Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

THE DATA HIERARCHY: factors influencing the adoption and implementation of data-driven decision making

  • Theory/Conceptual
  • Published:
AMS Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Marketing practitioners have access to a rapidly increasing quantity and variety of data from customers and other stakeholders. Managers use the term “Big Data” to describe this avalanche of information, which many view as critical to providing a better understanding of customers and markets. This research uses interviews with managers to examine the marketing function’s perspective on data-driven decision making within the firm. Based on informant responses, we develop a hierarchy of data-oriented decision making, describe the drivers that influence where a firm falls within this hierarchy, and detail several transition capabilities for marketing managers interested in becoming more data-driven. The key factors that influence the level of data driven decision making are: 1) firm environment; 2), competition, 3) executive commitment, 4) interdepartmental dynamics, and 5) organizational structure. This framework guides marketing managers both in evaluating the firm’s data capabilities and facilitating change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example, a search on the term “Big Data” in Factiva showed 112 results in 2009, 1,965 in 2011, 19,442 in 2013, 27,505 in 2015, and 29,454 in 2017. This search included only Top Sources as identified by Factiva – Dow Jones, Major News and Business Publications, Press Releases, Reuters, and The Wall Street Journal.

  2. While data-driven decision making may be applicable to both small and large firms, we focus this research on large firms incorporating a large volume, variety, and velocity of data.

  3. Although we identify distinct stages, we use the term “hierarchy” to describe the overarching framework because it is a ranking of importance relative to the use of data.

References

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom: Presidential address to ISGSR, June 1988. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, P. F. (1982). Marketing, strategic planning and the theory of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 46(2), 15–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ariker, M., Breuer, P., & McGuire, T. (2014). How to get the most from big data. Retrieved June 9, 2017 from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/business-technology/our-insights/how-to-get-the-most-from-big-data. Accessed 18 May 2019.

  • Awad, E. M., & Ghaziri, H. M. (2004). Knowledge management. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barton, D., & Court, D. (2012). Making advanced analytics work for you. Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 78–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohling, T., Bowman, D., LaValle, S., Mittal, V., Narayandas, D., Ramani, G., & Varadarajan, R. (2006). CRM implementation effectiveness issues and insights. Journal of Service Research, 9(2), 184–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulton, C. (2018). 10 data analytics success stories: An inside look. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from https://www.cio.com/article/3221621/analytics/6-data-analytics-success-stories-an-inside-look.html. Accessed 18 May 2019.

  • Brown, B., & Gottlieb, J. (2016). The need to lead in data and analytics (pp. 1–9). McKinsey.

  • Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L., & Kim, H. (2011). Strength in numbers: How does data-driven decision making affect firm performance? Available at SSRN 1819486.

  • Bucklin, R. E., & Gupta, S. (1999). Commercial use of UPC scanner data: Industry and academic perspectives. Marketing Science, 18(3), 247–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chau, P. Y., & Tam, K. Y. (2000). Organizational adoption of open systems: A “technology-push, need-pull” perspective. Information & Management, 37(5), 229–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Court, D. (2015). Getting big impact from big data, McKinsey Quarterly, January, 1–8.

  • Davenport, T. H. (2014). Big Data @ work. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport, T. H., & Harris, J. G. (2007). Competing on analytics: The new science of winning. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, G. S. (2006). Aligning the organization with the market. Sloan MIT Management Review, 48(1), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. C., Bohmer, R. M., & Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(4), 685–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erevelles, S., Fukawa, N., & Swayne, L. (2016). Big data consumer analytics and the transformation of marketing. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 897–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, E., & Otnes, C. C. (2006). Breaking new ground: Developing grounded theories in marketing and consumer behavior. In R. W. Belk (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research methods in marketing (pp. 19–30). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, O., Fountaine, T., Henke, N., & Saleh, T. (2018). Ten red flags signaling your analytics program will fail. McKinsey Analytics, 1–9.

  • Flint, D. J., Woodruff, R. B., & Gardial, S. F. (2002). Exploring the phenomenon of customers’ desired value change in a business-to-business context. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 102–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frambach, R. T., & Schillewaert, N. (2002). Organizational innovation adoption: A multi-level framework of determinants and opportunities for future research. Journal of Business Research, 55(2), 163–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franks, B. (2012). Taming the big data title wave. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frické, M. (2009). The knowledge pyramid: A critique of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 35(2), 131–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Germann, F., Lilien, G. L., & Rangaswamy, A. (2013). Performance implications of deploying marketing analytics. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 30(2), 114–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henke, N., .Bughin, J., Chui, M., Manyika, J., Saleh, T., Wiseman, B., & Sethupathy, G. (2016). The age of analytics: Competing in a data-driven world, McKinsey Global Institute, December, 1–123.

  • Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2007). The thought worlds of marketing and sales: Which differences make a difference? Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 124–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., Jr., & Jensen, O. (2000). Fundamental changes in marketing organization: The movement toward a customer-focused organizational structure. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(4), 459–479.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, S. C. (1967). Hierarchical clustering schemes. Psychometrika, 32(3), 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joshi, K. (1991). A model of users’ perspective on change: The case of information systems technology implementation. MIS Quarterly, 15(2), 229–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. J. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational, and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of Management Journal, 24(4), 689–713.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, V., Venkatesan, R., & Reinartz, W. (2008). Performance implications of adopting a customer-focused sales campaign. Journal of Marketing, 72(5), 50–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam, S. K., Sleep, S., Hennig-Thurau, T., Sridhar, S., & Saboo, A. R. (2017). Leveraging frontline employees’ small data and firm-level big data in frontline management: An absorptive capacity perspective. Journal of Service Research, 20(1), 12–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laney, D. (2001). 3D data management: Controlling data volume, velocity and variety. META Group Research Note, 6(70).

  • Lee, J., Sridhar, S., Henderson, C. M., & Palmatier, R. W. (2012). Effect of customer-centric structure on firm performance. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper Series, No. 12–111.

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14(1), 319–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, K. (2001). Grounded theory in management research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., & Byers, A. H. (2011). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity (pp. 1–143). May: McKinsey Global Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marr, B. (2016). The most practical big data use cases of 2016. Retrieved December 1, 2018 from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2016/08/25/the-most-practical-big-data-use-cases-of-2016/#dfca73531625. Accessed 18 May 2019.

  • Mayer-Schonberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAfee, A., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2012). Big data: The management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 60–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M. (2010). Sampling in grounded theory. The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (pp. 229–244).

    Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. The Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 203–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of Information Science, 33(2), 163–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rust, R. T., Moorman, C., & Bhalla, G. (2010). Rethinking marketing. Harvard Business Review, 88(1/2), 94–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schroeck, M., Shockley, R., Smart, J., Romero-Morales, D., & Tufan, P. (2012). Analytics: The real-world use of big data, IBM Institute for Business Value (pp. 1–20).

    Google Scholar 

  • Seggie, S. H., Soyer, E., & Pauwels, K. H. (2017). Combining big data and lean startup methods for business model evolution. AMS Review, 7(3–4), 154–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sleep, S., & Hulland, J. (2018). Is big data driving cooperation in the c-suite? The evolving relationship between the chief marketing officer and chief information officer. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1–13.

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 273–285).

    Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). Review: The resource-based view and information systems research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 107–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (1977). Production efficiency versus bureaucratic self-interest: Two innovative processes? Policy Sciences, 8(4), 381–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. (1973). Innovations and organizations. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Zeleny, M. (1987). Management support systems: Towards integrated knowledge management. Human Systems Management, 7(1), 59–70.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Georgia Gwinnett College, 1000 University Center Lane, Lawrenceville, GA, 30043, USA

    Stefan Sleep

  2. Terry College of Business, University of Georgia, Benson Hall, Athens, GA, 30602-6258, USA

    John Hulland & Richard A. Gooner

Authors
  1. Stefan Sleep
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Hulland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Richard A. Gooner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Sleep.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sleep, S., Hulland, J. & Gooner, R.A. THE DATA HIERARCHY: factors influencing the adoption and implementation of data-driven decision making. AMS Rev 9, 230–248 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-019-00146-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-019-00146-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation