PERCEPTIONS OF BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS ABOUT

FACTORS RELATED TO BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE INPUT IN

DECISION MAKING

by

Carol P. Huie

STEPHEN TVORIK, PhD, Faculty Mentor and Chair

ALAN CHMURA, PhD, Committee Member

GAIL HUGHES, PhD, Committee Member

Sue Talley, EdD, Dean, School of Business and Technology

A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy in Information Technology

Capella University

January 2014
 UMI Number: 3614934

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI 3614934
Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
© Copyright by Carol Huie, 2014
 Abstract

Strategic decision making is one of the most important criteria for organizational success.

Therefore, it is vital to have a well-developed decision making process in place.

However, one of the greatest challenges facing organizations today is making important

and timely business decisions. The focus of this study was to examine critical business

intelligence input factors that influenced the decision making process. The business

intelligence input factors considered were accessibility, reliability, quality of information,

frequency of use, relevance, security, and quality of decisions.

The results of this study show that the decision making process is very complex. Based

on the analyses of the data, the findings indicate that these factors help determine reasons

why managers use business intelligence technology in the decision making process.

These findings will help organizations decision makers make better decisions and so

improve decisions in organizations by supplying decision makers with information that

are important to their knowledge base. This can improve the operational and strategic

decision making process, thereby creating a competitive advantage for the organization.
 Dedication

I dedicate this endeavor to my family and friends who believed in me, encouraged

me, and supported me throughout this journey.

iii
 Acknowledgments

First, I thank God for providing me with the wisdom, strength, and tenacity to stay the

course. This journey could not have happened without the support of many. I would like

to thank my dissertation committee chair Dr. Steven Tvorik for your guidance and

direction throughout the process. I thank my committee members Dr. Alan Chmura and

Dr. Gail Hughes for their unwavering support and help through multiple edits and

revisions over the years. Thanks also to my friends and family for their support and

encouragement.

iv
 Table of Contents

Acknowledgments iv

List of Tables viii

List of Figures ix

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1

Introduction to the Problem 1

Background of the Problem 4

Statement of the Problem 6

Purpose of the Study 7

Rationale 7

Research Questions 8

Significance of the Study 10

Definition of Terms 11

Assumptions and Limitations 12

Nature of the Study (Theoretical Framework) 13

Scope of the Study 13

Summary 14

Organization of the Remainder of the Study 14

CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 15

Introduction 16

Knowledge Management 19

Organizational Culture 24

Decisions 25
v
 Decisions and Technology 28

Decision Support Systems 31

Business Intelligence 32

Summary 53

CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY 57

Introduction 57

Description of the Methodology 58

Research Questions 60

Research Design 62

Sample and Population 62

Instrumentation 64

Field Test 65

Data Collection and Other Procedures 66

Data Analysis Procedures 67

Validity/Reliability/Credibility 68

Ethical Considerations 69

Conclusion 70

CHAPTER 4. RESULTS 71

Introduction 71

Description of Population and Sample 72

Data Analysis and Results 72

Reliability of the Data 77

Interpretation of Findings 86
vi
 Summary of Results 87

CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 88

Introduction 88

Hypotheses 90

Hypothesis Testing Summary 92

Discussion of Findings 92

Implications of the Study 95

Research Limitations 97

Recommendations for Future Research 98

Conclusion 99

REFERENCES 102

APPENDIX A. BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE SURVEY 109

vii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Information Quality Criteria adapted from Eppler, 2003 (as cited in
Popovič et al., 2010, p. 15) 48

Table 2. Reliability and Descriptive Statistics of Constructs 78

Table 3. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Accessibility 80

Table 4. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Reliability 81

Table 5. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Informational

Quality 82

Table 6. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Relevance 82

Table 7. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Security 83

Table 8. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Frequency of

Use 84

Table 9. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test for Quality of
Decisions 86

Table 10. Frequencies and Percentages for Question Responses 87

Table 11. Business Intelligence Survey 109

viii
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Data, Information, and Knowledge. “Adapted from Knowledge

Management: Current issues and challenges,” (Earl & Scott, 1998) by
Coakes, 2003, p. 243. 19

Figure 2. A business intelligence environment. “Adapted from The Journal of

Information and Knowledge Management Systems,” by Ranjan, 2008,
VINE, p.466. Adapted with permission. 34

Figure 3. BI relations to other information systems. “Adapted from business

intelligence. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems,” by Negash, 2004, 13, p.177-195. Adapted with permission. 42

Figure 4. Business Intelligence Cycle. “Adapted from improving the quality of the
decision making by using business intelligence solutions. Academy of
Economic Studies,” by Giovinazzo, 2002, as cited in Stefan, 2009, p. 997.
Adapted with permission. 45

Figure 5. BI systems infrastructure that supports decision making. “Adapted from

business intelligence systems in the holistic infrastructure development
supporting decision making in organizations. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Information, Knowledge, and Management,” by Olszak, C., M., &
Ziemba, E., 2006. p. 48. Adapted with permission. 46

Figure 6. The Components of a Logistics Business Intelligence System (Amended

from Rus & Toader, 2008). 52

Figure 7. Different ways to Measure a Success Factor of a BI Process (Source:

Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006). 55

Figure 8. Decision dependent and independent variables. 67

Figure 9. Histogram for frequency of use. 85

ix
 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION

Introduction to the Problem

The work of all managers involves developing strategic and tactical plans. Along

with numerous other things, they must analyze their competitive environments and plan,

organize, direct, and control day-to-day operations. Although this study focuses on

managers in business settings, the principles of management apply to all kinds of

organizations. Managers work in charities, churches, social organizations, educational

institutions, and government agencies. Managers need to be aware of their environment

because environmental forces can affect their daily decisions. They have to make

decisions on environmental forces such as globalization, deregulation, values, culture,

and ethics. Within this managerial environment, the manager's first task is to develop

plans for his or her enterprise. Since good decisions obviously underlie planning and just

about everything we do, this study focuses on making decisions.

As managers face increasing globalization and the impact of strong market

competition, it is important to have a well-developed decision making process in place

(Berthold et al., 2010). Properly formulated strategic decisions reduce the risk associated

with organizational survival and success. According to Berthold et al. (2010), there is

wide agreement “companies will only survive if they take the right decisions and can rely

on sound decision making process” (p. 43). Several other researchers support the

Berthold et al. (2010) assertion about the importance of right decisions for organizational

1
survival. Hocevar and Jaklič (2010) noted that competitive forces require businesses to

make intelligent and quick decisions based on their incoming data. While Sell et al.

(2008) argued that fierce competition and increasing volume of data are forcing

information technology executives to improve their managerial decisions. Although, in

the last decade, the technology industry has uncovered several ways to improve

decisions, decision makers in the typical organization struggle to make successful critical

business decisions. One problem is the vast accumulation of data that needs timely

conversion into useful information to provide decision makers with a solid basis for their

decisions. Another is poor data quality. Poor data quality can affect organizations

negatively (Geiger, Maydanchik, & Russom, 2010; Gorla, Somers, & Wong 2010;

Popovič, Turk, & Jaklič, 2010). Decisions outcome are determined by the quality of the

information in that high-quality information stems good decisions (Dayal, Castellanos,

Simitsis, & Wilkinson, 2009; Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010; Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006;

Popovič, Coelho, & Jaklič, 2009).

Managerial decisions are very important; therefore, it is essential to understand

the quality of decisions (Jourdan, Rainer, & Marshall, 2008). Unsuccessful managerial

decisions have become a global issue because these decisions can be damaging to

organizations. They can have a negative effect on a firm’s competitiveness, performance,

and business expansion (Dayal et al., 2009; Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010; Lönnqvist &

Pirttimäki, 2006; Popovič et al., 2009). According to Hodgson and Drummond (2009),

examples of decision failures fill business history. Because of these failures, many

organizational initiatives do not achieve their objective. To Hodgson and Drummond

(2009), an interesting feature of decision calamities is that they are normally surprising.

2
Yet, a sense of unavoidability often surrounds them because all decisions involving

uncertainty run the risk of failure (Hodgson & Drummond, 2009). Higgs, Smith, and

Mechling (2010) maintained that uncertainty cannot be eliminated from decision making.

The aim should be to reduce it to improve the chances of success in the task undertaken.

Nemati and Barko (2002) argued that, what normally impedes these risky and

challenging decisions is the lack of actionable, timely, and valuable information. Besides,

decisions made hastily can have a long lasting and adverse effect on the organization’s

future competitiveness and survivability.

With the growth of new challenges and opportunities in the era of the knowledge

society, it is important that organizations improve the timeliness and the value of inputs

to the decision process (Negash, 2004; Rubin & Rubin, 2007). Timely and effective

business information is necessary for organizations to survive and succeed. Therefore,

organizations need analytical solutions that support smarter decision making (Hocevar &

Jaklič, 2010; Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006; Schwarz, 2009). This creates a competitive

advantage for the organization. Because of the need for better decisions, many analytical

tools or technologies have emerged in the last decade to help manage business

information. In recent years, one such technology of growing interest for addressing this

challenge is business intelligence (BI).

BI is a rapidly developing technology that is widely used in many organizations to

turn data into useful information and distribute this information when needed. BI systems

pertain to an integrated set of tools and products that are used to collect, integrate,

analyze and make data available (Olszak & Ziemba, 2006). These systems are a natural

outgrowth of a series of previous systems designed to support decision making and better

3
analysis of organizational data (Negash, 2004; Rubin & Rubin, 2007). BI systems support

decision making on all levels of management (Olszak & Ziemba, 2007). According to

Chaves-Sanz and Al-Awamy (2008), these systems grew out of a need to merge

transactional data with analytical tools, thus, facilitating the delivery and presentation of

complex information to decision makers and consumers. The tools are useful for

analyzing a large amount of data. Many managers believe that BI systems will create a

much higher value for the organization (Ghazanfari, Rouhani, Jafari, & Taghavifard,

2009). As a result, BI has become an important technology for many organizations that

have implemented the technology to improve their decision making process. However,

not all BI initiatives have fulfilled management expectations (Isik, Jones, & Sidorova,

2011).

Background of the Problem

In today’s competitive business climate, managers are facing a series of business

challenges that are driving them to restructure the way they perform (Dayal et al., 2009).

Company processes have become more automated, real-time based, and data-driven. As a

result, they face complex decisions daily that affect their industry competitiveness and

operational profitability. One of the greatest challenges facing organizations today is

making important and timely business decisions. The need for evidence-based decision

making is spreading quickly throughout organizations because it results in more precise

and perceptive decisions (Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010; Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006;

Schwarz, 2009). Managers are constantly looking for clear and timely visibility into their

business management. They need a customized view of the information from different

sources at every organizational level to provide meaningful indicators (Bara et al., 2009).
4
In essence, to make decisions, decision makers must be able to access accurate and

complete information from different sources in the correct format for a specific purpose

at the right time (Stefan, 2009). However, the majority of knowledge and decision

making workers must not only depend on discrete sources of data but also intuition and

experiences to make important business decisions (Chickowski, 2009). As a result, the

analysis sometimes lacks useful information, which could lead to wrong business

decisions. This indicates that a high degree of human skill is required to make effective

decisions.

Several studies indicate that information technology (IT) affects organizational

characteristics and outcome. Management spends billions of dollars implementing and

maintaining information technology to improve decision making (Dayal et al., 2009;

Popovič et al., 2010). Because, there is a need to make critical business decision quickly

there is a demand for actionable information from analytical applications. Consequently,

there is an increasing demand for BI systems, which is a rapidly developing strategic

analysis tool. In addition, one of the main features of BI applications is that they are able

to convert organizational data from many sources into meaningful information for

decision making. This is important for managers who collect BI information to help

increase the firm’s competitiveness. However, the literature from scholars and

practitioners indicate that although businesses are storing large amount of data, only a

fraction of that data becomes business intelligence (Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006;

Negash & Gray, 2008; Popovič et al., 2010). Therefore, it is important that organizational

managers know how to use technology to share, manage, and increase the level of

knowledge (Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010).

5
 Given the turbulence nature of many organizations concerning the new challenges

and opportunities affecting organizational decisions, researchers have become

increasingly interested in success and failure factors (Hyväri, 2006). Various studies

suggest that the area needs more investigation regarding the effect of business

intelligence on business performance (Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010; Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki,

2006; Negash, 2004; Negash & Gray, 2008; Stefan, 2009). The quest for better

organizational decisions raises questions concerning decisions made with business

intelligence input. A review of the literature indicates that there is a gap concerning

factors related to the use of business intelligence input in decision making. This

quantitative descriptive study uses a population of BI professionals in logistics

organizations to obtain their perception about the factors related to the use of business

intelligence input in decision making.

Statement of the Problem

Properly formulated strategic decisions reduce the risk associated with

organizational survival and success (Nemati & Barko, 2002; Berthold et al., 2010).

However, despite unprecedented information availability, many strategic planning

organizational decisions result in costly and unsuccessful outcomes. One of the greatest

challenges facing organizational managers today is making important and timely,

strategic, managerial decisions. This quantitative descriptive study queried business

intelligence professionals in logistics organizations about their perceptions regarding the

factors related to the use of business intelligence input in decision making.

6
 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this survey study was to obtain a perception of business

intelligence professionals about the factors related to the use of business intelligence

input in decision making. The study surveyed business intelligence professionals about

their perception regarding the factors related to the use of business intelligence input in

decision making. The business intelligence input factors are accessibility, reliability,

quality of information, frequency of use, relevance, security, and quality of decisions.

The study aims to provide an in-depth understanding that will help to improve

organizational decisions. An examination of these factors will help to understand the use

of business intelligence input in decision making.

Rationale

Organizations are facing stiff competition and increased uncertainties, while their

data management needs escalate. In response to such turbulent and competitive

environments, there is a growing need for strategic, managerial decisions. Strategic

decision making is one of the most important criteria for organizational success.

According to Nemati and Barko (2002), everyday decision makers face difficult decisions

that affect their organization competitiveness and operational profitability. Organizations

need reliable information systems that will give decision makers access to the

information required for effective decision making, since they can only survive if

decision makers make the right decisions. As a result, informational needs have led to

change in the decision making process. To ensure an excellent basis for business

decisions, an enormous amount of data has to convert into useful information. This

abundance of data and information places unprecedented pressure on companies to

7
reexamine their techniques and decision tools. Traditional techniques often lack the

agility and flexibility to turn data into intelligence. This reality points to the need for

business intelligence technology (Rud, 2009). According to Hocevar and Jaklič (2010),

business intelligence is an “information technology that helps organizations manage

business information with the goal of arriving at effective decision making” (Hocevar &

Jaklič, 2010, p. 89). Although numerous techniques have developed, and many decisions

tools are available, there are still many costly and unsuccessful decisions occurring in

organizations.

Knowledge about variables that affect decisions is important for organizational

prosperity. The work of Davis (1986, 1989) began a new surge of research that examined

the determining factors of information systems (Heinrichs et al., 2007). Surprisingly, in

the decisions literature, it is still unclear what makes a good decision in term of the

organizational context of the company. An understanding of factors related to business

intelligence input in decision making will provide information that will help managers

make efficient and appropriate decisions in their organization. This will ensure that

organizations achieve their aim, improve organizational performance, and are successful.

This study aims to obtain a better understanding concerning decisions made with business

intelligence input. The findings will not only add to the body of knowledge but will give

organizational decision makers further insight into the factors related to good decisions.

Research Questions

Business professionals or decision makers need to make better decisions. Despite

unprecedented information availability, many organizational decisions result in costly

and unsuccessful outcomes. The need to improve organizational decision making raises
8
the question “What are the perceptions of business intelligence professionals regarding

the factors related to business intelligence input in decisions?”

Research Question 1

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of the accessibility of the input?

Research Question 2

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of the reliability of the input?

Research Question 3

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of the information quality?

Research Question 4

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of its relevance?

Research Question 5

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of its security?

Research Question 6

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of its frequency of use?

9
Research Question 7

What are the perceptions of business intelligence professionals regarding the

effect of business intelligence input on the quality of their decisions?

Significance of the Study

Business intelligence is one of the latest developments of decision support

systems that support decision making and information sharing across a broad range of

business activities. Although it is clear from the literature that business intelligence

technology allows users to understand complex information so they can make better and

faster decisions, many research opportunities still exist in the field. The decision support

systems literature has not identified clear criteria concerning decisions made with

business intelligence input and relatively not much is known about factors that are related

to the use of business intelligence input in decision making (Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010;

Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006; Negash, 2004; Schwarz, 2009). This quantitative

descriptive study uses a sample of business intelligence professionals to obtain their

perception concerning decisions made with business intelligence input. The study is

significant to the field of management and information technology because there is a lack

of empirical research about the factors related to business intelligence inputs in decision

making. Many business intelligence professionals and organizational decision makers

will be interested in the study and may use it as a foundation when they are making

critical organizational decisions. Surveying and analyzing these professionals about

decision factors provided significant data to fill the gap in the body of knowledge.

Furthermore, to improve organizational decisions, it is important to envision how

decision makers perceive the use of new technology and if they expect the technology to
10
help them in their job function. The result of this survey will be used by organizations to

improve organizational decisions that are a result of business intelligence inputs.

Definition of Terms

The following definitions of terms provide the reader with a better understanding

of certain concepts used in the study.

Attitude. Attitude is the business intelligence professional’s positive or negative

feeling toward the usage of the technology or system.

Business Intelligence. “BI is all about how to capture, access, understand,

analyze and turn one of the most valuable assets of an organization – raw data into

actionable information in order to improve business performance” (Azvine, Cui, &

Nauck, 2005, p. 215).

Business Intelligence professionals. Business intelligence professionals are the

managers and analysts who use the technology system to perform their job.

Competitiveness. Competitiveness is the ability of an organization to succeed or

outperform its competitors by the use of its policies or plans.

Data. Data is a collection of raw or unprocessed facts used for calculating,

reasoning, or measuring (Loshin, 2003, p. 6).

Decision. A decision is the choice made by business intelligence professionals

between alternative courses of action in a situation of uncertainty to solve a problem or

improve business operation based on business intelligence inputs.

Decision makers. Decision makers are the managers and analysts who are

involved in the decision making aspect of the company.

11
 Information. Information “is the result of collecting and organizing data in a way

that establishes relationships between data items, which thereby provides context and

meaning” (Loshin, 2003, p. 7).

Knowledge. Knowledge “is the concept of understanding information-based on

recognized patterns in a way that provides insight to information” (Loshin, 2003, p. 7).

Performance. Performance is a measure of the combination of business

information, business analysis, and decisions to complete a task to accomplish or achieve

the business objectives.

User satisfaction. User satisfaction is the attitude a user has toward an

information system (Wixom & Todd, 2005).

Assumptions and Limitations

The goal of this research was to help organization decision makers make better

decisions. To achieve this, data was collected from business intelligence professionals

concerning their perception about the factors related to the use of business intelligence

input in decision making. An email-connected web survey was the instrument for

collecting the data. To achieve a reasonable response, the following assumptions and

limitations occurred in the study.

x The sample of business intelligence professionals and decision makers is

representative of decision making professionals as a population.

x The responses received by the researcher are true perceptions of business

intelligence professionals based on their personal experience, preference, or
observation.

x Business intelligence professionals found the technology to be useful in some

respect concerning their job performance. This assumption was important
because if they did not place any value on the technology then perhaps they
would not respond to the survey or they would respond and skew the results.
12
 Furthermore, not placing any value on the technology would affect the
significance of the study.

x Surveys are common in the IT industry, and professionals tend to be

cooperative when asked to complete surveys that will yield new information.

x All respondents would answer the questions honestly and accurately and
without any fear of punishment because their identities and response are
confidential.

x A small pre-test sample of questions would be adequate to validate the data.

Nature of the Study (Theoretical Framework)

This descriptive quantitative study sought to examine factors concerning

decisions made with business intelligence input. The nature of this study is descriptive in

that it aimed to examine factors related to the use of business intelligence input in

decision making. The objective is to help business professionals improve the quality of

decisions. Descriptive research uses surveys for data collection, and it is one of the most

frequently used data collection methods in organizational research for assessing

phenomena. Its purpose is to describe characteristics of the domain; therefore, the design

is appropriate for the study (Swanson & Holton, 2005). Surveys are typically

administered in non-experimental, descriptive research to collect data on phenomena that

cannot be observed directly (Swanson & Holton, 2005). The study used a survey tool

through electronic mail to gather the data.

Scope of the Study

The study aimed to examine factors related to the use of business intelligence

input in decision making. The scope of this study included individuals in logistics

organizations that use business intelligence technology. The study utilized data obtained

13
from conducting an online survey and was designed to handle a broad range of the

organizational environment.

Summary

One of the greatest challenges facing organizational managers today is making

important and timely decisions. There is a growing need to understand more about

decisions and the decision making process. Managers want an environment that gives

them a crystal-clear answer to everything that is going on in the company. Therefore,

they need analytical solutions that support smarter decision making. With better decision

processes, they can make targeted analysis. The purpose of this descriptive quantitative

research was to obtain the perceptions of business intelligence professionals’ regarding

factors related to the use of business intelligence input in decision making. The goal is to

help improve decisions in organizations by supplying decision makers with information

that will help them to make better decisions.

Organization of the Remainder of the Study

Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature surrounding decisions and the use of

business intelligence. It provides the historical context for the study and a comprehensive

review that will help to understand the reasoning behind decision making and the role of

business intelligence input in the decision process. Chapter 3 includes a general

discussion of the research methodology and details the data collection procedures and

data analysis used in the study. Chapter 4 describes the results of the study. The data

analysis is represented. Chapter 5 discusses the conclusion, and recommendations for

future research.

14
 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this literature review is to provide an understanding of the topic

discussed in this research and the undertaking of the project. The chapter establishes the

need for the study and provides an in-depth look at decisions, business intelligence, and

the role of business intelligence input in the decision process. Specifically, the research

can help to improve decisions in organizations. The literature review conceptualizes,

justifies, implements, and interprets the problem. Appropriate literature is cited to provide

a rationale for the study’s methodologies, which includes research design, instruments,

and methods of data collection and analysis. The chapter reveals the relationship of the

proposed study to past and current research and elaborates on the distinctiveness of the

proposed research compared with previous research to demonstrate the originality of the

current study. Where appropriate, the literature review references the research questions

or substantive hypotheses that drive the inquiry. It continues with a close look at the

importance of well-founded decisions to organization success and provides historical and

current perspective on business intelligence.

The historical and philosophical development of the field is described so that the

study reflects an adequate knowledge of other research related to the problem. Unsolved

problems and unresolved issues are identified, and gaps in the literature are explained.

The historical context includes the evolution of business intelligence in terms of earlier

research and technology that propelled its need.

15
 In an effort to obtain a better understanding of the reasoning behind decision

making, the current literature focuses on various factors related to the decision making

process. The ideas derived from the existing literature were expanded to formulate the

research questions for this study. A discussion concerning the gaps in the literature

follows this section, which shows that future research into the factors related to business

intelligence input in decision making would be useful and applicable. The conclusion to

Chapter 2 describes how the literature review contributes to the study.

Introduction

Business intelligence has emerged as an important area of study of practitioners

and researchers because of the magnitude and impact of data-related problems found in

contemporary business organizations. Although the term business intelligence is

somewhat new, computer-based business intelligence systems appeared in one way or

another almost forty years ago (Negash, 2004). Luhn first defined the term business

intelligence in 1958. According to Luhn (1958), business is “a collection of activities

carried on for whatever purpose, be it science, technology, commerce, industry, law,

government or defense” (Luhn, p. 314). He defined intelligence as "the ability to

apprehend the interrelationships of presented facts in such a way as to guide action

towards a desired goal” (Luhn, p. 314). In 1989, Howard Dressner reintroduced the term

to describe a set of ideas and method to improve business decision making. Business

intelligence is the result of a series of developments over the years. The main

technologies that contributed to the development are decision support systems, executive

information systems, data warehousing, online analytical processing, and data mining.

Business intelligence now combines these technologies together in one system (Rus &
16
Toader, 2008). An ideal business intelligence system gives employees easy access to the

information they need and the ability to analyze and easily share this information. This

notion has resulted in a growing potential for implementing business intelligence

(Ranjan, 2008). As such, by the mid-1990s business intelligence became an area of

interest in academe (Golfarelli et al., 2004). As with many technologies, the tangible

benefits of BI are often difficult to measure because of indirect or delayed effect on

business success (Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010; Popovič et al., 2009). Although there is a

substantial increase in business intelligence investment, there is a lack of specific and

precise methods to measure the realized value if any (Bara et al., 2009). Measurement is

required “to ensure that business intelligence products satisfy the users’ needs and that

the process is efficient” (Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006, p. 32).

By 2003, business intelligence was receiving extensive research interest

(Agrawal, 2008; Negash, 2004; Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006; Popovič et al., 2010).

Generally, there is great interest among researchers and professionals in measuring the

end result contribution of information technology. The interest intensifies when their

outcome is uncertain and yet their success often brings innovations and improvements

(Popovič et al., 2009). Although there has been extensive research in business

intelligence and decisions, the area needs more investigation, especially concerning the

impact of business intelligence on business performance and improving on measuring

business intelligence. Sell et al. (2008) maintained that, despite their analytical

importance business intelligence technology still lack the deductive power required to

make flexible and smarter decisions.

17
 Studies have still shown that measuring the value and performance of business

intelligence is one of the most important challenges faced by organizations (Hocevar &

Jaklič, 2010; Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006; Negash, 2004; Negash & Gray, 2008; Stefan,

2009). There are still too many examples of projects failing to meet their objectives

(Hyväri, 2006). As a result, managerial decisions are still an issue that needs

improvement (Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010; Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006; Negash & Gray,

2008; Stefan, 2009). Lönnqvist and Pirttimäki (2006) encouraged future researchers to

report practical experiences in order to learn about possible problems and to improve on

the measurement of business intelligence. They maintained that a business intelligence

process can be costly if the information obtained is inaccurate or does not match the

information needs. According to Isik et al. (2011), one of the reasons for the failure of

business intelligence to fulfill the organization’s expectation is lack of understanding of

the critical factors that define the success of business intelligence applications. Therefore,

it is important for organizations that take on the challenge of implementing BI, to address

success factors of decision outcomes. To address success factors, it is important to

identify decisions that utilize business intelligence inputs. Consequently, it would be

important to identify factors that focus on successful or unsuccessful outcomes in the

decision making process (Bara et al., 2009; Hyväri, 2006; Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006).

It should not be ignored that, in an information-based economy, the success of

organizations are significantly dependent on effective acquisition and utilization of

knowledge. The function of knowledge management is to ensure that organizations are

able to access and reuse existing knowledge to improve their business operations (Yen-

18
Ku & Kung-Don, 2010). Therefore, this study would not be complete without a

discussion of knowledge management.

Knowledge Management

In today’s rapidly changing environment, there is a growing awareness and belief

that data, intelligently analyzed and accessible, is a valuable source for effective business

decision. On this basis, business managers now realize that unless this massive quantity

of data is adequately analyzed it becomes useless because hidden within this data is a

resource that business professionals need to compete or perform effectively. Extracting

relevant, timely and valuable knowledge from this information is necessary to improve

organizational decisions (Figure 1; Nemati & Barko, 2002).

Figure 1. Data, Information, and Knowledge. “Adapted from Knowledge Management:

Current issues and challenges,” (Earl & Scott, 1998) by Coakes, 2003, p. 243.

Throughout the literature on knowledge, many researchers have agreed that the

economic resource by which an organization distinguishes itself from competitors is its

acquisition of knowledge (Bhatt, 2001; Chou & Lin, 2002; Coakes, 2003; Cope, Cope, &

Root, 2007; Kridan & Goulding, 2006; Shankar & Gupta, 2005). Knowledge is a key

19
factor that affects an organization’s ability to remain competitive in the business

community. Knowledge is important to the decision making process (Awad & Ghaziri,

2004). It is regarded has having the highest value, the most human contribution and being

the most relevant for decisions and actions. According to Awad and Ghaziri (2004),

knowledge is as an understanding of information based on its perceived importance to the

problem area. They further noted, “It promotes the sought-after expertise for value added

decision making in businesses” (p. 38). Although knowledge is a crucial resource, many

organizations still do not know how to manage it. One of the greatest challenges facing

organizations today is how to manage their knowledge assets in order to make important

and timely business decisions. To remain competent in the global markets, organizations

must focus on a strategy to manage their knowledge better (Shankar & Gupta, 2005).

Many organizations encounter difficulty in translating data into knowledge for strategic

decision making purpose. Another challenge for many organizational managers is

integrating the knowledge of its workers with the day-to-day processes. It is important to

communicate lessons learnt for continuous improvement (Jha & Joshi, 2007). Knowledge

assets in an organization are normally in the form of the expertise of employees,

production architecture, information technology (IT) systems, and corporate repositories.

The management process includes a variety of activities, such as learning, collaboration,

integration of a different set of tasks and implementation of information systems (IS).

Knowledge management (KM) has become one of the major strategic uses of

informational technology. Dunn and Neumeister (as cited in Cope et al., 2007) defined

KM as “as a systematic approach to managing and leveraging an organization’s

knowledge assets, which may include knowledge of the organization’s customers,

20
products, markets, processes, finances and personal services” (p. 56). It is widely

accepted that the function of KM is to ensure that organizations are able to access and

reuse existing knowledge to improve business processes (Chou & Lin, 2002). According

to Kridan and Goulding (2006), the number of firms allegedly working with KM has

grown considerably. Like Chou and Lin, Kridan and Goulding (2006) believed that it is

an important factor in the success of an organization because it is an important element of

a business strategy that has the ability to provide an organization with opportunities to

manage new market challenges. They further maintained that KM improves job

performance and productivity, improves effective sharing and usage of information

within organizations, and allows organizations to become more innovative (Kridan &

Goulding, 2006).

Bhatt (2001) adds to our understanding of the definition by noting that, KM is, “as

a process of knowledge creation, validation, presentation, distribution, and application”

(p. 3). He identified five typical phases in KM.

Knowledge creation. Marakas (as cited in Bhatt, 2001) noted that, knowledge

creation relates “to the ability of an organization to develop new and useful ideas and

solutions” (p. 3). To Loshin (2003), knowledge creation occurs when the presented

information is reassessed analytically then analysts are able to infer actionable knowledge

(Loshin, 2003). Companies survive by the development of new knowledge. It is a

developing process based on creative ideas, daily practices, and experiences. The

outcome of knowledge is increased knowledge (Marakas as cited in Bhatt, 2001).

Knowledge validation. Knowledge validation has to do with the assessment of

knowledge to determine its usefulness to the organization. According to Bhatt (2001),

21
knowledge validation “refers to the extent to which a firm can reflect on knowledge, and

evaluate its effectiveness for the existing organizational environment” (p. 3).

“Organizations need to continually review, test, and validate their knowledge base to

keep up with the latest knowledge in the discipline and discard the outdated knowledge”

(p. 4). Knowledge that is aged will become outdated and priceless to the organization.

Therefore, it must be monitored, tested, and continually refined to maintain its relevance

to the knowledge base (Bhatt, 2001).

Knowledge presentation. Knowledge presentation applies to the how knowledge

is displayed for workers in the organization. Usually an organization may develop several

procedures to design its knowledge base. Knowledge should be displayed in a timely,

actionable, and user-friendly fashion. Organizations are more decentralized, with

knowledge distribution in different locations, placed into different procedures, and stored

into different mediums. These different processes require different methods for

presenting the knowledge.

Knowledge distribution. Interaction between people, technologies, and

techniques allows an organization to accomplish difficult and innovative tasks. It is

important that management organizes and promotes the sharing and exchange of

knowledge (Bhatt, 2001). Knowledge must be available when needed. It has to be made

available to those who can make use of it because it is ineffective if it is not used. As a

result, sharing is essential throughout the organization. Knowledge sharing acquires and

retains intellectual capital and improves the organization as a whole. This normally

results in beneficial organizational outcomes, such as higher performance assessment and

more effective teams (Bhatt, 2001).

22
 Knowledge application. The goal of technology is to improve communication

and ensure effective knowledge sharing. Utilization of knowledge makes organizations

more competitive in the market. Knowledge application means making knowledge more

available, effective, and relevant for the firm. Knowledge application offers a competitive

edge for the learning organization because it provides the users a better way to perform

their jobs. Applications may include databases, imaging tools, automation tools, and

knowledge bases among others.

With the improvement and availability of information and communication

technology (ICT), organizations are constantly employing technologies into business

functions to facilitate the flow of knowledge. The categories of KM technologies are

knowledge-based systems, data mining, information and communication technology,

artificial intelligence/expert systems, database technology, and modeling (Haggie &

Kingson, 2003). Like most management strategies, KM initiatives improve the

effectiveness of organizations intellectual capital and inspire innovation, creativity, and

competitiveness, which create profit. KM systems developed initially from knowledge-

based systems support organizational learning. These systems help in problem-solving

activities and facilitate decision making. However, decision makers frequently make

incorrect decisions because of insufficient knowledge. Since, business decisions originate

at different organizational levels and are the result of business politics and policies,

(Popovič et al., 2010), organizational culture and structure is very influential in the

decision making process.

23
 Organizational Culture

Organizational culture influences the decision making process because the

behavior of decision makers stems from a responsible feeling toward the organization and

the necessity of protecting it (Yaghi, 2007). Yaghi further noted “the importance of

decisions stems from their continuous influence over people and organizations” (p. 355).

For that reason, it is sound to say that decision making profoundly shapes organizational

culture. It sets rules and establishes traditions based on the values shared by the decision

makers (Yaghi).

Kurtz (2003) also pointed out that earlier studies suggests organizational culture is

a primary and often-overlooked key to understanding the decision making process. He

maintained that a well-integrated organizational culture could have considerable

implications for decision making during crisis. In support of Yaghi (2007), Kurtz

postulated it is advisable that the culture be a factor when assessing an organization’s

crisis decision making process. He argued that although an organization maybe

decentralized, the decision making process follows an implied top-down design.

According to Kurtz, culture produces a common set of decision making principles that

guide the responses of lower level personnel in the event of a crisis. Therefore, lower

level workers make decisions based on previous institutional practices established at

higher levels. However, he noted that critics claim that those culturally derived decision

guidelines can be an obstacle to effective decision making. Since, decisions reflecting

innovation and new ideas are quell because employees stay with tried and true problem

solving procedures (Kurtz).

24
 Organizational culture affects important decisions in terms of how the

organization is structured. The corporation’s structure will produce better performance if

it improves the organization’s ability to make and implement important decisions faster

and better than competitors (Blenko, Mankins, & Rogers, 2010; Higgs et al., 2010).

According to Higgs et al. (2010), the interaction of the business, the organization’s

structure and culture surrounding the decision maker are similar to a filter. The decision

maker observes business problems through such filters, therefore, seeing organizations

functioning from a limited perspective. In other words, the degree of success that the

organization achieves is largely a result of the simplifications existing on the mental

models used as a basis for the decisions made. To this end, these authors maintained that

these simplified models are necessary and unavoidable because businesses need them to

succeed (Blenko et al., 2010; Higgs et al., 2010). In this respect, organizations should

realize that organizational culture influences important decisions. In essence, no one

individual can process enough information to make a wise decision without the help of

others. Decision makers need diversity to reduce the risks associated with important

business decisions (Higgs et al., 2010). The importance of an organization-wide culture

for knowledgeable fact based decision making is crucial. To encourage such a culture,

business intelligence and analytics professionals must know how to turn raw data and

information into meaningful and actionable knowledge and properly communicate this

knowledge to decision makers in the organization (Hsinchun, Chiang, & Storey, 2012)

Decisions

In the domain of organizational success, strategic decision making is paramount

among issues of importance (Negash, 2004). Several studies (Denton, 2010;

25
Musselwhite, 2009) indicate that organizational success is based on creating improved

value and wealth. Managing information to support strategic decision making is an

important factor for adding performance value and wealth. These studies further

maintained that organizations with above-average decision making practices achieve a

substantially greater return on investment. This is rooted in the fact that to some degree,

every decision guides some strategies, assigns resources, establishes some course of

action, and creates future opportunities and challenges (Denton, 2010; Musselwhite,

2009).

Consistent with this opinion, a study done by Blenko et al. (2010) noted that the

organization’s value is no more and no less than the sum of the decisions it makes and

implements. They maintained that organizational assets, capabilities, and structure are

useless unless decision makers throughout the organization make the essential decisions

that are right most of the time. Their findings suggested that decision effectiveness and

financial results correlated at a 95% confidence level or higher for every country,

industry, and company in their sample. This indicates that to ensure organizational

success decision makers in contemporary organizations need transparent information to

make good decisions. In essence, decision makers need easy access to organizational

information and the ability to analyze and share this information with others (Ranjan,

2008). For this reason, it is important that actionable information be available at a

specific time, at the exact location, and in the correct form to assist decision makers

(Negash, 2004).

However, given the inescapable uncertainty of decision outcomes, making

decisions are one of the most difficult tasks of managers. Organizational decision makers

26
constantly face a changing environment of dangers and opportunities. These

professionals are required to make decisions in dynamic environments defined by varying

circumstances and complex situations. These situations are complicated further by

competing individual interest, incomplete or vague information, personal biases, and

limited time (Musselwhite, 2009). Besides, in these days the time available for making

operative decisions in a business environment is lessening. Most business decisions are

made within days or even hours whereas just two decades, similar decisions took weeks

or months (Tiemeyer, 1995, as cited in Maria, 2008). The decision making process is

much more complex today.

Recently the numbers of decisions made in both the public and private sector have

resulted in an astounding number of unsuccessful outcomes. It is common knowledge

that poorly and sometimes inflexible made managerial decisions within organizations

have led to undesirable results (Higgs et al., 2010). Studies have shown that, companies

are destroyed because of bad decisions, even when there was an analysis and review

process (Davenport, 2009; Whitehead, Campbell, & Finkelstein, 2009). It is impossible to

eliminate uncertainty, which makes decision making very challenging. Decision makers

are increasingly challenged to minimize the risk from poor decisions and increase

positive outcomes from good decisions (Higgs et al., 2010; Whitehead et al., 2009).

Many organizations suffer from this type of frustration and challenge. Because the

decisions made by management have a great influence on the success of the organization,

all facets of the decision making process should be examined (Higgs et al., 2010).

From the review, it is clear that managerial decisions have a tremendous impact

on the success of the organizations and making good decisions is a major responsibility

27
and challenge of leadership (Musselwhite, 2009). Given the apparent importance of

strategic decision making for organizational success, it is essential that companies

monitor the factors required for making faster and better decisions. Decades of research

have led to significantly better understanding of how individuals make decisions and

judgments (Keeney, 2004; Kuhn, 2010). However, there are still definite challenges

involved in making better decisions. This study grew out of this need.

Decisions and Technology

In the early 1960s, organizations began computerizing many of their operational

activities. This led to the development of information systems to perform many tasks

such as order processing, billing, inventory control, payroll, and accounts payable. The

goal of the first management information systems (MIS) was to make information in

transaction processing systems available to management for decision making purposes.

According to Ackoff (1967) and Tolliver (1971, as cited in Arnott & Pervan, 2005),

unfortunately, few MIS were successful. This gave rise to information systems that would

improve the efficiency with which a user makes a decision, and thus improved the

effectiveness of that decision.

Information technology capability has become both strategically and operationally

essential to contemporary firms. Since its inception, it has been transforming the way

businesses operate. Preston, Chen, and Leidner (2008), citing Byrd and Turner (2001)

and Sambamurthy, Bharadwaj, and Grover (2003), pointed out that over the past several

decades, information technology (IT) has become one of the most significant factors

shaping competition. According to Bogdana, Felicia, and Delia (2009), inter-

organizational information sharing has led to an increase in investments of information

28
technology. As a result, IT expenditures continue to increase as organizations invest

billions of dollars looking for appropriate information solutions (Hocevar & Jaklič,

2010). Most practitioners and researchers in IT management are under the assumption

that there are benefits through investment in new technology. Although, most IT

investments in the last decade have resulted in better systems for managing daily

operations, and more frequent and sizable reports, the connection is not proven. There is

not much debate concerning the necessity of these investments for many modern

organizations. The correct information technology tool can help transform data into

useful knowledge, as knowledge has always been empowered by the growth of IT.

However, according to Bogdana et al. (2009), the academic literature contains careful

studies that both corroborate and refute the positive impact of information technology

investment. One of the problems common to the literature is information overload.

Although there is a heavy investment in information technology, the benefits are

often very difficult to ascertain because of their indirect and delayed effect on business

success (Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010). Most organizations strive to show business gains from

investments in information technology (IT). Consistent with this opinion, Jeffery and

Leliveld (2004) maintained that as most organization struggle to demonstrate business

gains from investments in IT, accounts of squandered investments makes headlines.

Throughout the literature on IT investment, many researchers have agreed,

“organizations are data-rich but information poor” (Davenport & Short, 2003; Dewitt &

Jones, 2001; Forslund, 2007; Gibson et al., 2004; Li & Ye, 1999; William, 2004b;

William & William, 2007; as cited in Popovič et al., 2010, p. 10). In addition, several

studies have shown indications of faulty decisions occurring because of information

29
overload universally (Davenport & Short, 2003; Denton, 2010). Many companies strain

under the burden of information overload. According to Denton (2010), too much

information can cripple individuals and organizations. This can have an adverse effect on

strategic thinking because employees do not have the time or the inclination to think long

term anymore. In addition, few workers monitor the flow of relevant information in their

businesses. They do not examine how relevant information comes and goes out of their

business. Therefore, there is no clear way to keep the focus on what is critical to their

success (Denton, 2010).

This interesting factor was also supported by Krill (2000; as cited in Denton,

2010), who noted that the effect of the information overflow and the fast pace of high

technology and information-sharing systems can result in bad decisions because

managers feel hastened to perform their tasks. Making good decisions consistently will

only occur when there is a better understanding of the risk involved in information

overload. Recognizing the risks involved will help managers, decision makers, and

analysts develop an information management strategy that is effective. Using technology

without definite information management strategies affects managerial decisions.

Although, information systems have been very instrumental in facilitating decision

making, the use of technology without precise information management strategies has not

been very productive. Using technology without definite information management

strategies affects managerial decisions (Denton, 2010).

Notwithstanding the advancement in analytical tools available to organizations,

costly and unsuccessful managerial decisions can have a negative effect on a firm’s

success. Regardless of the size of the company, the decision making process is very

30
complex. Usually, the data entered into the systems are numerous, extensive, and

sometimes varied or provided from varied sources. Therefore, the transformation into

information can be a lengthy and difficult process. This led to the introduction of several

techniques to improve information management. Decision support systems, data

warehouses, and business intelligence systems were designed to manage information and

improve the efficiency of organizational decisions. These systems helped companies

answer complex questions in real time (Maria, 2008).

Decision Support Systems

In the 1970s, decision support systems (DSS) evolved to provide organization

decision makers with supportive data for decision making processes (Shariat &

Hightower, 2007). They were the first applications designed to support and improve

managerial decision making. DSSs are different from transaction processing, in that they

are tools to support and enhance decision making activities. The two main subsystems of

a DSS are knowledge systems (KS) and problem processing system (PPS; Bhatt &

Zaveri, 2002). A well-designed DSS can facilitate problem solving and improve

organizational learning process. In recent years, the field of DSS has become more

sophisticated, in that several applications or sub-fields have emerged and advanced the

area (Arnott, & Pervan, 2005; Bhatt & Zaveri, 2002). According to Arnott and Pervan

(2008), the major sub-fields of DSS are

x Personal Decision Support Systems (PDSS) - These are usually small-scaled

systems developed for one manager or a small number of independent
managers, to support a decision task.

x Group Support Systems (GSS) - These involved the combination of

communication and DSS technologies to facilitate groups working in a
decision related environment.
31
 x Negotiation Support Systems (NSS) - In these DSS, the focus of the group is
compromising between parties.

x Intelligent Decision Support Systems (IDSS) - Utilizes artificial intelligence

techniques for decision support.

x Knowledge Management-Based DSS (KMDSS) - These systems assist in

knowledge storage, retrieval, transfer, and application by supporting
individual and organizational memory and intergroup knowledge access.

x Data Warehousing (DW) - Support decision making by providing large-scale

data infrastructure.

x Enterprise Reporting and Analysis Systems – These systems include

Executive Information Systems (EIS), Business Intelligence Systems (BI) and
Corporate Performance Management (CPM). BI tools access and analyze data
warehouse information with the use of predefined reporting software and
query and analysis tools (Arnott & Pervan, 2008).

Decision support systems is a significant area in the information technology practice and

the decisions made using these systems can have a significant effect on the nature and

performance of an organization. Despite the information technology decline of the early

to mid-2000s, the current DSS industry shift in business intelligence is one of the most

buoyant areas of investment (Arnott & Pervan, 2005).

Business Intelligence

With the rapid advances in technology, businesses are constantly searching for

new ways to establish value positions. Organizations are using BI tools to analyze large

amounts of information to improve its operational and strategic decision making process

and as a result, create a competitive advantage for the organization. Sound business

intelligence systems are capable of analyzing business information in order to support

and improve managerial decision making across a wide range of business activities (Bara

et al., 2009). To realize the benefits of BI, data from a variety of sources must convert

32
into information and used consistently across divisions and business units. The key to a

successful BI system is consolidating data from many different enterprise operational

systems into an enterprise data warehouse (Ranjan, 2008). The focus of the technology

strategy is the business intelligence value achieved in the event of a profitable business

action. To Loshin (2003), this means taking action on the intelligence gathered for

business intelligence to be effective. Thus, for today’s organizations to succeed, it is

important to “understand how this technology can create substantial and sustainable

competitive advantage” (Popovič et al., 2010, p. 6).

An appreciation for BI dictates a clear understanding of the term. Azvine et al.

(2005) maintains that there is an overall air of ambiguity concerning the definition of BI.

He contends there are many different views or facets to BI. According to him, “BI is all

about how to capture, access, understand and analyze the most valuable assets of an

organization – raw data into actionable information in order to improve business

performance” (p. 215). Van Damme (2008) adds to our understanding by defining BI as

“the process that analyzes the information which resides in the company in order to

improve its decision making process and consequently create a competitiveness

advantage for the company” (p. 1). Lönnqvist and Pirttimäki (2006), approached the

subject by describing the richness, noting that BI refers to

Relevant information and knowledge describing the business environment, the

organization itself and its situation in relation to markets, customers, competitors
and economics issues.
An organized and systematic process by which organizations acquire,
analyze, and disseminate information from both internal and external information
sources significant for their business activities and for decision making. (p. 32)

In addition, in their attempt to define BI, they compared it to competitive intelligence

(CI), market intelligence, customer intelligence, strategic intelligence, and technical

33
intelligence. Indicating that BI is a broad umbrella concept for the intelligence related

terms because they all include the idea of data and information analysis (Figure 2).

A Business Intelligence Environment

Figure 2. A business intelligence environment. “Adapted from The Journal of

Information and Knowledge Management Systems,” by Ranjan, 2008, VINE, p.466.
Adapted with permission.

Lönnqvist and Pirttimäki (2006) went on to declare that the purpose of BI is to

help manage the enormous accumulation and flow of business information around and

within the organization. Accomplishing this is by identifying and processing the

information into managerial knowledge and intelligence. Essentially, what companies

manage under the umbrella of BI is a blend of knowledge, information, and data. The

Golfarelli et al. (2004) definition was consistent, indicating “BI can be defined as the

process of turning data into information and then into knowledge” (p. 1). In this context,

34
piles of information are collected and then analyzed in various ways thus creating

knowledge. This knowledge is then used to formulate a plan for solving some business

problem. There is then consensus in the research community that, BI helps organizations

turn data into useful and meaningful information and then distributes this information

when needed. This facilitates timely and better-informed decisions. The literature shows

that it is not easy to give an exact definition to a difficult solution that can vary depending

on the analyzed circumstance. In an abstract way, BI is the process of combining

information from several sources, and presenting the result in a form that can be utilized

for making business decisions.

If chosen intelligently, business intelligence will allow managers to answer

complex questions in real time, maximize profit, take appropriate decisions based on

relevant information and will allow them to monitor the impact of their decisions with

timely correction and modifications (Maria, 2008). This is important because the time

managers have for making business decisions have lessened considerably. Competitive

pressure requires managers to make an intelligent decision quickly based on their

incoming data. Therefore, the ability to convert ambiguous data into useful information in

real time can offer a company significant competitive advantage (Hocevar & Jaklič,

2010).

Evolution of Business Intelligence

To understand BI, it is important to look at the historical context. For the past 50

years, traditional organizations stored enormous amount of disparate data on a variety of

computer storage platforms. Individual departments or units within the organization

benefited from developing technology and was able to access the data independently. As

35
a result, the design evolved for operational information systems. However, eventually,

the entire organization found it increasingly difficult to build a common reference,

combine, correlate, obtain immediate access, and to interpret the data at the level of the

organization’s goal (Shariat & Hightower, 2007). So, it became imperative that

organizations adopt a strategy to overcome this challenge.

As mention earlier in the study, BI is not a new subject. It was first introduced in

1958 by an early pioneer in information science by the name of Hans Peter Luhn.

However, the interceding years were primarily concentrated on the development of

database management systems (DBMS) and data warehousing. An extensive adaptation

of DBMS technology led to the explosion of several operational data sources within the

enterprise for online transaction processing. As a result, the need for data warehousing

evolved to combine transactional data from multiple information sources. It originated as

a way to simplify, reorganize, standardize, develop reports, and analyze data to provide a

complete representation for institutional decision makers (Agrawal, 2008). BI grew out of

data warehousing, in that the early success of data warehouses heightened the demand for

BI.

Luhn’s vision of a BI system was an automatic system that disseminated

information to various divisions in an organization. Unlike in the existing circumstance

of BI such as data warehousing, and database system, which are mainly concerned with

enterprise-wide transactional data in the organization, he primarily focused on

information that was included in business-related documents. In essence, the function of

his BI system was to direct incoming documents to appropriate users by matching

document abstracts with saved user profiles. The original vision has not changed in the

36
current circumstance. The difference is that, instead of the focus being a collection of

documents as originally intended, it is now enterprise-wide data that includes various

type of information (Agrawal, 2008; Luhn, 1958).

The early years. Despite the primary vision of BI, which Luhn laid down in

1958, there was not much progress in the achievement for approximately four decades.

Instead, most of the research and development interests were concerned with simplifying

the significant amount of data processing tasks with the organization. Early embodiment

of data processing employed the punch card technology. Data management meant the

actual organization, filing, and storage of punched cards and paper. This basic form of

data management underwent a metamorphosis with the arrival of input/output (I/O)

devices such as magnetic tapes and disks. The primary notion that emerged was to

develop data management systems that would allow organizations to manage their data

by storing and cataloging it in a structured manner on these storage devices for eventual

retrieval, updating, and processing (Agrawal, 2008).

In the quest for organizations to manage data effectively, the DBMS became

popular during the 1960s by integrating and monitoring operational and transactional data

(Shariat & Hightower, 2007). This initiative began in 1968 when IBM marketed its first

data management system, which was a hierarchical database. Concomitantly, IBM

researchers were engaged in launching the frontier of database technology. One was

Edgar F. Codd, who proposed an innovative approach for organizing complex data

referred to as tables or relations. In addition, he developed a formal declarative

manipulative data language known as relational algebra or calculus. This prompted IBM

to create a large group of researchers during the 1970s to commercialize relational

37
databases, which led to the release of a relational database product in the late 1980s

(Agrawal, 2008).

Based on the ideological fiber of early developments, several studies ensued. In

1973, two academic researchers marketed one of the first database management product

based on the relational DBMS (RDBMS) technology. Another group of IBM researchers

who were concerned with inventing online transaction worked on changing the essence of

database from an offline file-processing system to an online transaction processing

systems. These researchers not only invented the concept of online transactions, but

developed algorithms and systems that enabled online implementation of transactions

against live databases. This ascertained that the database always remained current

(Agrawal, 2008).

Although IBM is critiqued for an untimely commercializing of RDBMS, the

research community cannot ignore its contribution toward the advancement of the

technology. BI grew out of the result of IBM’s commitment; these developments were

very crucial and conceivably the core of real-time BI as seen now. The latter part of the

1980s saw a swift adaptation to RDBMS technology and online transaction processing in

most organizations with a heightened reliance on data and information for strategic and

tactical decision making (Agrawal, 2008).

Emerging years. The rapid increase of online transaction processing systems

based on the relational model resulted in widespread use of such systems. The

dependence of data-driven decision making necessitated online reports from different

systems would be available to end-users instead of mostly business analysts for high level

decision making. As a result, the demand for online reporting and online data analysis

38
increased. However, it soon became apparent that the present infrastructure was

inadequate to sustain the status quo. According to Agrawal (2008), two dominant factors

led to this realization. First, due to the complete independence of operational data sources

within an organization, it was very difficult to obtain a unified analytical view of the data

from multiple systems. Second, the growing demand for more reports and data from

operational systems started to interfere with the normal operation of daily tasks in most

departments. The year of 1988 saw the development of an integrated business

information system that created a unified view of data and information stored in multiple

operational systems and used by different areas within IBM. It is important to note that,

at the same time, several similar endeavors were in progress in many other large

enterprises. Accordingly, the next few years saw an increase in data warehousing

(Agrawal, 2008).

Data warehousing. The early years of data warehousing adaptation have not been

without its fair share of criticism. There were persistent issues lingering around this type

of technology. From a management standpoint, data warehousing design approach was

perceived as unproven, undeveloped, costly, and very time-consuming. In the mid-1990s,

this changed when efforts that concentrated on design methodology rather than

technology became accepted. In reality, the fundamental technology supporting data

warehousing remains essentially the relational model. As a final point, the main

transformative factor that is responsible for increasing the acceptance of data

warehousing is the idea of a dimensional model based design methodology. This design

simplifies the design process, which saved costs and time (Agrawal, 2008).

39
 The acceptance of data warehousing came by in early 2000. By this time, it

became clear that data warehousing was useful for accomplishing large analysis tasks that

assisted data-driven decision making. As the role of analysis increased within

organizations, business analysts started extracting interesting patterns from their

company’s data. This notion of extracting and unraveling useful information from the

raw data was termed business intelligence, not to be confused with data mining which

also involves the extraction of information from raw data for discovering new and

valuable information. BI became more applicable in Web-based commercial enterprises.

In the early years, its usage mainly was to sell the data warehousing concepts to top-level

management. On the other hand, data mining techniques were adapted for market

analysis involving customers’ historical behavior patterns. This technique uses powerful

analytic technologies and machine learning algorithms to find hidden and unexpected

patterns and relationships in large amounts of data. The technology outlook for BI is still

evolving, as there is much debate among database researchers and practitioners

concerning timeliness. As a result, real-time BI has emerged as a technology solution for

data-driven decision making. Real-time BI functions as an immediate and automated

feedback to the operational data sources for making online tactical decisions. It plays a

key role in delivering analytics for both tactical and strategic decision making (Agrawal,

2008).

Analytic and decision automation. BI has become more sophisticated in

strategic decision making in that it plays a major role in reporting, trend analysis,

customer behavior analysis, and predictive modeling (Dayal et al., 2009). One of the

areas that practitioners think BI has the most potential influence is predictive analytics.

40
To assist in the decision making process analysts create predictive models using

warehouse data to predict results of different decision options (Apte, Bing, Pednault, &

Smyth, 2002). These models are useful for predicting the future for a given situation by

allowing analysts to act on the prediction and improve business outcomes (Chickowski,

2009). The use of data analysis in predicting market trends to improve business

performance is important for organizations to remain competitive in the business

community (Azvine et al., 2005). It provides both insight and foresight to organizational

managers because the aim is to identify patterns and trends in the data to forecast the

direction of the organization’s future.

An increasing number of organizations are adopting analytics both strategically

and tactically. Analytics and decision automation are some of the most powerful tools for

improving decision making. These tools allow managers to build competitive approaches

around their analytical capabilities and make decisions based on the data and analytics.

Analytics is more effective when embedded in automated systems because many

decisions can be made in real time. However, if one of these approaches goes askew it

could be very damaging to the business. Therefore, it is important to balance and enhance

these decision tools with human intuition and judgment. As a final point, it is essential to

know when a particular decision approach does not apply to the situation on hand.

Therefore, decisions need to be systematically reviewed (Davenport, 2009).

The literature reveals that there is a still a lot to accomplish in analytics because

organizations are now required to gather data in more ways in order to perform predictive

analysis. As a result, there are several challenges that affect predictive analytics. First,

because data maybe located in different organizational sources, integrating or

41
reassembling may result in distorted or misinterpreted data. Second, the design of BI

systems may not accommodate mixing and matching traditional reporting tools with

complex analytical functionality (Greengard, 2010; Negash, 2004). In addition,

constructing the subject matter can also be very challenging because to forecast

methodically, analysts must be knowledgeable about the subject matter (Chickowski,

2009).

Business Intelligence Applications

Business intelligence includes several types of applications and technologies for

gathering, storing, accessing, analyzing, and providing information to make better

business decisions (Negash & Gray, 2008). Although business intelligence systems are

sometimes synonyms for decision support systems, technologically they represent a

broader concept (Popovič et al., 2010). These systems include among others knowledge

management, data mining, and customer relationship management (Figure 3).

Figure 3. BI relations to other information systems. “Adapted from business intelligence.

Communications of the Association for Information Systems,” by Negash, 2004, 13,
p.177-195. Adapted with permission.
42
 Business intelligence systems differ from traditional information support such as

decision support systems and executive information systems, in that traditional

information support is more application oriented (Popovič et al., 2010). However, BI

tools are widely recognized as a new middleware between transactional applications and

decision support applications. Business intelligence solutions include decision support

systems, query and reporting, online analytical processing (OLAP), statistical analysis,

forecasting, and data mining. Software brings these components together in a single

system (Negash & Gray, 2008). The BI environment includes all of the development,

information processing, and support activities necessary for delivering reliable and

relevant information, and analytical capabilities to businesses (Popovič et al., 2010).

The technologies used in business intelligence systems include dashboards,

graphical interfaces, KPI, drilldown, and filtering. Executive information systems

previously used these technologies, but there was the problem of providing a uniform and

integral view of the data. The organizational data, which was often connected to a single

decision support solution, had to be dispersed around different data sources (Popovič et

al., 2010). According to Frolick and Ariyachandra (as cited in Popovič et al., 2010), data

warehousing, and later the concept of business intelligence systems tried to solve this

problem with a data-oriented approach. In this approach, the center of the architecture

represents integral data sources for analytical decision taking. A high-tech business

intelligence system, therefore, includes a data warehouse, which is the infrastructure and

analytical tools (Popovič et al., 2010).

43
Business Intelligence Architecture

Since the design of BI systems is very important to the decision and analysis

process, it is important to be familiar with the architecture. The current literature presents

and demonstrates the BI architecture and infrastructure in various ways. Some of the

literature present a conventional view of software architecture, while others present it as a

pyramid, showing how to distribute the various tools to various groups (Shariat &

Hightower, 2007). BI architecture constitutes a collection of applications and integrated

operational databases, and decision assisting systems that facilitate access to data (Stefan,

2009). Architecturally, there are two parts to business intelligence systems, data

warehousing and access to data, data analysis, reporting, and delivery. The architecture is

different from other information technologies in use today, in that the structure is

different and uses different terminology (Shariat & Hightower, 2007).

Business intelligence systems architecture structure comprises three separate

levels, data management, model management, and data visualization tools. First, the data

management level embodies relational databases, data warehouses, and other types of

data sources. At this level, it is common to use data warehousing solution for the purpose

of analysis. Although a data warehouse can make it easier and more efficient to use a

business intelligence system, it is not necessary for its deployment. Second, the model

management level constitutes data extraction, transformation, and processing, which is

based on different types of models for statistic interpretation, analysis, and forecasting

data. Finally, the data visualization tools present managers with the ability to examine

data graphically and identify complex interrelationships. Business intelligence systems

endeavor to present data in a form that is appropriate for strategic decisions. Therefore, at

44
this level there are tools for reporting and presenting data in a friendly manner (Bara et

al., 2009).

Business intelligence cycle. An understanding of business intelligence systems

necessitates knowledge of its life cycle. According to Bara et al. (2009), there are

significant differences between the transactional systems life cycle and business

intelligence systems life cycle. However, the development stage uses the same

conventional techniques and phases, in that many steps are used to model business

intelligence characteristics, some of which are orientation towards business opportunities,

implementation of strategic decisions, analysis of the business need, and a cyclical

development process, which focuses on evaluation and improvement of successive

versions (Bara et al., 2009). The BI cycle starts with the extraction of data. After which,

the data is then deposited in data warehouses where the deciding personnel use decision

assisting systems to extract data from the data warehouse. Acquiring this information, BI

personnel then create action plans (Figure 4; Stefan, 2009).

Business Intelligence Cycle

Deciding Personnel

OLAP Data Mining Reports

Data Warehouse

Extract Transform Load (ETL)

SCM Accounting Finance Human Resources

Decision Assisting Systems

Figure 4. Business Intelligence Cycle. “Adapted from improving the quality of the
decision making by using business intelligence solutions. Academy of Economic
Studies,” by Giovinazzo, 2002, as cited in Stefan, 2009, p. 997. Adapted with permission.

45
 Business intelligence systems in decision making. The most important

components of the BI infrastructure that is relevant to the decision making process are

x Key information technologies: This is related to data acquisition and storing,

specifically, Extraction-Transformation-Load tools (ETL) and data
warehouses.

x Information technologies potential: Focuses on the analyses and presentation

of data. These include OLAP (On-Line Analytical Processing) techniques and
data mining.

x BI applications: These support making various business decision related to the

organization (Figure 5; Olszak & Ziemba, 2006).

Figure 5. BI systems infrastructure that supports decision making. “Adapted from

business intelligence systems in the holistic infrastructure development supporting
decision making in organizations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge,
and Management,” by Olszak, C., M., & Ziemba, E., 2006. p. 48. Adapted with
permission.

46
Information and Data Quality

The quality of decisions is very important to organizational performance and

sustainability. Regardless of the type of data that an information system processes and the

way it is accomplished, the objectives are mainly the same. In that, the information the

user receives from the system must be high quality because the quality of information

also determines good or bad decisions. Good decisions, which are the key element,

require organizations to remain competitive in today’s growing marketplace and are

usually only derived from high quality information that includes accuracy, timeliness,

and clarity. Managers seeking to maintain the competitiveness of their organization

cannot and should not depend only on intuition (Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010). Good

information is the difference between the values of a good or bad decision, where the

decision is based on that information (Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010).

Attempts to identify BI as a suitable solution for improving organizational

decisions have yielded consistent and encouraging findings. Several researchers (Geiger

et al., 2010; Popovič et al., 2010) have stressed that there are problems surrounding poor

data quality. Poor data quality can prove to be very costly. According to Gorla et al.

(2010), data quality is at the center of information quality because poor data quality

results in poor information quality. Poor data quality, and consequently poor information

quality, has negative effects on organizations at operational, tactical, and strategic levels.

At the operational level, employees will lack job satisfaction because of inaccurate or

incomplete information, which will result in customer’s dissatisfaction. At the tactical

level, irrelevant information will adversely affect the quality of decision making.

Selection and implementation of a sound business strategy will become difficult because

47
of incorrect or delayed information. On the other hand, information that is high in quality

in terms of accuracy, completeness, and relevance to decision making leads to increased

organizational efficiency and high-quality decision making (Gorla et al., 2010). Table 1

shows Eppler’s 16 criteria covering all features of information quality (Popovič et al.,

2010).

Table 1. Information Quality Criteria adapted from Eppler, 2003 (as cited in Popovič et
al., 2010, p. 15)

Criterion name Description

Comprehensiveness Is the scope of information adequate?

Conciseness Is the information to the point, void of necessary elements?

Unnecessary elements?
Clarity Is the information understandable or comprehensible to the target

Correctness Is the information free of distortion, bias, or error?

Accuracy Is the information precise and close enough to reality?

Consistency Is the information free of contradictions or convention breaks?

Applicability Can the information be directly applied? Is it useful?

Timeliness Is the information processed and delivered rapidly without delays?

Traceability Is the background of the information visible (author, date etc.)?

Maintainability Can all of the information be organized and updated on an ongoing

basis?
Interactivity Can the information process be adapted by the information consumer?
Speed Can the infrastructure match the user’s working pace?
Security Is the information protected against loss or unauthorized access?

Currency Is the information up-to-date and not obsolete?

Accessibility Is there a continuous and unobstructed way to get to the information?

Convenience Does the information provision correspond to the user’s needs and
habits?

To understand and analyze the concept of business intelligence systems it is

necessary to understand information quality because information quality and accessibility

48
are important characteristics that determine the degree to which information systems are

used (Popovič et al., 2009). Similarly, data quality is an important success factor for BI,

since the data comes to data warehouses from several source systems and interfaces. New

problems can result because of inconsistencies between the data from various source

applications. Inconsistent data source can have an adverse effect on the analysis. Other

after effects are inappropriate or extensive reports because the data is not properly

arranged to facilitate managerial decisions. In addition, sometimes decision making is not

well supported because data owners are too protective of information (Maria, 2008).

Maria further noted that non-technical analysts find report preparation time-consuming

and complicated.

Logistics and Transportation

This study queries business intelligence professionals in the logistics industry.

Depending on the nature of the business and the industry, logistics is an important

function in many organizations (Soosay & Chapman, 2006). Logistics usually relates to

the management of the materials and information stream of business, through a

distribution channel, to the end customers. Logistics management involves the physical

distribution of raw materials and, finally the finished products. This includes everything

from product and service development decisions to the management of incoming raw

materials, the production process, storage of finished goods, delivery to the customer, and

after-sales service. Logistic management is an important source of competitive advantage

in commerce because managers need to make strategic and operational decisions (Soosay

& Chapman, 2006). According to Pokharel (2005), “logistics service in a supply chain

involves planning, designing, implementing, and managing the flow and storage of

49
materials and information exchange in order to support such functions as procurement,

distribution, inventory management, packaging and manufacturing ” (Pokharel, p. 137-

138). One of the most essential features of logistics services and the supply chains they

support is the delivery of timely and accurate information.

Logistic optimization involves offering the best possible plan of logistics

activities taking into consideration the known limitations and available potential. In this

respect, business intelligence systems help distribution centers manage increased volumes

because they are frequently used in transportation management to develop optimal load

consolidation plans and routing schedules. They are also used to schedule and consolidate

inbound and outbound freight. Incorrectly prepared plan of logistics optimizations can

result in enormous delays of production or distributions that would result in the necessity

for higher cost. This could significantly decrease the potential profit for businesses

(Olszak & Ziemba, 2006). Evidence to date suggests that extensive delays in the delivery

schedule, quality problems, cost overruns, and increasing claims and litigation have

resulted in serious damage to companies (Lau, Ning, Ip, & Choy, 2004). Employing

advanced data mining techniques will show the best available solution for actual and

complex optimization problems. The quality of such solutions is usually higher than the

quality offered by traditional solution of optimization methods (Olszak & Ziemba, 2006).

It is clear from the literature that, several sectors in the business world frequently

use business intelligence systems. The application of information technology has

considerably changed the business prototypes of transport and logistics companies (Shen,

2009). According to Shen (2009), studies have shown that penetration rate for cutting-

edge IT application was low for the logistics and transportation industries. He maintained

50
that one possible reason was that the advantages of these investments were uncertain

from a number of studies. For example, some studies have found that there is no

exceptional business profit from IT investment. While others have claimed that although

there are significant relationships between information technology and business

performance, it is difficult to measure the real return on investment due to project

complexities and ambiguities. Furthermore, these cutting-edge systems normally need

extensive periods of investment returns and high implementation and investment costs.

This could increase financial risk, which also affects organizations plan for information

technology (Shen, 2009).

Although organizational managers must focus their attention and resources on

supply chain functions such as logistics, their main concern is improved organizational

performance (Green, Whitten, & Inman, 2008) because enterprises today are facing

global competition. A successful enterprise depends greatly on the agility of the company

to face the ever-changing business environment. To survive, companies need to have a

competitive edge with continual improvement, operate in low cost, and response to

customer demands. The enormous amount of data that relates to business operations and

decisions are inundating businesses. However, not many organizations are able to make

full use of their available data to assist decision making and daily operations. To make

good decisions businesses need to gather good intelligence information. For that reason,

it is vital to generate the right information and deliver it to the right person at the right

time. The literature has shown that the most important business operation activity is the

systematic processing of knowledge to create value for customers (Figure 6; Lau et al.,

2004).

51
Figure 6. The Components of a Logistics Business Intelligence System (Amended from
Rus & Toader, 2008).

Gaps in the Literature Regarding Business Intelligence and Decisions

Studies have shown there is a need for research that addresses how information

technology managers’ decision style impacts their evaluation of information technology

in their daily business operation. Studies addressing this area are sparse, and the

understanding of information technology management could benefit from the knowledge

provided by research in decision making (Selart, Johansen, Holmesland, & Gronhaug,

2008). Studies have found that a large number of organizations believe that business

intelligence systems will create a higher value for organizations. Practitioners and

researchers believe that these systems increase the operational effectiveness and

efficiency of organizations and thus make them more competitive in the global business

environment (Ghazanfari et al., 2009).

52
 Although there has been extensive research in business intelligence and decisions,

the area needs more investigation especially, concerning the impact of business

intelligence on business performance and improving on measuring business intelligence.

Sell et al. (2008) maintains that, despite their analytical importance, they still lack the

deductive power required to make flexible and smarter decisions. Furthermore, as

indicated earlier in the literature, a lack of understanding of the critical factors that define

the success of business intelligence applications and business intelligence capabilities is

one of the reasons for the failure of business intelligence to fulfill the expectation of

organizational managers (Isik et al., 2011). Studies have still shown that measuring the

value and performance of business intelligence is one of the most important challenges

faced by organizations (Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010; Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006; Negash,

2004; Negash & Gray, 2008; Stefan, 2009).

Summary

One of the most important requirements of organizational management is to

support the decision making process. Therefore, an understanding of the management

decision systems will not only help in the customization of these systems but will also

provide an appropriate framework for creating suitable modules, specific functions and

extra tools (Ghazanfari et al., 2009).

The growing potential for BI can be ascribed to the fact that many organizations

have systems for data collection and information gathering but have no tools to put their

data and information into use for strategic decision making (Ranjan, 2008). The need for

better decisions in organizations is a critical and global issue. Although many factors are

involved, the success or failure of an organization depends on the decisions made. The
53
literature shows a strong link between BI and more informed decisions. As a result,

investment in BI systems continues to accelerate (Hocevar & Jaklič, 2010).

Several studies have indicated that business intelligence allows business users to

analyze and better understand their organization’s plans and results. It helps to manage

business information with the goal of arriving at effective business decisions. BI provides

insight into what is working correctly and highlights potential opportunities while

identifying problem areas in time to take corrective actions (Bara et al., 2009; Hocevar &

Jaklič, 2010: Maria, 2008; Negash & Gray, 2008; Popovič et al., 2010). The technology

is promising and more and more organizations are realizing that BI and other DSS

applications are necessary for organizational growth. However, although the technology

is encouraging, the industry is still a long way off from providing companies with

business information specifically information that propels business results by its

translation into actionable steps. BI success does not lie in the volume of usage or paper

generated. Success is measured through it influence on businesses and by the

improvements in critical areas that can be attributed to its implementation (Ranjan, 2008).

After careful consideration of the literature review, it is apparent that there is a complete

lack of a specific and accurate method to measure the realized business value if any and

the benefits occurring from the technology is not always clear (Bara et al., 2009;

Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006). Businesses need a more comprehensive approach in

measuring information technology usage (Rubin & Rubin, 2007). Rubin and Rubin

maintained that researchers should consider the impact of business intelligence on

organizational process rather than tests that determine the effect on profitability.

54
 According to Lönnqvist and Pirttimäki (2006), the BI effectiveness is measured

best by evaluating the contribution of BI to a particular decision or action and then

examining the benefit or detriment that the specific decision brought to the organization

(Lönnqvist & Pirttimäki, 2006). Consistent with this opinion, Popovič et al. (2010) noted

that this implies measuring the BI value that results from a business action. However,

Lönnqvist and Pirttimäki (2006) maintained that, “measuring the benefit of BI is not as

simple as measuring the cost” because “many of the effects are intangible” (Lönnqvist &

Pirttimäki, 2006, p. 34). Considering these opinions, this study accommodates this need.

Given the increased importance of decision’s outcome in organizations as well as the

increase investments in decision support, the goal of this research is uncomplicated

(Figure 7).

Figure 7. Different ways to Measure a Success Factor of a BI Process (Source: Lönnqvist

& Pirttimäki, 2006).

Because of the high cost to organizations of bad decisions and the increased usage

of business intelligence, it is important for decision makers to have a better understanding

about decisions made with business intelligence input. The study sets forth to understand

55
factors related to business intelligence input in the decision making. The goal is to

provide an in-depth understanding that will help business professionals improve the

quality of decisions. In addition, the study offers a framework for making better decisions

and thus improves the managerial dilemma. The results of the study not only add to the

body of knowledge within the academic community but also provide practitioners and

researchers with insight into creating competitiveness advantage for organizations and

improve decisions and overall performance. Finally, those seeking to use business

intelligence technology can learn from the experiences of early adopters. This will help

companies make better decisions. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology used for

this study.

56
 CHAPTER 3. METHODOLOGY

Introduction

The purpose of this quantitative descriptive study was to obtain a perception of

business intelligence professionals about the factors related to business intelligence input

in decision making. The study surveyed business intelligence professionals in logistics

organizations on decisions made with business intelligence input. The primary method

for obtaining these perceptions was an online survey. The goal of the study is to help

improve decisions in organizations by supplying decision makers with information that

will help them make better decisions. The study also hopes to provide a better

understanding of the reasoning behind the decisions made. This will improve the

operational and strategic decision making process, thereby creating a competitive

advantage for the organization.

This chapter discusses the research methodology of the study. It provides details

about the employed research method, addresses the research design, and the rationale for

selecting the descriptive approach. Following this, the chapter describes the proposed

research population, sampling, data collection procedures, and rationale. It concludes

with the data analysis procedures.

57
 Description of the Methodology

Quantitative research is common to information systems studies and is best to

address problems where there is a need to understand what factors or variables could

influence the outcome. This type of investigation includes both experiments and other

systematic methods that control and quantify measures of performance (Hoy, 2010).

Quantitative researchers seek clarifications and predictions that will generalize to other

people and places (Leedy & Ormond, 2005). Here, the researcher knows clearly in

advance what to look for and designs the study before the data is collected (Miles &

Huberman, 1994). The philosophical approach for quantitative studies originated in

positivism and concentrated on objective data gathering (Neuman, 2006). The intent is to

classify features and create statistical models in an attempt to explain the observed.

Quantitative research is a means for testing objective theories by examining relationships

among measured variables. Research uses instruments to measure variables and statistical

procedures to analyze the data. Quantitative studies usually end with a confirmation or

refute of the hypotheses (Creswell, 2009). This approach is most appropriate for

statistical data analysis and when attempting to separate variables for analysis (Swanson

& Holton, 2005).

The survey is the most frequently used data collection method. The rise in the use

of survey began in the 1930s due to changing societal attitudes, advances in technology,

increased importance on cost and efficiency, and better understanding of survey error

structure. Additionally, the research profession of practitioners engaged in conducting

surveys continues to grow as policy makers and organizational leaders realize the value

of survey data for making informed decisions (Swanson & Holton, 2005).

58
 According to Creswell (2009), “A survey design provides a numeric description

of trends, attitudes, or opinions of a population by studying a sample of that population

(p. 145). The researcher generalizes or makes assertions about the population from the

sample results (Creswell, 2009). The survey obtains information about one or more

groups of people on some set of organizationally relevant constructs, by asking them

questions and tabulating their answers. In essence, this type of research collects data from

a sample population at one instance and allows generalizability from a smaller population

study group to a larger group. The goal is to understand a large population by surveying a

sample of that population (Leedy & Ormond, 2005).

Survey research has been around for a long time and is a valid method in the

information technology arena (Creswell, 2009). The widespread use of computers with

the advent of the Internet has broadened the use of surveys over the past two decades. It

is the preferred type of data collection procedure for the study because, in comparison to

other research methods, the survey design is less expensive, quicker, and broader in

coverage (Swanson & Holton, 2005). A survey is easier to administer and is efficient in

providing information in a relatively short time (Creswell, 2009). The researcher poses a

group of questions to the participants, summarizes their responses, and then draws

conclusions about a particular population from the responses of the sample. The process

is very convenient. The delivery is quick, and the data is saved automatically and

obtainable anytime. This reduces the cost in space, dedicated equipment, paper, and

mailing labor (Leedy & Ormond, 2005; Swanson & Holton, 2005).

The survey used in the study was cross-sectional with data collected from many

participants at one point (Neuman, 2006). The study collected the relevant data from an

59
Internet-based survey administered through SurveyMonkey. According to Swanson and

Holton (2005), Internet surveys are flexible in their design and implementation. The

survey design provides a less threatening approach for collecting sensitive data and offers

a novel way for participation. In essence, it avoids the fatigue normally associated with

the paper and pencil mode and the data will be stored in a form ready for analysis. This is

not only be inexpensive but is also less time-consuming (Swanson & Holton, 2005).

Although, it is a common approach, the design is not less demanding or easier to conduct

than other types of research. Quite the contrary, the design makes crucial demands on the

researcher that if not respected can place the entire research at risk (Leedy & Ormond,

2005).

The methodology used in this study builds on proven frameworks. This includes

the total or tailored design of Dillman (1978, 2000), the total survey method of Fowler

(2000), Bourque and Fielder (2003), Salant and Dillman (1994), Thomas (1999, as cited

in Swanson & Holton, 2005). The survey is appropriate for this study because it enables

responses from a group of business intelligence professionals to answer the research

questions presented in the study. The findings of this study will help managers make

better decisions in their organizations and guide future research in business intelligence

technology and decisions.

Research Questions

This study investigates the following research questions. Each of the research

questions helped to frame the dependent and independent variables of this quantitative

descriptive survey study. The research questions will help to determine business

intelligence professionals’ perceptions concerning decisions made with business

60
intelligence input relative to accessibility, reliability, information quality, frequency of

use, relevance, security, and quality of decisions. An examination of these factors will

help to understand the use of business intelligence input in decision making.

Research Question 1

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of the accessibility of the input?

Research Question 2

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of the reliability of the input?

Research Question 3

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of the information quality?

Research Question 4

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of its relevance?

Research Question 5

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of its security?

Research Question 6

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of its frequency of use?

61
Research Question 7

What are the perceptions of business intelligence professionals regarding the

effect of business intelligence input on the quality of their decisions?

Research Design

This study utilized a quantitative descriptive approach. Due to the nature of this

study, a descriptive research approach is appropriate. Descriptive studies are useful for

determining the nature of how things are. The purpose of descriptive research is to

describe characteristics of a domain by using a survey to gather the required information

(Swanson & Holton, 2005). Essentially, it describes one or more characteristics of a large

population (Leedy & Ormond, 2005). This approach is also fitting because it answers

questions about relationships among measured variables, to explain, predict, and control

phenomena. Descriptive research involves obtaining information about one or more

groups of people by collecting and analyzing the results. It does not allow assumptions

from the data; it examines a situation as it is. In this type of research, the researcher does

not manipulate a situation to see how people react (Neuman, 2006).

Sample and Population

Population

The targeted population consisted of business intelligence professionals affiliated

with logistics organizations in New York State who use business intelligence technology

for their business operation. These professional include managers, decision makers, and

analysts involved in the decision making process. The study aims to provide an in-depth

understanding that will give organizational decision makers further insight into the

62
decisions made with business intelligence input and help to improve organizational

decisions.

Sample

The minimum sample size should be at least 70 responses. According to

Thorndike (1978), sample size should relate to the number of variables. He indicated that

there should be at least ten subjects for each variable. However, the aim is to have more

responses to improve statistical accuracy. To accommodate a timely response and the

assumption that the characteristics of the sample approximate the characteristics of the

population, the study used random selection. Random sampling is appropriate for survey

research because each member of the population has an equal chance of selection.

Moreover, random sampling is a reliable way to obtain a representative sample. Although

no technique assures a representative sample, the likelihood is higher for this procedure

(Leedy & Ormond, 2005). A random number table was used to select the sample. First an

email invitation was sent to business intelligence professionals to participate in the study.

The nature of the study was included in the email. After which, an email including an

embedded link to the survey was then sent to participants. Randomness of the target

sample was maintained because each member of the sample had an equal opportunity to

complete the survey. The actual survey was developed through the SurveyMonkey

website that is a professional Web survey hosting company available to participants

through the Internet. Participants anonymously completed the survey and all responses

were confidential. To protect the participants’ anonymity, the survey did not require the

use of names or any form of identification. To provide additional information about the

study, the survey included an attachment of the informed consent form. Furthermore, to

63
avoid multiple responses, a limit of only one response was imposed. However,

participants who did not complete the survey could return to complete it. After logging

in, they were directed to the area where they previously left off. Participants had five

weeks to respond after the initial survey was issued.

Instrumentation

The study utilized a modified closed-ended survey instrument to obtain data

responses from business intelligence professionals. The questions in the survey were

adapted from a validated survey instrument used by Lease (2005) for a study titled

“Factors Influencing the Adoption of Biometric Security Technologies by Decision

Making Information Technology and Security Managers.” The author gave permission to

modify and use the survey for this study. Because this study examined information

systems usage focusing in a different industry with different technology, an existing

survey instrument was justified. However, the questionnaire was modified to measure the

most important and relevant parameters. Modifications involved formatting, changes in

terminology, and focus of questions. The survey also included information quality criteria

found in the Popovič et al. (2010) study (Eppler, 2003 as cited in Popovič et al., 2010, p.

15). Given that, the questionnaire was built from a previous instrument it is valid and

reliable. Classification and definition of the variables in the study are

x Reliability – This independent variable is the professional’s perception of the

reliability of business intelligence input.

x Accessibility – This independent variable is the professional’s attitude

regarding the accessibility of business intelligence input.

x Information Quality – This independent variable is the professional’s

perception regarding the quality of information derived from business
intelligence input.
64
 x Frequency of Use – This independent variable is the professional’s perception
of the frequency of use of business intelligence input.

x Relevance – This independent variable is the professional’s perception of the

relevancy of business intelligence input.

x Security – This independent variable is the professional’s perception of the

security of business intelligence input.

x Dependent Variable – The dependent variable in this study is the perceived

quality of decisions made using business intelligence input.

x Quality of Decisions – This variable represents respondents’ perceptions to

the dependent variable. It is the professional’s perceptions of the effect of
business intelligence input regarding the perceived quality of their decisions.

The study used a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 5 =

strongly disagree to measure responses (Appendix A). To establish content validity, the

questionnaire was refined through a pre-testing process. No information in the instrument

identifies or links the respondent in any way. The SurveyMonkey website organized the

recorded responses in a file accessible to the reader. Table 11 shows the instrument used

for the data collection.

Field Test

According to Straub (1989), researchers should pretest instruments to assess as

much validity as possible. Field testing increases the validity and reliability of the survey

instrument (Cooper & Schindler, 2008; Straub, 1989). The researcher administered a field

test on January 26, 2012 to evaluate the content validity of the instrument. In accordance

with suggestions made by Cooper and Schindler (2008), the researcher conducted the test

with five business intelligence managers. The purpose of the test was to detect

weaknesses in the design and instrumentation, improve questions, and enhance the format

and scales (Creswell, 2009). The test was also used to determine ease in accessing the

65
survey and to ascertain if participants had difficulty understanding the format and

questionnaire (Chung et al., 2009). The objective was to answer the following questions:

1. Were you able to access the survey easily?

2. Was the survey questionnaire understandable?

3. Was the format consistent?

4. Were you able to understand the instructions clearly?

5. Are any of the questions disturbing or invasive?

6. Are there any comments you would like to add?

Two of the managers had concerns regarding questions that should be included in the

instrument. They sent suggestions and the changes were incorporated in the survey.

Data Collection and Other Procedures

Recruitment for survey participants was through an email invitation. First,

electronic mail was sent to participants, inviting them to participate in the survey. The

email explained the reason for the contact and the nature of the study. Then, another

email was sent to possible participants with the embedded survey link, the informed

consent form, and assurance of confidentiality. In addition, each participant received

instructions for the survey and for navigating the site. The data collection process was in

a manner consistent with safe practices for protecting personal data. The study did not

collect any personal identifiable information. This approach maintained the anonymity of

the respondents. The respondent has the choice of exiting the email or clicking the link to

complete the survey. The data collection period lasted five weeks. The data was stored on

the SurveyMonkey server and then downloaded to the researcher’s computer after the

66
data collection process. The files were deleted from the SurveyMonkey website and the

responses analyzed for the data analysis phase. Problems such as incomplete, missing, or

unusable data were identified and resolved during the data collection phase, rather than

after its completion. All incomplete surveys were discarded from the analysis.

Data Analysis Procedures

The goal of the study was to help improve decisions in organizations by supplying

decision makers with information to help them make better decisions. The study used

seven independent variables: reliability, accessibility, information quality, frequency of

use, relevance, security, and quality of decisions to determine business intelligence

professionals’ perception of decisions made with business intelligence input (Figure 8).

The data analysis involved examining the data to address the research questions. This

included examining the surveys for correctness and completeness, entering the data into a

statistical program and performing an analysis of the responses according to the

frequency distributions and descriptive statistics.

Dependent Independent Variables

Variable

Decisions Reliability Accessibility Information Relevance Security Quality of Frequency

Quality Decision of Use

Figure 8. Decision dependent and independent variables.

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to perform the analysis and testing. Data

analysis for testing and descriptive statistics utilized SPSS (Statistical Package for the

Social Sciences) computer software, version 20.0 for Windows. The questions were

divided into groups based on the construct it measures. Questions 12, 14, 15, 2, and 9

67
measured accessibility and Questions 5, 6, and 7 assessed reliability. Questions 11 and 16

measured informational quality and Questions 10, 12, 13, and 17 evaluated relevance.

Question 8 measured security and Questions, 18, 3, 4, and 1 determined quality of

decisions. Finally, Question 19 measured frequency of use. All of the questions with the

exception of Question 19 follow a 5-point Likert scale style ranging from 1 = strongly

disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The response of 3 is a neutral response. Question 19 had

possible responses from 1 = rarely, 2 = frequently, and 3 = always. The questions were

averaged together to create the scores and Cronbach alpha reliability was conducted on

the scores.

The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a non-parametric test to compare the

distribution medium with a given value m. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test is widely used

to look at variables measured at the ordinal, interval, or ratio level. According to Thas,

Rayner, and Best (2005), it tests a hypothesis about a population median. A one-sample

median test investigates whether a sample median differs significantly from a

hypothesized value. It is designed to examine the population median relative to a specific

value. However, unlike the t-test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test can work with non-

normal distributions.

Validity/Reliability/Credibility

According to Cooper and Schindler (2008), validity is the confidence level that

the measurement instrument is, in fact, measuring what it intends to measure. Reliability

denotes the degree that the study can consistently measure and obtain the results. The

original questionnaire, developed by Lease (2005), was successfully field tested twice for

face and content validity with ten senior managers. On the first trial, suggestions for
68
improvement of the survey instrument and survey instructions were received. These

suggestions were incorporated into the instrument, and a second trial was sent. Following

the successful field test in the study, Lease pre-tested the instrument for reliability using a

test-retest sequence.

Lease (2005) pre-tested the survey instrument for reliability with 36 participants.

The first test yielded a response rate of 86%. For the retest, the questions were

reorganized; it yielded 100% participation with a Cronbach’s alpha of .94 established on

the 16 Likert scale questions. In each test, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient exceeded .90.

This indicates that the tests are highly correlated. Given that, the survey instrument is

similar to the previously validated survey; there is a high probability of its validity for the

current study.

Ethical Considerations

The study did not collect any personable identifiable information. As mentioned,

data collection was performed in a manner consistent with sound practices for protecting

personal data. The SurveyMonkey server retained the surveyed data. After the data

collection process was completed, the results of the survey were downloaded to the

researcher’s computer and checked for readability. Following that process,

SurveyMonkey was notified to delete the data permanently from the server. The surveyed

data will be stored safely on a magnetic media for seven years after which it will be

destroyed.

69
 Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the research methodology of this study.

It explains the sample selection and describes the procedure used in designing the

instrument and collecting the data. Finally, an explanation of the statistical procedure

used to analyze the data is given. This study is important and timely because today’s

turbulent and competitive business climate is forcing organizations to improve

managerial decisions to create competitive advantage for the organization. Furthermore,

information technology applications have significantly changed the business models of

transport and logistics companies (Shen, 2009). In conclusion, there is a need for research

that addresses how the decision style of information technology managers is influenced

by their evaluation of information technology in the daily business life (Selart et al.,

2008).

70
 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS

Introduction

The current need for timely and effective business decisions is becoming

increasingly more important as managers face increasing globalization and the impact of

strong market competition. Therefore, it is vital to have a well-developed decision

making process in place because properly formulated strategic decisions reduce the risk

associated with organizational survival and success (Berthold et al., 2010). The challenge

of making better decisions has resulted in the emergence of many analytical tools and

technologies in the last decade. Therefore, the purpose of this survey study was to obtain

a perception of business intelligence professionals about the factors related to the use of

business intelligence input in decision making. This study examined critical business

intelligence input factors that influenced the decision making process.

The business intelligence input factors considered were accessibility, reliability,

quality of information, frequency of use, relevance, security, and quality of decisions. An

examination of these factors will provide an in-depth understanding of the use of business

intelligence input in decision making to improve organizational decisions. The results

also have the potential to benefit future research in business intelligence and decision

making. This chapter reports data collection, responses, data analysis, and the findings of

the study.

71
 Description of Population and Sample

Survey invitations were sent by email to 75 business intelligence professionals

employed by logistics organizations in New York. The data was collected using an online

questionnaire administered by SurveyMonkey. The survey was available to all 75

professionals from mid-December and continued through January. During this period, 70

surveys were completed with a response rate of 93.3%. Out of the 70 surveys collected,

one was completed incorrectly. For statistical validity, this survey was removed from the

final sample group. Seven research questions were developed and tested during this

study.

1. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of the accessibility of the input?

2. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of the reliability of the input?

3. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of the information quality?

4. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of its relevance?

5. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of its security?

6. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of its frequency of use?

7. What are the perceptions of business intelligence professionals regarding the

effect of business intelligence input on the quality of their decisions?

Data Analysis and Results

The survey responses were downloaded by the researcher and SPSS 20.0 for

Windows was used for the data analysis. Reliability was also validated using Cronbach’s

72
alpha. To assess the research questions, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was

conducted to assess if the scores were significantly different from a neutral response of

three (3). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used because it does not require the

population be normally distributed. When normality is uncertain, the Wilcoxon signed-

rank test should be used. However, even if the normality assumption stands, compared to

the t-test the efficiency of this test is 95% (Thas et al., 2005).

The one sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test is a non-parametric alternative to the

one sample t-test. Unlike the one sample t-test, the data does not have to come from a

normal distribution. The test assesses the number of scores above and below the specified

value. It then runs an exact probability test to calculate the probability of finding the

number of scores above (and below) the specified value. If the probability is below .05,

then the researcher can reject the null hypothesis that the median value is different from

the specified value.

In the study, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test assessed if the variable had a median

that was significantly different from the test value. In this case, the test value is three (3),

and the accessibility score was used. If the results were significant, it would suggest that

the median of the data is significantly different from the test value. From this, the general

trend of the data can be determined. Unlike the one-sample t-test, the one sample

Wilcoxon signed-rank test does not assume that the data was normally distributed.

The questions were divided into groups based on the construct it measures.

Accessibility was measured by Questions 12, 14, 15, 2, and 9. Reliability was measured

by Questions 5, 6, and 7. Informational quality was measured from Questions 16 and 11.

Relevance was measured from Questions 10, 12, 13, and 17. Security was measured from

73
Question 8. Frequency of use was measured from Question 19. Quality of decisions was

measured by Questions 1, 3, 4, and 18. All of the questions with the exception of

Question 19 follow a 5-point Likert scale style ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =

strongly agree. The response of 3 is a neutral response. Question 19 has possible

responses from 1 = rarely, 2 = frequently, and 3 = always. The questions were averaged

together to create the scores and Cronbach’s alpha reliability was conducted on the

scores.

Research Question 1

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of the accessibility of the input?

H10: Perceptions of accessibility will not be significantly different from a neutral

response.

H1a: Perceptions of accessibility will be significantly different from a neutral

response.

To assess the first research question, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was

conducted to assess if the accessibility score was significantly different from a neutral

response of three (3). The significance of the result was used to determine the general

trend of the data whether it more or less agreed with the question.

Research Question 2

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of the reliability of the input?

H20: Perceptions of reliability will not be significantly different from a neutral

response.
74
 H2a: Perceptions of reliability will be significantly different from a neutral

response.

To assess the second research question, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test

was conducted to assess if the reliability score was significantly different from a neutral

response of 3. From this, the general trend of the data can be determined.

Research Question 3

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of the information quality?

H30: Perceptions of informational quality will not be significantly different from a

neutral response.

H3a: Perceptions of informational quality will be significantly different from a

neutral response.

To assess the third research question, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test

was conducted to assess if the informational quality score was significantly different from

a neutral response of 3. Again, this was done to establish the general trend of the data.

Research Question 4

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of its relevance?

H40: Perceptions of relevance will not be significantly different from a neutral

response.

H4a: Perceptions of relevance will be significantly different from a neutral

response.

75
Research Question 5

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of its security?

H50: Perceptions of security will not be significantly different from a neutral

response.

H5a: Perceptions of security will be significantly different from a neutral

response.

To determine the trend of data, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was

similarly conducted to assess if the relevance and security scores was significantly

different from a neutral response of 3.

Research Question 6

Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent on

his/her perception of its frequency of use?

H60: Perceptions of frequency of use will not be significantly different from a

frequent response.

H6a: Perceptions of frequency of use will be significantly different from a

frequent response.

To assess the sixth research question, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test

was conducted to assess if the frequency of use score was significantly different from a

frequent response of 2. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test assesses if the variable used has a

median that is significantly different from the test value. In this case, the test value is 2,

and the frequency of use score will be used. The test value for this question is 2 because

there are only three possible responses for the frequency question. These are rarely,

76
frequently, and always. If the results are significant, it will suggest that the median of the

data is significantly different from the test value.

Research Question 7

What are the perceptions of business intelligence professionals regarding the

effect of business intelligence input on the quality of their decisions?

H70: Perceptions of quality of decisions will not be significantly different from a

neutral response.

H7a: Perceptions of quality of decisions will be significantly different from a

neutral response.

To assess the seventh research question, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test

was conducted to assess if the quality of decisions score was significantly different from

a neutral response of three (3). In this case, the test value used again is three (3).

Reliability of the Data

Sixty-nine (69) participants completed the survey. Questions 12, 14, 15, 2, and 9

measured accessibility. Questions 5, 6, and 7 measured reliability. Questions 16 and 11

measured informational quality. Questions 10, 12, 13, and 17 measured relevance.

Question 8 measured security. Question 19 measured frequency of use. Questions 1, 3, 4,

and 18 measured quality of decisions. To determine if the survey instrument maintained

internal consistency (reliability) all scales were tested using Cronbach’s alpha

coefficients. Internal consistency describes the degree to which all the items in a test

measure the constructs. Cronbach’s alpha reliability test is concerned with the ability of

77
an instrument to measure consistently. It shows how consistent the responses were in the

construct. The reliability estimate shows the amount of measurement error in the test.

Table 2. Reliability and Descriptive Statistics of Constructs

Construct Mean SD Cronbach’s α Survey Questions

Accessibility 4.18 0.42 .81 2, 9, 12, 14, 15
Reliability 3.89 0.34 .54 5, 6, 7
Informational quality 4.42 0.58 .83 11, 16
Relevance 4.36 0.49 .85 10, 12, 13, 17
Security 3.97 0.35 - 8
Frequency of use 2.40 0.60 - 19
Quality of decisions 4.29 0.46 .83 1, 2, 4, 18
Note. Reliability could not be calculated for security and frequency of use since these only contained one
question each.

However, to conduct Cronbach’s reliability on a construct, it must be composed

of more than one question. Therefore, because only five of the seven constructs were

composed of more than one question, reliability was only conducted on those five

constructs that had more than one question. This is important to note because a reliability

analysis is essential to show that the survey instrument maintain internal consistency and

reliability. As Table 2 shows, reliability of the constructs was above the .80 level with the

exception of Reliability, which had an alpha value of .54. This suggests that all of the

constructs had a good reliability except for Reliability (George & Mallery, 2003).

Because the Reliability construct had low reliability, caution should be taken in the

results that come from this construct because the responses to the questions were not

consistent (Kline, 2005). However, it is important to note there is some ambiguity

concerning questions related to reliability, which could be due to uncertainty related to

the reliability questions. It is nebulous as to what BI professionals considered reliable or

78
how they defined reliability. In that, it is not clear if they were considering the data or the

technology. This would further account for the alpha value of .54. Table 2 presents the

reliability and the descriptive statistics for all of the constructs.

Statistical Results

Research Question 1. Is a manager’s decision based on using business

intelligence input dependent on his/her perception of the accessibility of the input?

H10: Perceptions of accessibility will not be significantly different from a neutral

response.

H1a: Perceptions of accessibility will be significantly different from a neutral

response.

To assess research of Question 1, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was

conducted to assess if the median of accessibility was significantly different from the

neutral three (3) value. The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were significant, z =

7.20, p <.001. This suggests that the median for accessibility scores was significantly

different from three (3). Upon further examination, accessibility had an observed median

of 4.20. Thus, participants more commonly agreed with the accessibility questions than

disagreed. Since the results were significant, the null hypothesis can be rejected. Since

the participant’s responses were significantly different from a neutral response, the

manager’s decision based on business intelligence input is dependent on their perceptions

of accessibility. Results of the one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test are presented in

Table 3.

79
Table 3. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Accessibility

Construct Test median Observed median z p

Accessibility 3 4.20 7.20 .001

Research Question 2. Is a manager’s decision based on using business

intelligence input dependent on his/her perception of the reliability of the input?

H20: Perceptions of reliability will not be significantly different from a neutral

response.

H2a: Perceptions of reliability will be significantly different from a neutral

response.

To assess research of Question 2, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was

conducted to assess if the median of reliability was significantly different from the

neutral three (3) value. The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were significant, z =

7.27, p <.001. This suggests that the median for reliability scores was significantly

different from three (3). Upon further examination, reliability had an observed median of

4.00. Thus, participants more commonly agreed with the reliability questions than

disagreed. Because the results were significant, the null hypothesis can be rejected.

Because the participant’s responses were significantly different from a neutral response,

the manager’s decision based on business intelligence input is dependent on their

perceptions of reliability. Results of the one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test are

presented in Table 4.

80
Table 4. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Reliability

Construct Test median Observed median z p

Reliability 3 4.00 7.27 .001

Research Question 3. Is a manager’s decision based on using business

intelligence input dependent on his/her perception of its informational quality?

H30: Perceptions of informational quality will not be significantly different from a

neutral response.

H3a: Perceptions of informational quality will be significantly different from a

neutral response.

To assess research of Question 3, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was

conducted to assess if the median of informational quality was significantly different

from the neutral three (3) value. The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were

significant, z = 7.00, p <.001. This suggests that the median for informational quality

scores was significantly different from three (3). Upon further examination, informational

quality had an observed median of 4.50. Thus, participants more commonly agreed with

the informational quality questions than disagreed. Because the results were significant,

the null hypothesis can be rejected. Because the participant’s responses were significantly

different from a neutral response, the manager’s decision based on business intelligence

input is dependent on their perceptions of information quality. Results of the one-sample

Wilcoxon signed-rank test are presented in Table 5.

81
Table 5. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Informational Quality

Construct Test median Observed median z p

Informational 3 4.50 7.00 .001
quality

Research Question 4. Is a manager’s decision based on using business

intelligence input dependent on his/her perception of its relevance?

H40: Perceptions of relevance will not be significantly different from a neutral

response.

H4a: Perceptions of relevance will be significantly different from a neutral

response.

To assess research of Question 4, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was

conducted to assess if the median of relevance was significantly different from the neutral

three (3) value. The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were significant, z = 7.09, p

<.001. This suggests that the median for relevance scores was significantly different from

three (3). Upon further examination, relevance had an observed median of 4.25. Thus,

participants more commonly agreed with the relevance questions than disagreed. Because

the results were significant, the null hypothesis can be rejected. Because the participant’s

responses were significantly different from a neutral response, the manager’s decision

based on business intelligence input is dependent on their perceptions of relevance.

Results of the one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Relevance

Construct Test median Observed median z p

Relevance 3 4.25 7.09 .001

82
 Research Question 5. Is a manager’s decision based on using business

intelligence input dependent on his/her perception of its security?

H50: Perceptions of security will not be significantly different from a neutral

response.

H5a: Perceptions of security will be significantly different from a neutral

response.

To assess research of Question 5, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was

conducted to assess if the median of security was significantly different from the neutral

three (3) value. The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were significant, z = 7.71, p

<.001. This suggests that the median for security scores was significantly different from

three (3). Upon further examination, security had an observed median of 4.00. Thus,

participants more commonly agreed with the security questions than disagreed. Because

the results were significant, the null hypothesis can be rejected. Because the participant’s

responses were significantly different from a neutral response, the manager’s decision

based on business intelligence input is dependent on their perceptions of security. Table 7

presents the results of the one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Table 7. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Security

Construct Test median Observed median z p

Security 3 4.00 7.71 .001

Research Question 6. Is a manager’s decision based on using business

intelligence input dependent on his/her perception of its frequency of use?

83
 H50: Perceptions of frequency of use will not be significantly different from a

frequent response.

H5a: Perceptions of frequency of use will be significantly different from a

frequent response.

To assess research of Question 6, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was

conducted to assess if the median of frequency of use was significantly different from the

frequent 2 value. The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were significant, z = 4.56,

p <.001. This suggests that the median for frequency of use scores was significantly

different from 2. Upon further examination, frequency of use had an observed median of

2.00. A histogram of the data was examined because the results show significant

differences although the test value and median were both 2. The histogram of the data

revealed that, more participants scored a three (3) compared to those that scored a 1,

skewing the data to the left. Results of the one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test are

presented in Table 8. Because the results were significant, the null hypothesis can be

rejected. Because the participant’s responses were significantly different from a neutral

response, the manager’s decision based on business intelligence input is dependent on

their perceptions of frequency of use.

Table 8. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Frequency of Use

Construct Test median Observed median z p

Frequency of use 2 2.00 4.56 .001

Figure 9 presents the histogram showing the distribution data for frequency of

use.

84
Figure 9. Histogram for frequency of use.

Research Question 7. What are the perceptions of business intelligence

professionals regarding the effect of business intelligence input on the quality of their

decisions?

H70: Perceptions of quality of decisions will not be significantly different from a

neutral response.

H7a: Perceptions of quality of decisions will be significantly different from a

neutral response.

To assess research of Question 7, a one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was

conducted to assess if the median of quality of decisions was significantly different from

85
the neutral three (3) value. The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were significant,

z = 7.23, p <.001. This suggests that the median for quality of decisions scores was

significantly different from three (3). Upon further examination, quality of decisions had

an observed median of 4.25. Thus, participants more commonly agreed with the quality

of decisions questions than disagreed. Because the results were significant, the null

hypothesis can be rejected. Because the participant’s responses were significantly

different from a neutral response, the manager’s decision based on business intelligence

input is dependent on their perceptions of quality of decisions. Table 9 presents the

results of the one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Table 9. Results for One-Sample Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test for Quality of Decisions

Construct Test median Observed median z p

Quality of decisions 3 4.25 7.23 .001

Interpretation of Findings

Several one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted to assess the

research questions. All of the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were significant. All of the

medians for each of the constructs (accessibility, reliability, information quality,

relevance, security, frequency of use, and quality of decisions) were significantly higher

than a neutral (or frequent) response. This suggests that there was more agreement to all

of the questions compared to disagreement. Table 10 presents the frequencies and

percentages for the question responses.

86
Table 10. Frequencies and Percentages for Question Responses

Question Strongly disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly agree

n % n % n % n % n %

Q1 0 0 2 3 5 7 50 73 12 17
Q2 0 0 0 0 3 4 47 68 19 28
Q3 0 0 0 0 1 2 44 65 23 34
Q4 0 0 1 2 0 0 43 63 24 35
Q5 1 2 0 0 1 2 60 90 5 8
Q6 0 0 0 0 14 21 50 75 3 5
Q7 0 0 0 0 14 21 51 76 2 3
Q8 0 0 1 2 2 3 62 93 2 3
Q9 0 0 1 2 3 5 44 66 19 28
Q10 0 0 1 2 0 0 49 73 17 25
Q11 1 2 0 0 1 2 36 55 28 42
Q12 0 0 2 3 0 0 37 56 27 41
Q13 0 0 1 2 0 0 29 45 35 54
Q14 0 0 1 2 6 9 50 75 10 15
Q15 0 0 1 2 1 2 49 73 16 24
Q16 0 0 1 2 0 0 32 48 34 51
Q17 0 0 1 2 1 2 36 55 28 42
Q18 0 0 1 2 1 2 28 42 37 55
Q19* - - 4 6 32 48 31 46 - -
Note. For question 19, responses of disagree = rarely, neutral = frequently, agree = always.

Summary of Results

Cronbach’s alpha showed that all of the constructs were reliable with the

exception of Reliability, which could be due to uncertainty related to the reliability

questions. All seven of the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were significant. All of the null

hypotheses were rejected in favor of the alternative hypotheses, which suggest that all of

the perceptions were significantly higher than a neutral (frequent) response. This

indicates that participants more commonly agreed with all of the questions than

disagreed.

87
 CHAPTER 5. RESULTS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

Introduction

Technology and its impact on organizations are irrefutable. Technology presents

new ways to manage the flow of information. The goal of a new technology is to provide

a supportive role for human activities to enhance organizational efficiency and

effectiveness. This study tested business intelligence technology within the logistics

industry. In logistics organizations, the use of information and communication

technology has been extremely beneficial to the business process. Technology helps to

execute activities faster and support independent decision making processes (Pokharel,

2005). The purpose of this survey study was to obtain a perception of business

intelligence professionals about the factors related to the use of business intelligence

input in decision making. This chapter discusses the results from the data captured and

analyzed with the quantitative method. In addition, the chapter discusses the implications

and provides recommendations for further study on business intelligence technologies

and related topics. Results from the survey questions and the literature review are the

basis for the conclusion and recommendations for this study.

The overall goal of this research is to help to improve the quality of organizational

decisions by supplying decision makers with information that will help them to make

better decisions. The study examined important business intelligence input factors that

influenced the decision making process. An examination of these factors will provide an

88
in-depth understanding of the use of business intelligence input in decision making to

improve organizational decisions. Furthermore, the results also have the potential to

benefit future research in business intelligence and decision making.

Drawn from the existing literature and with further development of the related

ideas, this study investigated seven research questions. The research questions focused on

the association between perceptions of business intelligence input and managers’

decisions. Accessibility, reliability, quality of information, frequency of use, relevance,

security, and quality of decisions were measured as independent variables in their

relationship to decisions made with business intelligence input. These seven critical

factors were the variables to determine their relationship to the decision made with

business intelligence input.

The research questions investigated were

1. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of its accessibility?

2. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of its reliability?

3. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of the information quality?

4. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of its relevance?

5. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of its security?

6. Is a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence input dependent

on his/her perception of its frequency of use?

7. What are the perceptions of business intelligence professionals regarding the

effect of business intelligence input on the quality of their decisions?

89
 Hypotheses

Seven hypotheses pertinent to the research questions were developed.

Hypothesis 1

H10 stated as (null), a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence

input is independent on his/her perception of its accessibility. The one-sample Wilcoxon

signed-rank test was used to analyze the survey data and resulted in the researcher

rejecting the null hypothesis (z = 7.20, p <.001). This conclusion indicates that a

manager’s decision based on business intelligence input is dependent on his/her

perceptions of its accessibility.

Hypothesis 2

H20 stated as (null), a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence

input is independent on his/her perception of its reliability. The one-sample Wilcoxon

signed-rank test was used to analyze the survey data and resulted in the researcher

rejecting the null hypothesis (z = 7.27, p <.001). This conclusion indicates that a

manager’s decision based on business intelligence input is dependent on his/her

perceptions of its reliability.

Hypothesis 3

H30 stated as (null), a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence

input is independent on his/her perception of the information quality. The one-sample

Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze the survey data and resulted in the

researcher rejecting the null hypothesis (z = 7.00, p <.001). This conclusion indicates that

90
a manager’s decision based on business intelligence input is dependent on his/her

perceptions of the information quality.

Hypothesis 4

H40 stated as (null), a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence

input is independent on his/her perception of its relevance. The one-sample Wilcoxon

signed-rank test was used to analyze the survey data and resulted in the researcher

rejecting the null hypothesis (z = 7.09, p <.001). This conclusion indicates that a

manager’s decision based on business intelligence input is dependent on his/her

perceptions of its relevance.

Hypothesis 5

H50 stated as (null), a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence

input is independent on his/her perception of its security. The one-sample Wilcoxon

signed-rank test was used to analyze the survey data and resulted in the researcher

rejecting the null hypothesis (z = 7.71, p <.001). This conclusion indicates that a

manager’s decision based on business intelligence input is dependent on his/her

perceptions of its security.

Hypothesis 6

H60 stated as (null), a manager’s decision based on using business intelligence

input is independent on his/her perception of its frequency of use. The one-sample

Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze the survey data and resulted in the

researcher rejecting the null hypothesis (z = 4.56, p <.001). This conclusion indicates that

91
a manager’s decision based on business intelligence input is dependent on his/her

perceptions of its frequency of use.

Hypothesis 7

H70 stated as (null), a business intelligence professional’s decision based on using

business intelligence input is independent on his/her perception on the quality of their

decisions. The one-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze the survey data

and resulted in the researcher rejecting the null hypothesis (z = 7.23, p <.001). This

conclusion indicates that a business intelligence professional’s decision based on business

intelligence input is dependent on his/her perceptions of quality of their decisions.

Hypothesis Testing Summary

This research endeavor examined seven aspects of a manager’s perception of

decision made with business intelligence input. All of the factors (accessibility,

reliability, information quality, relevance, security, frequency of use, and quality of their

decisions) influenced managers’ perception of decisions made with business intelligence

input. Hence, all seven alternate hypotheses are accepted, and all of the null hypotheses

were rejected because they were not supported by the data collected. Therefore, the data

denotes that a manager’s perception of a decision made with business intelligence input is

dependent on its accessibility, its reliability, information quality, its relevance, its

security, its frequency of use, and on the quality of their decision.

Discussion of Findings

The need for business intelligence in the decision making process is the basis for

this study. Business intelligence has a growing influence in the decision making process.

92
The seven research questions were posed as null and alternate hypotheses. Each statistical

hypothesis was tested using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. The results of the Wilcoxon

signed-rank tests supported were significant. The full analysis and interpretation of the

seven factors revealed a positive association. The test supported all of the seven

hypotheses. All the analyses showed high correlations in support of a positive response to

the research questions. These results indicate that a manager’s perception of a decision

made with business intelligence input is dependent on accessibility, reliability,

information quality, relevance, security, and frequency of use and on the quality of their

decision. This study suggests that perceptions of these factors are important

considerations in making decisions with business intelligence input. Because competitive

forces require managers to make intelligent and quick decisions based on their incoming

data, these perceptions can help in understanding the use of business intelligence input in

decision making.

From the data analysis, the researcher concluded that managers are very satisfied

with business intelligence technology in the decision making process. The research

showed a strong support for frequency of use with business intelligence technology. The

analysis on the frequency of use variable indicated that 46% always used business

intelligence while 48% used it frequently. This suggests a need to encourage more use of

business intelligence technology. This finding is consistent with prior studies. According

to Shen (2009), the infiltration rate for advanced information technology has been low in

the transportation and logistics areas. He maintains that one possible reason is that studies

have shown that the advantages of advanced information technology investments are

93
debatable. Therefore, the study is timely because understanding the effect of business

intelligence applications is necessary for decision support.

In the study, 98% of the participants reported that business intelligence

technology was very useful for their job and a significant majority of respondents (99%),

noted that business intelligence technology improved the quality of their decisions.

Another interesting aspect was that 97% considered business intelligence to be important

to their decision making process.

The study investigated if the decisions made from business intelligence input

were tailored to the company’s need. The responses of the participants showed that 97%

were confident that the decisions made from business intelligence input are tailored to the

company’s need. The data showed that 21% of the participants were neutral concerning

business intelligence input and business intelligence hardware being more reliable than

other traditional form of technology. This is very surprising as many respondents

indicated that they were heavy and frequent users of business intelligence. One

explanation for this mild inconsistency is the lack of communication and clear definition

between business and technology professionals because they may have a different

mindset in terms of their organizational strength.

These findings suggest that organizational decision making can be very

complicated when using business intelligence technology. This research supports a

considerable amount of the literature, which suggests that the decision making process is

very complex and dependent on multiple factors. The collected data shows that many

different factors influence decisions that made with business intelligence input. These

multiple factors indicate that decision makers recognize the need for business intelligence

94
technology and see it as an innovative resource in the decision making process. The study

indicates that business intelligence professionals perceive accessibility, reliability, quality

of information, frequency of use, relevance, security, and quality of decisions to be

important factors when making business decisions. In concurrence with the positive

association of the factors, this research revealed a significant positive response for

business intelligence technology in the decision making process.

Logistics and transportation service providers in today’s information age have to

conduct their traditional activities through the management of information during the

delivery process (Shen, 2009). Correct information can help management in the logistic

industry transform their operations (Pokharel, 2005). Managers use business intelligence

technology for their information processing and decision needs. The study suggests that

most decision makers in the logistics industry think that business intelligence input adds

efficiency to the decision making process. These findings are very significant in terms of

the overall contribution to business intelligence technology and managers ability to

sustain a competitive advantage for the organization. Because, the study indicates that

several factors influence the use of business intelligence in the decision making process,

further study should be done on factors that exert the most influence in the decision

making process. Future research should also be extended to investigate if this true for

other industries.

Implications of the Study

As managers face increasing globalization and the impact of strong market

competition, managerial decisions have become a global issue. As a result, the use of

technology is crucial in assisting managers to improve decision making. The results of

95
the study suggest that business intelligence professionals are satisfied with decisions

made with business intelligence input. This study provides evidences of a strong support

for the use of business intelligence input in the decision making process.

Findings from this research indicate that the decision making process is a complex

undertaking. Many different factors influence the process when using business

intelligence input. Therefore, an understanding of the factors involved in the decision

making process will help to improve organizational decisions. The empirical evidence

arrived at in this study pointed out several critical factors that explained the use of

business intelligence input in the decision making process. The factors that were

addressed as most important appear to have a clear association to the decision making

process. It is suggested that to improve organizational decisions, decision makers must

address the factors identified in this research. Specifically, managers or business

intelligence professionals considering the use of business intelligence input for decision

making should seriously take into consideration accessibility, reliability, information

quality, relevance, security, frequency of use, and quality of their decision as these are

significant factors that affect decisions made with business intelligence input.

One interesting aspect was the distinct relationship with participant responses that

business intelligence improves the quality of their decisions and is useful in their job.

These findings support the literature that business intelligence technology facilitates

timely and better-informed decisions. Although the research indicates a strong

relationship, the specific measurement each factor has on decision making still needs to

be investigated.

96
 The study further shows a relatively high level of satisfaction for the quality of

information received from business intelligence input for decision making. Because of

the level of satisfaction, this can be considered an indicator for the soundness of business

intelligence input. The findings also indicate that more use of business intelligence

technology should be encouraged. This was observed in the analysis on the frequency of

use variable. Only 48% were frequent users and 46% always used business intelligence

input.

Business intelligence input is strongly grounded to the decision making process.

The findings highlight the strong relationship to user accessibility to the process. Most

users were satisfied with the ease of access to the system. The results suggest that the

effective use of business intelligence ensures timely access and exchange of information

that helps the decision making process. In summary, the findings suggest that business

intelligence can help to improve the decision making process.

Research Limitations

As noted in Chapter 4, one of the limitations was that Cronbach’s alpha showed

that the construct Reliability had an alpha value of .54. However, as previously noted,

questions related to reliability were ambiguous. It is unclear, how BI professionals

defined reliability, or what was considered reliable. This could account for the alpha

value of .54. However, because the Reliability construct had a low reliability, caution

should be taken in the results from this construct (Kline, 2005). As noted, only five of the

seven constructs were composed of more than one question; therefore, reliability was

only conducted on those five constructs that had more than one question.

97
 This research was performed using an online survey of decision making managers

in New York State. Although managers in other areas in the country can consider many

of the concerns, another limitation of the study was the geographic scope requirement.

Participants in the study may display a distinct tendency or bias towards business

intelligence technology that may not be applicable to users in other states. In addition, a

greater sample size might also provide different insights.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the assumption was made that

participants answered each question accurately and truthfully. Because participation in

this study was voluntary, the assumption of accurate and truthful responses was

supported by anonymity. Finally, a manager’s or decision maker’s perception towards

business intelligence is likely to change as they become more familiar with the tools and

advanced training.

Recommendations for Future Research

In the area of organizational success, strategic decision making is vital among

issues of importance. Managing information to support strategic decision making is an

important factor for achieving competitive advantage. Over the years, technology has

been very instrumental in facilitating decision making. Business intelligence is one such

technology and is an important one in the decision support arena. This technology is

capable of supporting managerial decision making across a wide range of business

activities. This study examined decisions made from business intelligence input.

There are many recommendations for expanding the research underlying this

study. Expanding the geographic scope of the research to include other geographical

regions or across different types of demographics could show different concerns because
98
of different organizational conditions. In addition, surveying a larger sample would allow

for more detailed analysis. Another related effort would be to break down participants

into various positional titles. This study only incorporated seven factors that were

considered critical to the decision making process. An additional research effort could

focus on other factors. Other factors could provide more insight into the decision making

process. As indicated in the study, there appeared to be a positive association with the

factors considered in the study. Since the study revealed a significant positive response

for business intelligence technology in the decision making process, it would be

interesting to determine factors that lead to unsuccessful outcomes.

Future researchers could also look into business intelligence security relevant to

the decision making process. Additional research effort could focus on information

overload. Specifically, the effect of information overload with business intelligence input

and how it affects the decision making process. Furthermore, as business intelligence use

surges and the proficiency level increases, future research should be done using more

instruments.

Finally, the literature shows that many organizations do not use business

intelligence technology. Therefore, a related topic could look into the reasons why

because business intelligence technology seems so promising in the decision making

process. Therefore, this area represents a promising direction for future research.

Conclusion

The use of technology in the decision making process does have a long history.

This study should be taken as a major step towards understanding the perception of

business intelligence input in the logistics industry. The research offers an understanding
99
toward the use of business intelligence input in the decision making process. The goal of

this study is to help improve the quality of organizational decisions. The results of this

study show that the decision making process is very complex. Many different factors are

involved in the process. The findings indicate that perceptions of accessibility, reliability,

information quality, relevance, security, frequency of use, and the quality of their

decisions are critical factors in making decisions with business intelligence input.

Based on the analyses of the data, the findings indicate that these factors help

determine reasons why managers use business intelligence technology in the decision

making process. Furthermore, the examination of these factors will provide a better

understanding of the reasoning behind the decisions made. In addition, these findings will

help organizations make better decisions by supplying decision makers with information

that is important to their knowledge base. This can improve the operational and strategic

decision making process, thereby creating a competitive advantage for the organization.

Timely and effective business information is necessary for organizations to survive and

succeed. Business intelligence input can provide managers with data at the right time.

This will allow them to make informed decisions that will put them ahead of their

competitors. In the logistics industry, companies can have faster response to customer

demands and realize lower costs with shipment and production (Shen, 2009).

When considering the use of technology, it is important to understand the impact

on organizational success and performance. Because of the changing nature of

technology in the decision support systems arena, there is a need for a clear definition in

terms of management strategies. These findings contribute considerably to the fields of

business intelligence and decision making. They enhance the knowledge base and

100
emphasize the importance of the perceptions of managers concerning business

intelligence technology.

101
 REFERENCES

Agrawal, D. (2008). The reality of real-time business intelligence. Business Intelligence

for the Real-Time Enterprise Second International Workshop (BIRTE 2008), 26,
75-88. Revised Selected Papers, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Apte, C., Bing, L., Pednault, E., & Smyth, P. (2002). Business applications of data
mining. Communications of the ACM, 45(8), 49-53.

Arnott, D., & Pervan, G. (2005). A critical analysis of decision support systems research.
Journal of Information Technology, 20(2), 67-87.

Arnott, D., & Pervan, G. (2008). Eight key issues for the decision support systems
discipline. Decision Support Systems, 44(3), 657-672.

Awad, E. M., & Ghaziri, H. M. (2004). Knowledge management. New York, NY:
Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Azvine, B., Cui, Z., & Nauck, D. (2005). Towards real-time business intelligence. BT
Technology Journal, 23(3), 214.

Bara, A., Botha, I., Diaconiţa, V., Lungu, I., Velicanu, A., & Velicanu, M. (2009). A
model for business intelligence systems' development. Informatica Economica,
13(4), 99-108.

Berthold, H., Rosch, P., Zoller, S., Wortmann, F., Carenini, A., Campbell, S., Strohmaier,
F. (2010). An architecture for ad-hoc and collaborative business intelligence.
Proceedings of the 2010 EDBT/ICDT Workshops, Lausanne, Switzerland, 1-6.

Bhatt, G. D. (2001). Knowledge management in organizations: Examining the interaction

between technologies, techniques, and people. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 5(1), 68-75.

Bhatt, G. D., & Zaveri, J. (2002). The enabling role of decision support systems in
organizational learning. Decision Support Systems, 32(3), 297-309.

Blenko, M. W., Mankins, M. C., & Rogers, P. (2010). The decision-driven organization.
Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 54-62.

102
Bogdana, P. I., Felicia, A., & Delia, B. (2009). The role of business intelligence in
business performance management. Annals of the University of Oradea,
Economic Science Series, 18(4), 1025-1029.

Chaves-Sanz, A., & Al-Awamy, I. (2008). BI solutions strategy: Business suite or best-
of-breed? Business Intelligence Journal, 13(2), 15-22.

Chickowski, E. (2009). Five trends changing the face of BI. EWeek, 26(16), 18-21.

Chou, D. C., & Lin, B. (2002). Development of Web-based knowledge management

systems. Human Systems Management, 21(3), 153-158.

Chung, B., Skibniewski, M. J., & Kwak, Y. (2009). Developing ERP Systems Success
Model for the Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering &
Management, 135(3), 207-216.

Coakes, E. (2003). Knowledge management: Current issues and challenges. Hershey,

PA: IRM Press.

Cooper, C. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2008). Business research methods (10th ed.). Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill.

Cope, R. F., Cope, R. F., & Root, T. L. (2007). Effective project management: A
knowledge management and organizational citizenship behavior approach.
Journal of Business & Economics Research, 5(9), 53-62.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method

approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Davenport, T. H. (2009). Make better decisions. Harvard Business Review, 87(11), 117-
123.

Davis, F. D. (1986). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user
information systems: Theory and results (Doctoral dissertation, Sloan School of
Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts). Retrieved
from http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/15192

Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-339.

Dayal, U., Castellanos, M., Simitsis, A., & Wilkinson, K. (2009). Data integration flows
for BI. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Extending Database
Technology: Advances in Database Technology. Communications of the ACM,
978-1-60558-442-5/09/0003, 1-10. doi:10.1145/1516360.1516362

103
Denton, D. K. (2010). Making better decisions by better managing information.
Performance Improvement, 49(1), 19-24.

Geiger, J., Maydanchik, A., & Russom, P. (2010). BI experts' perspective: Pervasive BI.
Business Intelligence Journal, 15(2), 36-40.

George, D. & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and
reference, 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Ghazanfari, M., Rouhani, S., Jafari, M., & Taghavifard, M. T. (2009). ERP requirements
for supporting management decisions and business intelligence. The IUP Journal
of Information Technology, 5(3), 65-84.

Golfarelli, M., Rizzi, S., & Cella, I. (2004). Beyond data warehousing: What's next in BI?
Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Workshop on Data Warehousing and
OLAP. Communications of the ACM, 1-6. doi:10.1145/1031763.1031765

Gorla, N., Somers, T. M., Wong, B. (2010) Organizational impact of system quality,
information quality, and service quality. The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems 13(3), 207-228.

Green, K. W., Whitten, D., & Inman, R. A. (2008). The impact of logistics performance
on organizational performance in a supply chain context. Supply Chain
Management, 13(4), 317-327.

Greengard, S. (2010). Business intelligence & analytics: Optimizing your enterprise.

Baseline, (102), 18-23.

Haggie, K., & Kingson, J. (2003). Choosing your knowledge management strategy.
Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, 4(1), 1-23.

Heinrichs, J. H., Lim, K., Lim, J., & Spangenberg, M. (2007). Determining factors of
academic library web site usage. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science & Technology, 58(14), 2325-2334.

Higgs, R. C., Smith, M. E., & Mechling, G. W. (2010). Making better business decisions.
Supervision, 71(2), 12-15.

Hocevar, B., & Jaklic, J. (2010). Assessing benefits of business intelligence systems - A
case study. Management, 15(1), 87-119. Retrieved from https://www.efst.hr/man
agement/Vol15No1-2010/5-Hocevar_Jaklic-final.pdf

Hodgson, J., & Drummond, H. (2009). Learning from fiasco: What causes decision error
and how to avoid it. Journal of General Management, 35(2), 81-92.

104
Hoy, W. K. (2010). Quantitative research in education: A primer. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Hsinchun, C., Chiang, R. L., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics:
From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165-1188.

Hyväri, I. (2006). Success of projects in different organizational conditions. Project

Management Journal, 37(4), 31-41.

Isik, O., Jones, M. C., & Sidorova, A. (2011). Business intelligence (BI) success and the
role of BI capabilities. Intelligent Systems In Accounting, Finance &
Management, 18(4), 161-176.

Jeffery, M. & Leliveld, I. (2004). Best practices in its portfolio management. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 45(3), 41-49.

Jha, V., & Joshi, H. (2007). Transforming knowledge assets for creating a learning
organization: A conceptual approach for moving towards business excellence.
International Journal of Business Research, 7(3), 134-142.

Jourdan, Z., Rainer, R., & Marshall, T. E. (2008). Business intelligence: An analysis of
the literature. Information Systems Management, 25(2), 121-131.

Keeney, R. L. (2004). Making better decision makers. Decision Analysis, 1(4), 193-204.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.).
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Kridan, A. B., & Goulding, J. S. (2006). A case study on knowledge management

implementation in the banking sector. VINE, 36(2), 211-222.

Kuhn, K. M. (2010). Can managers be trained to make better decisions? Industrial &
Organizational Psychology, 3(4), 434-437.

Kurtz, R. S. (2003). Organizational culture, decision making, and integrity. Public

Integrity, 5(4), 305-317.

Lau, H. C. W., Ning, A., Ip, W. H., & Choy, K. L. (2004). A decision support system to
facilitate resources allocation: An OLAP-based neural network approach. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, 15(8), 771-778.

Lease, D. R. (2005). Factors influencing the adoption of biometric security technologies

by decision making information technology and security managers (Doctoral
dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
(305359883)

105
Leedy, P. D. & Ormond, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.)
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, Prentice Hall.

Lönnqvist, A., & Pirttimäki, V. (2006). The measurement of business intelligence.

Information Systems Management, 23(1), 32-40.

Loshin, D. (2003). Business intelligence: The savvy manager’s guide. San Francisco, CA
Morgan Kaufmann.

Luhn, H. P. (1958). A business intelligence system. IBM Journal of Research and

Development, Nontopical Issue, 2(4), 314-319.

Maria, B. D. (2008). Strategic and financial performance using business intelligence

solutions. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 17(4),
1297-1302.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Musselwhite, C. (2009). Good choices: Making better decisions by knowing how best to
decide. Leadership in Action, 29(4), 3-7.

Negash, S. (2004). Business intelligence. Communications of the Association for

Information Systems, (13), 177-195.

Negash, S., & Gray, P. (2008). Business intelligence. In F. Burstein & C. W. Holsapple
(Eds.), Handbook on decision support systems 2 (pp. 175-195). Berlin Heidelberg,
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-48716-6

Nemati, H. R., & Barko, C. D. (2002). Enhancing enterprise decisions through

organizational data missing. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(4), 21-
28.

Neuman, W. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches

(5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

Olszak, C., M., & Ziemba, E (2006). Business intelligence systems in the holistic
infrastructure development supporting decision making in organizations.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management, 1, 47-58.

Olszak, C., M., & Ziemba, E. (2007). Approach to building and implementing business
intelligence systems. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and
Management, 2, 135-148.

106
Pokharel, S. (2005). Perception on information and communication technology
perspectives in logistics: A study of transportation and warehouses sectors in
Singapore. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(1/2), 136-149.

Popovič, A., Turk, T., & Jaklic, J. (2010). Conceptual model of business value of
business intelligence systems. Management, 15(1), 5-29.

Popovič, A., Coelho, P.S. & Jaklič, J. (2009). The impact of business intelligence system
maturity on information quality. Information Research, 14(4), 417. Retrieved
from http://InformationR.net/ir/14-4/paper417.html

Preston, D., Chen, D., & Leidner, D. (2008). Examining the Antecedents and
Consequences of CIO Strategic Decision making Authority: An Empirical Study.
Decision Sciences, 39(4), 605-642.

Ranjan, J. (2008). Business justification with business intelligence. VINE: The Journal of
Information and Knowledge Management Systems, 38(4), 461-475.

Rubin, E., & Rubin, S. (2007). The impact of business intelligence systems on stock
return volatility. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1045581

Rud, O. P. (2009). Business intelligence success factors: Tools for aligning your business
in the global economy. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Rus, V., & Toader, V. (2008). Business intelligence for hotels' management performance.
International Journal of Business Research, 8(4), 150-154.

Schwarz, J. (2009). Business wargaming: Developing foresight within a strategic

simulation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21(3), 291-305.

Selart, M., Johansen, S. T., Holmesland, T., & Gronhaug, K. (2008). Can intuitive and
analytical decision styles explain managers' evaluation of information
technology? Management Decision, 46(9), 1326-1341.

Sell, D., da Silva, D. C., Beppler, F. D., Napoli, M., Ghisi, F. B., Pacheco, R. C. S., &
Todesco, J. L. (2008). SBI: A semantic framework to support business
intelligence. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Ontology-
Supported Business Intelligence, Karlsruhe, Germany. 1-11.

Shankar, R., & Gupta, A. (2005). Towards framework for knowledge management
implementation. Knowledge & Process Management, 12(4), 259-277. doi:10.1002
/kpm.234

Shariat, M., & Hightower Jr., R. (2007). Conceptualizing business intelligence

architecture. Marketing Management Journal, 17(2), 40-46.

107
Shen, C (2009). A bayesian networks approach to modeling financial risks of e-logistics
investments. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision
Making, 8(4), 711-726.

Soosay, C. A., & Chapman, R. L. (2006). An empirical examination of performance

measurement for managing continuous innovation in logistics. Knowledge &
Process Management, 13(3), 192-205.

Stefan, D. M. (2009). Improving the quality of the decision making by using business
intelligence solutions. Academy of Economic Studies, 4(1), 996-1000. Retrieved
from http://econpapers.repec.org/article/orajournl/

Straub, D. W. (1989). Validating Instruments in MIS Research. MIS Quarterly, 13(2),

147-169.

Swanson, R. A., & Holton III, E. F. (2005). Research in organizations: Foundations and
methods of inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Thas, O. O., Rayner, J. W., & Best, D. J. (2005). Tests for Symmetry Based on the One-
Sample Wilcoxon Signed Rank Statistic. Communications in Statistics:
Simulation & Computation, 34(4), 957-973.

Thorndike, R. M. (1978). Correlational procedures for research. New York, NY:

Gardner Press.

Van Damme, C. (2008). Approaches to analyze corporate tags for business intelligence
purposes. Proceedings of the First international Workshop on ontology-Supported
Business Intelligence. Vol. 308. ACM, 1-6.

Whitehead, J., Campbell, A., & Finkelstein, S. (2009). Make better decisions.
Management Today, 44-47.

Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and
technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85-102.

Yaghi, A. (2007). Decision making in a Faith-based Environment: Organizational Culture

versus Decision Content. Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 27(3), 355-370.

Yen-Ku, K., & Kung-Don, Y. (2010). How employees' perception of information

technology application and their knowledge management capacity influence
organisational performance. Behaviour & Information Technology, 29(3), 287-
303.

108
 APPENDIX A. BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE SURVEY

This survey will obtain the perception of business intelligence professionals’ concerning
decisions made with business intelligence input. Using the scale, Please select the choice
that most closely matches your opinion of decisions made with Business Intelligence
input.
All information obtained in this study will be used for the sole purpose of academic
research.

Table 11. Business Intelligence Survey (continued)

Survey Questions

1 My job would be difficult to perform without BI technology.

2 Using BI technology allows me to retrieve more data and

information.
3 Using BI technology improves the quality of my decision.

4 Overall, I find BI technology very useful for my job.

5 Business intelligence input is inherently reliable.
6 Business intelligence input is more reliable than other traditional
form of technology.
7 Business intelligence hardware is reliable.
8 The information derived from business intelligence input is
protected against loss and unauthorized access.

9 The information derived from business intelligence input is

processed and delivered rapidly.
10 The information derived from business intelligence input is
understandable or comprehensible.
11 The information obtained from business intelligence input is
precise and current.
12 The information derived from business intelligence input is useful
and can be directly applied.

109
Table 11. Business Intelligence Survey (continued)

Survey Questions

13 The information provision derived from business intelligence

input corresponds to the user’s needs.

14 The information derived from business intelligence input is easily

accessible.
15 The information obtained from business intelligence input can be
obtained continuously and without obstruction.
16 I am satisfied with the overall quality of information generated by
BI input for decisions.
17 The decisions made from BI input are well matched with the
company’s needs.
18 Business intelligence input is important to my decision making
process.
Frequency of Use Always Frequently Rarely

19 How often do you use business intelligence input?

110