged as an extension of RBV. 1) Big data analytics is considered a capability that can 1) Considering that the possession of a big data tool does
Chen et al. (2015), The theory states that dynamic capabilities enable firms to provide competitive advantage to organizations in highly not guarantee a dynamic response to market changes, it is
Côrte-Real et al. (2017), modify their resources to adapt rapidly to changing dynamic and uncertain environments (Dubey et al., 2017; necessary to examine causal relationships between
Dubey et al. (2017), conditions, helping them to maintain their competitive Wang & Hajli, 2017; Chen et al., 2015). findings from big data analyses and changes required in
Mikalef et al. (2017), advantage (Priem & Butler, 2001; Teece et al., 1997). 2) Big data initiatives help organizations respond to organizations (Braganza et al., 2017).
Prescott (2014), external and internal changes (Braganza et al., 2017). 2) Studies of sustainability could integrate DCV and
Fosso Wamba et al. 3) BDA applications allow for the creation or institutional theory since the latter is guided by economic
(2017), enhancement of dynamic capabilities such as rationality and fails to address social context (Dubey et al.,
Wang and Hajli (2017) organizational agility by means of effective internal and 2017).
external knowledge management (Côrte-Real et al., 3) BDA capability is context-specific due to variations in
2017). the analytics industry; thus it is recommended to develop
4) BDA for information processing reduces uncertainty context-specific BDA capability instruments, such as
(Chen et al., 2015). customer analytics, supply chain analytics, etc. (Fosso
Wamba et al., 2017).
Ecological modernization Hazen et al. (2016) This theory explains that economic competitiveness and 1) Big data and predictive analytics might be a source of 1) To investigate BDA as a means of gaining insight into
growth are not incompatible with environmental insight to support sustainable supply chains (Hazen et al., unknown or misunderstood environmental and social
protection; in fact, they are complementary sources of 2016). aspects of modern supply chains. (Hazen et al., 2016).
2) To analyse how BDA can be used to address specific
(continued on next page)
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
 Table 3 (continued)

Theory Studies General conceptualization Current big data-related research and application of Future research and application
theory

environmental change (Christoff, 1996; Mol, 1996; Mol & environmental and social crises (Hazen et al., 2016).
Spaargaren, 2000; Jänicke, 2008). 3) To explore BDA as a means of promoting sustainability-
focused efforts in emerging economies and developing
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.

countries (Hazen et al., 2016).

Game theory Fu and Zhu (2017), Game theory uses a mathematical method to explain 1) To solve the pricing question of green supply chains,
Liu and Yi (2017), competitive natural phenomena. Analytical tools are considering targeted advertising inputs and the degree of
Liu et al. (2017) applied to predict, explain and prescribe what players with green product input in the big data environment (Liu & Yi,
various degrees of rationality will do in specific situations 2017).
(Camerer, 2003; Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 2007). 2) Using big data analysis, Liu et al. (2017) proposed a
novel two-stage game theoretical approach to decision-
making policy for clients when choosing a suitable hotel
among many candidates; the merchants provided a non-
cooperative game strategy to attract the attention of
potential clients.
3) To create a credit game (model) of B2C network
suppliers and customers based on big data (Fu & Zhu,
2017).
Institutional theory Hazen et al. (2016), Institutional theory explains how pressures from an 1) To investigate the intersection of supply chain
Waller and Fawcett organization’s external environment can influence the management and data science, including big data (Waller
(2013), adoption of certain practices and actions (DiMaggio & & Fawcett, 2013).
Kwon et al. (2014) Powell, 1983; Hirsch, 1975; Meyer & Rowan, 1977). 2) Institutional theory has the potential to explore how big
data analytics can affect financial, social, and
environmental performance measures (Hazen et al.,
2016).
1) The data from big data analysis can be used to explore
new games and thus predict, explain and prescribe various
situations in the organizational environment, such as
customer behavior in certain purchase situations, and
specific transactions involving supply chain partners,
among other possibilities.
1) To understand which pressures (coercive, mimetic, and
normative) have the greatest impact on the dissemination
and use of big data analyses in specific sectors.
2) The isomorphic processes of change could explain a
firm’s intention to adopt big data analysis (Kwon et al.,
2014).
3) To analyse how internal practices compete with
external pressures in the adoption of BDA for sustainable

117
Knowledge-based view Côrte-Real et al. (2017), The knowledge-based view considers that knowledge and
Erickson and Rothberg related intangibles – from individual to collective
(2017), knowledge – are important to competitive advantage since
Hazen et al. (2014) they are considered to be valuable, rare, inimitable, and
non-substitutable resources. Accordingly, firms need to
leverage these resources into productive outcomes to
achieve competitiveness (Barney, 1991; Felin & Hesterly,
2007; Grant, 1997; Grant & Baden-Fuller, 2004).
1) The theory can foment discussions about the
knowledge necessary to manipulate a massive quantity of
data – filtering, analysis and other elaborate actions – and
how to create this knowledge, thus creating value and
competitive advantage for the organizations.
2) The knowledge-based view is used to support the
importance of data quality for predictive big data
analytics in supply chain management (Hazen et al.,
2014).
2) In conjunction, the knowledge-based view and dynamic
capabilities are used to understand the role of big data
analysis in the creation of agility (Côrte-Real et al., 2017).
supply chain policies and practices (Hazen et al., 2016).
4) To analyse how mimetic pressures could negatively
affect a firm’s use of BDA in supply chain sustainability
and also to verify which pressure (mimetic or normative)
is more influential in an organization’s adoption of BDA
(Hazen et al., 2016).
6) Institutional theory may be useful to investigate how
differences in information freedom within global supply
chains could affect firms’ abilities to leverage big data in
the chain (Waller & Fawcett, 2013).
1) To investigate whether there is a relationship between
perceived levels of data quality and big data usage in
supply chain applications (Hazen et al., 2014).
2) To analyse whether data quality plays a role in the
relationship between big data activities and measures of
supply chain performance (Hazen et al., 2014).
3) To investigate whether big data activities can be
considered a knowledge resource and when, how, and
how often firms should conduct an analysis of the quality
of their data in order to maintain this knowledge resource
(Hazen et al., 2014).
4) To verify how data quality analyses can affect the value
of both firms' data and firms' big data activities as
knowledge resources capable of enhancing supply chain
performance (Hazen et al., 2014).
5) To investigate how the quality of the data affects
perceived value placed on big data efforts when making
strategic decisions about competitiveness (Hazen et al.,
2014).
(continued on next page)
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
 Table 3 (continued)

Theory Studies General conceptualization Current big data-related research and application of Future research and application
theory

Knowledge management Du et al. (2016) Knowledge management theory is composed of 1) Knowledge management theory can explain how big 1) To investigate the knowledge processes that
theory organizational design and operational principles, processes, data management competence affects service innovation organizations develop to implement big data analysis and
organizational structures, applications and technologies and business performance (Du et al., 2016). to discover how important the relationships between
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.

that help knowledge workers to leverage their creativity
and ability to deliver business value (Gurteen, 1998).
Organizational information Hazen et al. (2014), OIPV suggests that organizations' structure, mechanisms,
processing view Kowalczyk and and processes revolve around information flows and have
Buxmann (2014) the main objective of reducing context-specific uncertainty
and equivocality through information processing (Daft &
Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1974; Tushman & Nadler, 1978) It
states that effective utilization of data requires an
appropriate, context-specific composition of information
processing mechanisms (Kowalczyk & Buxmann, 2014).
Resource dependence Hazen et al. (2016), RDT characterizes the corporation as an open system,
theory Prasad et al. (2016), dependent on contingencies of the external environment
Waller and Fawcett (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). Firms engage in collaborations
(2013) with external stakeholders in order to manage their
dependency on critical resources. It proposes that
organizations that lack certain resources will develop
relationships with other organizations with the aim of
obtaining those required resources (Ulrich & Barney, 1984).
Resource-based view Akter et al. (2016), Resource-based view theory states that organizational
Akter and Fosso Wamba resources and capabilities vary across firms and
(2016), differentiate firms’ performance and competitive
Barbosa et al. (2018), advantage. Resources and capabilities constitute the main
1) Big data analytics and business intelligence are
considered important information processing mechanisms
for organizations. They are able to help reduce
uncertainty and equivocality in different types of decision-
making process (Kowalczyk & Buxmann, 2014).
2) OIPV is useful to assess the dynamics of big data
utilization for information processing across different
decision contexts.
1) To investigate how resource dependence may explain
big data adoption in the context of supply chain
management (Prasad et al., 2016).
2) RDT supports that the ability to apply big data analysis
may increase a firm’s power (Waller & Fawcett, 2013).
1) RBV approaches big data as a resource/capability
which is able to directly or indirectly (through enhancing
other organizational capabilities or resources) promote
better performance and innovation.
internal stakeholders, such as managers and subordinates,
are to this process.
1) OIPV can be a useful lens to examine whether the data
quality used in big data solutions impacts information
process capability and performance.
2) To investigate whether enhancing data quality helps to
reduce uncertainties surrounding big data initiatives in
organizations and/or supply chains (Hazen et al., 2014).
1) To investigate how the ability to use big data for supply
chain decisions could affect an organization’s power in
relation to its suppliers or customers.
2) To analyse whether BDA is a critical resource that
supply chain partners depend upon to carry out
sustainability initiatives (Hazen et al., 2016).
1) To investigate whether big data activities should be
conducted outside of an organization using market
mechanisms or within an organization (Erevelles et al.,
2016).

118
Braganza et al. (2017), components of RBV. In order to achieve a competitive 2) RBV has also been applied to understand the impact of 2) To analyse in depth the mechanisms that foster BDA
Cheah and Wang advantage, organizations need to acquire and develop big data on the supply chain context (Gunasekaran et al., capability building.
(2017), resources that are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and 2017). 3) To examine how elements such as firm structure and
Du et al. (2016), non-substitutable (Barney, 1991). 2) Big data analytics as a firm-level innovation enables employees act together with BDA capabilities in enabling
Erevelles et al. (2016), firms to achieve heterogeneity and hence affords higher differential operations performance (Popovič et al., 2016).
Erickson and Rothberg value and awareness in securing sustainable advantages
(2017), (Kwon et al., 2014).
Gunasekaran et al. 3) BDA is seen as a distinctive capability and a high-
(2017), performance business process to support business needs
Gupta and George (Akter & Fosso Wamba, 2016).
(2016), 4) Questioning the use of RBV in big data studies,
Hazen et al. (2016), Braganza et al. (2017) state that big data erodes the
Ji-fan Ren et al. (2017), theory's assumptions of valuable, rare, inimitable and
Kwon et al. (2014), non-substitutable resources.
Mikalef et al. (2017),
Popovič et al. (2016),
Prescott (2014),
Waller and Fawcett
(2013),
Fosso Wamba et al.
(2017),
Wang and Hajli (2017)
Social capital theory Hazen et al. (2016) The premise of SCT is that a network provides value to its 1) In the supply chain context, interactions among 1) To study how social capital affects the adoption of big
members by allowing them access to the social resources members leads to wide acceptance of the norms and data for supply chain sustainability under competition,
that are embedded within the network (Bourdieu, 1985; values of that chain, as well as sharing of information and considering inter-firm and inter-supply chain competition.
Florin et al., 2003). data. In this sense, social capital provides the conditions (Hazen et al., 2016).
necessary for knowledge and information exchange to 3) To investigate how information sharing through big
occur (Hazen et al., 2016). data analytics impacts the importance of structural and
(continued on next page)
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
 Table 3 (continued)

Theory Studies General conceptualization Current big data-related research and application of Future research and application
theory

relational supply chain network components (Hazen et al.,

2016).
Social exchange theory Chang et al. (2015) This theory explains human behavior in social exchanges. It 1) SET logic explains the motivational factors that lead 1) To analyse the expected intrinsic and extrinsic benefits
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.

posits that people do others a favor with a general
expectation of some future benefit, but exactly when this
will occur is often unclear (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960).
Sociomaterialism theory Akter et al. (2016), Sociomaterialism approaches the integration of the social
Akter and Fosso Wamba and material dimensions. It is based on the logic that
(2016) people, systems, data, and management are entangled in
influencing organizational performance (Kim et al., 2012;
Orlikowski & Scott, 2008).
Stakeholder theory Wilburn and Wilburn Stakeholder theory proposes that companies produce
(2016) externalities affecting several parties, both internal and
external to the firm. A stakeholder is defined as any group
or individual who affects or is affected by an organization's
actions (Freeman, 1984).
Technology acceptance Liu et al. (2015), Technology acceptance model is an information systems
model Soon et al. (2016) theory that explains how to encourage users to accept and
managers to accept and utilise big data solutions.
Beneficial factors such as organizational rewards,
reputation, and reciprocity encourage managers to
effectively use business intelligence for big data solutions
(Chang et al., 2015).
2) Knowledge sharing provided by big data applications
can be seen as a form of generalized social exchange
(Kankanhalli et al., 2005).
1) Through this perspective, the capability of big data
analytics is seen as the entanglement of three dimensions -
management, technology and talent capabilities (Akter
et al., 2016; Barton & Court, 2012). All of these
dimensions are interlinked and mutually supportive in
improving firms’ performance.
1) Big data analytics can represent a solution for
companies to better satisfy stakeholders' expectations.
2) Big data allows organizations to understand the
possibilities and probabilities of a decision to positively or
negatively affect their stakeholders (Wilburn & Wilburn,
2016).
1) TAM has been applied in studying the factors
influencing the adoption of big data initiatives.
of performing the social exchange of sharing knowledge
through big data applications within an organization or
among networks.
1) To analyse how other components may influence each
dimension of BDA capability.
2) Big data needs to be investigated in a meaningful and
balanced manner by applying the right talent, technology,
and strategy (Akter et al., 2016).
1) To investigate whether companies may be directly or
indirectly pressured by their stakeholders – partners or
otherwise – to adopt big data applications in achieving
competitive advantage or parity with competitors.
1) To examine whether the determinants of big data
acceptance vary in different cultural contexts through

119
utilise new technology. TAM presents two factors that are 2) Soon et al. (2016) discovered that perceived usefulness
important determinants of users’ acceptance: perceived and perceived benefit have an influence in adopting big
usefulness and perceived ease of use (Davis, 1989). data. On the other hand, perceived ease of use was not a
relevant predictor.
3) Liu et al. (2015) verified that social influence affects
adoption of BD initiatives, that is, the shared opinion of
groups of individuals towards big data may influence its
successful implementation.
Transaction cost theory Akter and Fosso Wamba Transaction cost theory considers the transaction as the 1) TCT is useful in studying big data analytics in e-
(2016), most basic unit of measurement, and focuses on how much commerce transactions. BDA can benefit online firms by
Hazen et al. (2016), effort, resources, or cost is necessary for two parties to improving market transaction cost efficiency, managerial
Waller and Fawcett complete an exchange (Williamson, 1981). transaction cost efficiency and time cost efficiency (Akter
(2013) & Fosso Wamba, 2016).
2) Transaction cost theory also presents a rational view for
evaluating ‘make versus buy’ decisions related to big data
initiatives (Hazen et al., 2016; Geyskens et al., 2006).
cross-country and/or cross-industry studies.
2) To analyse the differences between TAM determinants
in public and private companies.
2) To clarify the advantages and drawbacks of outsourcing
big data initiatives. Researchers are encouraged to
investigate whether big data activities should be
conducted outside or within an organization through the
lens of TCT (Erevelles et al., 2016).
3) To investigate the influence of big data analytics in
transactions in the context of traditional and sustainable
supply chains (Waller & Fawcett, 2013).
4) To evaluate costs and benefits of shared big data
initiatives aimed at promoting sustainable practices in
supply chains (Hazen et al., 2016).
5) To investigate whether BDA reduces the cost and effort
associated with initializing sustainable supply chain
practices (Hazen et al., 2016).
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.
4.5. Dynamic capability view
Scholars argue that resource-based view (RBV) has not adequately
explained how and why certain firms have a competitive advantage in
situations of rapid and unpredictable change (Eisenhardt & Martin,
2000). For that reason, the dynamic capability view (DCV) has emerged
as an extension of RBV. DCV states that dynamic capabilities enable
firms to modify their resources to adapt rapidly to changing conditions,
helping them to maintain their competitive advantage (Priem & Butler,
2001; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). The capacity to reconfigure and
transform in order to renew competences distinguishes dynamic cap-
abilities from capabilities per se (Braganza, Brooks, Nepelski, Ali, &
Moro, 2017; Teece et al., 1997).
The logic of DCV has been applied to conceptualize BDA as a cap-
ability that can provide a competitive advantage to organizations in
highly dynamic and uncertain environments (Chen, Preston, & Swink,
2015; Dubey et al., 2017; Wang & Hajli, 2017). For example, BDA as an
organizational capability has a positive impact on the environmental
and social performance of supply chains (Dubey et al., 2017). Fosso
Wamba et al. (2017) add that to effectively translate the capability for
BDA into firm performance, it is necessary to concentrate BDA on
personnel expertise, infrastructure, and management capabilities.
Although BDA capability can have a direct impact on an organiza-
tion’s performance, it also has an indirect impact by improving other
process-oriented dynamic capabilities (Fosso Wamba et al., 2017). Chen
et al. (2015) mention that applying BDA across a supply chain enables
greater dynamic information processing capability, which in turn en-
dows the organizational decision makers with knowledge, enabling
them to produce better resource configurations and reconfigurations to
create competitive advantages.
Braganza et al. (2017) state that big data initiatives help to respond
to external and internal changes. For instance, where an organization's
big data initiative suggests benefits can be gained from changes to
supply chain activities, the organization would need to reconfigure its
warehouse, distribution and logistics capabilities. However, further
research is required to examine causal relationships between findings
from big data initiatives and changes required in organizations, since
possessing a big data tool does not guarantee a dynamic response to
market changes.
Côrte-Real, Oliveira, and Ruivo (2017) also mention that BDA ap-
plications allow for the creation or enhancement of dynamic cap-
abilities such as organizational agility by means of effective internal
and external knowledge management. Chen et al. (2015) state that
using BDA for information processing reduces uncertainty by stimu-
lating insight and knowledge creation, and increases capability in
strategic decision-making.
Therefore it is clear that, in environments where dynamism is high,
the main source of competitive advantage stems from companies being
able to create or reinforce their organizational capabilities through the
use of BDA (Mikalef, Pappas, Krogstie, & Giannakos, 2017).
4.6. Ecological modernization
Ecological modernization is used to describe a technology-based
and innovation-oriented approach to environmental policy and politics
(Christoff, 1996; Jänicke, 2008). It encompasses all measures taken to
foster eco-innovation and to support the diffusion of these innovations
(Jänicke, 2008). In summary, the theory explains that economic com-
petitiveness and growth are not incompatible with environmental
protection; in fact, they are complementary sources of environmental
change (Christoff, 1996; Jänicke, 2008; Mol, 1996; Mol & Spaargaren,
2000). Ecological modernization has been used as a technological ad-
justment, policy discourse and a belief system, among others (Christoff,
1996) and continues to be the focus of various studies in different areas.
Hazen et al. (2016), for example, linked ecological modernization to
BDA and pointed out three directions for future research. First, to
120
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
investigate BDA as a means of gaining insight into unknown or mis-
understood environmental and social aspects of modern supply chains.
Second, to analyse how BDA can be used to address specific environ-
mental and social crises. Third, to explore BDA as a means of promoting
sustainability-focused efforts in emerging economies and developing
countries.
4.7. Game theory
Game theory uses a mathematical method to explain competitive
natural phenomena. It is applied through various models, such as the
loan game, the buying and selling game and transaction game models
(Camerer, 2003; Von Neumann & Morgenstern, 2007). The theory
consists of an analytical mathematical method, in which analytical tools
are applied to predict, explain and prescribe what players with various
degrees of rationality will do in specific situations (Camerer, 2003).
Links between game theory and the application of big data were
found in the studies of Fu and Zhu (2017); Liu and Yi (2017), and Liu
et al. (2017). Liu and Yi (2017) applied game theory to solve pricing
issues in a green supply chain, considering targeted advertising inputs
and the degree of green product input in the big data environment.
Using BDA, Liu et al. (2017) proposed a novel two-stage game theo-
retical approach to decision-making policy for clients when choosing a
suitable hotel among many candidates; the merchants provided a non-
cooperative game strategy to attract the attention of potential clients. In
addition to this, Fu and Zhu (2017) created a credit game (model) of
business-to-consumer (B2C) network suppliers and customers based on
big data.
Future studies can expand the games created by Fu and Zhu (2017);
Liu and Yi (2017) and Liu et al. (2017), adapting them for other si-
tuations and even replicating them. The data from BDA itself can be
used to explore new games and thus predict, explain and prescribe
various situations in the organizational environment, such as customer
behavior in certain purchase situations and specific transactions in-
volving supply chain partners, among other possibilities. The key con-
clusion is that an abundant amount of data can boost the use of game
theory in forecasting, explaining and prescribing various situations in-
volving several players in the organizational environment.
4.8. Institutional theory
Institutional theory explains how pressures from an organization’s
external environment can influence the adoption of certain practices
and actions (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983; Hirsch, 1975; Meyer & Rowan,
1977). In this theory, the organization’s external environment is called
the institutional environment, and institutionalization occurs when
there is reciprocal typification of habitual practices and actions by
certain players in this environment (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).
Players within the same institutional environment share, dis-
seminate, stimulate, or copy these habitual practices and actions
through three isomorphic processes of change: coercive, mimetic, and
normative. The coercive isomorphism is caused by political influence
and problems of legitimacy. The mimetic isomorphism results from
standard responses to uncertainty and the normative isomorphism is
associated with professionalization or social influences (DiMaggio &
Powell, 1983).
There are interesting opportunities to study big data using institu-
tional theory as a theoretical lens (Braganza et al., 2017; Hazen et al.,
2016; Kwon, Lee, & Shin, 2014; Waller & Fawcett, 2013). One example
would be to investigate the intersection between SCM and data science,
including the study of big data (Waller & Fawcett, 2013). Specifically,
Hazen et al. (2016) mention that institutional theory has the potential
to explore how BDA can affect financial, social, and environmental
performance measures.
Institutional theory could also help to understand which pressures
(coercive, mimetic, and normative) have the greatest impact on the
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.
dissemination and use of big data analyses in specific sectors. Besides
that, the isomorphic processes of change could explain a firm’s inten-
tion to adopt BDA. It should be taken into account that when im-
plementing organizational innovations, some firms pursue similarities
with prominent organizations, and when there is little information
about the new technology, the company may follow existing practices
or past experiences (Kwon et al., 2014).
Hazen et al. (2016) proposed future applications of institutional
theory in big data-related research. The first is to consider how internal
practices compete with external pressures in the adoption of BDA for
sustainable supply chain policies and practices. Furthermore, it is sug-
gested to analyse how mimetic pressures could negatively affect a firm’s
use of BDA for supply chain sustainability, and also to verify whether
the mimetic or normative pressure is more influential in an organiza-
tion’s adoption of BDA. In the context of global supply chains, char-
acterized by differences in freedom of information between countries,
institutional theory might be useful to investigate how these differences
affect firms’ ability to leverage big data in the supply chain (Waller &
Fawcett, 2013).
4.9. Knowledge-based view and intangible assets
Since Schumpeter’s (1934) work, the importance of intangible assets
has been discussed. An intangible asset is characterized by not being
physical, as the loyalty and satisfaction of consumers, reputation and
image, and competences and know-how of employees, as well as
techniques and technologies. Intangible assets can provide a competi-
tive advantage for organizations (Andreou, Green, & Stankosky, 2007;
Spender, Bednarz-Łuczewska, Bordianu, & Rohaert, 2013; Teece, 1998).
Similarly, the knowledge-based view (KBV) considers that knowl-
edge and related intangibles – from individual to collective knowledge –
are important to competitive advantage since they are considered to be
valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources (Dwivedi,
Venkitachalam, Sharif, Al-Karaghouli, & Weerakkody, 2011) Accord-
ingly, firms need to leverage those resources into productive outcomes
to achieve competitiveness (Barney, 1991; Felin & Hesterly, 2007;
Grant & Baden-Fuller, 2004; Grant, 1997).
The application of the KBV in the literature is vast. Considering big
data studies, the theory is important in fomenting discussions about the
knowledge necessary to manipulate a massive quantity of data – fil-
tering, analysis and other elaborate actions – and how to create this
knowledge, thus creating value and competitive advantage for the or-
ganizations.
The KBV has been applied to study the relationships between data
quality, predictive analytics, and big data in SCM. Hazen, Boone, Ezell,
and Jones-Farmer, (2014) affirmed that big data as a knowledge re-
source is dependent on data quality. Only with high-quality data can
big data can provide a competitive advantage to organizations. Côrte-
Real et al. (2017) empirically tested the KBV and dynamic capabilities
to understand the role of BDA in the creation of organizational agility.
The authors discovered that BDA could create agility through knowl-
edge management, which consequently affects organizational processes
and competitive advantage.
Erickson and Rothberg (2017) compared capabilities possessed by
hospitality firms versus those possessed by firms in various healthcare
sectors. They used the KBV in their analysis and, with a basis in in-
tangible assets research, considered big data an intangible asset.
As previously stated, the KBV can be important in fomenting dis-
cussions in big data studies. Further research could investigate if there
is a relationship between perceived levels of data quality and big data
usage in supply chain applications. It is also necessary to analyse
whether data quality plays a role in the relationship between big data
activities and measures of supply chain performance. Hazen et al.
(2014) state that big data activities can be considered a knowledge
resource, but when, how, and how often firms should conduct an
analysis of the quality of their data in order to maintain this knowledge
121
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
resource is still unknown.
In addition, there has been little published about how data quality
analyses can affect the value of both firms’ data and firms’ big data
activities as knowledge resources capable of enhancing supply chain
performance. Lastly, it is recommended to investigate how the quality
of the data affects perceived value placed on big data efforts, when
making strategic decisions regarding competitiveness.
4.10. Knowledge management theory
Knowledge management is composed of organizational design and
operational principles, processes, organizational structures, applica-
tions and technologies that help knowledge workers to leverage their
creativity and ability to deliver business value (Gurteen, 1998). It is a
social process that focuses on encouraging the creation of new knowl-
edge through voluntary sharing of knowledge within organizations,
between organizations and with external partners (Tzortzaki &
Mihiotis, 2014). There are two keys to knowledge creation and sharing:
collaboration, and the need for managers to encourage their sub-
ordinates to voluntarily transfer their experiences and talents to the
organization (Tzortzaki & Mihiotis, 2014).
To investigate how big data management competence affects service
innovation and business performance, Du, Huang, Yeung, and Jian,
(2016) used knowledge management theory (KMT) to build a theore-
tical framework. Through this framework, they discovered that colla-
boration between big data lead to high levels of effectiveness in internal
operations, greater competitive advantage in the service market, and
effective data service development, which in turn are reflected in su-
perior service innovation and business performance.
KMT and other knowledge-based approaches can be useful to study
many aspects of big data adoption. For example, to investigate the big
data knowledge processes that organizations developed to implement
BDA, and to discover how important the relationships between internal
stakeholders, such as managers and subordinates, are to this process.
4.11. Organizational information processing view
Organizational information processing view (OIPV) suggests that
organizations’ structure, mechanisms, and processes revolve around
information flows and have the main objective of reducing context-
specific uncertainty and equivocality through information processing
(Daft & Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1974; Tushman & Nadler, 1978). While
uncertainty refers to incomplete knowledge, equivocality results from
conflicting interpretations about a decision-making situation (Daft &
Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1974).
OIPV states that effective utilization of data requires an appropriate,
context-specific composition of information processing mechanisms
(Kowalczyk & Buxmann, 2014). In this regard, BDA and business in-
telligence are considered important information processing mechan-
isms for organizations. They are able to help reduce uncertainty and
equivocality in different types of decision-making process. Specifically,
the more the decision processes involves non-routine aspects or un-
certainty, the more valuable these mechanisms are to improving deci-
sion-making performance (Kowalczyk & Buxmann, 2014). Thus, OIPV
can be applied to assess the dynamics of big data utilization in in-
formation processes across different decision contexts.
In addition, OIPV can be a useful lens to examine whether the data
quality used in big data solutions impacts information process cap-
abilities and performance. Levels of data quality may play a role con-
cerning the completeness of knowledge and interpretation of informa-
tion (Hazen et al., 2014). In this context, it could be investigated
whether enhancing data quality helps to reduce uncertainties sur-
rounding big data initiatives in organizations and/or supply chains
(Hazen et al., 2014).
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.
4.12. Resource dependence theory
Resource dependence theory (RDT) characterizes the corporation as
an open system, dependent on contingencies of the external environ-
ment (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). According to RDT, firms engage in
collaborations with external stakeholders in order to manage their de-
pendency on critical resources. It proposes that organizations that lack
certain resources will develop relationships with other organizations
with the aim of obtaining those required resources (Ulrich & Barney,
1984).
In summary, RDT explains how dependence on resources external to
the organization relates to organizational actions, network exchanges,
and outcomes (Aldrich & Pfeffer, 1976; Emerson, 1962; Pfeffer &
Salancik, 1978). Central to these actions is the concept of power, i.e.
control over vital resources (Ulrich & Barney, 1984). Organizations
attempt to reduce others’ power over them, often simultaneously trying
to increase their own power over others. Although constrained by ex-
ternal factors, managers can still act to reduce environmental un-
certainty and dependence (Hillman, Withers, & Collins, 2009).
RDT has been related to big data mainly in the context of SCM.
Specifically, within a supply chain framework, RDT has been found
very useful across a wide range of applications (Hazen et al., 2016).
Through the lens of RDT, Prasad, Zakaria, and Altay, (2016) studied
big data in humanitarian supply chain networks. It was noted that re-
source providers have the necessary power to pressure non-govern-
mental organizations (NGOs) to adopt BDA and to specify the expected
outcomes. NGOs’ resource dependence on governments and donor
agencies could lead to widespread big data adoption, revolutionizing
how NGOs deliver humanitarian services and thus enhancing outcomes.
The supply chain, in fact, involves different organizations with
distinct levels of power and dependences. Usually, organizations share
information with their chain partners and, depending on which side of
dependence an organization stands, the sharing of data, information or
analysis can become a critical resource (Ketchen & Hult, 2007). From
such a perspective, Waller and Fawcett (2013) argue that the ability to
apply BDA to that information may increase a firm’s power. Therefore,
RDT may explain how the ability to use big data for supply chain de-
cisions could affect an organization’s power in relation to its suppliers
or customers.
Corroborating to that argument, Hazen et al. (2016) add that RDT
can also explain the adoption and use of BDA for supply chain sus-
tainability. In this respect, BDA could be seen as a critical resource that
supply chain partners depend upon to carry out sustainability in-
itiatives, increasing power for the organization holding BDA resources
and capabilities.
4.13. Resource-based view
Resource-based view (RBV) theory states that organizational re-
sources and capabilities vary across firms and differentiate firms’ per-
formance and competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). Resources and
capabilities constitute the main components of RBV. Whereas resources
refer to tangible and intangible assets (e.g., technology, human and
organizational), capabilities are identified as tangible or intangible
processes that facilitate the deployment of other resources and enhance
overall productivity (Akter et al., 2016).
In order to achieve competitive advantage, organizations need to
acquire and develop resources that are valuable, rare, imperfectly
imitable, and non-substitutable (Barney, 1991). First, the valuable as-
pect of resources is their power to enable a firm to enhance net rev-
enues and reduce net costs, or to generate something of value to cus-
tomers that competitors cannot achieve. Second, rarity indicates that
the resources are not abundant and are possessed only by a small
number of firms. Third, the imperfectly imitable dimension suggests
that a resource cannot easily be copied. Finally, non-substitutable
means that there must be no strategically equivalent resource available
122
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
to replace it (Barney & Arikan, 2001).
The RBV has been used extensively by information systems and big
data scholars (Wade & Hulland, 2004). At least 19 articles were found
to use RBV as a theoretical lens in big data-related research. Most of
these studies approach big data as a resource/capability which is able to
enhance a firm's performance and innovation. Gupta and George (2016)
and Mikalef et al. (2017), for example, have taken insights from RBV to
suggest resources that are likely to improve BDA capability and con-
sequently enhance firms’ performance. Specifically, data, technology,
and basic resources – such as sufficient investment and time – are
suggested as three necessary tangible resources, and managerial and
technical big data skills are identified as two important human skills. In
addition, firms need to construct intangible resources such as a data-
driven culture and appropriate intensity of organizational learning to
create big data capability and pursue competitive advantage.
Akter et al. (2016) studied BDA capability based upon on three
different factors – management, technology and talent capabilities – in
order to achieve improved firm performance. Wang and Hajli (2017)
explored the business value of BDA in healthcare, by considering big
data as a technical resource with the potential to create analytics cap-
abilities that, in turn, support better healthcare performance.
RBV has also been applied to understand the impact of big data on
the supply chain context. Gunasekaran et al. (2017) argue that big data
assimilation is a capability that is dependent on connectivity and in-
formation-sharing resources, and which positively impacts supply chain
and operational performance and subsequently the achievement of
competitive advantage at a firm and supply chain level.
Going beyond the technological perspective, Ji-fan Ren, Fosso
Wamba, Akter, Dubey, and Childe, (2017) highlights the importance of
information quality in big data, which is vital to the data management,
diagnosis, and value generating processes to enhance business value
and firm performance.
Drawing on RBV, Popovič et al. (2016) found that the utilization of
BDA in manufacturing operations can enhance manufacturing perfor-
mance. However, it is worth noting that this study emphasizes that
information technology resources and capabilities per se do not en-
hance firm performance. They can act as key enablers of higher-order
organizational capabilities, or interact with other business resources to
increase firm performance. In manufacturing, a firm’s BDA capabilities
and organizational factors can facilitate effective utilization of BDA in
operations, which thus moderates the performance benefits of BDA
utilization. When firms utilize BDA more extensively, they are better
able to forecast previously unpredictable outcomes, and improve per-
formance. As a result, they experience operational process benefits in
the form of cost reductions, better operations planning, lower inventory
levels, better organization of the labor force and elimination of waste.
Similarly, Akter and Fosso Wamba (2016) argue that BDA is a dis-
tinctive capability of high-performance business processes to support
business needs.
Big data and RBV have also been related in terms of innovation.
Some studies state that big data management may lead to innovation.
Big data competence can be developed when companies clearly identify
the critical business processes that are impacted by big data and that
enable the planned new data services, and then apply the appropriate
big data assets skillfully for innovations (Du et al., 2016). Big data per
se is also considered an innovation that impacts organizational per-
formance. Adopting BDA as a firm-level innovation aims towards het-
erogeneity and hence affords higher value and awareness in securing
sustainable advantages (Kwon et al., 2014).
RBV states that unique internal resources explain the heterogeneity
of firms’ performance. Following this idea, the majority of relevant
studies consider conducting big data activities within the organization
to sustain competitiveness. However, Erevelles et al. (2016) raise the
issue that some firms outsource big data consumer analytics. In this
sense, researchers are encouraged to investigate whether big data ac-
tivities should be conducted outside of an organization using market
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.
mechanisms or within an organization. On one hand, RBV assumes the
existence of team-specific assets that are handled with higher pro-
ductivity within an organization than outside of an organization. On the
other hand, transactional cost analysis assumes that the same activity
can be performed either within or outside of an organization using the
market mechanism. This discussion highlights the use of RBV in the
context of big data and also helps managers to decide which big data
activities to perform within or outside their organization (Erevelles
et al., 2016).
In the opposite tendency to most other studies, Braganza et al.
(2017) question the use of RBV in the context of big data. According to
their research, big data erodes the theory's assumptions of valuable,
rare, inimitable and non-substitutable resources. First, data – the core
resource of big data initiatives – is not rare, since it can usually be
bought from data providers. Second, physical resources such as hard-
ware and software are neither rare nor imperfectly inimitable. Third,
although human resources with high-level data skills are harder to find,
they can be poached by competitors. Finally, many big data roles are
carried out by actors outside the organization, so have little or no
control over these resources. Therefore, it is argued that the capability
of big data to provide a competitive advantage is limited when one of
RBV’s assumptions is not met.
Nonetheless, Barbosa et al. (2018) claim that even though ordinary
data originating from organizations’ operations is not rare or in-
imitable, when the capability to derive knowledge from such data is
used, organizations may achieve competitive advantage.
4.14. Social capital theory
Social capital theory (SCT) was first defined by Bourdieu (1985) as
“the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to
possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized re-
lationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition”. Its basic premise is
that a network provides value to its members by allowing them access
to the social resources that are embedded within the network
(Bourdieu, 1985; Florin, Lubatkin, & Schulze, 2003).
These social networks need to be developed through investment
strategies oriented towards the institutionalization of group relations,
which are reliable sources of benefits (Portes, 1998). In general, social
capital can be broken down into two elements: (a) the social relation-
ship itself, which allows individuals to claim access to resources pos-
sessed by their associates, and (b) the amount and quality of those re-
sources (Bourdieu, 1985; Portes, 1998).
This theory has been applied widely in several research areas.
Although very few studies have related SCT to big data, it is possible to
construct a relationship with SCM (Hazen et al., 2016). In terms of SCT
in the supply chain, interactions among its members lead to wide ac-
ceptance of the norms and values of that chain, as well as the sharing of
information, data, and analysis to improve the overall performance of
the network (Chiu, Hsu, & Wang, 2006; Hazen et al., 2016; Huysman &
Wulf, 2006). According to Kankanhalli, Tan, and Wei, (2005), social
capital provides the conditions necessary for knowledge and informa-
tion exchange to occur.
On this basis, Hazen et al. (2016) argue that SCT should be applied
to study big data in the SCM context, with the purpose of improving
sustainable performance. The authors state that more research is
needed into how social capital affects the adoption of big data for
supply chain sustainability under competition, considering inter-firm
and inter-supply chain relations. Furthermore, it remains to be in-
vestigated how information sharing through BDA impacts the im-
portance of structural and relational supply chain network components.
4.15. Social exchange theory
Social exchange theory (SET) is derived from economic exchange
theory and explains human behavior in social exchanges (Blau, 1964).
123
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
It posits that people do others a favor with a general expectation of
some future benefit, but exactly when this will occur is often unclear
(Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). Therefore, SET assumes the existence of
relatively long-term relationships of interest based on intrinsic and
extrinsic benefits (Blau, 1964; Molm, 1997).
Employees tend to take a long-term approach to social exchange
relationships at work and expect to receive benefits from such re-
lationships (Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997). Extrinsic benefits refer to
those that employees receive from the organization for good perfor-
mance, whereas intrinsic benefits refer to those that employees ex-
perience internally through performing well (Cooper & Jayatilaka,
2006), such as self-efficacy.
Following the logic of SET, Chang, Hsu, and Wu, (2015) studied
motivational factors that lead managers to accept and utilize big data
solutions. It was found that benefit factors such as organizational re-
wards, reputation, and reciprocity encourage managers to use business
intelligence effectively for big data solutions. According to Kankanhalli
et al. (2005), knowledge sharing can be seen as a form of generalized
social exchange. Therefore, through knowledge sharing, managers can
receive organizational rewards, increase their reputation and re-
ciprocity, which in turn motivates them to perform such social ex-
changes (Chang et al., 2015).
Accordingly, SET can be applied to big data studies to analyse the
expected intrinsic and extrinsic benefits of performing the social ex-
change of sharing knowledge through big data applications within an
organization or network.
4.16. Sociomaterialism theory
Sociomaterialism addresses the integration of the social and mate-
rial dimensions. It is based on the logic that people, systems, data, and
management are entangled in influencing organizational performance
(Kim, Shin, & Kwon, 2012; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008).
Through this perspective, Akter et al. (2016) argue that BDA cap-
ability is composed of three dimensions and not only the material one,
technology. It relies on the entanglement of management, technology
and talent capabilities. (Barton & Court, 2012). All of these dimensions
are interlinked and mutually supportive in improving firms’ perfor-
mance. Therefore, to develop BDA capability it is essential to focus on
sophisticated technology, robust talent and analytics-driven manage-
ment culture (Akter & Fosso Wamba, 2016).
4.17. Stakeholder theory
Stakeholder theory proposes that companies produce externalities
that affect several parties, both internal and external to the firm. A
stakeholder is defined as any group or individual who affects or is af-
fected by organization's actions (Freeman, 1984). For instance, stake-
holders can be suppliers, partners or customers, as well as govern-
mental entities.
In order to attend to stakeholders’ expectations and concerns,
companies must identify all those parties that are affected by their
decisions. Usually, stakeholders exert pressure on companies to reduce
negative impacts and increase positive ones (Sarkis et al., 2011).
However, different stakeholder groups may perceive such impacts dif-
ferently. For this reason, the more information an organization can
gather about its stakeholders and their requirements, the better the
organization can meet their expectations and avoid unintended nega-
tive impacts (Wilburn & Wilburn, 2016).
In this context, BDA can represent a solution for companies to better
satisfy stakeholders' expectations, by analyzing and predicting the im-
pact of decisions on stakeholder groups. Wilburn and Wilburn (2016)
argue that big data allows organizations to understand the possibilities
and probabilities of a decision to positively or negatively affect their
stakeholders, specifically for decisions related to corporate social re-
sponsibility and sustainability initiatives. It is especially important for
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.
companies working in global communities with different cultures,
norms, and needs (Wilburn & Wilburn, 2016).
Another possible relation to big data comes from the pressures that
stakeholders can exert on companies. As stated by Akhtar et al. (2018)
and Sarkis et al. (2011), stakeholders may be responsible for pressuring
companies to adopt sustainable practices. Following this idea, compa-
nies may be directly or indirectly pressured by their stakeholders–
partners or otherwise – to apply big data in achieving competitive ad-
vantage, or simply parity with competitors.
4.18. Technology acceptance model
The technology acceptance model (TAM) is an information systems
theory that explains how to encourage users to accept and utilise new
technology (Davis, 1989). It has been widely applied by information
systems scholars to addresses the challenge to organizations of pro-
moting acceptance of new information systems (Liu, Dedehayir, &
Katzy, 2015). TAM presents two factors that are important determi-
nants of users’ acceptance: perceived usefulness and perceived ease of
use (Davis, 1989). The fundamental principle is that the better users
perceive that a specific application will enhance their performance, and
the less effort the application requires to use, the higher the adoption
rate will be. Since the model was first developed, several other factors
have been added.
TAM has been applied to study the factors influencing the adoption
of big data initiatives. Soon et al. (2016), for example, applied TAM to
analyse the determinants of big data adoption. It was discovered that
perceived usefulness and perceived benefit have an influence in
adopting big data. On the other hand, perceived ease of use was not a
relevant predictor. Liu et al. (2015) incorporated variable social influ-
ence with TAM and analysed its impact on the adoption of big data in
an organization. Social influence seemed to affect adoption of big data
initiatives; that is, the shared opinion of a group of individuals towards
big data may influence its successful implementation in organizations.
4.19. Transaction cost theory
Transaction cost theory (TCT) considers the transaction as the most
basic unit of measure and focuses on how much effort, resources, or cost
is necessary for two parties to complete an exchange (Williamson,
1981). Transaction costs are defined as the costs beyond the cost of the
product or service that are required to exchange a product or service
between two entities (Sarkis et al., 2011). The goal is to maximize
transaction performance and minimize costs.
Akter et al. (2016) argue that TCT is useful to study BDA in e-
commerce transactions. BDA can benefit online firms by improving
market transaction cost efficiency (e.g., buyer-seller interaction online),
managerial transaction cost efficiency (e.g., process efficiency) and
time cost efficiency (e.g., searching, bargaining and after sale mon-
itoring) (Akter et al., 2016). BDA can offer the necessary efficiency to
perform online transactions, minimizing costs as well as offering in-
formation and transparency for both sides.
TCT also presents a rational view for evaluating ‘make versus buy’
decisions (Geyskens, Steenkamp, & Kumar, 2006; Hazen et al., 2016).
This approach may be applied to clarify the advantages and drawbacks
of outsourcing big data initiatives. Researchers are encouraged to in-
vestigate whether big data activities should be conducted outside or
within an organization under the lens of TCT (Erevelles et al., 2016).
There is also the opportunity to investigate the influence of BDA in
transactions within the context of traditional and sustainable supply
chains. Waller and Fawcett (2013) question how big data affects the
reduction in internal transaction costs compared to external transaction
costs, and also if it affects the structure of supply chains. Another ex-
ample is pointed out by Hazen et al. (2016), who mention the need to
evaluate the costs and benefits of shared big data initiatives aimed at
promoting sustainable practices in supply chains. Finally, it also
124
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
remains to be investigated whether BDA reduces the costs and effort
associated with initializing sustainable supply chain practices (Hazen
et al., 2016).
4.20. Outlook on promising theories for big data studies: implications for a
research agenda
There are several different organizational theories which remain to
be applied by big data researchers. For example, at least 10 other
theories were found to have only one article linking them to big data.
Considering the low number of studies addressing these theories, they
are mentioned as promising theories for big data studies. These theories
are: (1) decomposed theory of planned behavior; (2) evolutionary
perspective; (3) expectancy theory; (4) goal contagion theory; (5) in-
formation systems participation theory; (6) normalization process
theory; (7) service-dominant logic; (8) social comparison theory; (9)
systems theory; and (10) technological, organizational, and environ-
mental framework. The findings for each theory are presented in
Table 4.
5. Conclusion
As we could conclude from the extensive review carried out in this
article, the management theory supports studies on big data, because
despite of the particularities of each theory, it helps with predicting,
monitoring, assessing, and adapting processes, internal structures and
decision making between members within a supply chain taking into
account aspects such as: costs, suitable types of relationships, and sus-
tainability issues, towards organizational competitive advantage.
In the next section, implications for theory and practice related to
the effects of big data on firms’ performance are highlighted. As the
purpose of this study is to enrich the existing state-of-the-art literature
on big data by examining organizational theories that have been ap-
plied to understanding how big data affects organizational perfor-
mance, a number of implications emerge.
5.1. Implications for theory and practice
First, in terms of implications for theory, this work aims to list the
theories that have been used to support the development of big data
research. While other emerging topics and disciplines have had studies
dedicated to understanding the management theories underpinning
empirical research (such as Sarkis et al., 2011; Jackson et al., 2014),
this research delves into the past, present and future of the links be-
tween dozens of organizational theories and big data research. Ex-
ploring how the scholarship on big data has used organizational the-
ories can create insights for theoretically robust and original research in
big data and firms’ performance. Researchers should keep in mind that
the selection – and justification – of the organizational theories they use
in big data research can have profound implications for the state-of-the-
art literature. In addition, Table 3 provides future research avenues for
each theory presented.
As implications for managers in charge of big data operations, this
work highlights the complexity behind the links between big data and
firms’ performance. Each theoretical angle adopted by researchers can
produce particular research findings and insights. For example, re-
search using RBV will highlight big data as a unique resource which can
affect firms’ performance (Gupta & George, 2016; Wang & Hajli, 2017).
On the other hand, the selection of another theory would have pro-
duced alternative results and insights. Drawing on ecological moder-
nization, big data is seen as a source of insight to support sustainable
performance (Hazen et al., 2016), whereas stakeholder theory suggests
that BDA can represent a solution for companies to meet stakeholders'
expectations (Wilburn & Wilburn, 2016). For a complete summary, see
Table 3. In this regard, if managers are aware of the complexity behind
research results on the links between big data and firms’ performance,
 Table 4
Summary of promising theories for big data-related studies and future research directions.
Theory
Decomposed theory of planned
behavior
Evolutionary perspective
Expectancy theory
Goal contagion theory
125
Information systems participation
theory
Normalization process theory
(NPT)
Service-dominant logic (SD logic)
Social comparison theory
Studies General conceptualization
Esteves and The Decomposed Theory of Planned Behavior (DTPB) is an
Curto (2013) extension of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen,
1991). In TPB the behavioral intention is an antecedent of
behavior and is determined by attitude, subjective norms
and perceived behavioral control (Ajzen, 1991; Taylor &
Todd, 1995). To better understand the relationships between
belief structures and the antecedents of intention, Taylor and
Todd (1995) decomposed beliefs (attitude, subjective norms
and perceived behavioral control) into multidimensional
constructs.
Du et al. The evolutionary and competence-based organizational
(2016) theories were born in the 1980’s from critiques of contract
theories (Kállay, 2012). Evolutionary theories are considered
as a subset of a wider class of theories (Hodgson, 1998) and
focus on innovation, learning and steady competitive
advantage, considering firms’ history (Kállay, 2012).
Chang et al. Expectancy theory considers that individuals perform for –
(2015) or contribute to – an organization in exchange for certain
rewards or inducements (Scholl, 1981).
Lee, Li, Shin, The goal contagion theory explains the process of goal
and Kwon contagion, through which individuals automatically adopt
(2016) and pursue a goal that is implied by another person’s
behavior (Aarts, Gollwitzer, & Hassin, 2004; Leander &
Shah, 2013).
Silva (2015) Information systems participation theory (ISPT) presents the
key parameters for designing systems with the participation
of users (Markus & Mao, 2004).
Shin (2016) NPT is derived from the theory of socio-technical systems. It
refers to the social processes through which ideas, actions,
and even new technologies become routinely embedded and
accepted in everyday work life (May & Finch, 2009; Sooklal,
Papadopoulos, & Ojiako, 2011).
Xie et al. SD logic is a theory that explains value co-creation between
(2016) firms and customers (Vargo & Lusch, 2004, 2008). The main
premise is that organizations, markets, and society are
fundamentally concerned with the exchange of services for
the benefit of a party.
Lee et al. Social comparison theory explains how individuals evaluate
(2016) their own opinions and abilities by comparing themselves
with others (Festinger, 1954). The main motivation of social
comparison is self-assessment (Wood, 1989).
Current big data-related research and application of theory
1) To develop a model that predicts the intention to adopt
big data technologies (Esteves & Curto, 2013).
1) To build a theoretical framework to investigate how big
data management competence affects service innovation
performance and how service innovation performance
subsequently affects business performance (Du et al., 2016).
1) To foster the acceptance and usage of business intelligence
as a set of solutions for big data analysis, Chang et al. (2015)
examine how the motivational factors of both expectancy
theory and social exchange theory (SET) affect managers’
willingness to utilise business intelligence.
1) To explain the intention to adopt innovative information
technology (IT) in firms with limited IT knowledge (Lee
et al., 2016).
1) Silva (2015), grounded in ISPT, studied a large diabetes
screening project to integrate, converge and derive expedient
insights from such an accumulation of data and make
recommendations for a successful big data analysis
implementation.
1) NPT offers a window for analyzing the complex process of
adopting and embedding big data in organizations, supply
chains, and wider society (Shin, 2016).
1) Through the lens of SD logic, big data platforms represent
an important channel for companies to co-create value with
customers. Such technologies enable organizations to
exercise a service-dominant strategy, by allowing collection
of customer data, superior communication with customers,
and effective response to changes (Xie et al., 2016).
1) Social comparison can be applied to understand
organizations’ intentions in adopting big data (Lee et al.,
2016).
Future research and application
1) Models like the one elaborated by Esteves and Curto
(2013) can be important to understand the nuances of the
adoption of big data analysis.
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.
2) The Esteves and Curto (2013) model can be adapted
and applied in other situations.
3) New models based on TPB/DTPB can be developed.
1) The evolutionary perspective in the model can be
useful to understanding other internal organizational
puzzles in big data research.
1) Following Chang et al. (2015), future studies must
collect data from various countries to generalize the
results.
2) Chang et al. (2015) focus on behavioral intentions, not
actual use behaviors, although it has been demonstrated
that behavioral intentions lead to actual use behaviors.
1) There are opportunities to study social comparison
behaviors at the organizational level, and the subsequent
goal contagion that derives goals from the observation of
comparable companies and competitors (Lee et al., 2016).
2) The adoption of big data analysis can be examined
through goal contagion theory and other organizational
theories, such as stakeholder theory and institutional
theory. These theories together may provide a better
understanding of the forces present in the organizational
environment and of how organizations behave in the face
of these forces to adopt big data analysis.
1) The ISPT can be applied in conjunction with other
theories to fully explore the importance of stakeholders
and specialists in big data analysis platform design.
Stakeholder theory and institutional theory can maximize
the ISPT framework, identifying the right stakeholders
and managing their expectations and demands.
1) To investigate social processes that can explain why
big data initiatives become normalized in certain
companies while in others they do not.
1) It is necessary, drawing on SD logic, to explore how big
data can collaborate in value co-creation processes in the
context of multiple actors.
1) To Investigate how social comparison activities may
influence organizations’ intention to adopt big data (Lee
et al., 2016).
(continued on next page)
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al. International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129

they will be able to better understand – and manage – this process.

3) To investigate how big data can help organizations as

1) To identify other contexts rather than supply chains in

2) To analyse the costs of poor data quality on big data

evolve adequately according to environmental changes.

open systems to interact with their environment and to
1) To investigate how data quality affects the big data
efforts of partner firms within a supply chain system

which TOE factors and components are important to

initiatives for supply chain members’ internal and
5.2. Limitations

Finally, it is possible to point out that this work has some limitations

external interactions (Hazen et al., 2014).

regarding its scope. First, the search for articles was carried out only in
the Scopus database, which, despite being highly distinguished, does
Future research and application

not gather all the latest research on the subject. Second, studies that
have been published since the search was performed are also outside

promote usage of big data.

the range of coverage of this work. Therefore, other organizational
(Hazen et al., 2014).

theories may have been related to big data but have been left out of the
discussion of this article.

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by CAPES - Coordination for the

Improvement of Higher Education Personnel [PDSE Processo no
sub-systems that absorb data from all points of the chain and
help organizations to interact with their environment (Hazen
Current big data-related research and application of theory

explain organizational movement toward big data usage in

1) Big data applications can be considered as supply chain

88881.133599/2016-01].
1) TOE has been applied to identify unique factors that

References
supply chain management (Chen et al., 2015).

Aarts, H., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Hassin, R. R. (2004). Goal contagion: Perceiving is for
pursuing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(1), 23–57.
Acharya, A., Singh, S. K., Pereira, V., & Singh, P. (2018). Big data, knowledge co-creation
and decision making in fashion industry. International Journal of Information
Management, 42, 90–101.
Ahmad, A., Ahmad, R., & Hashim, K. F. (2016). Innovation traits for business intelligence
successful deployment. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology,
89(1), 96–107.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organisational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Akhtar, P., Khan, Z., Frynas, J. G., Tse, Y. K., & Rao-Nicholson, R. (2018). Essential micro-
et al., 2014).

foundations for contemporary business operations: Top management tangible com-

petencies, relationship-based business networks and environmental sustainability.
British Journal of Management, 29(1), 43–62.
Akter, S., & Fosso Wamba, S. (2016). Big data analytics in E-commerce: A systematic
review and agenda for future research. Electronic Markets, 26(2), 173–194.
Akter, S., Fosso Wamba, S., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2016). How to
environment, and consequently are constantly evolving (Von

TOE is an organization-level theory that suggests that three

improve firm performance using big data analytics capability and business strategy
environmental) of a firm’s context influence technological
Systems theory suggests that organizations are open and

alignment? International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 113–131.

innovation (Baker, 2012; Tornatzky & Fleischer, 1990).
different elements (technological, organizational and

Aldrich, H., & Pfeffer, J. (1976). Environments of organisations. Annual Review of

porous systems that interact with their surrounding

Sociology, 2, 79–105.
Andreou, A. N., Green, A., & Stankosky, M. (2007). A framework of intangible valuation
areas and antecedents. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 8(1), 52–75.
Bacharach, S. B. (1989). Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. The
Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 496–515.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Phillips, L. W. (1982). Representing and testing organizational theories:
A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 459–489.
Baker, J. (2012). The technology–organisation–environment framework. In information
systems theory. In Y. K. Dwivedi, M. R. Wade, & S. L. Schneberger (Eds.). Information
General conceptualization

systems theory. New York: Springer.

Barbosa, M. W., Vicente, A. D. L. C., Ladeira, M. B., & Oliveira, M. P. V. D. (2018).
Managing supply chain resources with big data analytics: A systematic review.
Bertalanffy, 1951).

International Journal of Logistics, 21(3), 177–200.

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B., & Arikan, A. M. (2001). The resource-based view: Origins and implications.
Handbook of strategic management124–188.
Barton, D., & Court, D. (2012). Making advanced analytics work for you. Harvard Business
Review, 90(10), 78–83.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge. Penguin Group.
Hazen et al.

Chen et al.

Berner, M., Graupner, E., & Maedche, A. (2014). The information panopticon in the big
Studies

(2014)

(2015)

data era. International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering, 3, 14–19.

Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. Handbook of theory and research for the sociology
of education. New York: Greenwood.
Braganza, A., Brooks, L., Nepelski, D., Ali, M., & Moro, R. (2017). Resource management
Technological, organizational,

in big data initiatives: Processes and dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business

Research, 70, 328–337.
Brzezinski, M. (2015). Power laws in citation distributions: Evidence from Scopus.
and environmental
framework (TOE)

Scientometrics, 103(1), 213–228.

Table 4 (continued)

Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.
Callon, M. (1990). Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. The Sociological Review,
Systems theory

38, 132–161.
Camerer, C. (2003). Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton
University Press.
Theory

Chandler, A. D. (1990). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial en-
terprise. MIT press.

126
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.
Chang, Y. W., Hsu, P. Y., & Wu, Z. Y. (2015). Exploring managers’ intention to use
business intelligence: The role of motivations. Behaviour & Information Technology,
34(3), 273–285.
Cheah, S., & Wang, S. (2017). Big data-driven business model innovation by traditional
industries in the Chinese economy. Journal of Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade
Studies, 10(3), 229–251.
Chen, C. P., & Zhang, C. Y. (2014). Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques
and technologies: A survey on Big Data. Information Sciences, 275, 314–347.
Chen, D. Q., Preston, D. S., & Swink, M. (2015). How the use of big data analytics affects
value creation in supply chain management. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 32(4), 4–39.
Chen, H., Chiang, R. H., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From
big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36, 1165–1188.
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in
virtual communities: An integration of social capital and social cognitive theories.
Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1872–1888.
Christoff, P. (1996). Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities. Environmental
Politics, 5(3), 476–500.
Cooper, R. B., & Jayatilaka, B. (2006). Group creativity: The effects of extrinsic, intrinsic,
and obligation motivations. Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 153–172.
Côrte-Real, N., Oliveira, T., & Ruivo, P. (2017). Assessing business value of big data
analytics in European firms. Journal of Business Research, 70, 379–390.
Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organizational information requirements, media
richness and structural design. Management Science, 32(5), 554–571.
Davenport, T. H. (2014). How strategists use “big data” to support internal business de-
cisions, discovery and production. Strategy and Leadership, 42(4), 45–50.
Davenport, T. H., Morison, R., & Harris, J. G. (2010). Analytics at work: Smarter decisions,
better results. Harvard Business Press.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness (PU), perceived ease-of-use (PEOU) and user
acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319–340.
De Loff, L. A. (1995). Information systems outsourcing decision making: A framework,
organisational theories and case studies. Journal of Information Technology, 10,
281–297.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited institutional iso-
morphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological
Review, 48, 147–160.
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organisations. Sage.
Du, L., Huang, Q., Yeung, K., & Jian, Z. (2016). Improving service innovation perfor-
mance through the big data management closed loop competence in China Mobile.
International Journal of Computer Science and Applications, 13(1), 116–132.
Dubey, R., Gunasekaran, A., Childe, S. J., Papadopoulos, T., Luo, Z., Wamba, S. F., et al.
(2017). Can big data and predictive analytics improve social and environmental
sustainability? Technological Forecasting and Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2017.06.020.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Wastell, D., Laumer, S., Henriksen, H. Z., Myers, M. D., Bunker, D., et al.
(2015). Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and
future directions. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(1), 143–157.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Venkitachalam, K., Sharif, A. M., Al-Karaghouli, W., & Weerakkody, V.
(2011). Research trends in knowledge management: Analyzing the past and pre-
dicting the future. Information Systems Management, 28(1), 43–56.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (et al., 2017a). Re-
examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards
a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10796-017-9774-y.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Janssen, M., Slade, E. L., Rana, N. P., Weerakkody, V., Millard, J., et al.
(et al., 2017b). Driving innovation through big open linked data (BOLD): Exploring
antecedents using interpretive structural modelling. Information Systems Frontiers,
19(2), 197–212.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1985). Control: Organizational and economic approaches. Management
Science, 31(2), 134–149.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Agency theory an assessment and review. The Academy of
Management Review, 14, 57–74.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic
Management Journal, 21, 1105–1121.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 31–41.
Erickson, G. S., & Rothberg, H. N. (2017). Healthcare and hospitality: Intangible dynamics
for evaluating industry sectors. Service Industries Journal, 37, 589–606.
Esteves, J., & Curto, J. (2013). A risk and benefits behavioral model to assess intentions to
adopt big data. Journal of Intelligence Studies in Business, 3, 37–46.
Erevelles, S., Fukawa, N., & Swayne, L. (2016). Big Data consumer analytics and the
transformation of marketing. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 897–904.
Felin, T., & Hesterly, W. S. (2007). The knowledge-based view, nested heterogeneity, and
new value creation: Philosophical considerations on the locus of knowledge. The
Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 195–218.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7,
117–140.
Florin, J., Lubatkin, M., & Schulze, W. (2003). A social capital model of high-growth
ventures. The Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 374–384.
Fosso Wamba, S., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S. J. F., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J.
(2017). Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities.
Journal of Business Research, 70, 356–365.
Fosso Wamba, S., Akter, S., Edwards, A., Chopin, G., & 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, 165, 234–246.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pittman.
Frizzo-Barker, J., Chow-White, P. A., Mozafari, M., & Ha, D. (2016). An empirical study of
127
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
the rise of big data in business scholarship. International Journal of Information
Management, 36(3), 403–413.
Fu, Y. G., & Zhu, J. M. (2017). The credit game on network supplier and customer based
on big data. Electronic Commerce Research, 17, 1–23.
Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organisation design: An information processing view. Interfaces,
4, 28–36.
Gandomi, A., & Haider, M. (2015). Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and
analytics. International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), 137–144.
Gaur, A., & Kumar, M. (2018). A systematic approach to conducting review studies: An
assessment of content analysis in 25years of IB research. Journal of World Business,
53(2), 280–289.
Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J. B. E., & Kumar, N. (2006). Make, buy, or ally: A transaction
cost theory meta-analysis. The Academy of Management Journal, 49(3), 519–543.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (2009). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Transaction Publishers.
Goes, P. B. (2014). Big data and IS research. MIS Quarterly, 38, 3–8.
Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American
Sociological Review, 25, 161–178.
Grant, R. M. (1997). The knowledge-based view of the firm: Implications for management
practice. Long Range Planning, 30, 450–454.
Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alli-
ances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61–84.
Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E. W. T., & McGaughey, R. E. (2006). Information technology and
systems justification: A review for research and applications. European Journal of
Operational Research, 173(3), 957–983.
Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S. F., Childe, S. J., Hazen, B., et al.
(2017). Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain and organizational per-
formance. Journal of Business Research, 70, 308–317.
Gupta, S., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A., & Al-Khowaiter, W. A. (2018). Big data with cog-
nitive computing: A review for the future. International Journal of Information
Management, 42, 78–89.
Gupta, M., & George, J. F. (2016). Toward the development of a big data analytics cap-
ability. Information & Management, 53(8), 1049–1064.
Gurteen, D. (1998). Knowledge, creativity and innovation. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 2, 5–13.
Hashem, I. A. T., Chang, V., Anuar, N. B., Adewole, K., Yaqoob, I., Gani, A., et al. (2016).
The role of big data in smart city. International Journal of Information Management,
36(5), 748–758.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organisation theory: Modern, symbolic and post-
modern perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Harzing, A. W., & Alakangas, S. (2016). Google scholar, scopus and the web of science: A
longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison. Scientometrics, 106(2), 787–804.
Hazen, B. T., Boone, C. A., Ezell, J. D., & Jones-Farmer, L. A. (2014). Data quality for data
science, predictive analytics, and big data in supply chain management: An in-
troduction to the problem and suggestions for research and applications. International
Journal of Production Economics, 154, 72–80.
Hazen, B. T., Skipper, J. B., Ezell, J. D., & Boone, C. A. (2016). Big Data and predictive
analytics for supply chain sustainability: A theory-driven research agenda. Computers
& Industrial Engineering, 101, 592–598.
Hillman, A. J., Withers, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A
review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.
Hirsch, P. M. (1975). Organisational effectiveness and the institutional environment.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 327–344.
Hodgson, G. M. (1998). Evolutionary and competence-based theories of the firm. Journal
of Economic Studies, 25, 25–56.
Huisingh, D. (2012). Call for comprehensive/integrative review articles. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 1–2.
Huysman, M., & Wulf, V. (2006). IT to support knowledge sharing in communities, to-
wards a social capital analysis. Journal of Information Technology, 21(1), 40–51.
Jabbour, C. J. C. (2013). Environmental training in organisations: From a literature re-
view to a framework for future research. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling, 74(1),
144–155.
Jackson, S. E., Schuler, R. S., & Jiang, K. (2014). An aspirational framework for strategic
human resource management. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 1–56.
Jänicke, M. (2008). Ecological modernisation: New perspectives. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 16, 557–565.
Ji-fan Ren, S., Fosso Wamba, S., Akter, S., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2017). Modelling
quality dynamics, business value and firm performance in a big data analytics en-
vironment. International Journal of Production Research, 55(17), 5011–5026.
Kapoor, K. K., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Williams, M. D. (2014a). Rogers’ innovation adoption
attributes: A systematic review and synthesis of existing research. Information Systems
Management, 31(1), 74–91.
Kapoor, K. K., Dwivedi, Y., & Williams, M. D. (2014b). Innovation adoption attributes: A
review and synthesis of research findings. European Journal of Innovation Management,
17(3), 327–348.
Kállay, B. (2012). Evolutionary and competence-based theories of the firm. Journal of
International Studies, 5, 38–45.
Kankanhalli, A., Tan, B. C., & Wei, K. K. (2005). Contributing knowledge to electronic
knowledge repositories: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 113-143.
Ketchen, D. J., & Hult, G. T. M. (2007). Bridging organization theory and supply chain
management: The case of best value supply chains. Journal of Operations Management,
25(2), 573–580.
Kim, G., Shin, B., & Kwon, O. (2012). Investigating the value of sociomaterialism in
conceptualizing IT capability of a firm. Journal of Management Information Systems,
29(3), 327–362.
Kowalczyk, M., & Buxmann, P. (2014). Big data and information processing in
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.
organisational decision processes. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6,
267–278.
Kubina, M., Varmus, M., & Kubinova, I. (2015). Use of big data for competitive advantage
of company. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 561–565.
Kwon, O., Lee, N., & Shin, B. (2014). Data quality management, data usage experience
and acquisition intention of big data analytics. International Journal of Information
Management, 34(3), 387–394.
Lage Junior, M., & Godinho Filho, M. (2010). Variations of the kanban system: Literature
review and classification. International Journal of Production Economics, 125(1),
13–21.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor network: Ordering, structuring and
heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 379–393.
Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. The new Blackwell companion to
social theory141–158.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex or-
ganizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1–47.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1973). As Empresas e o Ambiente: Diferenciação e
Integração Administrativas. Petrópolis: Vozes.
Leander, N. P., & Shah, J. Y. (2013). For whom the goals loom: Context-driven goal
contagion. Social Cognition, 31(2), 187–200.
Lee, N., Li, S., Shin, B., & Kwon, O. (2016). Social comparison, goal contagion, and
adoption of innovative information technology. Journal of Computer Information
Systems, 56(2), 127–136.
Liu, F., Dedehayir, O., & Katzy, B. (2015). Coalition formation during technology adop-
tion. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34, 1186–1199.
Liu, S., Shao, B., Gao, Y., Hu, S., Li, Y., & Zhou, W. (2017). Game theoretic approach of a
novel decision policy for customers based on big data. Electronic Commerce Research,
17, 1–16.
Liu, P., & Yi, S. P. (2017). Pricing policies of green supply chain considering targeted
advertising and product green degree in the big data environment. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 164, 1614–1622.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., et al. (2011). Big
data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity. McKinsey Global
Institute1–156.
Mariano, E. B., Sobreiro, V. A., & Rebelatto, D. A. D. N. (2015). Human development and
data envelopment analysis: A structured literature review. Omega, 54(1), 33–49.
Markus, M. L., & Mao, J. Y. (2004). Participation in development and implementation-
updating an old, tired concept for today’s IS contexts. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 5(11), 514–544.
May, C., & Finch, T. (2009). Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: An
outline of normalization process theory. Sociology, 43(3), 535–554.
McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). Big data: The management revolution. Harvard
Business Review, 90(10), 60–68.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as
myth and ceremony. The American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.
Mikalef, P., Pappas, I. O., Krogstie, J., & Giannakos, M. (2017). Big data analytics cap-
abilities: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Information Systems and
E-Business Management, 1–32.
Mol, A. P. J. (1996). Ecological modernisation and institutional reflexivity:
Environmental reform in the late modern age. Environmental Politics, 5(2), 302–323.
Mol, A. P., & Spaargaren, G. (2000). Ecological modernisation theory in debate: A review.
Environmental Politics, 9(1), 17–49.
Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange. New York: New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ngai, E. W. T., & Gunasekaran, A. (2007). A review for mobile commerce research and
applications. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 3–15.
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of
technology, work and organisation. The Academy of Management Annals, 2, 433–474.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organisations: A resource de-
pendence perspective. Stanford University Press.
Popovič, A., Hackney, R., Tassabehji, R., & Castelli, M. (2016). The impact of big data
analytics on firms’ high value business performance. Information Systems Frontiers,
1–14.
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual
Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.
Prasad, S., Zakaria, R., & Altay, N. (2016). Big data in humanitarian supply chain net-
works: A resource dependence perspective. Annals of Operations Research, 1–31.
Prescott, M. E. (2014). Big data and competitive advantage at Nielsen. Management
Decision, 52(3), 573–601.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for
strategic management research? The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.
Ragini, J. R., Anand, P. R., & Bhaskar, V. (2018). Big data analytics for disaster response
and recovery through sentiment analysis. International Journal of Information
Management, 42, 13–24.
Raguseo, E. (2018). Big data technologies: An empirical investigation on their adoption,
benefits and risks for companies. International Journal of Information Management,
38(1), 187–195.
Rodríguez-Mazahua, L., Rodríguez-Enríquez, C. A., Sánchez-Cervantes, J. L., Cervantes,
J., García-Alcaraz, J. L., & Alor-Hernández, G. (2016). A general perspective of big
data: Applications, tools, challenges and trends. The Journal of Supercomputing, 72(8),
3073–3113.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. Macmillian Publishing Co.
Santos, M. Y., Sá, J. O., Andrade, C., Lima, F. V., Costa, E., Costa, C., et al. (2017). A big
data system supporting Bosch Braga industry 4.0 strategy. International Journal of
Information Management, 37(6), 750–760.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., & Lai, K. H. (2011). An organizational theoretic review of green supply
128
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
chain management literature. International Journal of Production Economics, 130(1),
1–15.
Scholl, R. W. (1981). Differentiating organisational commitment from expectancy as a
motivating force. The Academy of Management Review, 6, 589–599.
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge. MA: Harvard
University Press.
Sena, V., Demirbag, M., Bhaumik, S., & Sengupta, A. (2017). Big data and performance.
British Journal of Management, 2019, 1–6 Special Issue.
Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2012). Conducting content-analysis based literature reviews in
supply chain management. Supply Chain Management an International Journal, 17(5),
544–555.
Seuring, S., & Müller, M. (2008). From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15),
1699–1710.
Shin, D. H. (2016). Demystifying big data: Anatomy of big data developmental process.
Telecommunications Policy, 40, 837–854.
Shirdastian, H., Laroche, M., & Richard, M. O. (2017). Using big data analytics to study
brand authenticity sentiments: The case of Starbucks on Twitter. International Journal
of Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.09.007.
Silva, D. D. (2015). Addressing the complexities of big data analytics in healthcare: The
diabetes screening case. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 19, 99–115.
Sooklal, R., Papadopoulos, T., & Ojiako, U. (2011). Information systems development: A
normalisation process theory perspective. Industrial Management & Data Systems,
111(8), 1270–1286.
Soon, K. W. K., Lee, C. A., & Boursier, P. (2016). A study of the determinants affecting
adoption of big data using integrated technology acceptance model (TAM) and dif-
fusion of innovation (DOI) in Malaysia. International Journal of Applied Business and
Economic Research, 14, 17–47.
Spender, J. C., Bednarz-Łuczewska, P., Bordianu, A., & Rohaert, S. (2013). Intangibles:
Theory, categories, and the Kozminski matrix. Knowledge Management Research &
Practice, 11(2), 101–111.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Decomposition and crossover effects in the theory of
planned behavior: A study of consumer adoption intentions. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 12(2), 137–155.
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new economy, markets
for know-how, and intangible assets. California Management Review, 40(3), 55–79.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic man-
agement. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Tornatzky, L. G., & Fleischer, M. (1990). The processes of technological innovation.
Lexington: Books.
Tushman, M. L., & Nadler, D. A. (1978). Information processing as an integrating concept
in organizational design. Academy of Management Review, 3(3), 613–624.
Tzortzaki, A. M., & Mihiotis, A. (2014). A review of knowledge management theory and
future directions. Knowledge and Process Management, 21(1), 29–41.
Ulrich, D., & Barney, J. B. (1984). Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence,
efficiency, and population. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 471–481.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2008). Service-dominant logic: Continuing the evolution.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 1–10.
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1951). Problems of general system theory. Human Biology, 23, 302.
Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (2007). Theory of games and economic behavior.
Princeton University Press.
Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). The resource-based view and information systems re-
search: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1),
107–142.
Waller, M. A., & Fawcett, S. E. (2013). Data science, predictive analytics, and big data: A
revolution that will transform supply chain design and management. Journal of
Business Logistics, 34(2), 77–84.
Wang, Y., & Hajli, N. (2017). Exploring the path to big data analytics success in health-
care. Journal of Business Research, 70, 287–299.
Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., & Liden, R. C. (1997). Perceived organizational support and
leader-member exchange: A social exchange perspective. Academy of Management
Journal, 40(1), 82–111.
Whittle, A., & Spicer, A. (2008). Is actor network theory critique? Organization Studies,
29(4), 611–629.
Wilburn, K. M., & Wilburn, H. R. (2016). Asking “What Else?” To identify unintended
negative consequences. Business Horizons, 59(2), 213–221.
Williamson, O. E. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach.
American Journal of Sociology, 87(3), 548–577.
Wood, J. V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal at-
tributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 231.
Xie, K., Wu, Y., Xiao, J., & Hu, Q. (2016). Value co-creation between firms and customers:
The role of big data-based cooperative assets. Information & Management, 53(8),
1034–1048.
Yaqoob, I., Hashem, I. A. T., Gani, A., Mokhtar, S., Ahmed, E., Anuar, N. B., et al. (2016).
Big data: From beginning to future. International Journal of Information Management,
36(6), 1231–1247.
Paula de Camargo Fiorini is a researcher at the Department of Production Engineering,
Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Brazil. She has been a visiting scholar at Montpellier
Business School, France. Paula holds a bachelor degree in Information Systems from the
Sao Paulo State University with an international period at University of Ontario Institute
of Technology (UOIT), Canada. Her research interests include information systems and
information technology, big data, operations management, and organizational perfor-
mance.
P. de Camargo Fiorini et al.
Bruno Michel Roman Pais Seles is a researcher at the Department of Production
Engineering, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Brazil. Bruno Michel holds a bachelor
degree in Business Administration from the Sao Paulo State University and has a master's
degree in Production Engineering: Operations and Systems Management from the Sao
Paulo State University. His research interests include business administration, operations
management, environmental management, corporate social responsibility and sustainable
supply chain management.
Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour has been an academic at prestigious universities such
as Montpellier Business School, France, University of Stirling, Scotland, United Kingdom,
UNESP-Sao Paulo State University and USP-University of Sao Paulo, Brazil, and USP-
University of Sao Paulo. He has published highly-cited articles in first-tier journals, in-
cluding Industrial Marketing Management, International Journal of Production Research,
International Journal of Production Economics, Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Technovation, among others.
Enzo Barberio Mariano is Assistant Professor in the Department of Production
129
International Journal of Information Management 43 (2018) 112–129
Engineering of the Paulista State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho", Campus of Bauru -
SP. Master's and PhD advisor in the graduate program in production engineering, in the
area of applied quantitative methods and the sustainability of productive systems. Editor-
in-chief of the journal Operations and Systems Management (GEPROS). He holds a degree
in Mechanical Engineering from the University of São Paulo - USP (2005) and in
Pedagogy from the Federal University of São Carlos - UFSCar (2011). He is also a Master
(2008) and Doctor (2012) in Production Engineering from the University of São Paulo. He
has experience in the area of Production Engineering, with emphasis on Economic
Engineering, Data Envelopment Analysis and Development Economics.
Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour is an expert in sustainable operations, technology
and supply chain management. She has worked as Associate Professor for Montpellier
Business School (France), University of Strathclyde Glasgow-School of Engineering
(United Kingdom), and Sao Paulo State University-Department of Production Engineering
(Brazil). She has published in journals such as Technological Forecasting &Social Change,
International Journal of Production Economics, International Journal of Production
Research, Journal of Cleaner Production, and others.