Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:434496 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit
www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of
more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online
products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication
Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
Introduction
To Simon (1960), a Nobel laureate and one of the founding fathers of the scientific domain
of decision-making, decision-making is synonymous with the entire process of
management. Decision-making is central to what managers do (Hickson et al., 1989;
Michel, 2007; Stewart, 2006), and is integrated into all kinds of management functions
(Harrison, 1999). Making effective strategic decisions is one of the critical abilities that
managers are required to have and develop to lead their organizations in the increasingly
volatile and competitive business world. As Porter (1985) emphasizes, the success or
failure of a firm relies mainly on the managers competitive ability to make strategic
decisions.
Strategic decisions address ambiguous and complex issues, engage various departments
and involve a high level of organizational resources (Amason, 1996). Because of the
extensive uncertainty, ambiguity and risk associated with strategic decisions (McKenzie Received 30 July 2015
Revised 21 February 2016
et al., 2011), gathering, analyzing and considering reliable data and information 13 March 2016
are critically important in strategic decision-making (Nicolas, 2004). In a turbulent and Accepted 12 May 2016
DOI 10.1108/JKM-07-2015-0293 VOL. 21 NO. 1 2017, pp. 71-91, Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1367-3270 JOURNAL OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT PAGE 71
volatile business context, organizations need to link their strategic dimension with their
knowledge assets (Nonaka, 1988, 1994). Knowledge originates in the minds of people
(Davenport and Prusak, 2000) and if effectively managed can help organizations to
generate value. Knowledge management (KM) is generally defined as a systematic
process for creating, sharing and implementing knowledge. A KM system is an information
technology (IT) system developed to facilitate and support the creation, dissemination and
implementation of knowledge in organizations (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). KM systems are
considered to be a class of information systems designed and implemented to manage
organizational knowledge. KM initiatives involve social and cultural facets of the
organization and rely on IT as an enabler (Alavi and Leidner, 2001). From the very early
versions of KM systems (such as discussion forums, knowledge repositories,
computer-supported cooperative work, knowledge bases and inference engines) to the
more recently developed KM systems (such as the new KM portal in Microsoft Office 365
and SharePoint Portals), KM systems have been widely used to identify, share and utilize
knowledge, as well as to incorporate knowledge into problem-finding and problem-solving
processes.
While KM systems are becoming integrated parts of business processes by providing
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 05:55 13 November 2017 (PT)
text document analysis in many organizations for example, Xerox (Cox, 2007) the
emergence of big data is raising new challenges. Big data is perceived by scholars and
practitioners as an opportunity to generate valuable insights, improve decision-making
and gain competitive advantage (Davenport, 2013; Delen and Demirkan, 2013). With
the support of the right technology and sufficient skills, organizations can benefit from
big datas most prominent characteristics, i.e. its velocity, volume and variety. The
analysis of streaming data allows organizations to take immediate actions, adapt
business processes and improve customer experiences (Watson and Marjanovic,
2013). The volume of big data can provide more robust and valid results. The most
critical of the big data characteristics in the context of this paper is its variety. The
variety of big data refers to different types and sources of data that are available to
organizations. These characteristics of big data often exceed the capabilities of
traditional analytics tools, leading to the need for advanced analytics. Advanced
analytics is a general term which simply means applying various advanced analytic
techniques to data to answer questions or solve problems (Bose, 2009, p. 156).
Advanced analytics is also referred to as predictive and prescriptive analytics and
describes a group of tools that are combined to extract information, supporting
managers in predicting and optimizing outcomes (Barton and Court, 2012; Gartner,
2014).
One of the main challenges that organizations encounter when working with big data is
the management of these various data sources and the integration of structured and
unstructured data that an organization has access to. Structured data are perceived as
data with fixed coded meanings and formats, mostly numeric, and normally stored in
database fields. Unstructured data, in contrast, have no fixed format and mostly derive
from human interactions (Kopenhagen et al., 2011). Structured data can be directly
processed by computing equipment, while unstructured data are mostly non-numeric
and can rarely be computed without any prior transformation. Examples of structured
data are purchase order data, product IDs and quantities, customer IDs and click
streams. Examples of unstructured data are customer reviews, calls, chats, sounds,
transcripts, social networking, blogs, forums, emails, images, colors and shapes. These
types of data cannot be easily put in columns and rows and therefore have no place in
a relational database.
Unstructured data pose a challenge to organizations that have traditionally dealt with
structured data stored in their relational databases, such as transactional data,
enterprise resource planning (ERP) or customer relationship management (CRM) data.
1. Data do not mean knowledge (Ackoff, 1989; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995).
Three Vs
Originally defined by Doug Laney from the IT research and advisory firm Gartner (Laney,
2001), big data is now commonly specified by the three Vs, which serve as a distinction
between big data and traditional data sets: volume, velocity and variety (Chen et al., 2012;
Jagadish et al., 2014; Kudyba, 2014; McAfee and Brynjolfsson, 2012; OLeary, 2013;
Watson and Marjanovic, 2013). Recent literature also suggests the addition of veracity, as
seen in Sathi (2012) and Jagadish et al. (2014).
The volume of big data exceeds the size of regular data sets by far and creates challenges
for traditional DBMS and data warehouses in terms of data storage and analysis (Kaisler
et al., 2013; Katal et al., 2013; Provost and Fawcett, 2013; Watson and Marjanovic, 2013).
This increase in data volume is attributed to the continuous growth of data that are
produced every second over the internet, sensors, customer transactions and so forth
(McAfee and Brynjolfsson, 2012; Watson and Marjanovic, 2013). Because of various
developments in the area of data storing capabilities, companies can access more storage
space for lower costs. The growing market of cloud computing (Gantz and Reinsel, 2012),
for example, offers organizations of all sizes tailored solutions and capacities for their data
storage (Chen et al., 2012; Delen and Demirkan, 2013). The option of analytics-as-a-service
allows users to not only have the ability to access their information from remote devices but
also use the necessary analytics tools for data processing on demand at any given time
(Delen and Demirkan, 2013; Hazen et al., 2014). This service assists especially in
encompassing the other two components of big data, namely, velocity and variety.
The velocity of data is characterized by the speed of data creation and analysis. Regarding
velocity, a data set can only be classified as big data if the data are processed in real-time
or near real-time (Hazen et al., 2014; McAfee and Brynjolfsson, 2012). Data are not
analyzed in hindsight, but in continuous flows and processes (Davenport et al., 2013,
p. 23), providing more flexibility and faster reactions. Instead of the more traditional
analysis of historic data gathered from past events, there is a shift toward the analysis of
streaming data, providing information about live events (Davenport, 2014). This especially
enables decisions that affect data that are simultaneously gathered and analyzed (Chen
et al., 2012; OLeary, 2013).
The variety of big data refers to the different sources and types of data that are stored
(Davenport, 2013; Hazen et al., 2014; McAfee and Brynjolfsson, 2012). Data are not limited
to structured, numerical data anymore; data are gathered in unstructured forms from social
networks, texts, audio or video files, sensor data, GPS signals and so on (OLeary, 2013),
data sources that outperform the traditional internal and structured data that organizations
relied on in the past. Traditionally, organizations relied on data that were stored in their
relational databases and easily queried. Sources of structured data were therefore often
internal information systems, such as CRM or ERP systems. Because of their structured
nature, different types of data, such as graph data or transactional data, could be
integrated and used to gain insights. The rise of unstructured data sources, such as sensor
data, Web data, blogs, emails, social media data, etc. poses new challenges for the
integration of different data types (Kudyba, 2014; Lodha et al., 2014).
Unstructured data, such as social media data, can provide an in-depth insight into human
behavior, as can be seen in the example of Twitter data. Twitter has been the focus of
various research papers on opinion mining, event detection and political discourse and
provide valuable insights for researchers in the areas of marketing, education, etc.
(Goonetilleke et al., 2014). The reliability and quality of social media data, however, can
vary greatly. In the example of Twitter, not all contributions are user-generated; some are
posted by automated programs, therefore compromising the insight into human behavior
(Edwards et al., 2014). User-generated data can therefore make a valuable contribution but
should be integrated with more reliable sources to provide valid results.
A prominent example of overreliance on big data, and specifically unstructured data,
for predictive analytics is Google Flu Trends (GFT): Quantity of data does not mean
that one can ignore foundational issues of measurement and construct validity and
reliability and dependencies among data (Lazer et al., 2014, p. 1,203). By using
search terms and social media to predict flu trends, GFT managed on several
occasions to surpass predictions from the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
However, in the long run by overlooking information that would have been attainable
by using traditional statistical methods Google Flu Trends produced large errors in its
predictions (Lazer et al., 2014).
(p. 98). The systematic process typically involves six main steps:
Unstructured Data
SD-UD UD-UD
Structured Decisions based Unstructured Decisions based on
on Unstructured Data Unstructured Data
(Mainly rely on human knowledge,
(May require techniques
experience, interpretaon and
such as text-mining and
expert insight. May require
content discovery) techniques such as text-mining and
content discovery)
Structured Unstructured
DM DM
SD-SD UD-SD
Structured Decisions based on Unstructured Decisions based on
Structured Data Structured Data
(Can be formulated by using
(Mainly rely on human knowledge,
advanced analycs for
automated and programmed experience, interpretaon and insight.
decision-making) May require advanced data mining
and query techniques for ad-hoc data
analysis)
Structured Data
1. Web 2.0 is founded on social principles, such as unbounded collaboration and peer
production.
2. Web 2.0 offers a series of applications including blogs, social bookmarking, media
sharing, data mashups and editing platforms, which are easy to use and intuitive to
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 05:55 13 November 2017 (PT)
understand.
3. Web 2.0 is based on infrastructures such as open platforms that make the use of social
media significantly inexpensive.
Many social media platforms attract users with diverse interests and offer easy search
facilities that enable the users to find the most relevant expertise (Von Krogh, 2012).
The fact that connecting people to people must be part of all KM systems is not a new
thing (Anand et al., 2008, p. 22). In advanced KM systems, however, the level of social
interaction is determined by the type of the data-driven decisions. While data analytics
underlie SD-SD and SD-UD, social interactions play a critical role in UD-SD and UD-UD
by evaluating and integrating big data and human insight. As strategic decisions are
usually made by a group of people and through less structured processes, the
interaction between managers across organizational departments and levels is vital in
making effective strategies (Mintzberg, 1996). The data and knowledge that are
exchanged through the social connections can enhance the formulation and
implementation of strategies (Ahearne et al., 2014). Accordingly, the incorporation of
big data into strategic decisions requires a reliable facilitated collaboration between
those who are responsible for formulating the organizations strategies (i.e. managers
and strategy analysts) and those who deal with data analytics (i.e. data analysts). This
cooperation is vital, as it ensures the alignment between big data analysis and the
organizations strategic direction.
Advanced KM systems not only encourage and facilitate social interactions within the
organization but also support interactions between the organization and outside
stakeholders. The social interaction across organizational levels and with stakeholders
outside the organization is particularly important, because the strong ties among senior
management staff may lead them to cognitively block out ideas coming from outside the
group (e.g. middle managers) (Mintzberg, 1996).
Microblogging is an example of the features that advanced KM systems can offer to
facilitate knowledge sharing through social interactions. Microblogging allows users to
share a list of their experiences and interests with others and engage in discussions
(Cleveland and Ellis, 2015). KM systems should facilitate discussion and feed the
discussions with reliable and up-to-date data. By providing data analytics features, on one
hand, and social interaction facilities, on the other hand, advanced KM systems can
connect analytical concretes to interpretations and negotiations that take place in social
interactions and conversations.
CLIR (Vulic et al., 2015), the Dark Web Forum Portal, which gather content generated by
users in different languages on social media (Dang et al., 2011), Mulinex, Keizai, UCLIR,
MIRACLE and MultiLexExplorer (Ahmed and Nurnberger, 2012; Talvensaari et al., 2007)
are examples of CLIR. These tools, however, are designed to handle data and information,
rather than knowledge. Furthermore, most of these tools, as Baur et al. (2015) report, lack
or have limited analytics capabilities such as data collection, analysis, aggregation and
visual output.
An advanced KM system goes beyond a simple data content look-up, translation and
multi-lingual text analysis (i.e. detecting the language a document is written in and
translating it into a desired language). Advanced KM systems are also semantic and can
support verbal conversations by providing voice interpretation. Companies such as Apple,
Samsung and Microsoft have already incorporated voice recognition technology into their
products, including mobile phones, laptops, tablets and gaming consoles. This feature,
however, is significantly missing in the conventional KM systems. The semantic aspect of
CLKR may considerably enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of KM systems by
increasing the speed of storing and retrieving knowledge, which would otherwise take
enormous amounts of time and money. An example of a similar feature is the natural
language processing tool that UnitedHealthcare uses to better understand their customers
level of satisfaction. The tool converts the records of customer voice calls into text and then
searches for indications of the customers (dis)satisfaction.
The CLKR-CLIR feature enhances the integrity of advanced KM systems by providing a
dynamic yet strategically aligned environment, where exploring and capturing the required
knowledge and expertise, as well as locating those individuals or departments lacking
knowledge and expertise, are effectively supported and facilitated. Drawing on an
integrated feature of CLKR-CLIR, advanced KM systems can support all the decision types
of SD-SD, UD-SD, SD-UD and UD-UD. CLKR enhances the integration of advanced KM
systems.
Integrative
CLKR allows an advanced KM system to enable its users to freely and in a controllable
manner open up their knowledge, expertise, insight, experiences, expectations,
perceptions, personal and professional perspectives, values and beliefs either generally or
regarding a specific matter. The users can assess the knowledge not only in regard to the
subject matter or the decision context but also in association with the participants
personality and professional background and expertise. This way, users are more capable
fragmented data.
Drawing meaningful connections between structured and unstructured data: The
diversity of data sources (e.g. sources that provide structured data, such as
transactional data or CRM and ERP data, as well as sources that provide unstructured
data, such as sensors, customer feedback via Twitter, emails, or reviews on websites)
may provide an opportunity to consider multiple perspectives.
Furthermore, the output of the KM systems should not be limited to textual outputs: it should
also support non-textual expertise, for example, visual reasoning (Carbonell et al., 1987), or
acoustic analysis (Oxman, 1991).
We argued how the emergence of big data requires inevitable adjustments in KM systems
to enable organizations and managers to integrate big data into their knowledge and expert
insight toward making more effective strategic decisions. We suggest a conceptual
framework to address the question: how would big data and the need for advanced
analytics in strategic decisions inform and, if necessary, reform (design and
implementation) KM systems?
We argue that in addition to encouraging and facilitating knowledge processes such as
knowledge creation, storing, retrieving, disseminating and application, KM systems
should support strategic decisions by integrating big data into them. Organizations
need to make sure that their KM systems are (re-)designed in such a way that they
support the seamless integration of knowledge and big data. We refer to these systems
as advanced KM systems and characterize them as social, cross-lingual, integrative,
dynamic and agile; and simple and understandable. Advanced KM systems go beyond
a simple text mining tool, or a document analysis mechanism, or a mere knowledge
sharing system. Advanced KM systems allow for the integration of human knowledge
and insight with big data and facilitate the incorporation of big data and knowledge into
strategic decisions.
We have identified four main types of decision-making that depend on whether a decision
and the underlying data are structured or unstructured: SD-SD, SD-UD, UD-SD and
UD-UD. We argue that advanced KM systems support four types of data-driven decisions.
This paper contributes to the KM and decision-making literature by introducing and
characterizing advanced KM systems and suggesting a typology of data-driven
decision-making. The typology of data-driven decisions is new and, to our best knowledge,
did not exist in the literature. Prior work has not provided explanations of how KM systems
can integrate big data into knowledge toward making more effective strategic decisions. In
particular, the introduction of the data-driven decision typology in association with big data
and knowledge offers a significant contribution to the extant literature.
This paper also provides insight for practitioners. The argument should provoke critical
thinking that practitioners including systems designers, organization management and
users need to do on the effectiveness evaluation of their KM systems. Our discussion of the
ground rules sheds light on how to align KM systems with organization strategies and how
to manage financial investment in the design and implementation of KM systems and the
required training.
References
Ackoff, R.L. (1989), From data to wisdom, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 3-9.
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 05:55 13 November 2017 (PT)
Agarwal, R. and Dhar, V. (2014), Editorial big data, data science, and analytics: the opportunity and
challenge for IS research, Information Systems Research, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 443-448.
Ahearne, M., Lam, S.K. and Kraus, F. (2014), Performance impact of middle managers adaptive
strategy implementation: the role of social capital, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1,
pp. 68-87.
Ahmed, F. and Nurnberger, A. (2012), Literature review of interactive cross language information
retrieval tools, International Arab Journal of Information Technology, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 479-486.
Alavi, M. and Leidner, D.E. (2001), Review: knowledge management and knowledge management
systems, Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 107-136.
Amason, A.C. (1996), Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic
decision making: resolving a paradox for top management teams, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 39 No. 1, pp. 123-148.
Anand, Y., Pauleen, D. and Dexter, S. (2008), Reserve Bank of New Zealand: journey towards
knowledge management, in Jennex, M. (Ed.), Knowledge Management: Concepts, Methodologies,
Tools And Applications, Information Science Reference, San Diego State University, Hershey, PA,
pp. 2423-2447.
Barton, D. and Court, D. (2012), Making advanced analytics work for you, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 90 No. 10, pp. 78-83.
Baum, J.R. and Wally, S. (2003), Strategic decision speed and firm performance, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 24 No. 11, pp. 1107-1129.
Baur, A.W., Lipenkova, J., Bhler, J. and Bick, M. (2015), A novel design science approach for
integrating Chinese user-generated content in non-Chinese market intelligence, paper presented at
the Thirty Sixth International Conference on Information Systems, Fort Worth, TX, 13-16 December.
Bebensee, T., Helms, R. and Spruit, M. (2011), Exploring Web 2.0 applications as a means of
bolstering up knowledge management, Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 65-73.
Bhid, A. (2010), The judgement deficit, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88 No. 9, pp. 44-53.
BNY Mellon (2013), BNY Mellon report says cat bond market could more than double to $50 billion by
2018, The Bank of New York Mellon, The Annual Report, available at: www.bnymellon.com/us/en/
newsroom/news/press-releases/bny-mellon-report-says-cat-bond-market-could-more-than-double-to-
50-billion-by-2018.jsp (accessed 7 July 2015).
Bose, R. (2009), Advanced analytics: opportunities and challenges, Industrial Management & Data
Systems, Vol. 109 No. 2, pp. 155-172.
Carbonell, N., Fohr, D. and Haton, J. (1987), Aphodex: an acoustic-phonetic decoding expert
system, in Chen, C.H. (Ed.), Proceedings of IEEE Workshop on Expert Systems and Pattern Analysis,
World Scientific, Paris, pp. 31-44.
Chen, H., Chiang, R.H.L. and Storey, V.C. (2012), Business intelligence and analytics: from big data
to big impact, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 1165-1188.
Cleveland, S. and Ellis, T.J. (2015), The role of microblogging capacities in knowledge sharing and
collaboration in virtual teams, paper presented at Twenty-first Americas Conference on Information
Systems, Puerto Rico, 13-15 August.
Court, D. (2012), Putting big data and advanced analytics to work, McKinsey & Company, available
at: www.mckinsey.com/insights/marketing_sales/putting_big_data_and_advanced_analytics_to_work
(accessed 25 July 2015).
Cox, A.M. (2007), Reproducing knowledge: xerox and the story of knowledge management,
Knowledge Management Research & Practice, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 3-12.
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 05:55 13 November 2017 (PT)
Custer, R.L., Scarcella, J.A. and Stewart, B.R. (1999), The modified Delphi technique: a rotational
modification, Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 5-15.
Dang, Y., Zhang, Y., Hu, P.J.H., Brown, S.A. and Chen, H. (2011), Knowledge mapping for rapidly
evolving domains: a design science approach, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 415-427.
Davenport, T.H. (2013), Analytics 3.0, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 91 No. 12, pp. 64-72.
Davenport, T.H. (2014), Big Data at Work: Dispelling the Myth, Uncovering the Opportunities, Harvard
Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (1998), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H. and Prusak, L. (2000), Working Knowledge: How Organizations Manage What They
Know, Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA.
Davenport, T.H., Barth, P. and Bean, R. (2013), How big data is different, MIT Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 43-46.
Delen, D. and Demirkan, H. (2013), Data, information and analytics as services, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 359-363.
Dewhurst, M. and Willmott, P. (2014), Manager and machine: the new leadership equation, McKinsey
Quarterly, Vol. 4, pp. 1-8, available at: www.mckinsey.com/insights/leading_in_the_21st_century/
manager_and_machine (accessed 25 July 2015).
DaimlerChrysler (2001), Chrysler Group announces evolution of product creation process, available
at: www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-7171-1-10961-1-0-0-0-0-1-8-7164-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html (accessed 30
July 2015).
Donald, C. (2014), Six reasons why Zuckerbergs $19bn for WhatsApp is a steal for Facebook,
available at: www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2014/feb/21/zuckerberg-
facebook-whatsapp-mobile (accessed 25 July 2015).
Drucker, P.F. (1967), The effective decision, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 92-98.
Edwards, C., Edwards, A., Spence, P.R. and Shelton, A.K. (2014), Is that a bot running the social
media feed? Testing the differences in perceptions of communication quality for a human agent and
a bot agent on Twitter, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 372-376.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments, The Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 543-576.
Erickson, S. and Rothberg, H. (2014), Big data and knowledge management: establishing a
conceptual foundation, The Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 83-154.
Galotti, K.M. (2002), Making Decisions That Matter: How People Face Important Life Choices, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, London.
Gantz, J. and Reinsel, D. (2012), The digital universe in 2020: big data, bigger digital shadows, and
biggest growth in the far east, IDC iView: IDC Analyze the Future, available at: www.emc.com/
collateral/analyst-reports/idc-the-digital-universe-in-2020.pdf (accessed 29 July 2015).
Gartner (2014), Gartner says advanced analytics is a top business priority, available at: www.gartner.
com/newsroom/id/2881218 (accessed 19 July 2015).
Google.com (2015), Facts about Google and competition, available at: http://web.archive.org/web/
20111104131332/ http://google.com/competition/howgooglesearchworks.html (accessed 30 July
2015).
Goonetilleke, O., Sellis, T., Zhang, X. and Sathe, S. (2014), Twitter analytics: a big data management
perspective, ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 11-20.
Harrison, F.E. (1999), The Managerial Decision-making Process, 5th ed., Houghton Mifflin Company,
Boston, MA.
Harrysson, M., Mtayer, E. and Sarrazin, H. (2014), The strength of weak signals, McKinsey
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 05:55 13 November 2017 (PT)
Hazen, B.T., Boone, C.A., Ezell, J.D. and Jones-Farmer, L.A. (2014), Data quality for data science,
predictive analytics, and big data in supply chain management: an introduction to the problem and
suggestions for research and applications, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 154
No. 1, pp. 72-80.
Hickson, D.J., Butler, R.J., Cary, D., Mallory, G.R. and Wilson, D.C. (1989), Decision and
organization processes of strategic decision making and their explanation, Public Administration,
Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 373-390.
Isenberg, D.J. (1984), How senior managers think, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 62 No. 1,
pp. 81-90.
Isenberg, D.J. (1986), Thinking and managing: a verbal protocal analysis of managerial problem
solving, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 775-788.
Jagadish, H.V., Gehrke, J., Labrinidis, A., Papakonstantinou, Y., Patel, J.M., Ramakrishnan, R. and
Shahabi, C. (2014), Big data and its technical challenges, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 57 No. 7,
pp. 86-94.
Jansen, R.J.G., Curseu, P.L., Vermeulen, P.A.M., Geurts, J.L.A. and Gibcus, P. (2011), Social capital
as a decision aid in strategic decision-making in service organizations, Management Decision, Vol. 49
No. 5, pp. 734-747.
Kaisler, S., Armour, F., Espinosa, J.A. and Money, W. (2013), Big data: issues and challenges moving
forward. In System Sciences, paper presented at 46th Hawaii International Conference, Wailea, Maui,
HI, 7-10 January.
Katal, A., Wazid, M. and Goudar, R.H. (2013), Big data: issues, challenges, tools and good practices,
Proceedings of the 2013 Sixth International Conference on Contemporary Computing, IEEE, Noida,
pp. 404-409.
Kopenhagen, N., Katz, N., Mueller, B. and Maedche, A. (2011), How do procurement networks
become social? Design principles evaluation in a heterogeneous environment of structured and
unstructured interactions, paper presented at 44th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (HICSS), Kauai, HI, 4-7 January.
Kornai, A. (2013), Digital language death, PloS One, Vol. 8 No. 10, pp. 1-11.
Kudyba, S. (2014), Big Data, Mining, and Analytics: Components of Strategic Decision Making, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Laney, D. (2001), 3D data management: controlling data volume, velocity, and variety, available at:
www.blogs.gartner.com/doug-laney/ (accessed 24 July 2015).
Lazer, D., Kennedy, R., King, G. and Vespignani, A. (2014), The parable of Google flu: traps in big
data analysis, Science, Vol. 343, pp. 1203-1205.
Lodha, R., Jain, H. and Kurup, L. (2014), Big data challenges: data analysis perspective,
International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 3286-3289.
McAfee, A. and Brynjolfsson, E. (2012), Big data: the management revolution, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 90 No. 10, pp. 60-66.
McKenna, R.J. and Martin-Smith, B. (2005), Decision making as a simplification process: new
conceptual perspectives, Management Decision, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 821-836.
McKenzie, J., van Winkelen, C. and Grewal, S. (2011), Developing organisational decision-making
capability: a knowledge managers guide, Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 403-421.
McKenzie, J., Woolf, N., van Winkelen, C. and Morgan, C. (2009), Cognition in strategic decision
making: model of non-conventional thinking capacities for complex situations, Management Decision,
Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 209-232.
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 05:55 13 November 2017 (PT)
Macfadyen, L.P. and Dawson, S. (2012), Numbers are not enough: why e-learning analytics failed to
inform an institutional strategic plan, Journal of Educational Technology & Society, Vol. 15 No. 3,
pp. 149-163.
Manyika, J., Chui, M.B.B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C. and Hung Byers, A. (2011), Big Data:
The Next Frontier for Innovation, Competition and Productivity, McKinsey Global Institute, Brussels.
Michel, L. (2007), Understanding decision making in organizations to focus its practices where it
matters, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 33-45.
Miller, H.G. and Mork, P. (2013), From data to decisions: a value chain for big data, IT Professional,
Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 57-59.
Miller, B., Malloy, M.A., Masek, E. and Wild, C. (2001), Towards a framework for managing the
information environment, Information Knowledge Systems Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 359-384.
Mintzberg, H. (1996), Musings on management, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 74 No. 4, pp. 61-67.
Mintzberg, H. and Westley, F. (2010), Decision making: Iits not what you think, in Nutt, P.C. and
Wilson, D.C. (Eds), Handbook of Decision Making, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 73-81.
Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D. and Thort, A. (1976), The structure of unstructured decision
processes, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 246-275.
Monk Library (2014), Metadata offer new knowledge, available at: http://monk.library.illinois.edu/
(accessed 30 July 2015).
Nonaka, I. (1988), Creating organizational order out of chaos: self renewal in Japanese firms, CA
Management Review, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 57-73.
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. (1995), The Knowledge-creating Company, Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
OLeary, D.E. (2013), Artificial intelligence and big data, IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 96-99.
Olson, P. (2014, October), Facebook closes $19 billion WhatsApp deal, Forbes, available at: www.
forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2014/10/06/facebook-closes-19-billion-whatsapp-deal/ (accessed 19
July 2015).
Petter, S., DeLone, W. and McLean, E.R. (2012), The past, present, and future of IS success, Journal
of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 13 No. 5, Article 2.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Provost, F. and Fawcett, T. (2013), Data science and its relationship to big data and data-driven
decision making, Big Data, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51-59.
Pyle, D. and San Jose, C. (2015), March), An executives guide to machine learning, pp. 1-9,
available at: www.mckinsey.com/insights/high_tech_telecoms_internet/an_executives_guide_to_
machine_learning (accessed 20 July 2015).
Roth, J. (2003), Enabling knowledge creation: learning from an R&D organization, Journal of
Knowledge Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 32-48.
Sallam, R.L., Richardson, J., Hagerty, J. and Hostmann, B. (2011), Magic Quadrant for Business
Intelligence Platforms, Gartner Group, Stamford, CT.
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 05:55 13 November 2017 (PT)
Sathi, A. (2012), Big Data Analytics: Disruptive Technologies for Changing the Game, Mc Press, Boise.
Scherpereel, C.M. (2006), Decision orders: a decision taxonomy, Management Decision, Vol. 44
No. 1, pp. 123-136.
Shah, S., Horne, A. and Capell, J. (2012), Good data wont guarantee good decisions, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 90 No. 4, pp. 23-25.
Shimizu, K. and Hitt, M.A. (2004), Strategic flexibility: organizational preparedness to reverse
ineffective strategic decisions, Academy of Management Executive, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 44-59.
Simon, H.A. (1960), The New Science of Management Decision, Harper & Row, New York, NY.
Snowden, D.J. and Boone, M.E. (2007), A leaders framework for decision making, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 85 No. 11, pp. 69-76.
Stewart, T. (2006), Did you ever have to make up your mind?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 84
No. 1, p. 12.
Sundaramurthy, C., Pukthuanthong, K. and Kor, Y. (2014), Positive and negative synergies between
the CEOs and the corporate boards human biotechnology firms, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 35 No. 6, pp. 845-868.
Talvensaari, T., Juhola, M., Laurikkala, J. and Jrvelin, K. (2007), Corpus-based cross-language
information retrieval in retrieval of highly relevant documents, Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 322-334.
Taylor, J. (2012), Decision Management Systems: A Practical Guide To Using Business Rules And
Predictive Analytics, Pearson Education, Boston, MA.
The Economist Intelligence Unit (2012), The deciding factor: big data & decision making, Capgemini,
available at: www.capgemini.com/sites/default/files/resource/pdf/The_Deciding_Factor__Big_Data___
Decision_Making.pdf (accessed 28 July 2015).
Turban, E., Aronson, J.E. and Liang, T.P. (2005), Decision Support Systems and Intelligent Systems,
7th ed., Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Von Krogh, G. (2012), How does social software change knowledge management? Toward a strategic
research agenda, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 154-164.
Vulic, I., Smet, W. de, Tang, J. and Moens, M.-F. (2015), Probabilistic topic modeling in multilingual
settings: an overview of its methodology and applications, Information Processing & Management,
Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 111-147.
Wang, J., Chan, Y.E. and Denford, J.S. (2015), The influence of IT and knowledge on firm agility and
performance, paper presented at Twenty-first Americas Conference on Information Systems, Puerto
Rico, 13-15 August.
Wiig, K.M. (2011), The importance of personal knowledge management in the knowledge society, in
Pauleen, D.J. and Gorman, G.E. (Eds), Personal Knowledge Management: Individual, Organizational
and Social Perspectives, Gower Publishing Limited, Farnham.
Zhang, G., Lu, J. and Ya, G. (2015), Multi-level Decision Making: Models, Methods and Applications,
Springer, New York, NY.
Corresponding author
Ali Intezari can be contacted at: A.Intezari@uq.edu.au
Downloaded by Universiti Teknologi MARA At 05:55 13 November 2017 (PT)
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com