Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Air Transport Management

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

Towards a maturity model for big data analytics in airline network planning T
Iris Hausladen, Maximilian Schosser ∗

HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Heinz Nixdorf Chair of IT-based Logistics, Jahnallee 59, 04109, Leipzig, Germany

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: The evaluation, acquisition and use of newly available big data sources has become a major strategic and or-
Maturity model ganizational challenge for airline network planners. We address this challenge by developing a maturity model
Network planning for big data readiness for airline network planning. The development of the maturity model is grounded in
Big data analytics literature, expert interviews and case study research involving nine airlines. Four airline business models are
Airlines
represented, namely full-service carriers, low-cost airlines, scheduled charter airlines and cargo airlines. The
Case study
maturity model has been well received with seven change requests in the model development phase. The revised
version has been evaluated as exhaustive and useful by airline network planners. The self-assessment of airlines
revealed low to medium maturity for most domains. Organizational factors show the lowest average maturity, IT
architecture the highest. Full-service carriers seem to be more mature than airlines with different business
models.

1. Introduction
The term “big data” has excited both business leaders and re-
searchers in recent years. With the increasing availability of data and
the technological capacity to store and process large amounts of data,
the frontier for business information systems has expanded tre-
mendously (McAfee and Brynjolfsson, 2012). Whereas attention for the
big data phenomenon was initially driven by practitioners (e.g.,
Manyika et al., 2011), the scientific community has taken up the topic
quickly and placed it high on the research agenda (Abbasi et al., 2016;
Chen et al., 2012; Vlahogianni et al., 2015). The appeal of big data
might be rooted in its universal applicability; it can help to shape
corporate strategies, improve process efficiency and effectiveness, and
boost customer relations (LaValle et al., 2011).
Big data will shake up not only many corporate functions, but also a
broad range of industries. Manyika et al. (2011) identified concrete
applications in healthcare, public administration, retail and manu-
facturing. Traditionally, the logistics and transportation industry has
relied heavily on data to optimize logistic networks and supplier rela-
tions (Wang et al., 2016). The nature of logistics allows for collecting a
broad variety of data, e.g. on customer relations, real-time locations,
and sensor data for predictive maintenance of transportation means.
Within the broader transportation industry, airlines have been at the
forefront of data management (Watson et al., 2006). Airlines have in-
vested heavily not only in collecting and processing data, but also in
data analytics tools to create additional business value (Wixom et al.,
2008). However, not all functions within airlines have benefited the
same from these investments. Whereas pricing and revenue manage-
ment (Moreno-Izquierdo et al., 2015), flight operations (Ayhan et al.,
2013), route profitability analysis (Kasturi et al., 2016) and customer
relationship management (Noyes, 2014) have benefited most from big
data analytics investments, network planning is still based on “tradi-
tional” data sources and optimization algorithms. Nonetheless, airlines
and software developers are starting to realize the huge potential of big
data analytics for network planning in airlines (Bertram, 2017). The
first use cases on using big data for network planning seem very pro-
mising. Chen et al. (2017) discuss the application of BDA at Lufthansa
to improve schedule robustness by better predicting schedule delays
based on a multitude of influence factors, including weather and gate
positioning. New data sources such as mobile location data can unveil
holistic movement patterns across all modes of transport and inform
network adjustments to capture traffic from rail and individual trans-
portation (Bertram, 2017).
Since using big data analytics for network planning is a very recent
development in the airline industry, there is a need to support network
planning and management (NPM) departments of airlines with tools
and theory to leverage the full benefits of big data (Vlahogianni et al.,
2015). While data vendors and system developers can contribute to
build the technological infrastructure for big data analytics in network
planning, the network planning function needs to design and develop a
useful big data ecosystem which serves the specific needs of the re-
spective airline (Heilig and Voβ, 2017).

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: maximilian.schosser@hhl.de (M. Schosser).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.101721
Received 26 November 2018; Received in revised form 30 May 2019; Accepted 10 September 2019
0969-6997/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser
Implementation of big data analytics usually requires updates of IT
systems, processes, and employee skills (LaValle et al., 2011). McAfee
and Brynjolfsson (2012) identify four organizational transformation
areas (leadership, decision making, corporate culture and talent man-
agement) complementing the technological change. In line with these
findings, unsuccessful big data transformations are usually caused by
management failures (Asay, 2014).
Rooted in the Capability Maturity Model designed by Paulk et al.
(1993) from Carnegie Mellon University, maturity models (MMs) have
become a well-established tool in information systems (IS) research to
support the management in complex and novel technology transfor-
mation processes (Neff et al., 2013). The basic principle of a MM is to
describe maturity stages across different relevant domains (Röglinger
et al., 2012). Usually, MMs are “multi-stage models that describe ty-
pical patterns in the development of organizational capabilities”
(Comuzzi and Patel, 2016, p. 1469). For each maturity level, the MM
describes corresponding stages for relevant domains. These stages
should be logically connected and generalizable to identify the correct
maturity level of an organization. Pöppelbuß and Röglinger (2011)
distinguish three application-specific purposes of MMs: The descriptive
purpose views a MM as diagnostic tool to assess the current maturity
state of an organization. The prescriptive purpose implies that MMs
outline the desirable state (high maturity) and specify a development
path for organizations to achieve this state. The comparative purpose
allows to compare different organizations (or parts of organizations)
through the same assessment tool, namely the MM.
MMs have been widely used across IS research. Already in 2011,
Poeppelbuß et al., 2011 identified 76 different MMs in the IS research
domain, which have been applied to a variety of areas, including soft-
ware engineering, e-business and knowledge management. Business
process management (BPM) has been a considerable application area
(Rosemann and Bruin, 2005) – usually with a narrow focus on the
alignment of various business processes with information systems
(Luftman, 2000).
Airline network planning is a business process which relies heavily
on information systems. Traditionally, IT systems have been used to
perform mathematical optimizations of the airline network (Goedeking,
2010). To leverage the new big data opportunity, both business pro-
cesses and the corresponding IT systems face a significant transforma-
tion need. The objective of this paper is to develop a MM for big data
analytics in airline network planning which is capable to holistically
assess strategic, organizational and technological domains. Further-
more, the MM should be derived from specific and relevant require-
ments for airline network planning. Hence, the following research
questions will be addressed.
[RQ. 1] What are key requirements for NPM departments in airlines
to successfully leverage big data?
[RQ. 2] What are characteristics of a MM for big data analytics in
airline network planning to tackle the key requirements developed
for [RQ. 1]?
A thorough literature review and a comparative case study are
conducted to define relevant requirements, to design, and to validate
the MM. By defining domain specific requirements, we contribute to the
scientific body of knowledge as this business problem has not yet been
addressed in academic research.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the theo-
retical foundation and provides background on big data and strategic
network planning. Section 3 describes the research methodology of the
paper. Section 4 covers the definition of requirements and the design of
the MM, which is evaluated in section 5. The last section 6 discusses the
implication for research and practice and points towards limitations
and opportunities for further research.
2
Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721
2. Background & theoretical foundation
This section provides the theoretical foundation of the research
(Section 2.1) and the scientific classification of big data (section 2.2)
and network planning in airlines (section 2.3).
2.1. Theoretical background
We ground our research on the resource-based view (RBV) of the
firm and assume that both big data and networks are key resources
which contribute towards a competitive advantage for the firm. Based
on earlier work in the field of strategic management (Dierickx and Cool,
1989; Penrose, 1959; Rumelt, 1984), Jay Barney (1991) formulated the
RBV of the firm, stating that competitive advantage can be achieved by
deploying a set of firm-specific resources which are valuable, rare, im-
perfectly imitable, and non-substitutable. In contrast to the market-based
view of the firm (Porter, 1980), which assumes that competitive ad-
vantage can be achieved by choosing the right markets and strength-
ening a company's position within these markets, the RBV tries to ex-
plain superior firm performance by its unique bundles of resources.
To operate a business successfully, isolated resources are often not
sufficient to secure a competitive advantage. In addition, organizations
need the right capabilities to deploy resources effectively (Amit and
Schoemaker, 1993). The specific concepts of resources and capabilities
have been investigated by a variety of research domains; IS scholars
were early adopters of the RBV (Mata et al., 1995), which laid the
foundation for research on dedicated IT resources (Ross et al., 1996)
and capabilities (Bharadwaj, 2000). The positive performance effects of
IT capabilities have been widely studied in the area of IT business value
research (Bhatt and Grover, 2005; Melville et al., 2004). Recently, data
capabilities have been introduced as refinement of general IT cap-
abilities. While Levitin and Redman (1998) have early stated that data
also have resource characteristics, researchers have defined an explicit
data capability only with the emergence of big data analytics (Akter
et al., 2016; Gupta and George, 2016).
Similar to the development in IS research, the RBV has also been
adopted by transportation scholars. Morash, Droge, and Vickery (1996)
proposed an initial logistics capability, and alternative logistics cap-
ability concepts emerged thereafter (Olavarrieta and Ellinger, 1997;
Yew Wong and Karia, 2010). Transportation networks have been
widely described as a resource in the definition of the RBV (Cui and
Hertz, 2011), as well as airline networks in particular (Xu, 2011).
Wittmer, Bieger, and Müller (2011) identify airline networks as a pre-
requisite to develop a competitive advantage such as hub dominance.
2.2. Big data
While the term “big data” has been coined only in 2011 by Manyika
et al. data management has been an important research topic for the
past 20 years. Laney, 2001 noted already in 2001 that data volume,
variety and velocity of data is continuously increasing, enabled through
improving information technology hardware and data collection op-
portunities. The topic started to create attention in the academic world
when Chen et al. (2012) linked it to the prevalent business intelligence
and analytics (BI&A) research domain. They describe big data as “third
wave” of BI&A, after traditional databases and web-based content.
Big data is most commonly defined by the three “Vs”, volume, ve-
locity and variety of data (McAfee and Brynjolfsson, 2012). Volume re-
fers to the sheer amount of data available for storage, processing, and
analysis. Since the volume of available data is expanding exponentially,
there is no single volume threshold to define big data (Gandomi and
Haider, 2015), but it should be large enough that legacy IT systems are
not able to fully process and analyze it (Manyika et al., 2011). Velocity
describes the frequency of data generation and/or the frequency of data
delivery, as well as the real-time processing capability (Wamba et al.,
2015). Variety captures the increasing amount of different data sources
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser
and data types, especially for unstructured data, such as text, audio,
visual data, etc. (Gandomi and Haider, 2015).
Some researchers propose to include veracity and value in a
common big data definition. Veracity describes the inherent un-
predictability of data which poses challenges to data quality control
(Gandomi and Haider, 2015). Value is the most controversial char-
acteristic of big data; Gandomi and Haider (2015) claim the low “value
density” of big data, e.g. the small value per data point. In contrast,
Manyika et al. (2011) propose the overall value creation potential to be
included as characteristic, to avoid that useless data is collected, stored
and processed.
An integral part of big data is the capability to make use from it.
Gandomi and Haider (2015) distinguish between big data management,
which includes data acquisition and data processing, and big data
analytics to model and interpret big data. Especially big data analytics
has received much attention in management research, as it could enable
better management decision making (George et al., 2014). Viewed from
a RBV perspective, big data analytics might constitute a distinct cap-
ability to positively influence firm performance (Akter et al., 2016).
2.3. Network planning in airlines
The planning of airline networks is one of the most complex
transportation planning processes (Bell and Iida, 1997). This stems not
only from the physical network complexity of spatial and temporal
network dimensions, but also from the multitude of optimization
parameters. Profit maximizing airlines aim at establishing the most
profitable network, realizing economies of scale, scope and density
(Burghouwt, 2007). At the same time, the network schedule needs to be
robust to allow for smooth operations and minimizing the risk of total
breakdown in case of external shocks. Furthermore, political and
competitive considerations may shape the network and schedule de-
velopment (Burghouwt, 2007).
The airline network planning process can roughly be separated in
three phases: long-term (strategic) network planning, mid-to-short-term
(tactical) network planning and flight operations (Bazargan, 2016). The
general airline corporate strategy serves as guideline and input factor
for strategic network planning. The components and relevant content
Fig. 1. Generic airline network planning process (Source: own illustration).
3
Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721
steps are depicted in Fig. 1. Carmona Benitez (2012) and Goedeking
(2010) provide a good overview over long-term planning steps, Grosche
(2009) and Abdelghany and Abdelghany (2009) focus on details of
tactical network planning.
All the network planning steps rely heavily on information systems
for decision support. Network planning research has mostly focused on
improving methodologies for the mathematical optimization of in-
dividual network planning steps (Abdelghany and Abdelghany, 2009).
However, the complexity of airline network operations restricts com-
pletely integrated models, since the available computing power is not
sufficient to calculate a global optimum across all planning steps
(Kölker and Lütjens, 2015).
The data sources used for airline network planning in literature and
practice have not significantly changed in the past 20 years (Bradbury,
2018). Network planners rely mostly on integrated network planning
suites which deploy sequential network optimizers and rely on stan-
dardized data inputs such as market information data tapes (MIDTs) or
extrapolated traffic forecasts (Goedeking, 2010).
3. Research methodology
Given the lack of quantitative research approaches for MM design
(Neff et al., 2014), we adopt a qualitative research approach as pro-
posed by Becker et al. (2009) which is grounded in design science re-
search (Hevner et al., 2004).
Becker et al. (2009, p. 218) propose a seven-step procedure model
which is depicted on the upper side of Fig. 2. The procedure model has
been adjusted to reduce complexity of both the research process and the
structure of this research paper. The determination of development
strategy has been merged with iterative maturity model development, as
this comprises the first step of MM development. The transfer steps
have been combined with the model evaluation, since the transfer
media for this MM are neglectable. The new proposed 4-step procedure
model is also comparable to the design model proposed by Bruin et al.
(2005), who suggest a scoping, design and evaluation phase. The first
two steps, problem definition and comparison of existing models, would
refer to the scoping phase, while design and evaluation phase match the
structure of Bruin et al. (2005). The four steps of the procedure model
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser
Fig. 2. Research design adapted from Becker et al. (2009).
Fig. 3. Details on procedure model based on Becker et al. (2009) and Neff et al. (2014).
will be described in detail in the following paragraphs. Fig. 3 sum-
marizes the research steps, performed activities, and methodology, and
links it to the relevant sections of this article.
3.1. Problem identification
Initially, a structured literature review following Vom Brocke et al.
(2009) has been conducted to identify appropriate maturity domains to
address the research problem. Simultaneously, six semi-structured ex-
pert interviews with airline network planners were conducted to shed
light on practitioner needs and the current state of big data analytics.
The interview guide was prepared following Berg's (2004) re-
commendation for interview guideline design. Before the interviews
started, the maturity model concept was presented to the interview
partners to close any information gap between participants. The inter-
views contained four general questions to assess the use of big data
analytics in network planning, including an open question on the major
obstacles observed. The second part of the interview concentrated on
the potential application of the maturity model for the organizational.
The initial interviews were carried out between February 2017 and
August 2017. The interviews were recorded and subsequently tran-
scribed. A structured coding approach following Saldaña (2016) was
used to extract relevant requirements for the formulation of the
4
Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721
maturity model. These findings were combined with the results of the
literature review to formulate seven MM requirements, which are de-
scribed in section 4.1 of this article.
3.2. Comparison of existing maturity models
The aim of this process step (section 4.2) is to identify relevant
existing MMs on big data or network planning in airlines. Only four
scientific MMs for big data could be identified in literature. Therefore,
adjacent research areas such as business intelligence, business analytics
and data warehousing have also been scanned and nine additional MMs
were identified. Furthermore, no scientific MMs for airlines could be
identified. The search was then broadened to logistics and transporta-
tion planning and yielded six suitable MMs in these industry domains.
The 19 identified MMs were evaluated using the MM requirements
derived in the first research step. No existing MM completely fulfilled
more than three of the seven relevant criteria; the six most suitable
MMs were then chosen to develop the foundation of the new big data
analytics MM for airline NPM.
3.3. Maturity model development
For the MM development and evaluation, a case study group with
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721

Table 1 of the MM evaluation process (see section 5) were integrated and the
Specification criteria for case study companies. descriptions of the conceptualized maturity levels were prepared and
Criterion Specifications calibrated. The model development is described in detail in section 4.3.

Business model ⁃ Full-Service Carrier 3.4. Maturity model evaluation

⁃ Low-cost carriers
⁃ Scheduled-charter airline
⁃ Cargo airline
The model evaluation was performed in two iterations of structured
Fleet size ⁃ Large (> 100 aircraft) case study interviews, followed by a self-assessment of airline partici-
⁃ Mid-sized (30–100 aircraft) pants.
⁃ Small (< 30 aircraft) The first model evaluation iteration yielded high scores on com-
Network type Multi-hub
pleteness and usefulness of the MM domains and sub-domains. Seven
⁃
⁃ Single-hub
⁃ Point-to-point change requests resulted from this iteration, which were integrated in
Route structure ⁃ Mostly long-haul the model afterwards. The second iteration round confirmed the va-
⁃ Mostly short-haul lidity of the maturity level conceptualizations with high scores across
Mixed
⁃
all five evaluation dimensions and only one change request. Eight air-
lines agreed to participate in the self-evaluation to prove the practical
applicability of the model. All evaluation steps are summarized in
nine partner airlines has been assembled. We followed the case study
section 5.
guidelines developed by Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007) and refined
by Yin (2017). To assure a balanced case sample, we selected the case
4. Design of maturity model
study companies by four selection criteria. For each selection criterion,
three to four possible specifications were defined (see Table 1).
4.1. Maturity model requirements
We consider four different business models, based on the clustering
by Sterzenbach et al. (2013): full-service carriers – sometimes referred
The requirements for the MM were derived both from a structured
to as legacy carriers – developed mostly from former state-owned air-
literature review following Vom Brocke et al. (2009) and from ex-
lines and target a wide spectrum of passengers. They usually offer a
ploratory interviews with network planning practitioners.
premium product and additional services such as a frequent flyer pro-
For the literature review, relevant search terms were established
gram. Low-cost airlines are the alternative draft to this model, reducing
using keyword decomposition. Four keywords were identified as re-
the product to the bare minimum (“no frills”). Scheduled charter air-
levant search terms for the initial search: “maturity model”, which re-
lines or “leisure carriers” focus on touristic routes and sell large seat
presents the artefact and serves as mandatory search term; “airlines”
contingents to travel operators. Cargo airlines focus on transporting
representing the industry of interest; “network planning” representing
freight only.
the organizational process; and “big data” which is the main research
Fleet size is distinguished in three levels, reaching from small to
object. The search was conducted on EbscoHost Global Search, which
large. Traditionally, network types are distinguished in hub-and-spoke
includes database access to Business Source Premier, ScienceDirect,
and point-to-point models. However, with the increased mergers and
Emerald, and ProQuest. The keyword search was restricted to title,
acquisitions in the airline space, many airlines have developed multi-
abstract and keywords from peer-reviewed academic journals to ensure
hub models leveraging the hubs of the merged airlines (Burghouwt,
relevance of the results. Fig. 4 summarizes the keyword combinations
2007). Thus, we distinguish point-to-point, single-hub and multi-hub
and associated hits.
network types. Route structures can be systemized by route type com-
The keyword combinations with four and three keywords did not
position. We distinguish between networks that predominantly serve
results in any hits, which is not unusual for abstract-restricted keyword
long-haul routes (over 4,500 km), those that predominantly serve short-
searches. However, the searches with two combined keywords did also
haul routes (under 4,500 km) and those with a mixed route structure.
not yield many results – a clear sign that the research problem has not
Each criterion specification should at least be represented twice in
been sufficiently addressed by existing literature. The keyword search
the case study group. Table 2 lists the nine participating airlines, which
was then broadened to associated search terms within each category
have been anonymized for publication. All airlines are based in Europe
except for the mandatory artefact (e.g., “business analytics” for “big
and participated in all case interview rounds. This ensures validity not
data”), which yielded slightly more results (see Fig. 4). The usefulness
only across the case sample, but also in time throughout the research
of all identified papers (“total hits”) was evaluated by the researchers
project (Yin, 2017).
and 26 “useful hits” extracted. 14 additional papers were identified in
In the first iteration, the maturity domains and sub-domains were
the following forward/backward search.
conceptualized building on the requirements and aspects of existing
In addition to the structured literature review, six exploratory in-
MMs. Four main domains (strategy, organization, data and information
terviews with airline network planners from six of the participating
technology) featuring two sub-domains each could be extracted. For the
airlines were conducted. Seven requirements [R-1 to R-7] for big data
second iteration, the seven change requests stated in the first iteration
analytics in airline network planning have been distilled, of which R-1,
R-2 and R-5 derive mostly from literature, R-3 and R-4 both from lit-
Table 2 erature and interviews, and R-6 and R-7 exclusively from the ex-
Airline case study participant overview. ploratory interviews.
Airline Business model Fleet size Network type Route type
4.1.1. [R-1] Strategic alignment between IT and business
FSC 1 Full-Service Carrier Large Multi-hub Mixed
The IT/business alignment has been vastly researched in the in-
FSC 2 Full-Service Carrier Mid-sized Single-hub Mixed
LCC 1 Low-Cost Carrier Large Point-to-point Short-haul formation system domain and is considered a major success factor for
LCC 2 Low-Cost Carrier Mid-sized Point-to-point Short-haul any IT investment (Luftman, 2000). It is noteworthy that alignment is
SCA 1 Scheduled Charter Airline Mid-Sized Point-to-point Mixed not about a one-directional assimilation of the IT strategy with the
SCA 2 Scheduled Charter Airline Small Point-to-point Short-haul corporate strategy, but a bi-directional exchange where IT strategy is
CAR 1 Cargo Airline Small Single-hub Long-haul
also contributing towards corporate strategy (Coughlan et al., 2005).
CAR 2 Cargo Airline Small Multi-hub Long-haul
CAR 3 Cargo Airline Small Single-hub Long-haul The corporate strategy of an airline is an input to the NPM process
(Goedeking, 2010), since long-term decisions such as fleet planning or

5
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser
Fig. 4. Structured keyword-based literature search.
decisions on the network structure define the option space for network
planning (Bazargan, 2016). With increasing importance of big data
analytics, the alignment of corporate strategy, NPM strategy and IT/big
data strategy will be a critical success factor for NPM in airlines.
4.1.2. [R-2] Organizational factors for big data analytics
MMs originated in computer science (Paulk et al., 1993) which in-
itially neglected the organizational maturity domain. However, with
the increasing focus on business process maturity, the importance of
organizational factors increased. Organizational constructs used by
scholars include culture (Cosic et al., 2012; Lockamy and McCormack,
2004; Rohrbeck, 2011), people (Cosic et al., 2012; Rohrbeck, 2011;
Willner et al., 2016), governance (Comuzzi and Patel, 2016; Cosic et al.,
2012), structure (Lockamy and McCormack, 2004; Schiele, 2007) and
skills (Muller and Hart, 2016). In the case of NPM in airlines, organi-
zational factors increase the success of big data analytics adoption by
NPM staff and are therefore critical for success.
4.1.3. [R-3] Organizational process embeddedness
The exploratory interviews revealed further the need for embedding
organizational process structures into the MM. This has already been
widely applied in business process focused MMs, e.g. by Boer et al.
(2015) and Lockamy and McCormack (2004). However, information
system MMs often neglect organizational process embeddedness. A
common symptom of lacking process embeddedness is unclear roles and
responsibilities for big data projects, which leads to a lack of trans-
parency on ongoing initiative as well as redundancy of resources spent
on big data.
4.1.4. [R-4] Consideration of employee skills
Rejection of big data initiatives by employees are caused most fre-
quently by a negative attitude towards technological innovation
(Rohrbeck, 2011). Employee skills in big data and its application can
help to mitigate the discomfort and are hence a critical factor for big
data success (Cosic et al., 2012). The interviewed network planners
6
Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721
confirmed this hypothesis and stated a lack of big data skills as one of
the key hurdles for big data analytics adoption.
4.1.5. [R-5] Distinction of data and information technology
Many industry process focused MMs combine data and information
technology into one single domain (Fischer et al., 2016). In contrast,
MMs from the data management research domain, where big data
analytics is most affiliate, distinguish consistently between data and
hardware information technology (Comuzzi and Patel, 2016; Lukman
et al., 2011; Muller and Hart, 2016). For our MM use case, the se-
paration of data and hardware is essential to provide practical guidance
on improvement areas for airline network planners.
4.1.6. [R-6] Industry and process specificity
Five of six interview partners stated their concern with the use of
MMs, since most models are too general and do not capture the airline
industry specificities. In addition, network planning is a highly complex
process which can only hardly be assessed by a general MM on big data.
To overcome these deficiencies, a new MM needs to be tailored speci-
fically for NPM in airlines.
4.1.7. [R-7] Consideration of existing IT infrastructure
Finally, a MM should not propose a greenfield solution but consider
existing IT systems and infrastructure. Considering a big data analytics
transformation as a simple “on-top” solution will probably end in
failure. In the view of network planners, the most desirable outcome
would be a big data analytics solution that cooperates with existing IT
systems and integrates various sources and systems.
4.2. Evaluation of existing maturity models
In a first step, 19 MMs within the research domains of data man-
agement (DM), big data analytics (BDA), logistics (LOG) and business
Intelligence & analytics (BI&A) have been filtered from the 26 identified
useful contributions (see Fig. 4). The remaining articles were either
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721

Table 3
Evaluation of existing maturity models.
Authors Research domain R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 R-7 Total

Aiken et al. (2007) DM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

Arunachalam et al. (2018) BDA & LOG 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 5
Comuzzi & Patel (2016) BDA 1 2 1 0 2 0 2 8
Cosic et al. (2012) BI&A 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 7
Fischer et al. (2016) LOG 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3
Lahti et al. (2009) LOG 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
LaValle et al. (2011) BDA 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2
Lismont et al. (2017) BI&A 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
Lockamy & McCormack (2004) LOG 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4
Luftman (2000) BI&A 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 7
Lukman et al. (2011) BI&A 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 5
Mendes et al. (2016) LOG 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3
Muller & Hart (2016) BI&A 2 1 0 2 1 0 2 8
Plomp & Batenburg (2010) LOG 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2
Raber et al. (2012) BI&A 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 4
Rohrbeck (2011) BI&A 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 4
Schiele (2007) LOG 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 6
Wang et al. (2016) BDA & LOG 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 3
Watson et al., 2001 DM 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 5
Average 0,42 1,05 0,79 0,63 0,68 0,00 0,74

Research domains: Data management (DM), Big data analytics (BDA), Logistics (LOG), Business Intelligence & Analytics (BI&A).
Evaluation scale: 0 – requirement not met; 1 – requirement partly met, 2 – requirement fully met.

literature reviews (Brooks et al., 2015; Tarhan et al., 2016; van Looy
et al., 2017) or MMs from other research fields such as service systems
(Neff et al., 2014), industrial engineering (Boer et al., 2015; Jin et al.,
2014; Willner et al., 2016), and knowledge management (Oliva, 2014).
The selected MMs have been evaluated by the authors against the
requirements defined in section 4.1. The requirements could be either
fully met (score of 2), partly met (score of 1) or nor met at all (score of
0). To be fully met, a requirement needs to be reflected explicitly in the
regarding MM. Let's consider [R-5] “Distinction of data and information
technology” as an example. Arunachalam, Kumar, and Kawalek (2018)
clearly distinguish a data and information quality perspective from the
technological perspective covering the IT systems. This explicit differ-
entiation fulfills [R-5] completely. In contrast, Cosic et al. (2012) in-
tegrate data management as a sub-category into the broader field of
technology, which partly meets [R-5]. Following this logic, Table 3
summarizes the evaluation of the 19 MMs.
No examined MM meets all requirements; the highest achieved total
score is 8 out of a potential score of 14. [R-6] Industry and process
specificity is not met at all, since no existing MMs deals explicitly with
airlines or the network planning process. [R-2] Organizational factors for
big data analytics considered performs best with an average score of 1,05
and 14 MMs that fulfill the requirement partly or fully. Six MMs which
achieved a score of 2 in at least two requirements were selected for the
initial MM design (shaded in Table 3). Every requirement except for [R-
6] is fully met by at least one included MM.
4.3. Maturity model design
The MM design approach includes two iterative development stages.
First, the main domains and sub-domains of the MM are conceptualized
from the requirements and compared with existing MMs selected in the
previous section. The general model structure is then evaluated and
finalized. The evaluation led to the re-wording of two sub-domains (see
section 5) – we will refer in this section to the final sub-domain names
to avoid confusion. In the second stage, the maturity levels are con-
ceptualized and formulated, before the complete model is evaluated by
the practitioner group.
4.3.1. Conceptualization of domains and sub-domains
The seven requirements derived in section 4.1 provide the frame-
work for the model conceptualization, since the objective is to fully
meet all requirements. Fig. 5 displays the initial conceptualization
graphically.
[R-1] demands the inclusion of a strategy domain which contains not
only the mere strategy formulation, but specifically the alignment of
corporate strategy, network planning and management (NPM) strategy
and an explicit big data strategy. Akter et al. (2016) also confirm the
importance of cross-functional strategy alignment as key component of
a big data capability. Important success factors for strategy im-
plementation are a supportive culture and the availability of sufficient
resources to drive the change (Barton and Court, 2012). Although cul-
ture is in its core an organizational dimension, we opted to include it as
sub-domain of strategy to acknowledge the crucial role of culture in big
data implementation (see also McAfee and Brynjolfsson, 2012).
To fully satisfy [R-2], the inclusion of culture as sub-dimension is
not sufficient. Other important organizational factors such as govern-
ance and organizational structure contribute to the success of any big
data analytics initiative (LaValle et al., 2011). Process governance such
as a clear definition of responsibilities between commercial and IT
functions ensures organizational process embeddedness of big data
analytics and complies with [R-3]. These aspects are integrated in the
sub-domain organizational structure within the broader organization do-
main. The second pillar of this domain contains employee skills [R-4],
which are also key elements of a big data analytics capability (Akter
et al., 2016).
[R-5] implies a domain split between information technology and
data. The necessity of this split has risen only in recent years when data
has become an indispensable asset independent from the larger IT in-
frastructure and is hence seen as self-contained resource (Gupta and
George, 2016). In consideration of [R-6], which is in fact an over-
arching requirement across all domains, we differentiate between the
sub-domains data management which includes all process-specific as-
pects of the data resources, and data sources which represent data
sourcing, updating and processing. This distinction is not very common
in literature, but required to specify the MM for airline network plan-
ning. While data management processes in airlines are mostly defined
by the IT-departments, the selection of data sources and the data ac-
quisition and processing remains often a responsibility of the user
function such as NPM. These two sub-domains constitute the data do-
main.
The information technology domain is also split in two sub-domains,
IT architecture and IT tools. This distinction is also used for big data

7
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser
Fig. 5. Mapping of requirements to proposed maturity model sub-domains and domains.
architecture and analytics tools (Goes, 2014). Both sub-dimensions are
specified for the NPM context [R-6] and consider the existing archi-
tecture and tools [R-7]. Additionally, the effectiveness of decision-
support by NPM tools and analytics tools is considered in this domain.
The four proposed domains and eight sub-domains are compared
with the existing MMs with the highest scoring (see Table 4). Strategy
and organizational structure are the most common domains among the
six MMs, with five matches each. In contrast, the data sources sub-do-
main has not been used as maturity domain so far, since it is usually
integrated to data management.
4.3.2. Strategic alignment
The sub-domain strategy is represented either as measurement of the
actual existence of a strategy or the degree of strategic alignment be-
tween business units. Both Comuzzi and Patel (2016) and Muller and
Hart (2016) consider the formulation of a specific big data strategy an
essential part of big data/BI&A maturity. Luftman (2000), Cosic et al.
(2012) and to some extent Muller and Hart (2016) focus on the strategic
alignment between business and IT function – an aspect which remains
highly relevant in the light of increasing importance of big data.
Comuzzi and Patel (2016) also consider the availability of resources for
strategy implementation a part of the strategy sub-domain.
4.3.3. Culture
Culture per se is a very broad term with many possible interpreta-
tions. The only attribute of culture which is shared across all three MMs
with a distinct culture (sub-)domain is executive sponsorship for big
data/BI&A initiatives (Comuzzi and Patel, 2016; Cosic et al., 2012;
Muller and Hart, 2016). Comuzzi and Patel (2016) furthermore stress
the employees’ attitude towards big data and the perceived value of its
use. The recognition of created business value is also present in the BI&
A MM developed by Muller and Hart (2016). Cosic et al. (2012, p. 6)
stress “flexibility and agility” as subdomains which they describe as
“level of change readiness” in organizations.
8
Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721
4.3.4. Organizational structure
The analyzed MMs represent organizational structure in two inter-
pretations. Luftman (2000) and Schiele (2007) stress the reporting and
the actual structure most prominently. Comuzzi and Patel (2016) and
Cosic et al. (2012) on the contrary focus on roles & responsibilities and
clearly assigned mandates to implement big data and BI&A initiatives.
The transparency on governance structures is furthermore a maturity
measure deployed by Comuzzi and Patel (2016).
4.3.5. Employee skills
Only Luftman (2000) and Muller and Hart (2016) use skills as se-
parate domain which is derived directly from the resourced-based view
which deems employee skills a core resource of functional capabilities
(Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). Cosic et al. (2012) include technology
skills, business skills and management skills as sub-domains of a
broader people domain. Similarly, Comuzzi and Patel (2016) define the
people domain partly by employee skill development and talent hiring
practices.
4.3.6. Data sources
Data sources are not reflected explicitly as domain or sub-domain in
any of the analyzed MMs. However, data properties such as data quality
(Muller and Hart, 2016) are included implicitly in data management.
4.3.7. Data management
The data management domain usually focuses on the process of data
management, including extracting, processing and analyzing data
(Cosic et al., 2012). Comuzzi and Patel (2016) distinguish between data
storage, data quality assurance and a formalized data management
process.
4.3.8. IT architecture
IT architecture, sometimes referred to as IT infrastructure, is widely
used as specific maturity domain, but with different emphasis. Comuzzi
and Patel (2016) focus on the integration of data sources and data
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721

analytics tools, while Cosic et al. (2012) are most concerned about the

⁃ Organizational structure
integration of legacy systems with new business analytics tools. Muller
⁃ Strategic integration and Hart (2016) measure infrastructure with the capability to cope with
volume, velocity and veracity of new data sources. Luftman (2000)
focuses on architecture transparency and flexibility in managing
Schiele (2007)

emerging technologies.

4.3.9. IT tools
Only Comuzzi and Patel (2016) and Cosic et al. (2012) define IT
tools as separate domain, both with a strict focus on analytics tools to
⁃ BI&A architecture and IT
⁃ BI&A business alignment

support data analysis. Cosic et al. (2012) differentiate here between

⁃ Skills and experience

visualization tools and data mining tools. Comuzzi and Patel (2016)
⁃ Data quality and use
Muller & Hart (2016)

also include the analytics procurement process in their MM.

⁃ BI&A strategy

infrastructure

The comparison of the proposed maturity domains and sub-domains

⁃ BI&A culture

with the selected existing MMs shows that both the structure and most
domain items are established in literature. The only exception is the
sub-domain data sources which has been introduced in response to
practitioner needs and organizational factors in airline network plan-
ning departments. The bi-dimensional derivation of domains from ex-
pert interviews and existing MMs ensures both rigor and relevance of
the newly specified MM.
architecture
Luftman (2000)

⁃ Governance
⁃ Partnership

⁃ Scope &

4.3.10. Conceptualization and calibration of maturity levels

⁃ Skills

For the conceptualization of maturity levels, we rely on the six

maturity levels identified by Becker et al. (2009). The lowest maturity
level 0 (non-existing) expresses the complete absence of the respective
Lockamy & McCormack (2004)

maturity domain in the company. This level is only appropriate if the

⁃ Organizational structure

domain absence is theoretically possible, which applies for oper-

⁃ Process management

ationalizable constructs such as a strategy, an IT system or an organi-

zational structure. Abstract constructs can be operationalized as well by
selecting appropriate maturity criteria.
structure

Since big data analytics is a comparably new phenomenon, there

might be the possibility of a complete absence of big data related
constructs. Hence, we decided to include the maturity level 0 and de-
scribe the maturity aspects as objective constructs which can be non-
existing. The highest maturity level 5 (optimized) describes the state in
⁃ Reporting and visualization

which a maturity domain is self-sustainable on the highest possible

⁃ Discovery BA technology

development state. For the initial calibration, we adapted maturity level

⁃ Systems integration
⁃ Strategic alignment

⁃ Data management

descriptions from the seven most suited maturity models listed in

Cosic et al. (2012)

BA technology

Table 3. The qualitative calibration of the six levels was finally con-
⁃ Governance

ducted in the second evaluation round.

⁃ Culture

Building on expert interviews and literature review, we defined 3–4

⁃ People

objective maturity aspects for each maturity sub-domain. Table 5

summarizes the chosen maturity aspects for each sub-domain, while
Table 6 displays the fully formulated MM using the “Culture” sub-do-
Comuzzi & Patel (2016)
Mapping of existing maturity models to proposed maturity domains.

main as example. Appendices 1-4 contain the fully formulated and

⁃ Data management
⁃ IT infrastructure

calibrated MM with all sib-domains.

⁃ Data analytics
⁃ Governance

The detailed formulation of the maturity model can be explained

⁃ Strategy

using the culture sub-dimension displayed in Table 6. An airline with

⁃ Culture

⁃ People

level 0 maturity in culture completely lacks awareness of the existence

of big data on all hierarchy levels, including the executive board. Thus,
there is also no understanding of the potential value of big data. A Level
1 organization knows BD from rumors and might develop a negative
attitude towards BD, since details are neither known nor commu-
Data management

nicated. There is no executive sponsorship at this stage. A medium-

Employee skills

IT architecture
Organizational

Data sources
Sub-domain

mature company of level 2 develops a positive attitude towards big

structure

data, although there is still confusion on the actual value generated by

Strategy

IT tools
Culture

using it. Isolated topics are usually sponsored by middle-managers, but

not yet by the top executives. Airline NP departments on level 3 pro-
Information technology

mote a pro-active “can-do” attitude towards BD, and the use of it for
decision-making is stressed on all levels. Sponsorship has now reached
Strategic alignment

the executive level, although not all executive members might fill this
Organization

role. A level 4 company is fully aware of the importance and benefits of

BD, which is sponsored by the entire top-management team. The out-
Domain
Table 4

come of BD is trusted on a broad range of decisions. In a level 5 airline,

Data

the importance of big data is an organizational value that all know and

9
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser
Table 5
Domains and maturity aspects after first evaluation round.
Domain Sub-domain
Strategic alignment Strategy
Culture
Organization Organizational structure
Employee skills
Data Data sources
Data management
Information technology IT architecture
IT tools
embrace. Big data supported decision-making is at the heart of the or-
ganization culture and leadership style.
The logic applies similarly to other sub-domains. Level 0 maturity
for the strategy sub-domain represents the complete absence of any
strategy for big data or network planning. In contrast, a level 5 com-
pany has explicit strategies for both big data and NPM in place which
are integrated in the corporate strategy and closely aligned among each
other. Furthermore, sufficient financial resources are available to de-
fine, review and monitor the big data and NPM strategy.
A non-existent organizational structure sub-domain is characterized
by the complete lack of governance for big data topics, including no
defined roles and responsibilities and no ownership for big data topics.
In a highly mature (optimized) NPM organization, the ownership of big
data-related topics is clearly defined and role and responsibilities be-
tween corporate and functional big data topics is clear. The big data
governance on corporate level is also fully transparent and known to all
employees.
Employee skills at maturity level 0 are not relevant, since staff lacks
awareness of big data. Moreover, there is neither formal development
of big data skills in the NPM organization nor hiring of external big data
talent to compensate for lacking internal skills. In a very mature airline,
all staff feel empowered to experiment with big data tools beyond the
formal definition of their role and big data skills are an essential part of
NPM staff development, which is also reflected in job descriptions.
There is also active hiring of external big data talent in both NPM and IT
organizations.
An NPM department of a level 0 airline has no access to other data
sources than internal controlling data and there is no transparency on
data gathered by other functions. Real-time data is not available and
unstructured data cannot be processed. A very mature airline of level 5
offers a large selection of internal and external data sources to satisfy all
information needs of NPM with best possible data. There is full trans-
parency on internal available data from other functions and real-time
data feeds are possible both for internal and external data. Unstructured
data can be processed in all possible formats (text, audio, video, etc.).
Data management processes in level 0 airlines are non-existent. Data
10
Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721
Aspect of domain maturity
⁃ Explicit strategy for both network planning & management (NPM) and big data
⁃ Alignment of big data and NPM strategy
⁃ Financial resources to implement and monitor/control strategies
⁃ Executive sponsorship
⁃ Recognition of importance of big data
⁃ Positive attitude towards big data
⁃ Dedicated FTE resources for big data topics in NPM department
⁃ Clear ownership definition for big data projects
⁃ Transparency of big data governance
⁃ Definition of responsibilities between NPM and IT department
⁃ Big data skill level of NPM department employees
⁃ Formal big data skill development
⁃ Hiring of external big data talent
⁃ Richness of available data sources
⁃ Availability of external data sources
⁃ Transparency on available data
⁃ Frequency of data updates
⁃ Capabilities to process unstructured data
⁃ Formal review and assessment process for data types
⁃ Universal data accessibility
⁃ Transparency on data requirements
⁃ Organization of internal and external data
⁃ Flexibility to add new data sources
⁃ Adoption of latest analytics technology for NPM
⁃ Level of integration between different NPM tools
⁃ Availability of IT tools to support NPM process
⁃ Effectiveness of decision-support by network planning tools
⁃ Advanced analytics capabilities of network planning tools
⁃ Degree of automation of NPM process
is stored only locally without access from networks or other devices and
without any recorded data requirements. Data is not formally organized
and there is no relationship between data structure and IT applications.
On the contrary, a fully mature airline reviews data sources, types and
data policies periodically to assess their usefulness and actual usage.
Information sharing has reached the highest level by transforming the
airline into a virtual data organization to access and share data uni-
versally (with individual usage permissions).
The level 0 airline has no corporate IT architecture in place and no
integration of any NPM tools. Available advanced analytics technology
is not identified. A fully mature level 5 organization deploys a fully
event-driven network planning architecture, capable to add any re-
quired data source. The market screening for available advanced ana-
lytics tools is fully integrated in normal corporate planning cycles and
the big data analytics solutions are directly integrated in the network
planning application.
In a level 0 airline, all NPM decisions are judgement-based and there
is no support by any IT tool. A fully mature NPM department uses a
single application for all network planning steps and all associated data
analyses. All major decisions are evidence-based and grounded in data,
and all decision makers are trained to use and interpret data on a
regular base. The adoption of latest advanced analytics tools for net-
work planning purposes is a key priority and customized analytics tools
are developed if no existing solution is readily available. The high de-
gree of decision-support enables the level 5 airline to automatize most
NPM process steps (both tactical and strategic).
5. Maturity model evaluation
The evaluation of a MM needs to prove rigor and relevance of the
model. While rigor can be ensured by grounding the MM in the existing
body of literature and following a scientific research methodology, re-
levance needs to be evaluated in close cooperation with practitioners
(Becker et al., 2009). Hevner et al. (2004) stress the utility, quality and
efficacy of a design artefact to ensure practical relevance. Since we
follow an iterative design process, the evaluation strategy consists of
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721

three phases (Neff et al., 2014).

organizational value that all should

BD-supported decision-making are

BD is sponsored unequivocally by
First, the conceptualized domains, sub-domains and maturity as-

at the heart of the organization

pects have been evaluated in structured interviews with airline network

culture and leadership style

The importance of BD is an
planning practitioners. In a second step, a similar evaluation strategy
has been applied to the evaluation of the maturity level descriptions.

know and embrace

Finally, the case study participants self-assessed their respective airlines
top management

in the MM.

5.1. Evaluation of domains, sub-domains and maturity aspects

Level 5

For the first evaluation iteration, we developed a semi-structured

questionnaire based on the MM evaluation template proposed by Salah
BD is sponsored unequivocally

Outcomes of BD projects are

organizational value that all
The importance of BD is an

et al. (2014), which has been widely used in literature (Comuzzi and
should know and embrace

trusted at all levels of the

Patel, 2016; Parra et al., 2017). The questionnaire evaluates under-

standability, ease of use, usefulness, completeness and accuracy on a 5-
by top management

score Likert-scale (1 for strongly disagree to 5 for strongly agree). For

each evaluation dimension, an open question asks for specific im-
organization

provements which have been recorded as change requests.

Level 4

Table 7 summarizes the evaluation results from the first iteration.

Nine case study participants contributed to the MM evaluation. The
usefulness dimension achieved the highest average value of 4.75,
making is stressed at all levels
There is at least one executive

Attitude towards BD is positive

based operations and decision

and proactive across the NPM

The importance of evidence-

proving the practical relevance of the MM. Completeness was ranked

lowest with an average value of 3.88 and triggered two change re-
quests. Seven change requests in total were submitted and implemented
in the model. The change requests were discussed among the re-
sponsor of BD

searchers and all found to be valid. Table 5 shows the domain, sub-
department

domain and maturity aspects after all change requests have been im-
Level 3

plemented.

5.2. Evaluation and calibration of maturity levels

transparent if not positive and this
pushes people to experiment with
BD technology and potential still
middle-management but without

political will to succeed with it

BD is sponsored informally by

The second iteration was based on the same structured ques-

cause confusion, but there is

Attitude towards big data is

tionnaire which had been developed for the first evaluation round. The
main difference is that participants now evaluated the entire model,
executive attention

including the conceptualized maturity levels. In addition, participants

should state if the extreme cases of level 0 and level 5 reflected the
potential range of maturities appropriately, and if the intermediate
BD tools
Level 2

maturity levels provided a logical path of development. 16 individual

maturity level descriptions were adjusted based on feedback from the
evaluation. We refrain from detailing these changes in favor of brevity
No executive sponsorship for

and conciseness of this article.

messages/rumors about the

Attitude is entrenched in a
negative way towards IT-
importance of BD for the

Table 8 summarizes the evaluation results and corresponding

change requests. All five evaluation dimensions have been rated with a
There are conflicting

driven innovation

score of at least 4 out of 5. Ease of use was rated lowest with a score of
4.0, triggering a change request to provide the maturity model as online
questionnaire in addition to the written version. Accuracy was rated
enterprise
Level 1

highest with an average score of 4.75.

BD

Compared to the first evaluation iteration, the evaluation score of

completeness and accuracy improved. This is very intuitive since the
The relevance of BD is not

Staff is unaware about BD

level of detail has been increased in the second evaluation iteration. The
Detailed Maturity Model for the “Culture” sub-domain.

Executive management is

part of the values of the

unaware about big data

increase in detail has not affected understandability, but slightly de-

creased ease of use and usefulness. The latter however was still eval-
NPM department

uated with a score of 4.63 indicating a sufficiently high degree of

usefulness. Ease of use will be improved by also offering an online
survey for the self-assessment of participants.
Level 0

5.3. Self-assessment of case study participants

importance of BD

Attitude towards

Eight of the nine participating airlines agreed to contribute a self-

Recognition of
sponsorship

assessment to the research study, which was conducted with an online

Sub-domain

Executive

questionnaire. The mostly chosen maturity level across all sub-domains

is level 2, indicating a low-to-medium maturity. No airline ranks itself
BD

in the highest maturity level in any of the sub-domains. In contrast, the

lowest level 0 was selected in the organization domain by a LCC, a SCA
Culture
Domain
Table 6

and a cargo airline. Table 9 depicts the individual results of the parti-
cipating airlines. The least differences emerge in the information

11
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721

Table 7
MM evaluation results of domains and sub-domains from first iteration.
Evaluation dimension Average response value Standard deviation Change requests

Understandability 4.13 0.64 [C1] Rename “decision support systems” in “IT tools”
[C2] Rename “technology platform” in “IT architecture”
Ease of use 4.13 0.35 None
Usefulness 4.75 0.46 None
Completeness 3.88 0.64 [C3] Separate financial resources and FTE resources
[C4] Broaden scope of “data review & assessment process” to “data management process”
Accuracy 4.38 0.74 [C5] Move “adoption of latest technology” to IT architecture
[C6] Specify skills to NPM department
[C7] Specify tools to NPM tools

Table 8
MM evaluation results of conceptualized maturity levels from second iteration.
Evaluation dimension Average response value Standard deviation Change requests

Understandability 4.13 0.83

Ease of use 4.00 0.53 [C8] Provide online survey for self-assessment
Usefulness 4.63 0.74
Completeness 4.38 0.74
Accuracy 4.75 0.46

technology domain, where most participants assess their airline as level
2. The largest individual differences seem to prevail in the organization
domain, where all levels from 0 to 4 have been chosen.
Fig. 6 displays the average maturity levels by business model. Full
service carriers reach an average maturity level of 2.7, cargo airlines of
2.0, low cost carriers of 1.7 and the scheduled charter airline of 1.3. It is
noteworthy that the two full service carriers have much less differences
in maturity than the two low cost carriers, where LCC 1 has an average
maturity level of 2.3, whereas LCC 2 has the loewst maturity level in the
sample (1.0). This indicates that low cost carriers seem to set very
different priorities on big data analytics for network planning.
Concerning the sub-domains, airlines are most mature on both
Information Technology domains (average 2.3), followed by data
sources (2.2) and Strategy for NPM and BD (2.0). The least mature sub-
domains are employee skills (1.3), organizational structure (1.4) and
culture (1.9).
Within the strategy sub-domain, the full-service carriers rate
themselves on a higher maturity level than the remaining business
models. Both FSCs have a organization-wide strategic planning process
which includes both NPM and IT strategy as integral parts. However,

Table 9
Self-assessment results of airlines.
Domain Sub-domain Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Average level

Strategic alignment Strategy CAR 1 LCC 1 FSC 1

LCC 2 FSC 2
CAR 2
SCA 1
SCA 2
Culture SCA 2 FSC 1 LCC 1
LCC 2 CAR 1 FSC 2
CAR 2
SCA 1
Organization Organizational structure LCC 2 SCA 2 LCC 1 FSC 2 FSC 1
CAR 1 CAR 2
SCA 1
Employee skills LCC 2 LCC 1 FSC 1 FSC 2
SCA 1 SCA 2
CAR 1
CAR 2
Data Data sources LCC 2 SCA 1 LCC 1
SCA 2 FSC 1 CAR 1 FSC 2
CAR 2
Data management SCA 1 FSC 1 CAR 1 LCC 1
SCA 2 CAR 2 FSC 2
LCC 2
Information technology IT architecture SCA 1 LCC 1 CAR 1
LCC 2 FSC 2
CAR 2
SCA 2
FSC 1
IT tools LCC 1 CAR 2 FSC 2
LCC 2
SCA 1
SCA 2
FSC 1
CAR 1

12
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser
Fig. 6. Maturity patterns by airline business model.
none of the participating airlines has a dedidcated big data strategy yet.
The differences between business models in the culture sub-domain are
less pronounced, with FSCs and cargo airlines exhibiting a slightly more
developed big data culture.
The full service carriers seem more developed in the organizational
domain than the other airlines. A possible explanation is that both full-
service carriers in the study have a fairly large NPM department with
over 30 employees each, whereas NPM departments in other airlines
are much smaller with less than 20 employees. The larger organization
size could be a driver for formalization of roles and responsibilities and
a more institutionalized skill development program.
The quality and availability of data sources is fortunately rather well
developed, especially in the cargo airlines and in the FSCs. While the
quality and availability of internal and external data sources is sa-
tisfactory for most airlines, no participant uses real-time data feeds to
external data sources yet. Furthermore, the capability to process un-
structured data such as text, video or audio files remains very low.
The most mature domain overall is information technology, which
also shows comparably low degrees of differences between the airlines.
Surprisingly, the IT architecture is described as very flexible for adding
new data sources and analytic tools. This is quite counter-intuitive since
airlines have been carrying along legacy IT systems for network plan-
ning which were developed mostly in the 1990s. A possble explanation
is the limited use of these IT solutions, especially for the strategic long-
term network planning. Accordingly, the degree of automation is as-
sessed very low; at best some tactical network planning steps are au-
tomized, the majority of the network planning process still requires
manual input in all airlines.
6. Discussion & conclusion
With this article, the authors address two relevant research
13
Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721
questions to assist airlines to assess the maturity of big data analytics
for network planning & management. First, seven key requirements for
NPM departments in airlines to successfully leverage big data have been
derived from existing literature and explorative interviews with six
airline network planners. Second, a tailored maturity model has been
developed to satisfy all seven key requirements. The developed MM
features a common MM structure with five maturity levels (1–5) plus a
distinct level 0 for the complete absence of the measured maturity
domain. The MM is grounded in existing general MMs from both
functional domains (information systems, data management) and in-
dustry domains (logistics, supply-chain management). The iterative
model evaluation resulted in high scores across all five evaluation cri-
teria, namely understandability, ease of use, usefulness, completeness,
and accuracy.
The self-assessment of eight case study airlines showed that most
airlines view themselves in a low to medium maturity level. FSCs and
cargo airline seem to be slightly more mature than airlines with other
business models. While the technical domains IT architecture and data
sources seem to be more mature, the organization domain is evaluated
least mature, except for FSCs. However, the very small sample can only
indicate differences between the business models.
The maturity model on big data analytics in airline network plan-
ning has several implications for research. First, we designed a devel-
opment process to specify available general maturity models for a very
explicit use case. The methodology of deriving practical and theoretical
requirements to design a tailored MM for a well-defined purpose could
be applied to many other highly specialized applications. Second, the
developed maturity model is the first MM tailored for both airlines and
NPM, and thus closes a research gap in the scientific body of knowl-
edge. Third, this research paper could be a starting point to examine the
impact of big data analytics for other airline functions such as fleet
planning, flight operations and revenue management. In addition, the
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721

maturity of NPM functions in other transportation industries could be
examined with a similar methodology.
The implications for airline practitioners stem mostly from the self-
assessment. Most airlines show maturity levels between 1 and 3,
meaning that there is significant room for improvement independent of
the followed business model. Airlines should emphasize organizational
factors of big data analytics where the maturity seems to be low. This
includes an explicit definition of big data ownership within the NPM
and IT departments and accordingly a clear split of roles and respon-
sibilities between the departments. The lack of employee big data skills
could be countered with formal skill development programs and hiring
of external talent to complement the skill sets of current NPM staff.
Airlines should strive for a dedicated big data strategy which is
ideally integrated into a holistic corporate strategy and considers big
data requirements of relevant departments, including from NPM. Strong
executive sponsorship for big data initiatives could help to overcome
the negative attitude of many employees towards big data analytics.
Airlines should leverage the flexibility of their IT architecture to
include useful big data sources delivering real-time information and
covering the white spots of the current data landscape. A more struc-
tured deployment of advanced analytics tools and the integration with
current network planning tools could enable increasing automation of
the network planning process, which still is highly manual in all par-
ticipating airlines.
We are fully aware that this research comes with several limitations.
The airline sample size is limited and includes currently only European
airlines. Including more airlines across continents would improve
general validity of the model and enable the comparison of maturity
levels across geographies. A significant increase in sample size could
also permit a quantitative research design to investigate reasons for
existing differences in maturity levels. The addition of regional airlines
as additional business model would increase the explanatory power of
the maturity model for the entire airline industry. A sufficiently large
airline sample could enable the empirical identification of influence
factors for big data maturity, such as fleet size, network type, or fi-
nancial resources. Furthermore, the calibration of maturity levels could
be improved by applying variance analysis on the self-assessment of a
sufficiently large airline sample.
The presented MM is highly specialized on NPM in airlines. Similar
models could be designed for other functions in airlines or different
industry applications of NPM, e.g., container shipping and trucking. At
the same time, the model could be broadened to capture multiple
business processes within airlines or multiple industries. The MM re-
flects mostly the NPM perspective on big data analytics. The inclusion
of a separate IS perspective could improve the generalizability of the
model. Future models could also include other relevant dimensions,
which have been neglected in this research project, e.g. big data se-
curity or big data processing technologies.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2019.101721.

Appendix 1“Strategic alignment” maturity domain

Domain Sub-domain Maturity attribute Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Strategic alig- Strategy for Explicit strategy No explicit Explicit strategyExplicit strategy for Explicit strategy for Explicit strategy forExplicit strategy
nment network plan- for NPM and BD strategy only for NPM in NPM in place and BD and NPM in both BD and NPM for both BD and
ning & man- neither for place, but no in-integrated in holistic place, but only NPM in place and inte- NPM in place and
agement NPM nor for tegration in cor-corporate strategy, strategy integrated grated in holistic integrated in hol-
(NPM) BD in place porate strategy but no explicit BD in holistic corporate corporate strategy istic corporate
strategy strategy strategy
Alignment of BD No alignment BD not consid- BD not considered BD not considered BD regarded as NPM strategy clo-
and NPM since strate- ered key element key element of NPM key element of NPM strategic imperative sely aligned with
gies are inex- of NPM strategy strategy strategy for NPM, but BD corporate BD
istent and NPM strategies strategy
are not aligned
Financial re- No resources Financial re- Financial resources Financial resources Financial resources Financial re-
sources for im- available to sources available available to define, available to define, available to define, sources available
plementation formulate or to define, review review and monitor review and monitor review and monitor to define, review
implement and monitor NPM strategy NPM strategy and NPM strategy and and monitor BD
NPM or BD NPM strategy BD strategy sepa- BD strategy sepa- and NPM strategy
strategy rately rately in an integrated
way
Culture Executive spon- Executive No executive BD is sponsored in- There is at least one BD is sponsored un- BD is sponsored
sorship management sponsorship forformally by middle- executive sponsor of equivocally by top unequivocally by
is unaware BD management but BD management top management
about big data without executive
attention
Recognition of The relevance There are con- BD technology and The importance of The importance of The importance of
importance of of BD is not flicting mes- potential still cause evidence-based op- BD is an organiza- BD is an organiza-
BD part of the va- sages/rumors confusion, but there erations and decision tional value that all tional value that
lues of the about the impor- is political will to making is stressed at should know and all should know
NPM depart- tance of BD for succeed with it all levels embrace and embrace
ment the enterprise
Attitude towards Staff is una- Attitude is en- Attitude towards big Attitude towards BD Outcomes of BD BD-supported de-
BD ware about BD trenched in a data is transparent if is positive and projects are trusted cision-making are
negative way to- not positive and this proactive across the at all levels of the at the heart of the
wards IT-driven pushes people to ex- NPM department organization organization cul-
innovation periment with BD ture and leader-
tools ship style

14
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721

Appendix 2“Organization” maturity domain

Domain Sub-domain Maturity attri- Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
bute

Organization Organizational FTE resources No FTE resources No FTE resources for NPM topic owners Full-time NPM Dedicated team Dedicated cross-
structure for BD topics in for BD topics in BD topics in NPM spend part of their topic owners to within NPM to functional teams
NPM NPM time to develop develop BD cap- develop BD cap- (IT/BD and NPM) to
BD capabilities abilities and adopt abilities and deliver latest cap-
and adopt latest latest BD technol- adopt latest BD abilities and deploy
BD technologies ogies technologies BD technologies for
NPM organization
Ownership of No topic owner- BD topics in NPM Ownership of BD- Ownership of BD- Ownership of Ownership of BD-re-
BD projects ship for BD in are owned by mul- related topics in related topics in BD-related topics lated topics in NPM
NPM tiple people; roles NPM organization NPM organization in NPM organi- organization clearly
and responsibilities clearly defined clearly defined zation clearly defined
are not explicitly defined
defined
Transparency BD governance BD governance on BD governance on BD governance on BD governance BD governance on
of BD govern- on corporate corporate level un- corporate level corporate level de- on corporate corporate level fully
ance level non-exis- clear (but maybe in- unclear fined, but not fully level fully trans- transparent and
tent formally existing) transparent to all parent and known to employees
functions and em- known to em-
ployees (IT-silo) ployees
Split of respon- Responsibilities Responsibilities be- Responsibilities Responsibilities Responsibilities Responsibilities be-
sibility be- between corpo- tween corporate and between corpo- between corporate between corpo- tween corporate and
tween NPM rate and func- functional topics un- rate and func- and functional to- rate and func- functional BD topics
and IT depart- tional topics un- clear tional topics not pics not well de- tional topics de- clearly defined
ments clear well defined and fined and some- fined, but remain
sometimes un- times unclear sometimes un-
clear clear
Employee skills BD skill level Staff lack aware- Staff have mainly a BD tools are em- Individual experts All staff (IT and All staff feel empow-
of NPM staff ness of BD personal interest in braced mainly by from NPM depart- NPM) are fully ered to experiment
BD, but lack the re- staff with strong ment develop deep engaged with BD with BD tools be-
quired skills to track technological knowledge on BD technology and yond the formal de-
the fast-paced tech- skills tools and topics tools finition of their role
nological evolution
Formal BD skill No formal devel- No formal develop- No formal devel- Basic development Broad formal BD BD skills essential
development opment of BD ment of BD skills in opment of BD of BD skills (e.g., skill develop- part of NPM staff
skills in NPM or- NPM organization skills in NPM or- user training for ment for NPM development (also
ganization ganization BD tools) for NPM department reflected in job de-
staff scriptions)
External talent No hiring of ex- No hiring of external Hiring of external Active hiring of Active hiring of Active hiring of ex-
ternal BD talent BD talent BD talent only in external BD talent external BD ta- ternal BD talent in
IT department in both NPM and lent in both NPM both NPM and IT or-
(Not in NPM) IT organizations and IT organiza- ganizations
tions

Appendix 3. “Data” maturity domain

Domain Sub-do- Maturity attri- Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
main bute

Data Data Richness of Only internal Mostly internal Most information needs Most information Sufficient selection of Large selection of in-
sources data sources controlling data data used, but not can be satisfied with needs can be satis- internal and external ternal and external data
used all information internal data fied with either in- data sources available to sources available to sa-
needs can be satis- ternal or external satisfy all information tisfy all information
fied data needs with at least one needs with best possible
kind of data data
Availability of No external External data Some external data Regular and well- Regular and well-estab- Regular and well-estab-
external data data gathered gathered sporadi- sources used regularly, established use of lished use of external lished use of external
sources cally on need-base but mostly on ad-hoc external data data sources data sources
basis sources
Transparency No transpar- Basic transparency Basic transparency on Satisfactory trans- Full transparency on in- Full transparency on in-
on available ency on data on data gathered data gathered by other parency on internal ternal available data ternal available data
data gathered by by other functions functions data from other from other functions from other functions
other functions functions
Frequency of No real-time Real-time data Real-time data feeds Real-time data Real-time data feeds Real-time data feeds
data updates data feeds feeds possible only possible only for all in- feeds possible both possible both for in- possible both for internal
(neither intern- for selected in- ternal data for internal and ex- ternal and external data and external data
ally nor exter- ternal data (e.g., ternal data
nally) booking data)

15
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721

Capabilities to Unstructured Unstructured data Unstructured data Unstructured data Capability to process Capability to process all
handle un- data (text, (text, video, audio) (text, video, audio) (text, video, audio) certain forms of un- types of unstructured
structured video, audio) cannot be pro- cannot be processed by cannot be pro- structured data (e.g., data (text, audio, video,
data cannot be pro- cessed by IT sys- IT systems cessed by IT sys- text analysis) etc.)
cessed by IT tems tems
systems
Data Formal data No data man- Data management Data management is The IT function and IT and NPM review Data sources and types
manage- management agement pro- and related poli- siloed, but there is an NPM function de- sporadically together and data policies are
ment process cess or related cies are siloed and effort to identify which cide on a current- the usefulness of the periodically reviewed to
policies in place not formally de- data are useful and need-base together data currently stored in assess their usefulness
fined needed by BD tools which data should relation to their usage and actual usage - also
be acquired and and acquire data ac- periodical review of data
stored cording to estimated limitations, e.g., what
data needs data are missing, and
opportunities for the fu-
ture
Data accesi- Data is stored Data are stored in Data are stored in some All data are cen- All data are centrally Complete virtual data
bility only locally some sort of cen- sort of central reposi- trally stored and stored and available organization to access
without access tral repository, but
tory and some data available across the across the organization data universally (with
from network majority is stored have been identified to organization and integrated with re- individual usage permis-
or other devices locally without ac-be too “big” to be levant external stake- sions)
cess to the rest ofmanaged efficiently holders
the organization with existing infra-
structure
Transparency No data re- Some data require- Data requirements are Data requirements Data requirements and Data requirements and
on data re- quirements re- ments are trans- transparent but data and properties are properties are fully properties are fully
quirements corded parent but no sys- properties not system- transparent but no transparent which transparent which makes
tematical tracking atically processed tracking what data makes it possible to it possible to quickly
in place are used in what quickly identify what identify what data are
decision-making data are used in what used in what decision-
processes and why decision-making pro- making processes and
cesses and why why
Organization Data are not Data are acquired Data are still randomly Data sources and BD files can be easily BD files can be easily
of internal and formally orga- and organized on a organized, but it is data types are shared across depart- shared in virtual data
external data nized and there completely ad hoc possible to easily track identified and ments/functions, mini- organization
is no relation- base, with no stan- which information is tracked mizing data silos
ship between dard policies in required by each ana-
data structure place lytic application
and IT applica-
tions

Appendix 4. “Information technology” maturity domain

Domain Sub-domain Maturity attri- Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
bute

Information te- IT architec- Flexibility to No corporate IT architecture No integration of net- Sporadic integra- Flexible integration Fully event-driven
chnology ture add new data IT architec- existing, but no work planning suite tion of new data of new data sources network planning ar-
sources ture in place integration of with new data sources sources on a case- as needed chitecture, capable to
new data to-case base add any required data
sources possible source
Adoption of Available ad- Available ad- Sporadic market Infrequent but reg- Yearly market Market screening for
latest BD vanced ana- vanced analy- screening for available
ular market screening for avail- available advanced
technology for lytics tech- tics technology advanced analytic screening for avail- able advanced analy- analytics tools inte-
NPM nology not identified only tools able advanced tics tools grated in normal cor-
identified incidentally analytic tools (e.g., porate planning cycles
every 2–3 years)
Integration No NPM tools No integration Integration of isolated Integration of most Integration of all Integration of ad-
between dif- used, hence of used standard standard IT tools (e.g., used standard IT used standard IT vanced analytics func-
ferent NPM no integra- IT tools NPM suite and Excel) tools, but no inte- tools, but no integra- tionality directly in
tools tion gration of ad- tion of advanced network planning ap-
vanced analytic analytic tools plication
tools
IT tools Availability of No IT tools Only standard Use of basic function- Use of network Use of single applica- Use of single applica-
IT tools to used IT tools (e.g., ality of network plan- planning applica- tion for all network tion for all network
support NPM MS Office) used ning applications for tion suite for most planning steps, but planning steps and all
process for NPM isolated steps of the planning steps no advanced analy- associated data ana-
network planning pro- tics capabilities lysis
cess (e.g., NetLine
Plan for scheduling
only)

16
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721

Effectiveness All decisionsFew decisions Evidence based deci- Most decisions are All major decisions All major decisions
of decision- are judge- are evidence- sions and judgement evidence-based are evidence-based are evidence-based
support by ment-based, based, but most calls occur with si- and grounded in and grounded in and grounded in data,
network plan- no support bydecisions made milar frequency data and decision data, however deci- and all decision ma-
ning tools IT tools based on ex- makers are trained sion makers are kers are trained to use
perience and in- sporadically to use trained only sporadi- and interpret data on
dividual judge- and interpret data cally to use and in- a regular base
ment terpret data
Advanced No IT tools Basic Excel- Adoption of advanced Adoption of se- Adoption of latest Adoption of latest ad-
analytics cap- used for NPM based tools to analytics tools only if lected advanced advanced analytics vanced analytics tools
abilities of processes support deci- inexpensive and easy analytics tools if tools for network for network planning
network plan- sions with data to implement immediate positive planning purposes purposes and devel-
ning tools profit impact ex- also with long-term opment of customized
pected profitability objec- analytics tools if no
tives existing solution
readily available
Degree of No automa- Simple indivi- Few tactical network Most tactical net- Tactical network op- Most NPM steps auto-
automation of tion of deci- dual tasks auto- optimization decisions work optimization timization decisions matized (both tactical
NPM process sion making matized (e.g., automatized decisions automa- mostly automatized, and strategic)
enabled by IT business plan tized first steps in strategic
tools calculation) NP automatized (e.g.,
route selection)

References
Abbasi, A., Sarker, S., Chiang, R.H.L., 2016. Big data research in information systems:
toward an inclusive research agenda. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 17 (2), i–xxxii.
Abdelghany, A., Abdelghany, K., 2009. Modeling Applications in the Airline Industry.
Ashgate Publishing Limited, Burlington.
Aiken, P., Allen, M.D., Parker, B., Mattia, A., 2007. Measuring data management practice
maturity: a community's self-assessment. IEEE Comput. 40 (4), 42–50.
Akter, S., Wamba, S.F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., Childe, S.J., 2016. How to improve
firm performance using big data analytics capability and business strategy align-
ment? Int. J. Prod. Econ. 182, 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.018.
Amit, R., Schoemaker, P.J.H., 1993. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strateg.
Manag. J. 14 (1), 33–46.
Arunachalam, D., Kumar, N., Kawalek, J.P., 2018. Understanding big data analytics
capabilities in supply chain management: unravelling the issues, challenges and
implications for practice. Transp. Res. E Logist. Transp. Rev. 114, 416–436. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2017.04.001.
Asay, M., 2014. 8 reasons big data projects fail. Retrieved from. https://www.
informationweek.com/big-data/big-data-analytics/8-reasons-big-data-projects-fail/
a/d-id/1297842.
Ayhan, S., Pesce, J., Comitz, P., Sweet, D., Bliesner, S., Gerberick, G., 2013. Predictive
analytics with aviation big data. In: Integrated Communications, Navigation and
Surveillance Conference (ICNS), pp. 1–13 2013.
Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17 (1),
99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108.
Barton, D., Court, D., 2012. Making advanced analytics work for you. Harv. Bus. Rev. 90
(10), 78–83.
Bazargan, M., 2016. Airline Operations and Scheduling. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames.
Becker, J., Knackstedt, R., Pöppelbuß, J., 2009. Developing maturity models for IT
management. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 1 (3), 213–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-
009-0044-5.
Bell, M.G.H., Iida, Y., 1997. Transportation Network Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd,
Chichester.
Berg, B.L., 2004. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, vol. 5 Pearson,
Boston, MA.
Bertram, T., 2017. Breaking Down Big Data: Analyzing Big Data for More Precise
Commercial Planning (Ascend for Airlines No. Issue 1). Retrieved from Sabre Inc.
website. http://www.ascendforairlines.com/sites/default/files/Breaking_Data_0.pdf.
Bharadwaj, A.S., 2000. A resource-based perspective on information technology cap-
ability and firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Q. 24 (1), 169–196.
Bhatt, G.D., Grover, V., 2005. Types of information technology capabilities and their role
in competitive advantage: an empirical study. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 22 (2), 253–277.
Boer, F.G.d., Müller, C.J., Caten, C.S.t., 2015. Assessment model for organizational
business process maturity with a focus on BPM governance practices. Bus. Process
Manag. J. 21 (4), 908–927. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-11-2014-0109.
Bradbury, D., 2018. How big data in aviation is transforming the industry. Retrieved
from. https://de.hortonworks.com/article/how-big-data-in-aviation-is-transforming-
the-industry/.
Brooks, P., El-Gayar, O., Sarnikar, S., 2015. A framework for developing a domain specific
business intelligence maturity model: application to healthcare. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 35
(3), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015.01.011.
Bruin, T., Rosemann, M., Freeze, R., Kulkarni, U., 2005. Understanding the main phases of
developing a maturity assessment model. In: ACIS 2005 Proceedings - 16th
Australasian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 8–19.
Burghouwt, G., 2007. Airline Network Development in Europe and its Implications for
Airport Planning. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, Burlington.
Carmona Benitez, R.B., 2012. The Design of a Large Scale Airline Network. TU Delft: Delft
University of Technology.
Chen, H.-M., Schütz, R., Kazman, R., Matthes, F., 2017. How Lufthansa capitalized on big
data for business model renovation. MIS Q. Exec. 16 (1), 19–34.
Chen, H., Chiang, R.H.L., Storey, V.C., 2012. Business intelligence and analytics: from big
data to big impact. MIS Q. 36 (4), 1165–1188.
Comuzzi, M., Patel, A., 2016. How organisations leverage Big Data: a maturity model.
Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116 (8), 1468–1492.
Cosic, R., Shanks, G., Maynard, S., 2012. Towards a business analytics capability maturity
model. In: ACIS 2012: Location, Location, Location: Proceedings of the 23rd
Australasian Conference on Information Systems, pp. 1–11 2012.
Coughlan, J., Lycett, M., Macredie, R.D., 2005. Understanding the business–IT relation-
ship. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 25 (4), 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2005.
04.003.
Cui, L., Hertz, S., 2011. Networks and capabilities as characteristics of logistics firms. Ind.
Mark. Manag. 40 (6), 1004–1011. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.
039.
Dierickx, I., Cool, K., 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive
advantage. Manag. Sci. 35 (12), 1504–1511.
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., 2007. Theory building from cases: opportunities and
challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50 (1), 25–32.
Fischer, J.-H., Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Hellingrath, B., Martins, R., 2016.
Development and application of a maturity measurement framework for supply chain
flexibility. In: Proceedings of the 48th CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.
41. pp. 514–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.12.107.
Gandomi, A., Haider, M., 2015. Beyond the hype: big data concepts, methods, and ana-
lytics. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 35 (2), 137–144.
George, G., Haas, M.R., Pentland, A., 2014. Big data and management. Acad. Manag. J. 57
(2), 321–326.
Goedeking, P., 2010. Networks in Aviation: Strategies and Structures. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Goes, P.B., 2014. Big data and IS research. MIS Q. 38 (3), iii–viii.
Grosche, T., 2009. Computational Intelligence In Integrated Airline Scheduling (Studies in
Computational Intelligence). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Gupta, M., George, J.F., 2016. Toward the development of a big data analytics capability.
Inf. Manag. 53 (8), 1049–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.07.004.
Heilig, L., Voß, S., 2017. Managing cloud-based big data platforms: a reference archi-
tecture and cost perspective. In: García Márquez, F.P., Lev, B. (Eds.), Big Data
Management. Springer, Cham, pp. 29–45.
Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S., 2004. Design science in information systems
research. MIS Q. 28 (1), 75–105.
Jin, D., Chai, K.-H., Tan, K.-C., 2014. New service development maturity model. Manag.
Serv. Qual. 24 (1), 86–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/MSQ-10-2012-0134.
Kasturi, E., Devi, S.P., Kiran, S.V., Manivannan, S., 2016. Airline route profitability
analysis and optimization using BIG DATA analyticson aviation data sets under
heuristic techniques. Procedia. Comput. Sci. 87, 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
procs.2016.05.131.
Kölker, K., Lütjens, K., 2015. Using genetic algorithms to solve large-scale Airline network
planning problems. procedia. Transp. Res. 10, 900–909. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trpro.2015.09.043.
Lahti, M., Shamsuzzoha, A.H.M., Helo, P., 2009. Developing a maturity model for supply
chain management. Int. J. Logist. Syst. Manag. 5 (6), 654–678.
Laney, D., 2001. 3D data management: controlling data volume, velocity and variety. k 6,
70–74.
LaValle, S., Lesser, E., Shockley, R., Hopkins, M.S., Kruschwitz, N., 2011. Big data, ana-
lytics and the path from insights to value. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 52 (2), 21–31.
Levitin, A.V., Redman, T.C., 1998. Data as a resource: properties, implications, and
prescriptions. Sloan Manag. Rev. 40 (1), 89–101.
Lismont, J., Vanthienen, J., Baesens, B., Lemahieu, W., 2017. Defining analytics maturity
indicators: a survey approach. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37 (3), 114–124. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.12.003.

17
I. Hausladen and M. Schosser
Lockamy, A., McCormack, K., 2004. The development of a supply chain management
process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply
Chain Manag.: Int. J. 9 (4), 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1108/13598540410550019.
Luftman, J., 2000. Assessing business-IT alignment maturity. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 4
(1), 1–50.
Lukman, T., Hackney, R., Popovič, A., Jaklič, J., Irani, Z., 2011. Business intelligence
maturity: the economic transitional context within Slovenia. Inf. Syst. Manag. 28 (3),
211–222.
Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., et al., 2011. Big Data: the Next
Frontier for Innovation, Competition, and Productivity.
Mata, F.J., Fuerst, W.L., Barney, J.B., 1995. Information technology and sustained com-
petitive advantage: a resource-based analysis. MIS Q. 19 (4), 487–505.
McAfee, A., Brynjolfsson, E., 2012. Big data: the management revolution. Harv. Bus. Rev.
90 (10), 61–67.
Melville, N., Kraemer, K., Gurbaxani, V., 2004. Information technology and organiza-
tional performance: an integrative model of it business value. MIS Q. 28 (2),
283–322.
Mendes, P., Leal, J.E., Thomé, A.M.T., 2016. A maturity model for demand-driven supply
chains in the consumer product goods industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 179, 153–165.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.06.004.
Morash, E.A., Droge, C.L.M., Vickery, S.K., 1996. Strategic logistics capabilities for
competitive advantage and firm success. J. Bus. Logist. 17 (1), 1–22.
Moreno-Izquierdo, L., Ramón-Rodríguez, A., Perles Ribes, J., 2015. The impact of the
internet on the pricing strategies of the European low cost airlines. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
246 (2), 651–660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.05.013.
Muller, L., Hart, M., 2016. Updating business intelligence and analytics maturity models
for new developments. In: International Conference on Decision Support System
Technology, pp. 137–151.
Neff, A.A., Dreier, S., Hamel, F., Uebernickel, F., Brenner, W., 2013. The influence of IT
governance on service processes in multi-business manufacturing enterprises: per-
formance impacts from structures, processes, and relational mechanisms. In:
Proceedings of the Nineteenth Americas Conference on Information Systems. 1–9.
Neff, A.A., Hamel, F., Herz, T.P., Uebernickel, F., Brenner, W., Vom Brocke, J., 2014.
Developing a maturity model for service systems in heavy equipment manufacturing
enterprises. Inf. Manag. 51 (7), 895–911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.05.001.
Noyes, K., 2014. For the airline industry, big data is cleared for take-off. Retrieved from.
http://fortune.com/2014/06/19/big-data-airline-industry/.
Olavarrieta, S., Ellinger, A.E., 1997. Resource‐based theory and strategic logistics re-
search. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 27 (9/10), 559–587. https://doi.org/10.
1108/09600039710188594.
Oliva, F.L., 2014. Knowledge management barriers, practices and maturity model. J.
Knowl. Manag. 18 (6), 1053–1074. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-03-2014-0080.
Parra, X., Tort-Martorell, X., Ruiz-ViÁ ± als, C., Álvarez-Gómez, F., 2017. CHROMA: a
maturity model for the information-driven decision-making process. Int. J. Manag.
Decis. Mak. 16 (3), 224–242. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDM.2017.085633.
Paulk, M., Curtis, B., Weber, C., 1993. Capability maturity model for software. IEEE
Software 10 (4), 18–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471028959.sof589.
Penrose, E.T., 1959. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm. Wiley, New York.
Plomp, M.G.A., Batenburg, R.S., 2010. Measuring chain digitisation maturity: an assess-
ment of Dutch retail branches. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 15 (3), 227–237. https://
doi.org/10.1108/13598541011039983.
Poeppelbuß, J., Niehaves, B., Simons, A., Becker, J., 2011. Maturity models in informa-
tion systems research: literature search and analysis. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 29
(1), 27.
Pöppelbuß, J., Röglinger, M., 2011. What makes a useful maturity model? A framework
of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business
process management. ECIS 2011 Proceedings 28.
Porter, M.E., 1980. Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and
Competitors. Simon and Schuster, New York.
Raber, D., Winter, R., Wortmann, F., 2012. Using quantitative analyses to construct a
capability maturity model for business intelligence. In: Proceedings of the 45th
Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 4219–4228. https://doi.
18
Journal of Air Transport Management 82 (2020) 101721
org/10.1109/HICSS.2012.630.
Röglinger, M., Pöppelbuß, J., Becker, J., 2012. Maturity models in business process
management. Bus. Process Manag. J. 18 (2), 328–346. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14637151211225225.
Rohrbeck, R., 2011. The maturity model of corporate foresight. In: Rohrbeck, R. (Ed.),
Corporate Foresight: towards a Maturity Model for the Future Orientation of a Firm.
Physica-Verlag HD, Heidelberg, pp. 71–121.
Rosemann, M., Bruin, T. de, 2005. Towards a business process managment maturity
model. ECIS 2005 Proceedings 37.
Ross, J.W., Beath, C.M., Goodhue, D.L., 1996. Develop long-term competitiveness through
it assets. Sloan Manag. Rev. 38 (1), 31.
Rumelt, R.P., 1984. Towards a strategic theory of the firm. In: Lamb, R. (Ed.), Competitive
Strategic Management. Prencice Hall, New Jersey, pp. 131–145.
Salah, D., Paige, R., Cairns, P., 2014. An evaluation template for expert review of maturity
models. In: Jedlitschka, A., Kuvaja, P., Kuhrmann, M., Männistö, T., Münch, J.,
Raatikainen, M. (Eds.), Product-Focused Software Process Improvement: 15th
International Conference, PROFES 2014, Helsinki, Finland, December 10-12, 2014.
Proceedings, pp. 318–321 (Cham: Springer).
Saldaña, J., 2016. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd. SAGE
Publications, London.
Schiele, H., 2007. Supply-management maturity, cost savings and purchasing absorptive
capacity: testing the procurement–performance link. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 13 (4),
274–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2007.10.002.
Sterzenbach, R., Conrady, R., Fichert, F., 2013. Luftverkehr: Betriebswirtschaftliches
Lehr- und Handbuch. München: Oldenbourg Wissenschaftsverlag.
Tarhan, A., Turetken, O., Reijers, H.A., 2016. Business process maturity models: a sys-
tematic literature review. Inf. Softw. Technol. 75, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.infsof.2016.01.010.
van Looy, A., Poels, G., Snoeck, M., 2017. Evaluating business process maturity models. J.
Assoc. Inf. Syst. 18 (6), 461–486.
Vlahogianni, E.I., Park, B.B., van Lint, J.W.C., 2015. Big data in transportation and traffic
engineering. Transp. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 58, 161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.
2015.08.006.
Vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., et al., 2009.
Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature
search process. In: 17th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2009),
Verona, Italy, pp. 2206–2217.
Wamba, S.F., Akter, S., Edwards, A., Chopin, G., Gnanzou, D., 2015. How ‘big data’ can
make big impact: findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study. Int.
J. Prod. Econ. 165, 234–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.031.
Wang, G., Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E.W.T., Papadopoulos, T., 2016. Big data analytics in
logistics and supply chain management: certain investigations for research and ap-
plications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 176, 98–110.
Watson, H., Ariyachandra, T., Matyska Jr., R.J., 2001. Data warehousing stages of
growth. Inf. Syst. Manag. 18 (3), 42.
Watson, H.J., Wixom, B.H., Hoffer, J.A., Anderson-Lehman, R., Reynolds, A.M., 2006.
Real-time business intelligence: best practices at continental airlines. Inf. Syst.
Manag. 23 (1), 7–18.
Willner, O., Gosling, J., Schönsleben, P., 2016. Establishing a maturity model for design
automation in sales-delivery processes of ETO products. Comput. Ind. 82, 57–68.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2016.05.003.
Wittmer, A., Bieger, T., Müller, R. (Eds.), 2011. Aviation Systems: Management of the
Integrated Aviation Value Chain. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Wixom, B.H., Watson, H.J., Reynolds, A.M., Hoffer, J.A., 2008. Continental airlines
continues to soar with business intelligence. Inf. Syst. Manag. 25 (2), 102–112.
Xu, Y., 2011. Competitive network and competitive behavior: a study of the U.S. Airline
industry. Acad. Strat. Manag. J. 10 (1), 45–63.
Yew Wong, C., Karia, N., 2010. Explaining the competitive advantage of logistics service
providers: a resource-based view approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 128 (1), 51–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.08.026.
Yin, R.K., 2017. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE
Publications, Thousand Oaks.