Cited by 1,624Big Data and Business IntelligenceInformation Technology Governance and StrategyBig Data Technologies and Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 110 of the 114 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 75 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

How to improve firm performance using big data analytics capability and business strategy alignment?

Open access
Akter, Shahriar, Wamba, Samuel Fosso, Gunasekaran, Angappa, Dubey, Rameshwar, Childe, Stephen J.·2016·International Journal of Production Economics

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.018

Cites

110 of 110 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 75 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 55 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 36
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 48
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
74 of 74
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a paucity of research in the big data literature that has explored and encapsulated BDAC dimensions by applying the entanglement view under sociomaterialism.

    “To the best of our knowledge, in the big data literature, there is a paucity of research which has explored and encapsulated BDAC dimensions by applying the entanglement view under sociomaterialism.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    BDAC pays off for some companies but not for others.

    “However, BDAC pays off for some companies but not for others.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Very few companies have achieved a big impact through big data.

    “It appears that very few have achieved a big impact through big data.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Investment in big data still poses a lot of challenges due to the missing link between analytics capabilities and firm performance.

    “Yet, investment in big data still poses a lot of challenges due to the missing link between analytics capabilities and firm performance.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed associations between BDAC, ACBSA and FPER reflect causal effects rather than mere association.

    “Overall, the findings of the structural model confirm that BDAC is a significant predictor of FPER (explaining 50% of the variance).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 152 valid questionnaires are representative of the population of big data-using firms in the USA, allowing generalization.

    “an invitation to participate in the study was sent on to a random sample of 826 people who were using big data in the USA and who were members of the 'business analysts', 'big data analytics', and 'IT professionals' groups.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is a paucity of empirical modeling in big data research.

    “despite the paucity of empirical modeling in big data research”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The emerging BDA research has been struggling to encapsulate and prove the significance of BDAC as a source of firm performance.

    “The emerging BDA research has been struggling to encapsulate and prove the significance of BDAC as a source of firm performance.”
8 of 8

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Reported response rate does not match the invitation count

    Minor

    The paper reports 152 valid questionnaires from 826 people invited. That is a response rate of 18.4%, not 37.72%.

    Reported 37.72 · recomputed 18.401937

  • Model-development studies postdate the main survey

    Minor

    The paper says the two Delphi studies were used to develop the model, but dates them November 2014 and February 2015, after the main survey was collected in April 2014. The stated sequence of model development and testing therefore does not fit the dates.

  • Control-variable significance claim conflicts with reported t-values

    Minor

    The paper says all six control-variable weights are significant at p<0.01, yet their reported t-values include 0.293, 0.448 and 0.075. Those values do not support that significance claim.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 114 references

4 of the 114 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Bharadwaj, 2000, A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation, MIS Q., 24, 169, 10.2307/3250983 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Chin, 1998, Commentary: issues and opinion on structural equation modeling, MIS Q.
  3. Court, 2015, Getting big impact from big data, McKinsey Q., 1
  4. Davenport, 2012, How ‘big data’ is different, MIT Sloan Manag. Rev., 54, 43
  5. Davenport, 2007, The dark side of customer analytics, Harv. Bus. Rev., 85
  6. Davenport, 2012, Data scientist: the sexiest job of the 21st century, Harv. Bus. Rev., 90, 70
  7. Goes, 2014, Big data and IS research, MIS Q., 38, 3
  8. Grant, R.M., 2002. The resource-based theory of competitive advantage. In Strategy: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management. Faulkner, David (Eds.), 135, pp.122-148.
  9. Johnson, 2012, Big data+big analytics=big opportunity, Financ. Exec., 28, 50
  10. Kiron, 2012, Creating business value with analytics, MIT Sloan Manag. Rev., 53, 57
  11. Lavalle, 2011, Big data, analytics and the path from insights to value, Mit. Sloan Manag. Rev., 52, 21

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 801–900 of 1,000

Metadata

Authors
Akter, S., Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Wollongong (AU)
  • Université de Toulouse (FR)
  • University of Massachusetts Dartmouth (US)
  • Symbiosis International University (IN)
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
Corresponding author
Gunasekaran, Angappa
Venue
International Journal of Production Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
182
Pages
113-131
ISSN
0925-5273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2517745273
Cited by
1,624
References
114
Citations by year
2026: 259 · 2025: 213 · 2024: 206 · 2023: 223 · 2022: 214 · 2021: 171 · 2020: 147 · 2019: 98 · 2018: 65 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 2
FWCI
103.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Production Economics (publishedVersion)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Big Data and Business Intelligence
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Information Technology Governance and Strategy
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Big Data Technologies and Applications
Keywords
big data analytics capability, firm performance, business strategy alignment, resource-based view, management capability, technological capabilities, business analysts, moderating effect

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review