International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

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

Understanding the impact of big data on firm performance: The necessity of

conceptually differentiating among big data characteristics
Maryam Ghasemaghaei
DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This study uses the resource-based view to explore the impact of data volume, data velocity, and data variety,
Big data which are the main characteristics of big data, on firm performance and the mediating roles of data value and
Firm performance data veracity on these relationships. To test the research model, we collected data from 143 top and middle level
Data value
managers in the United States. The findings show that data variety positively improves data value generation,
Data veracity
Data velocity
whereas data volume and data velocity do not impact it. Additionally, while data volume negatively impacts data
Data variety veracity, data velocity and data variety positively impact it. Findings indicate the necessity of conceptually
Data volume differentiating among big data characteristics in investigating their impacts on firm outcomes instead of treating
big data as a holistic variable. The study provides useful insights for researchers and managers willing to better
understand the role of big data characteristics in influencing firm performance.

1. Introduction
Firms have spent significant effort in building their capabilities for
enhancing their ability to process big data which could have several
advantages for firms (Davenport & Harris, 2017; Ghasemaghaei & Calic,
2019a). For example, big data could help firms in enhancing their
artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities by offering them the opportunity
to develop advanced algorithms to improve their decision-making
quality and consequently their firm outcomes (Makridakis, 2017). Un­
precedented growth in data has provided an exciting frontier of op­
portunity and productivity for firms in the last few years (Acharya,
Singh, Pereira, & Singh, 2018; Ghasemaghaei, 2019a). A recent study
shows that the market for big data technology is growing considerably at
about 23 percent annually, and reaching $48 billion in 2019 (Grover,
Chiang, Liang, & Zhang, 2018). The literature considers big data the
“next frontier for competition and productivity,” and the next “man­
agement revolution” (Wamba, Akter, Edwards, Chopin, & Gnanzou,
2015). Therefore, big data, which is characterized mainly by volume,
velocity, and variety (Ghasemaghaei, Ebrahimi, & Hassanein, 2017;
Ghasemaghaei, 2018a, 2018b) could create value for firms and improve
their performance. However, recent articles suggest that investing in big
data poses many issues and challenges (Tarafdar, Gupta, & Turel, 2013).
Some scholars call for new research to explore whether investing in big
data could improve a firm’s productivity and its performance (Akter,
Wamba, Gunasekaran, Dubey, & Childe, 2016; Kiron, Prentice, &
Ferguson, 2014). Current academic studies (e.g., Kamble & Gunase­
karan, 2019; Maroufkhani, Wagner, Wan Ismail, Baroto, & Nourani,
2019; McAfee, Brynjolfsson, Davenport, Patil, & Barton, 2012) focus
largely on anecdotal evidence, and little is known about the role of each
big data characteristic in improving a firm’s performance. This study is
an attempt to address this gap in the literature.
In this paper, we focus on firm total performance, which is the firm
profitability and growth compared to that of other competitors (Powell,
1995). Utilizing big data may help firms to obtain a competitive
advantage by improving their total performance. However, although
utilizing big data have potential benefits for firms, many of them are still
unsure about whether utilizing big data could improve their perfor­
mance relative to their competitors (Ghasemaghaei, Hassanein, & Turel,
2017, 2017b; Grover et al., 2018; Johnson, Friend, & Lee, 2017; Kwon,
Lee, & Shin, 2014). A survey by Gartner (2016) revealed that although
investments in big data continue to grow, many big data projects
delivered disappointing results. In 2017, sixty percent of big data pro­
jects failed to go beyond the pilot phase (Grover et al., 2018). These
issues made many firms uncertain about whether investing in big data
could enhance their performance (Grover et al., 2018). Responding to
this uncertainty, the first objective of this paper is to explore the effect of
big data characteristics on firm total performance. As suggested by
previous research, total firm performance is measured by assessing firm
profitability and growth in the market (Powell & Dent-Micallef, 1997;
Powell, 1995).

E-mail address: ghasemm@mcmaster.ca.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.102055
Received 1 August 2019; Received in revised form 10 October 2019; Accepted 10 December 2019
Available online 25 December 2019
0268-4012/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Ghasemaghaei
Volume, velocity, and variety are the main three Vs that characterize
big data. Volume refers to the size of the data, which is increasingly
growing; velocity refers to the speed of processing data; and variety
refers to types of the data, which ranges from unstructured to structured
data (Ghasemaghaei, 2018a). In addition to these three Vs, some studies
have suggested value (extraction of economic benefits from big data)
and veracity (the certainty and consistency of big data) as other char­
acteristics of big data (Dijcks, 2012; Wamba et al., 2015). However,
recent studies argue that the nucleus of the concept of big data is
explained by volume, velocity, and variety, and suggest that value and
veracity could be the endogenous variables of big data (Ghasemaghaei,
Ebrahimi et al., 2017; Lam, Sleep, Hennig-Thurau, Sridhar, & Saboo,
2017). However, to the best of our knowledge, no study has investigated
the impact of the three key big data characteristics on data value and
veracity. Consequently, the second objective is to explore the effect of
each big data characteristic (i.e., volume, velocity, and variety) on data
value, and data veracity, which may eventually impact firm
performance.
To address the research gaps and the above goals, we used the
resource-based view (RBV) of firms (Barney, 1991) to answer (1) do big
data characteristics (i.e., volume, velocity, and variety) impact data
value and data veracity? And (2) do data value and data veracity
mediate the effect of the three main characteristics (i.e., volume, ve­
locity, and variety) on firm performance? We adopted the RBV because
it focuses on generating value and improving firm performance by uti­
lizing a firm’s relevant resources (Ghasemaghaei, 2018a; Gunasekaran
et al., 2017; Ji-fan Ren, Fosso Wamba, Akter, Dubey, & Childe, 2017;
Kaufman, 2015). To answer the above questions, we empirically
examined the relationships in the research model, collecting data from
143 managers. The findings of this study help managers and researchers
to better apprehend the impact of big data on improving firm perfor­
mance. Moreover, the results provide a useful guideline for under­
standing whether each big data characteristic (i.e., volume, velocity, and
variety) could be an antecedent of the value and the veracity of the data
generated within firms.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. We first discuss
the relevant literature to explain big data characteristics, and resource-
based view. We then discuss the research model. Following this will be
the research method and the result section. Before concluding, we
discuss our contribution to theory and practice as well as the limitations
of the paper and their future potential.
2. Relevant literature
2.1. Big data characteristics
Laney (2001) has suggested that velocity, volume, and variety are
the main three dimensions of challenges in data management. These
three Vs were identified later as the main characteristics of big data
(Chen, Chiang, & Storey, 2012; Kwon et al., 2014). Gartner defines big
data as the data that is high in variety, velocity, and volume. Likewise,
TechAmerica Foundation defines big data as the data that has high ve­
locity, large volumes, and high variety, which requires advanced tech­
nologies to collect, store, distribute, and analyze the data (Commission,
2012; Gandomi & Haider, 2015). Shafer (2018) argue that studies have
extended the “3 V’s” of velocity, volume, and variety and added 42 di­
mensions (e.g., variability, validity) to big data characteristics. How­
ever, many studies argue that the three Vs of volume, velocity, and
variety explain the nucleus of the concept of big data (Chen, Preston, &
Swink, 2015; Ghasemaghaei, Ebrahimi et al., 2017; Gupta, Kar, Baab­
dullah, & Al-Khowaiter, 2018; Lam et al., 2017; Ward & Barker, 2013).
Data volume refers to amounts of data (Ghasemaghaei & Calic,
2019a). While one zettabyte of data was created in 2010, more than
forty zettabytes of data will be generated by 2020 (Lam et al., 2017).
Firms have begun to collect and analyze large sizes of data to enhance
their existing knowledge and make better decisions (Ghasemaghaei &
2
International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055
Calic, 2019b; Larson & Chang, 2016). For example, American Apparel
collects large sizes of data from different social networks to understand
consumers’ emotions about its products. Processing large amounts of
data enabled this company to enhance its insight about its consumers’
behavior which consequently improved its financial performance
compared to its competitors (Brynjolfsson, Hu, & Rahman, 2013; Sun,
Zhao, & Sun, 2018). Advances in data management (e.g., cloud
computing, virtualization) are facilitating the development of platforms
to effectively collect, process and analyze large sizes of data (Raghupathi
& Raghupathi, 2014).
Data velocity is the speed of generating and analyzing data (Ghase­
maghaei & Calic, 2019a). The proliferation of digital devices, such as
sensors and smartphones, has considerably enhanced the rate of data
generation, which has led to a growing need for analyzing data in
real-time (Gandomi & Haider, 2015). For example, the real-time anal­
ysis of data about customers, such as their buying patterns and their
geospatial location, could create real customer value for firms. Big data
platforms such as Storm (Gulisano, Jimenez-Peris, Patino-Martinez,
Soriente, & Valduriez, 2012) and SQLstream (Chen & Zhang, 2014),
which provide real-time analysis, help firms to increase their knowledge
about their environment and better sense changes in the market in a
timely manner (Gandomi & Haider, 2015; Ghasemaghaei, Ebrahimi
et al., 2017).
Data variety refers to the diversity of data types, which include both
structured (e.g., numbers) and unstructured data (e.g., pictures,
customer reviews, audio, sensor data) (Lam et al., 2017). Diverse data is
created not only internally but also from external sources (Grover et al.,
2018). Technological advancements give firms access to data beyond the
firms’ business transactions (Yaqoob et al., 2016). For example, tech­
nological advancements help firms get access to large volumes of het­
erogeneous data, such as user-generated content, mobile transactions,
social media, and user online activities (e.g., purchasing patterns,
browsing) (Lehrer, Wieneke, vom Brocke, Jung, & Seidel, 2018).
Ghasemaghaei (2019b) argues that data that is high in terms of
volume, velocity, and variety help firms to enhance value generation by
enabling them to automate decisions that were previously dependent on
human judgment and intuition. Hence, by processing large volumes of
various types of data in a timely manner firms would have greater op­
portunity to make evidence-based decisions which enable firms to
compete in the marketplace. Hartmann, Zaki, Feldmann, and Neely
(2016) also argue that processing large amounts of various types of data
may create business value by optimizing and improving the current
business processes, services, and practices. Ghasemaghaei and Calic
(2019b) argue that firms that constantly collect data from various
sources may be able to improve their quality and certainty of data by
reducing bias and errors stemming from a limited amount of data. In
general, processing data with such characteristics would have various
advantages for firms. For example, with the rapid advancement in
processing high volumes of different types of data in almost real time,
AI, which refers to the ability of machine to perform human-like tasks,
and learn from experience, is being revitalized with the power and
availability of big data (Duan, Edwards, & Dwivedi, 2019). As in the
literature, data volume, data velocity, and data variety have been
considered the main characteristics of big data, in this study, we
investigated the impact of these 3 Vs on firm data veracity and its value
generation which may eventually influence firm performance.
2.2. Resource-based view
The resource-based view (RBV) argues that the performance of firms
is determined by their key resources (Barney, 1991). The resources can
be tangible and intangible assets within the organization such as the
information and knowledge, and firm processes and routines (Armstrong
& Shimizu, 2007). According to this theory, valuable, rare, inimitable,
and non-substitutable resources can create competitive advantages for
firms by generating value and improving firm performance (Barney,
M. Ghasemaghaei
Fig. 1. Research model.
1991). The advantage can be sustained over long periods of time to the
extent that the firm would be able to protect against resource transfer,
imitation, or substitution (Wade & Hulland, 2004). Empirical studies
that used this theory have strongly supported it (e.g., Alexy, West,
Klapper, & Reitzig, 2018; Bacq & Eddleston, 2018; Miller & Shamsie,
1996). Bharadwaj, Bharadwaj, and Bendoly (2007) argue that firms can
increase the value of their resources in the presence of other comple­
mentary resources because the joint value of complementary resources
is higher than the total value of each resource. In the context of big data,
“data” is increasingly viewed as a vital and intangible resource for
enhancing firm performance (Ghasemaghaei, Hassanein et al., 2017,
2017b; Ghasemaghaei, 2018a). Based on RBV, being able to process big
data can render competitive advantage (Ghasemaghaei, 2018b). Thus,
firms that are able to utilize data that is high in volume, velocity, and
variety have access to a valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable
resource (Ghasemaghaei, 2018a). In this study, we focus mainly on the
role of this critical firm resource in creating value for firms because
being able to process such data enhances firm capabilities which even­
tually improve firm outcomes. As data velocity, data volume, and data
variety are identified to be the key characteristics of big data, to consider
all the relevant complementary resources, we explore the impact of the
three big data characteristics on firm performance.
Despite a substantial number of empirical studies, in the context of
data analytics, the results of the impact of firm resources on its perfor­
mance are often inconsistent. While some studies observe a positive link
between big data utilization and firm outcomes (Chen et al., 2015;
Wamba et al., 2017), others suggest that big data utilization is not
necessarily associated with improving firm performance (Ghasema­
ghaei, Hassanein et al., 2017, 2017b). Akter et al. (2016) argue that
investment in big data poses many challenges, as many of the firms that
invested in big data utilization could still not improve their perfor­
mance. Given the inconsistent and often contrary findings, it is unclear
whether there is a direct positive link between utilizing big data and firm
total performance.
To address this challenge, many studies consider “firm capabilities”
as the mediator between resources (such as big data) and firm perfor­
mance (Banker, Bardhan, & Asdemir, 2006; Barua, Konana, Whinston, &
Yin, 2004; Bharadwaj, 2000; Bhatt & Grover, 2005; Fink & Neumann,
2009). Firm capabilities are certain attributes of the firm that deal with
management challenges (Liang, You, & Liu, 2010). These capabilities
facilitate the deployment of a firm’s other key resources in enhancing
firm performance (Gupta & George, 2016). In the context of big data,
some studies suggest data veracity and data value as other characteris­
tics of big data (Dijcks, 2012; Iview, 2012; Wamba et al., 2015; White,
2012). However, a firm’s capability to clean data to provide reliable data
(i.e., data veracity), and its ability to extract economically-worthy in­
sights (i.e., data value), are considered to be the endogenous variables of
big data (Ghasemaghaei, Ebrahimi et al., 2017; Lam et al., 2017), and
could be considered firm capabilities that facilitate the effect of big data
characteristics on firm performance. As the effect of big data on firm
performance is still not well understood (Abbasi, Sarker, & Chiang,
2016; Phillips, 2017; Wang, Kung, Wang, & Cegielski, 2017), we use
RBV to investigate the mediating role of data value and data veracity in
the influence of data volume, data velocity, and data variety on firm
performance. These relationships are explained in the next section.
3
International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055
3. Research model
Fig. 1 presents the research model that investigates the effect of big
data characteristics on data veracity and data value, which could
improve firm performance.
As we discussed earlier, in this research, we focused on firm total
performance which is the firm’s profitability and growth compared to its
competitors (Powell, 1995). Studies have used different indicators to
measure firm total performance. These indicators include a firm’s
financial performance, revenue growth, and profitability (Powell,
1995). The economic benefits generated by utilizing big data could
improve firm total performance. Brynjolfsson, Hitt, and Kim (2011))
argue that the value generated by making data-driven decisions could
potentially improve firm productivity by 5–6 %. Tambe (2014) argues
that firms that invest in Hadoop (a popular open-source framework that
enables parallel processing) to better generate economically worthy
insights from data could have 3 % faster productivity growth compared
to other firms. According to Ghasemaghaei (2019a), when firms
generate more economic value than marginal value and competitors
would not be able to copy such capabilities, firms will be able to enhance
their performance more than other firms. Based on the RBV, a firm’s
capability to generate benefits from processing data (i.e., data value)
could have a positive impact on firm performance (Wamba et al., 2017).
Hence,
H1. Data value is positively associated with firm performance.
The messiness of data makes the usefulness and trustworthiness of
the data difficult. Data with low veracity enhances a firm’s expenses in
managing functional activities, as it is difficult to process such data and
it may provide misleading results (Ghasemaghaei, 2019a; Raghunathan,
1999). Lam et al. (2017) argue that low-quality data enhances the
complexity of new operations, slows down decision-making, and creates
self-doubt in the management team about its decisions. Although
advanced technologies could discover patterns in data, the ultimate
insight generated from data depends on its quality (Lycett, 2013). Data
with high errors, redundancy, and inconsistency would not have value
for firms and may eventually reduce firm performance, as it would be
difficult for firms to generate valuable and in-depth insights from such
data (Shollo & Galliers, 2016). Mithas, Ramasubbu, and Sambamurthy
(2011)) argue that processing reliable and consistent data is critical to
efficiently manage business processes that connect the firm with its
suppliers, customers, and business partners. Kwon et al. (2014) also
suggest that well-managed data through quality fosters the tactical
strategic usage of the data and ensures production of reliable informa­
tion. In addition, according to RBV, firm capabilities are positively
associated with firm outcomes. Therefore, a firm’s capability to process
high reliable data could have a positive impact on firm performance.
Hence,
H2. Data veracity is positively associated with firm performance.
Data with low reliability is unusable for consumption and could have
a direct effect on reducing value-generation in firms (Warth, Kaiser, &
Kügler, 2011). Notably, when firms have access to reliable and consis­
tent data, they find such data to be more useful in creating benefits for
them (Filieri, 2015; Grover et al., 2018). However, firms that integrate
M. Ghasemaghaei International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055

data from external and internal sources often collect data that is low in H6. Data velocity is positively associated with data value.
veracity. For example, there is no doubt that user-generated content in
The increasing use of digital devices such as sensors and smartphones
social media could provide insight about consumer preferences and
has led to an unprecedented rate of data generation, which motivates
needs. However, the primary challenge of creating value for a firm is to
firms to process data in a real-time manner to provide evidence-based
ensure the reliability of that data. Firm ability to sustain an adequate
decisions (Gandomi & Haider, 2015). Based on the RBV, processing
quality level of corporate data is critical to generate strategic and
data in real-time may enhance firms’ capability in processing high ve­
operational value for firms (Kwon et al., 2014). According to the RBV,
racity data. Specifically, firms that are capable of collecting data from
firms need to have the capability to increase the quality of data in order
various sources in real-time could have access to more consistent data
to generate benefits that are higher than the cost of collecting and
about a specific task on hand. While traditional data management sys­
analyzing it (Abbasi et al., 2016). Therefore, data filtering and cleaning
tems were not able to quickly handle vast sizes of data, advanced
have become essential for firms to generate economic benefits. Hence,
real-time big data platforms such as SQLstream (Chen & Zhang, 2014)
H3. Data veracity is positively associated with data value. and Storm (Gulisano et al., 2012) enable firms to provide insights from
large sizes of perishable data. As data changes continuously, firms that
Based on the RBV, we could consider data volume to be a firm’s
are capable of collecting and processing data promptly can have access
intangible resource that may enhance firm performance by enhancing a
to more consistent and certain data. For example, firms that have the
firm’s capability to generate value from data. In particular, utilizing
capability to process their consumers’ geospatial location, their online
large volumes of data enables firms to make evidence-based decisions
reviews, and their demographics in real-time can have access to more
and generate actionable and economically-worthy insights (Gandomi &
consistent and confident data about their customers compared to the
Haider, 2015; Xie, Wu, Xiao, & Hu, 2016). For example, processing large
firms that process such data in the near future. Hence,
sizes of data increases a firm’s certainty about consumer past, current,
and future behavior (Lam et al., 2017). Therefore, the practitioner and H7. Data velocity is positively associated with data veracity.
academic literature have been focused on the value that firms could
According to RBV, a firm’s capability to utilize a large variety of data
generate through processing large sizes of data (Popovič, Hackney,
could have a positive impact on generating value for it. Specifically,
Tassabehji, & Castelli, 2018). Recent studies show that firms in the top
utilizing a high variety of data makes it possible for firms to fuse the data
third of their industry make data-driven decisions by analyzing large
together and compare them to make a complete data set (Feit, Wang,
sizes of data, and on average, are 6 % more profitable and 5 % more
Bradlow, & Fader, 2013; Lam et al., 2017). Firms can collect different
productive compared to their competitors (Lam et al., 2017). Thus, firms
types of data, such as GPS location information, audio, videos, sensor
may be able to generate economically-worthy insights and provide
data, weblogs, texts, and social media data, to generate value (Ghase­
economic benefits when they analyze large amounts of data about their
maghaei, Ebrahimi et al., 2017; Lash & Zhao, 2016). This will allow
environment, their market, and their customers. Hence,
firms to take advantage of new market opportunities. For example, firms
H4. Data volume is positively associated with data value. can get data from various sources (e.g., pictures, images, user-generated
content) to better understand consumers’ needs and preferences. Pro­
To generate value from processing large volumes of data, firms
cessing both structured and unstructured data may help firms generate
should process highly reliable data (Ghasemaghaei, 2018a). To analyze
worthy insight and value as they could discover non-obvious and new
large sizes of data, firms commonly collect data from external and in­
patterns in data that can help them to improve their decisions. Thus,
ternal sources, which may provide messy data (Lam et al., 2017).
having access to different types of data provide a diverse richness that
However, firms often use techniques and methods (e.g., data scrubbing)
far surpasses traditional data. Hence,
to remove the errors and discrepancies in data (Cai & Zhu, 2015). Some
studies suggest that collecting and integrating data from various sources H8. Data variety is positively associated with data value.
reduce the bias and errors that stem from analyzing limited amounts of
Additionally, based on the RBV, utilizing a high variety of data may
data (Lukoianova & Rubin, 2014). For example, to provide personalized
increase firms’ capability in processing high veracity data. In particular,
offers to the customers, firms often collect large volumes of data about
firms that are capable of processing different formats of data can
them from various sources (e.g., previous transactions, social media) to
generate profound and valuable insights (Erevelles, Fukawa, & Swayne,
possess more confident and consistent data about them. Having more
2016; Ghasemaghaei, Ebrahimi, & Hassanein, 2016; Petrini & Pozzebon,
confident data enables firms to improve their service quality, better
2009), as they have access to more consistent data about specific tasks.
understand their customer needs and better predict and prevent risks
For example, firms that are hiring new employees often try to collect
(Ghasemaghaei & Calic, 2019b). As according to the RBV, big data is a
data about potential candidates from various sources (e.g., work expe­
vital firm resource in enhancing firm capabilities, processing large vol­
rience, social media) to generate more reliable information about the
umes of data may enhance firms’ capability in processing high quality of
applicants; this enables firms to make better hiring decisions. Wang,
data. Hence,
Kung, and Byrd (2016) argue that processing different forms of data
H5. Data volume is positively associated with data veracity. reduces uncertainty for firms in making decisions. Thus, combining a
variety of data (e.g., past purchase histories, physiological data) pro­
Based on RBV, firms’ capability to enhance the speed of processing
vides rich data for firms and enables them to process more reliable data.
and analyzing data may help them generate value. For example, utilizing
Hence,
data promptly enables firms to make decisions in real-time. Specifically,
instead of making decisions in the near future, processing data in real- H9. Data variety is positively associated with data veracity.
time allows firms to solve their issues on a continuous basis (Manyika
& Roxburgh, 2011; Saboo, Kumar, & Park, 2016). For example, firms 4. Research method
can process customers’ data on-time to make real-time adjustments and
to offer them situational and specific personalization. This could help 4.1. Sample
firms to generate benefits by extracting and transforming data in a
timely manner. Particularly, firms that have access to insightful, and We use a survey method to test the links in the research model. Data
current data are able to make better decisions based on evidence at a was collected from respondents in firms representing different in­
time instead of laboratory-based research or intuition which may dustries. Participants had managerial positions, including middle-level
improve value generation within firms. Hence, managers and executive managers in the United States who had
knowledge about utilizing big data within their firms. A total of 143

4
M. Ghasemaghaei International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055

Table 1 Table 2
Characteristics of the samples. Summary statistics of variables.
Dimension Category Percentage (%) Variable Mean Std. dev. Min Max

Gender Female 48 Data Volume 4.74 1.18 1 7

Male 52 Data Velocity 4.46 1.00 1 6.75
Education High School 14 Data Variety 4.64 1.09 1 7
College diploma 15 Data Veracity 4.26 0.85 1 7
Bachelor’s degree 39 Data Value 4.61 1.07 1 7
Master’s degree 27 Performance 4.48 1.06 1 6.40
Ph.D. degree 5
Age 20-29 years old 24 Note: All measures represent seven-point scales ranging from 1 to 7.
30-39 years old 38
40-49 years old 20
50-59 years old 10
8
Benbasat, 1991). To consider the differences among firms, we used firm
>60
Role Executive Manager/Vice President 38
Business unit/department Manager 13 revenue and industry as control variables. In the next section, we discuss
Middle Level Manager 49 the results of the measurement model, the structural model, and the post
Firm Revenue < 1 million 16 hoc analysis.
1million-5 million 14
5 million-10 million 22
10 million-20 million 15
5. Results
20 million-50 million 11
50 million-500 million 13 To assess the proposed model, we used partial least squares (PLS) to
500 million-1 billion 2 analyze the survey data. The measurement model was first evaluated
> 1 billion 7
following by assessing the structural model to examine the hypothesized
Firm Size <100 employees 41
100-1000 employees 35 links among the variables.
1001-5000 employees 10
> 5000 employees 14 5.1. Measurement model
Industry Type Manufacturing 27
Utilities 15
Services 54 Table 2 presents the summary statistics of the constructs in the
Financial 4 research model. We examined the psychometric properties of the scales
in terms of discriminant validity, internal consistency, and item load­
ings. As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the item loadings and internal con­
sistencies for all factors in the research model are higher than 0.70,
which is considered to be an acceptable threshold (Darroch, 2005). We
used Belkin’s (1996) guideline to assess the discriminant validity of the
usable responses were collected. As Armstrong and Overton (1977)
variables. As shown in Table 3, all the indicators load more highly on
recommend, we conducted wave analysis which involves comparing
their corresponding variables than on other constructs in the proposed
responses by wave to measure the nonresponse bias. Specifically, we
model. In addition, as can be seen in Table 4, the square root of the
compared the last and first quartile of respondents regarding de­
average variance extracted (AVE) is larger than the correlation between
mographic characteristics and main study constructs. Findings illus­
each construct with other constructs in the model. Thus, the results
trated that the later respondents were quite similar to the early ones. In
support the discriminant validity of the constructs in the model.
other words, the nonresponse bias is not an issue for this study. Table 1
We conducted Harman’s single-factor test (Dumbill, 2012; Lash &
demonstrates the characteristics of respondents.
Zhao, 2016; Lehrer et al., 2018) and the correlational marker variable
technique (Jones-Farmer, Ezell, & Hazen, 2014; Kitchens, Dobolyi, Li, &
4.2. Measures and questionnaire administration Abbasi, 2018) to examine the potential of common method variance
(CMV). Consistent with established guidelines, the results of Harman’s
The data is collected using a cross-sectional survey. Gable (1994) single-factor test identified several factors and none of the factors had
states that survey can help to understand the relations between the study the majority of the variance. Thus, CMV does not appear to be a problem
variables and detect in-depth information. As shown in Appendix A (see in this study. In addition, as many studies have recommended (e.g.,
Table A1), the survey contained existing valid instruments that were Pavlou, Liang, & Xue, 2007; Xu, Benbasat, & Cenfetelli, 2014), the
adapted for this study, except for data value, which does not have a marker-variable technique was also conducted (Lindell & Whitney,
validated scale in the literature. To validate and operationalize data 2001). The results of this analysis showed that the path coefficients and
value, we borrowed Moore & Benbasat’s (1991) guideline. This guide­ correlations were not significantly different between the new model
line focuses on item creation based on the literature review, developing (included a marker variable) and the original model and the links from
scale based on using panels of judges to sort the items, and testing the marker variable to the variables in the research model were not signif­
instrument through a survey. Based on this guideline, after conducting a icant. These findings further support our argument that CMV is not an
literature review and identifying the potential measurement items by issue and it is not likely to bias the results of the study.
two professors and one PhD student, we asked a panel of graduate stu­
dents to give their feedback about the measurement items. Based on 5.2. Structural model
their comments, the items were revised, and then they were randomly
shown to three PhD students who classified the items for the construct. After assessing the measurement validity, we examine the structural
After updating the items, another three PhD students classified the model, using PLS. We used the bootstrapping technique to calculate the
survey items based on the definition of the construct. The average path coefficients. The path coefficients for the research model are
consistency rate between the judges was ninety-two percent. The final illustrated in Fig. 2. The summary of the hypothesis findings is shown in
items for measuring data value are shown in Appendix A and in the Table 5. As this table shows, while H1, H3, H7, H8, and H9 are sup­
measurement model’s validation stage it was further examined. This ported, H2, H4, H5, and H6 are not supported. Furthermore, the results
process helped in high validity and reliability of the items (Moore & show that data veracity, data variety, and data volume explain about 52

5
M. Ghasemaghaei International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055

Table 3
Loading of measures.
Value Variety Velocity Veracity Volume Performance

Data Value1 0.78 0.52 0.41 0.43 0.38 0.30

Data Value2 0.81 0.52 0.36 0.43 0.31 0.28
Data Value3 0.75 0.45 0.37 0.53 0.27 0.30
Data Value4 0.76 0.49 0.35 0.45 0.36 0.29
Data Variety1 0.57 0.81 0.44 0.41 0.57 0.38
Data Variety2 0.49 0.83 0.36 0.42 0.54 0.22
Data Variety3 0.52 0.82 0.35 0.38 0.44 0.15
Data Velocity1 0.35 0.35 0.75 0.46 0.31 0.38
Data Velocity2 0.43 0.41 0.79 0.47 0.30 0.41
Data Velocity3 0.38 0.40 0.79 0.49 0.27 0.34
Data Velocity4 0.35 0.32 0.79 0.47 0.29 0.34
Data Veracity1 0.39 0.30 0.51 0.70 0.03 0.13
Data Veracity2 0.37 0.36 0.38 0.70 0.27 0.15
Data Veracity3 0.53 0.41 0.43 0.81 0.17 0.29
Data Volume1 0.41 0.58 0.30 0.22 0.88 0.18
Data Volume2 0.40 0.56 0.31 0.18 0.87 0.26
Data Volume3 0.27 0.53 0.31 0.10 0.79 0.15
Data Volume4 0.34 0.47 0.35 0.17 0.83 0.33
Performance1 0.24 0.23 0.40 0.13 0.27 0.75
Performance2 0.34 0.28 0.32 0.17 0.31 0.83
Performance3 0.29 0.25 0.36 0.25 0.23 0.80
Performance4 0.32 0.20 0.43 0.29 0.12 0.81
Performance5 0.32 0.27 0.38 0.20 0.19 0.81

Table 4
Correlations.
Variable Rliab Vol Vel Var Ver Value Per

Data Volume 0.71 0.84

Data Velocity 0.86 0.37 0.78
Data Variety 0.86 0.63 0.48 0.82
Data Veracity 0.77 0.21 0.60 0.49 0.73
Data Value 0.86 0.43 0.48 0.64 0.60 0.77
Performance 0.90 0.27 0.47 0.31 0.27 0.38 0.80

Note: Rliab: Reliability; Vol: data volume; Vel: data velocity; Var: data variety; Ver: data veracity; Per: performance.

Fig. 2. Research results.

% of data value, and 45 % of data veracity, respectively.1 Moreover, data

value and data veracity explain about 15 % of firm performance. The
Table 5
Summary of hypothesis tests. results of the impact of control variables showed that firm revenue and
firm industry type do not significantly influence firm performance
Hypotheses Support for hypotheses
(β = 0.012; p > 0.05; β = 0.050; p > 0.05, respectively).
H1: Data value → Performance Supported *** We used Baron and Kenny’s (1986) guideline to conduct further
H2: Data veracity → Performance Not Supported
analyses to investigate whether data value and data veracity fully or
H3: Data veracity → Data value Supported ***
H4: Data volume → Data value Not Supported
H5: Data volume → Data veracity Not Supported (negative impact)
H6: Data velocity → Data value Not Supported 1
H7: Data velocity → Data veracity Supported *** We measured the effect size (Chin, 2010) to assess the effect of big data
H8: Data variety → Data value Supported *** characteristics on data value and data veracity. The results indicated that while
H9: Data variety → Data veracity Supported *** the effect size of the impact of data volume and data velocity on data value is
small, the effect size of data variety is medium. Moreover, whereas the effect
*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.
size of data volume on data veracity is small, the effect size of data variety, and
data velocity on data veracity is medium and large, respectively.

6
M. Ghasemaghaei International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055

Table 6
Descriptive statistics of performance, data value, and data veracity for firms with different levels of big data characteristics.
Data Value Data Veracity Performance
Gr Volume Variety Velocity Nr
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

1 Low Low Low 49 3.80 1.00 3.67 0.83 3.99 0.99

2 Low Low High 15 4.85 1.01 4.56 0.82 4.88 0.72
3 Low High Low 8 4.34 0.83 4.25 0.68 3.88 0.93
4 Low High High 8 4.38 0.61 4.71 0.42 4.75 0.67
5 High Low Low 8 4.66 0.74 4.54 0.40 4.05 0.89
6 High Low High 8 4.44 0.56 4.33 0.50 5.03 0.81
7 High High Low 12 5.21 0.53 4.06 0.92 4.22 1.63
8 High High High 35 5.60 0.58 4.85 0.56 5.16 0.77

Note: Gr: Groups; Nr: Number.

Fig. 3. Data value for different levels of big data characteristics.

partially mediate the effect of data velocity, data volume, and data va­
riety on firm performance. The findings show that while the direct effect
of data velocity on firm performance is significant (β = 0.397,
p < 0.001), the direct impact of data volume and data variety on the
performance is not significant (β = 0.079, p > 0.05, β = 0.102, p > 0.05,
respectively). We next added data value as a mediator between data
variety, data volume, data velocity, and firm performance. Results
illustrated that the effect of data velocity on performance remained
significant (β = 0.37, p < 0.001), whereas the effect of data volume and
data variety on performance was still not significant. Therefore, while
data value fully mediates the effect of data volume and data variety on
firm performance, it partially mediates the effect of data velocity on firm
performance. We also added data veracity as the mediator between data
variety, data volume, data velocity, and firm performance. The findings
indicated that whereas the direct effect of data velocity on firm perfor­
mance is significant (β = 0.447, p < 0.001), the direct impact of data
volume and data variety on the performance is not significant
(β = 0.077, p > 0.05, β = 0.090, p > 0.05, respectively). Thus, while data

7
M. Ghasemaghaei
Fig. 4. Data veracity for different levels of big data characteristics.
veracity fully mediates the effect of data volume and data variety on firm
performance, it partially mediates the effect of data velocity on firm
performance.
5.3. Post hoc analysis
We followed the procedure used by Ghasemaghaei, Hassanein et al.
(2017) to assess a firm’s data value, data veracity, and its performance
when firms use different levels of big data characteristics. In particular,
we applied median splits to categorize firms in our dataset based on their
level of utilizing big data. Table 6 shows the descriptive statistics (i.e.,
standard deviations and means) of the data value, data veracity, and its
performance when firms use different levels of big data characteristics.
As can be seen in this table, only 35 firms out of our sample of 143 use
high levels of data volume, data velocity, and data variety. As we can see
in this table and Figs. 3–5, the results show that firms that use high levels
of data velocity, data volume, and data variety have the greatest means
regarding data value, data veracity, and firm performance. We con­
ducted ANOVA analyses to examine if the differences in the means of the
data value, performance, and data veracity for firms (categorized in
groups displayed in Table 6) are substantial. Table 7 shows some
interesting findings. For example, the results demonstrate that firms that
process high levels of data variety, data volume, and data velocity have
significantly higher data value compared to 1) firms that process low
levels of big data characteristics (group 1); 2) firms that process high
levels of data variety but low levels of data volume, and data velocity
(group 3); 3) firms that process low levels of data volume but high levels
8
International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055
of data variety and data velocity (group 4); and 4) firms that process low
levels of data variety but high levels of data volume and data velocity
(group 6). However, compared to other remaining groups, firms in
group 8 do not have a considerably higher data value. Table 7 also
interestingly shows that firms in group 8 have significantly higher data
veracity compared to firms only in group 1 and group 7. In addition, this
table shows that firms in group 8 have higher performance compared to
firms only in groups 1 and 3. Moreover, as we can see in Table 7, firms in
group 8 have significantly higher data value, data veracity, and per­
formance than firms only in group 1 that utilize low levels of all big data
characteristics. These findings show that although firms in group 8 have
greater data value, data veracity, and performance, these outcomes are
not necessarily significantly higher than the outcomes in other groups.
6. Discussion
The results of this study present that while data volume and data
velocity do not significantly impact the generation of data value for
firms, utilizing the diversity of data types (i.e., data variety) significantly
enhances it. This means that while processing various data from external
and internal sources generates economically worthy insights, focusing
solely on quickly processing data or analyzing large volumes of data
does not necessarily provide economic benefits for firms. Interestingly,
the results showed that whereas data volume has a negative impact on
data veracity, data velocity and data variety have a significant positive
impact. This could be due to the fact that large volumes of data are often
messy (Lam et al., 2017), which may lead to decreasing data reliability
M. Ghasemaghaei International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055

Fig. 5. Firm performance for different levels of big data characteristics.

and consistency within firms. Therefore, a large investment in software, practically important, given the need to have a deeper understanding of
hardware, personnel, and time is still needed to verify data reliability the impact of big data on firms.
and consistency of large sizes of data (Rizzatti, 2014). Moreover, the
findings show that firms that are capable of collecting and processing
data from different sources in real-time could have access to more 6.1. Theoretical contributions
consistent and certain data about specific tasks. The findings also reveal
that while data value has a positive and direct impact on firm perfor­ The literature considers big data as “the next frontier for competition
and productivity” (Wamba et al., 2015) that has the potential to create
mance, the impact of data veracity on firm performance is fully medi­
value for firms and improve their performance. However, recent studies
ated through data value. In other words, processing data with low
argue that the investment in big data poses many issues and challenges,
veracity could negatively impact the generation of value for firms,
as lots of firms that capitalized in big data utilization could not improve
which eventually impacts firm performance.
their performance (Wamba et al., 2017). Current research has focused
To further explore the role of each big data characteristic on firm
largely on anecdotal evidence which suggests that big data could
outcomes, we assessed data value, data veracity, and performance when
improve firm outcomes. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is
firms used different levels of big data characteristics. The results indicate
not any empirical study that investigated the role of each big data
that firms that use high levels of volume, variety, and velocity have the
characteristic on enhancing firm performance thorough increasing firm
highest means regarding data value, data veracity, and firm perfor­
capabilities (here data veracity, and data value). As such, the role of big
mance. To assess whether the differences in data value, firm perfor­
data utilization in enhancing firm performance is not well understood.
mance, and data veracity for firms categorized in different groups are
This gap is what we investigated. To address our objective, we utilized
substantial, ANOVA analyses were conducted. The findings show
the RBV to examine the effect of big data characteristics (i.e., volume,
interesting and novel insights about the influence of big data charac­
velocity, variety) on firm performance, which is mediated by data value
teristics on firm outcomes when firms utilize different levels of each.
and data veracity. The paper provides several theoretical contributions.
Notably, the findings show that although firms that process high vol­
First, from the resource-based perspective, this study emphasizes the
ume, high velocity, and high variety have greater data value, data ve­
importance of utilizing big data as a vital firm resource that can generate
racity, and performance compared to other firms, these outcomes are
value for firms. Our findings indicate the necessity of conceptually
not necessarily significantly higher than the firm outcomes in other
differentiating among big data characteristics in investigating their
groups. Together, these results of this study are theoretically and
impacts on firm outcomes instead of treating big data as a holistic

9
M. Ghasemaghaei International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055

Table 7
ANOVA results: performance, data value, and data veracity comparison for firms with different levels of big data characteristics.
Data Value Data Veracity Performance
Groups Multiple Comparisons
Mean Difference Sig. Mean Difference Sig. Mean Difference Sig.

2 − 1.05 0.00 − 0.88 0.00 − 0.89 0.05

3 − 0.55 1.00 − 0.58 1.00 0.11 1.00
4 − 0.58 1.00 − 1.03 0.01 − 0.76 1.00
1 5 − 0.86 0.18 − 0.87 0.06 − 0.06 1.00
6 − 0.64 1.00 − 0.66 0.50 − 1.04 0.14
7 − 1.41 0.00 − 0.38 1.00 − 0.23 1.00
8 − 1.80 0.00 − 1.17 0.00 − 1.17 0.00
3 0.51 1.00 0.31 1.00 1.01 0.50
4 0.48 1.00 − 0.15 1.00 0.13 1.00
5 0.19 1.00 0.01 1.00 0.83 1.00
2
6 0.41 1.00 0.22 1.00 − 0.15 1.00
7 − 0.36 1.00 0.50 1.00 0.66 1.00
8 − 0.75 0.10 − 0.29 1.00 − 0.28 1.00
4 − 0.03 1.00 − 0.46 1.00 − 0.88 1.00
5 − 0.31 1.00 − 0.29 1.00 − 0.18 1.00
3 6 − 0.09 1.00 − 0.08 1.00 − 1.15 0.49
7 − 0.86 0.61 0.19 1.00 − 0.34 1.00
8 − 1.25 0.00 − 0.60 1.00 − 1.28 0.02
5 − 0.28 1.00 0.17 1.00 0.70 1.00
6 − 0.06 1.00 0.38 1.00 − 0.28 1.00
4
7 − 0.83 0.75 0.65 1.00 0.53 1.00
8 − 1.22 0.01 − 0.14 1.00 − 0.41 1.00
6 0.22 1.00 0.21 1.00 − 0.98 1.00
5 7 − 0.55 1.00 0.49 1.00 − 0.17 1.00
8 − 0.94 0.11 − 0.31 1.00 − 1.11 0.10
7 − 0.77 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.81 1.00
6
8 − 1.16 0.01 − 0.51 1.00 − 0.14 1.00
7 8 − 0.39 1.00 − 0.79 0.04 − 0.94 0.11

Note: Group 1: low value, low variety, low velocity; Group 2: low volume, low variety, high velocity; Group 3: low volume, high variety, low velocity; Group 4: low
volume, high variety, high velocity; Group 5: high volume, low variety, low velocity; Group 6: high volume, low variety, high velocity; Group 7: high volume, high
variety, low velocity; Group 8: high volume, high variety, high velocity.

variable. Specifically, the findings showed that data variety is the most
vital big data characteristics in enhancing firm value when they utilize
big data.
Second, the findings provide valuable insights to the big data liter­
ature for the impact of data volume, data velocity, and data variety on
data veracity. In particular, the results indicate that each big data
characteristic could have various impacts on firm capabilities and
consequently firm outcomes. Here, while data velocity and variety could
positively enhance data veracity within firms, data volume negatively
impacts it. These findings contribute to the big data literature by
analyzing how each of the three main big data characteristics impacts
other firm capabilities.
Third, the difference in the impact of data value and data veracity on
firm performance is also another novel contribution of this research to
the big data literature. These results are first strides toward understating
the effects of big data characteristics on firm outcomes and the medi­
ating role of firm capabilities in these associations.
Fourth, another contribution of this study to the big data literature is
the operationalizing and validating of the data value scale, using Moore
and Benbasat’s (1991) guideline. Although there are few papers that
explained the potential effect of big data on generating value for firms,
no study has empirically validated this important scale. Thus, this study
provides an important theoretical contribution by developing a scale in
the context of big data.
To summarize, this is the first empirical study to explore the impact
of each big data characteristic on firm total performance when mediated
by data value and data veracity. While some studies extend the three Vs
and suggest data value and data veracity as other big data characteristics
(Dijcks, 2012; Iview, 2012; Wamba et al., 2015; White, 2012), the
findings of this study show that as recommended by Ghasemaghaei,
Ebrahimi et al. (2017) and Lam et al. (2017), the nucleus of the concept
of big data is explained by data velocity, data volume, and data variety,
and data value and data veracity should be considered to be the
endogenous variables of the big data characteristics, which eventually
impact firm performance. These findings provide valuable insights for
researchers willing to better understand the role of big data character­
istics in influencing firm performance.
6.2. Practical contributions
The paper provides several practical contributions. First, the findings
indicate that firms that are capable of integrating structured and un­
structured data from various sources in real-time can enhance their
ability to utilize certain and consistent data. However, collecting large
volumes of data does not improve firm data veracity. This could be due
to the fact that although advances in data management (e.g., cloud
computing, virtualization) are facilitating the development of platforms
to collect, process and analyze large amounts of data (Raghupathi &
Raghupathi, 2014), more investments in personnel, time, and technol­
ogy are needed to verify data reliability when firms process large sizes of
data. The findings also suggest that firms that are capable of handling
both unstructured and structured data can generate
economically-worthy insights. For example, firms should collect data
about their customers from various sources (e.g., user-generated con­
tent, social media, videos) to better understand their needs; this helps
firms to generate benefits that are higher than the cost of collecting and
analyzing the data. The findings also suggest that firms that collect large
sizes of data do not necessarily generate actionable and
economically-worthy insights. This could be due to the fact that
although having access to different types of data helps firms to make
better decisions, firms should make sure that they are collecting data
from appropriate and reliable sources because low-quality data provides
misleading and incorrect information (“garbage in, garbage out”).
Moreover, focusing only on quickly collecting data from different
sources does not necessarily enhance value generation for firms. Firms
also need to utilize other big data characteristics to see economic

10
M. Ghasemaghaei International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055

benefits.
Second, our findings suggest that firms that are capable of generating
economically-worthy insights can enhance their revenue growth and be
more profitable compared to their competitors. Firms that integrate low-
quality data decrease their ability to generate economic insights, which
reduces their ability to improve their performance. Therefore, firms
need to apply different tasks such as matching, cleansing, pruning, and
filtering to improve the reliability of their data, which would enable
them to see more economic benefits.
Third, the findings provide actionable guidelines regarding how
utilizing different levels of big data characteristics (i.e., volume, veloc­
ity, and variety) impact firm value generation, data veracity, and firm
performance. For example, the findings show that to have the highest
level of performance, firms need to utilize high value, high velocity, and
high variety. That level of performance would be significantly different
compared to firms that integrate low levels of data variety, data volume,
and data velocity, as well as those firms that process a high variety of
data but do not utilize large volumes of data promptly. Firms can quickly
process large amounts of heterogeneous data using real-time big data
platforms such as SQLstream (Chen & Zhang, 2014) and Storm (Guli­
sano et al., 2012) to improve their ability to enhance their performance.
Fourth, this study also makes contribution to various literature
relevant to the context of big data. For example, many firms have
increasingly focused on exploiting and exploring AI by enhancing their
capabilities in utilizing big data within their firms (Duan et al., 2019).
However, there is not any empirical study that investigated the impact of
each big data characteristic in generating value for firms. As analyzing
big data by humans will be extremely time-consuming, the utilization of
AI techniques help to better understand the usability of big data in
making firm decisions (Gupta et al., 2018). AI is only one of the many
ways to utilize big data (Yaqoob et al., 2016). We call for future studies
to investigate the unique advantages of big data for firms and the dif­
ference on the impact of each big data characteristic on firm outcomes in
various industries and settings.
Based on the resources available to firms and their business strate­
gies, firms can invest in different levels of the utilization of big data
characteristics. When they capitalize in big data, they should consider
that big data characteristics have different effects on firm outcomes. The
findings help managers to understand the role of big data characteristics
in influencing data value, data veracity, and firm performance.
6.3. Limitations and future research
There are some potential limitations of this study. Firstly, we used
cross-sectional data to test the relationships in the proposed research
model. Future studies may use panel data to retest our findings as the
cross-sectional data is insufficient to show the causal relationships be­
tween the variables in the model. Secondly, we investigated the role of
“data”, as a vital firm resource in the context of the effect of big data on
firm performance. Future studies could also focus on other big data-
specific intangible, human, and tangible resources and investigate
their impacts on firm performance. Thirdly, we recruited participants
from firms in the United States. Another avenue for future research is to
further validate the results of this study by including participants from
outside the United States to investigate whether the country-level dif­
ferences impact relationships in the research model. Finally, we focused
on investigating the role of the three main big data characteristics on
firm total performance. Future studies could explore the effect of big
data characteristics on different performance perspectives, such as
operational perspectives and customer perspectives.
7. Conclusion
The primary objective of this research was to address an essential gap
in the literature regarding the role of each big data characteristic in
improving firm performance. Our results reveal interesting findings
about the effect of each big data characteristic on data value and data
veracity and their effects on firm total performance. Specifically, results
show that data variety positively improves data value generation,
whereas data volume and data velocity do not impact it. Additionally,
while data volume negatively impacts data veracity, data velocity and
data variety positively impact it. Interestingly, the effect of data veracity
on firm performance is fully mediated by data value. One of the unique
contributions of this study is to create interesting and novel insights
about the effect of big data characteristics on data value, data veracity,
and firm performance when firms utilize different levels of each.
Notably, the results show the necessity of conceptually differentiating
among big data characteristics in investigating their impacts on firm
outcomes instead of treating big data as a holistic variable. These results
help managers to appropriately allocate resources to enhance firm per­
formance and achieve competitive advantage.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council of Canada [grant number 20006922].
Appendix A

Table A1
Scales of the constructs.
Construct Items Resources
(7-point Likert scales: from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”)

Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements:
• In my firm, the quantity of data we explore is substantial.
Volume • In my firm, we analyze large amounts of data. Ghasemaghaei and Calic (2019a)
• In my firm, we scrutinize copious volumes of data.
• In my firm, we use a great deal of data.
• In my firm, the time period between when we get new data and when we analyze it is short.
• In my firm, we analyze data as soon as we receive it.
Velocity Ghasemaghaei and Calic (2019a)
Big Data Characteristics • In my firm, we analyzes data speedily.
• In my firm, we are fast in exploring our data.
• In my firm, we analyze high quality data.
Veracity • In my firm, we deal with precise and certain data. Ghasemaghaei and Calic (2019a)
• In my firm, we process data that is reliable and consistent.
• In my firm, we analyzes many types of data.
Variety • In my firm, we use several different sources of data to gain insights. Ghasemaghaei and Calic (2019a)
• In my firm, we examine data from a multitude of sources.
Please indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements:
Data Value Developed
• My firm uses data that provides economic benefit.
(continued on next page)

11
M. Ghasemaghaei International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055

Table A1 (continued )
Construct Items Resources
(7-point Likert scales: from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”)

• My firm analyzes data that generates economically worthy insights.

• My firm processes data that generates benefits through extraction and transformation.
• My firm processes data that generates benefits that is higher than the cost of collecting and analyzing it.
Performance Please indicate your firm’s overall performance over the past 3 years: Powell (1995)
• Over the past 3 years, our financial performance has been outstanding.
• Over the past 3 years, our financial performance has exceeded our competitors’.
• Over the past 3 years, our revenue (sales) growth has been outstanding.
• Over the past 3 years, we have been more profitable than our competitors.
• Over the past 3 years, our revenue growth rate has exceeded our competitors’.

References Duan, Y., Edwards, J. S., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2019). Artificial intelligence for decision
making in the era of Big Data–evolution, challenges and research agenda.
International Journal of Information Management, 48, 63–71.
Abbasi, A., Sarker, S., & Chiang, R. H. (2016). Big data research in information systems:
Dumbill, E. (2012). Volume, velocity, variety: What you need to know about big data.
Toward an inclusive research agenda. Journal of the Association for Information
Retrieved Jan (p. 19).
Systems, 17(2), 33.
Erevelles, S., Fukawa, N., & Swayne, L. (2016). Big Data consumer analytics and the
Acharya, A., Singh, S. K., Pereira, V., & Singh, P. (2018). Big data, knowledge co-creation
transformation of marketing. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 897–904.
and decision making in fashion industry. International Journal of Information
Feit, E. M., Wang, P., Bradlow, E. T., & Fader, P. S. (2013). Fusing aggregate and
Management, 42, 90–101.
disaggregate data with an application to multiplatform media consumption. Journal
Akter, S., Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2016). How to
of Marketing Research, 50(3), 348–364.
improve firm performance using big data analytics capability and business strategy
Filieri, R. (2015). What makes online reviews helpful? A diagnosticity-adoption
alignment? International Journal of Production Economics, 182, 113–131.
framework to explain informational and normative influences in e-WOM. Journal of
Alexy, O., West, J., Klapper, H., & Reitzig, M. (2018). Surrendering control to gain
Business Research, 68(6), 1261–1270.
advantage: Reconciling openness and the resource-based view of the firm. Strategic
Fink, L., & Neumann, S. (2009). Exploring the perceived business value of the flexibility
Management Journal, 39(6), 1704–1727.
enabled by information technology infrastructure. Information & Management, 46(2),
Armstrong, C. E., & Shimizu, K. (2007). A review of approaches to empirical research on
90–99.
the resource-based view of the firm. Journal of Management, 33(6), 959–986.
Gable, G. G. (1994). Integrating case study and survey research methods: An example in
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.
information systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 3(2), 112–126.
Journal of Marketing Research, 396–402.
Gandomi, A., & Haider, M. (2015). Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and
Bacq, S., & Eddleston, K. A. (2018). A resource-based view of social entrepreneurship:
analytics. International Journal of Information Management, 35(2), 137–144.
How stewardship culture benefits scale of social impact. Journal of Business Ethics,
Gartner. (2016). Survey analysis: Big data investments begin tapering in 2016. Retrieved
152(3), 589–611.
August 13, 2018, from https://www.gartner.com/doc/3446724/survey-analysis-b
Banker, R. D., Bardhan, I., & Asdemir, O. (2006). Understanding the impact of
ig-data-investments.
collaboration software on product design and development. Information Systems
Ghasemaghaei, M. (2018a). Improving organizational performance through the use of
Research, 17(4), 352–373.
big data. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 1–14.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Ghasemaghaei, M. (2018b). The role of positive and negative valence factors on the
Management, 17(1), 99–120.
impact of bigness of data on big data analytics usage. International Journal of
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–Mediator variable distinction in
Information Management. In Press.
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.
Ghasemaghaei, M. (2019a). Are firms ready to use big data analytics to create value? The
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
role of structural and psychological readiness. Enterprise Information Systems, 13(5),
Barua, A., Konana, P., Whinston, A. B., & Yin, F. (2004). An empirical investigation of
650–674.
net-enabled business value. MIS Quarterly, 28(4), 585–620.
Ghasemaghaei, M. (2019b). Does data analytics use improve firm decision making
Belkin, N. J. (1996). Intelligent information retrieval: Whose intelligence? ISI, 96, 25–31.
quality? The role of knowledge sharing and data analytics competency. Decision
Bharadwaj, A. S. (2000). A resource-based perspective on information technology
Support Systems, 120, 14–24.
capability and firm performance: An empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 24(1),
Ghasemaghaei, M., & Calic, G. (2019b). Can big data improve firm decision quality? The
169–196.
role of data quality and data diagnosticity. Decision Support Systems, 120, 38–49.
Bharadwaj, S., Bharadwaj, A., & Bendoly, E. (2007). The performance effects of
Ghasemaghaei, M., & Calic, G. (2019a). Does big data enhance firm innovation
complementarities between information systems, marketing, manufacturing, and
competency? The mediating role of data-driven insights. Journal of Business Research,
supply chain processes. Information Systems Research, 18(4), 437–453.
104, 69–84.
Bhatt, G. D., & Grover, V. (2005). Types of information technology capabilities and their
Ghasemaghaei, M., Ebrahimi, S., & Hassanein, K. (2016). Generating valuable insights
role in competitive advantage: An empirical study. Journal of Management
through data analytics: A moderating effects model. In International Conference on
Information Systems, 22(2), 253–277.
Information Systems (ICIS). Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2016/ITIm
Rizzatti, L. (2014). Big Data requires massive amounts of verification. Retrieved August 13,
plementation/Presentations/7/.
2018, from http://www.embedded-computing.com/embedded-computing-design/bi
Ghasemaghaei, M., Hassanein, K., & Turel, O. (2017). Increasing firm agility through the
g-data-requires-massive-amounts-of-verification.
use of data analytics: The role of fit. Decision Support Systems, 101, 95–105.
Brynjolfsson, E., Hitt, L. M., & Kim, H. H. (2011). Strength in numbers: How does data-
Ghasemaghaei, M., Ebrahimi, S., & Hassanein, K. (2017). Data analytics competency for
driven decision making affect firm performance?. Available at SSRN 1819486, 33.
improving firm decision making performance. The Journal of Strategic Information
Brynjolfsson, E., Hu, Y. J., & Rahman, M. S. (2013). Competing in the age of omnichannel
Systems, 27(1), 101–113.
retailing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 9.
Grover, V., Chiang, R. H., Liang, T.-P., & Zhang, D. (2018). Creating strategic business
Cai, L., & Zhu, Y. (2015). The challenges of data quality and data quality assessment in
value from big data analytics: A research framework. Journal of Management
the big data era. Data Science Journal, 14. Retrieved from http://datascience.codata.
Information Systems, 35(2), 388–423.
org/articles/10.5334/dsj-2015-002/.
Gulisano, V., Jimenez-Peris, R., Patino-Martinez, M., Soriente, C., & Valduriez, P. (2012).
Chen, C. P., & Zhang, C.-Y. (2014). Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques
Streamcloud: An elastic and scalable data streaming system. IEEE Transactions on
and technologies: A survey on Big Data. Information Sciences, 275, 314–347.
Parallel and Distributed Systems, 23(12), 2351–2365.
Chen, D. Q., Preston, D. S., & Swink, M. (2015). How the use of big data analytics affects
Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S. F., Childe, S. J., Hazen, B.,
value creation in supply chain management. Journal of Management Information
et al. (2017). Big data and predictive analytics for supply chain and organizational
Systems, 32(4), 4–39.
performance. Journal of Business Research, 70, 308–317.
Chen, H., Chiang, R. H., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From
Gupta, M., & George, J. F. (2016). Toward the development of a big data analytics
big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165–1188.
capability. Information & Management, 53(8), 1049–1064.
Chin, W. W. (2010). How to write up and report PLS analyses. Handbook of partial least
Gupta, S., Kar, A. K., Baabdullah, A., & Al-Khowaiter, W. A. (2018). Big data with
squares (pp. 655–690). Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/9
cognitive computing: A review for the future. International Journal of Information
78-3-540-32827-8_29.
Management, 42, 78–89.
Commission, T. (2012). Demystifying Big Data: A practical guide to transforming the business
Hartmann, P. M., Zaki, M., Feldmann, N., & Neely, A. (2016). Capturing value from big
of government. Washington, DC.
data–a taxonomy of data-driven business models used by start-up firms. International
Darroch, J. (2005). Knowledge management, innovation and firm performance. Journal
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 36(10), 1382–1406.
of Knowledge Management, 9(3), 101–115.
Iview, I. D. C. (2012). The digital universe in 2020: Bag data. Bigger digital shadows, and
Davenport, T., & Harris, J. (2017). Competing on analytics: Updated, with a new
biggest growth in the Far East.
introduction: The new science of winning. Harvard Business Press.
Dijcks, J.-P. (2012). Oracle: Big data for the enterprise. Oracle white paper.

12
M. Ghasemaghaei
Ji-fan Ren, S., Fosso Wamba, S., Akter, S., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2017). Modelling
quality dynamics, business value and firm performance in a big data analytics
environment. International Journal of Production Research, 55(17), 5011–5026.
Johnson, J. S., Friend, S. B., & Lee, H. S. (2017). Big data facilitation, utilization, and
monetization: Exploring the 3Vs in a new product development process. The Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 34(5), 640–658.
Jones-Farmer, L. A., Ezell, J. D., & Hazen, B. T. (2014). Applying control chart methods
to enhance data quality. Technometrics, 56(1), 29–41.
Kamble, S. S., & Gunasekaran, A. (2019). Big data-driven supply chain performance
measurement system: A review and framework for implementation. International
Journal of Production Research, 1–22.
Kaufman, B. E. (2015). The RBV theory foundation of strategic HRM: Critical flaws,
problems for research and practice, and an alternative economics paradigm. Human
Resource Management Journal, 25(4), 516–540.
Kiron, D., Prentice, P. K., & Ferguson, R. B. (2014). The analytics mandate. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 55(4), 1–25.
Kitchens, B., Dobolyi, D., Li, J., & Abbasi, A. (2018). Advanced customer analytics:
Strategic value through integration of relationship-oriented big data. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 35(2), 540–574.
Kwon, O., Lee, N., & Shin, B. (2014). Data quality management, data usage experience
and acquisition intention of big data analytics. International Journal of Information
Management, 34(3), 387–394.
Lam, S. K., Sleep, S., Hennig-Thurau, T., Sridhar, S., & Saboo, A. R. (2017). Leveraging
frontline employees’ small data and firm-level big data in frontline management: An
absorptive capacity perspective. Journal of Service Research, 20(1), 12–28.
Laney, D. (2001). 3D data management: Controlling data volume, velocity and variety.
META Group Research Note, 6(70), 1.
Larson, D., & Chang, V. (2016). A review and future direction of agile, business
intelligence, analytics and data science. International Journal of Information
Management, 36(5), 700–710.
Lash, M. T., & Zhao, K. (2016). Early predictions of movie success: The who, what, and
when of profitability. Journal of Management Information Systems, 33(3), 874–903.
Lehrer, C., Wieneke, A., vom Brocke, J., Jung, R., & Seidel, S. (2018). How big data
analytics enables service innovation: Materiality, affordance, and the
individualization of service. Journal of Management Information Systems, 35(2),
424–460.
Liang, T.-P., You, J.-J., & Liu, C.-C. (2010). A resource-based perspective on information
technology and firm performance: A meta analysis. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 110(8), 1138–1158.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in
cross-sectional research designs. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
Lukoianova, T., & Rubin, V. L. (2014). Veracity roadmap: Is big data objective, truthful and
credible?.
Lycett, M. (2013). Datafication. Retrieved from http://v-scheiner.brunel.ac.uk/handle/
2438/8110.
Makridakis, S. (2017). The forthcoming Artificial Intelligence (AI) revolution: Its impact
on society and firms. Futures, 90, 46–60.
Manyika, J., & Roxburgh, C. (2011). The great transformer: The impact of the Internet on
economic growth and prosperity (p. 1). McKinsey Global Institute.
Maroufkhani, P., Wagner, R., Wan Ismail, W. K., Baroto, M. B., & Nourani, M. (2019). Big
data analytics and firm performance: A systematic review. Information, 10(7), 226.
McAfee, A., Brynjolfsson, E., Davenport, T. H., Patil, D. J., & Barton, D. (2012). Big data:
The management revolution. Harvard Business Review, 90(10), 60–68.
Miller, D., & Shamsie, J. (1996). The resource-based view of the firm in two
environments: The Hollywood film studios from 1936 to 1965. The Academy of
Management Journal, 39(3), 519–543.
Mithas, S., Ramasubbu, N., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). How information management
capability influences firm performance. MIS Quarterly, 237–256.
Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the
perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems
Research, 2(3), 192–222.
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in
online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly,
105–136.
13
International Journal of Information Management 57 (2021) 102055
Petrini, M., & Pozzebon, M. (2009). Managing sustainability with the support of business
intelligence: Integrating socio-environmental indicators and organisational context.
The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 18(4), 178–191.
Phillips, F. (2017). A perspective on ‘Big Data’. Science & Public Policy. scx012.
Popovič, A., Hackney, R., Tassabehji, R., & Castelli, M. (2018). The impact of big data
analytics on firms’ high value business performance. Information Systems Frontiers, 20
(2), 209–222.
Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and
empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 15–37.
Powell, T. C., & Dent-Micallef, A. (1997). Information technology as competitive
advantage: The role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic
Management Journal, 18(5), 375–405.
Raghunathan, S. (1999). Impact of information quality and decision-maker quality on
decision quality: A theoretical model and simulation analysis. Decision Support
Systems, 26(4), 275–286.
Raghupathi, W., & Raghupathi, V. (2014). Big data analytics in healthcare: Promise and
potential. Health Information Science and Systems, 2(1), 3–13.
Saboo, A. R., Kumar, V., & Park, I. (2016). Using big data to model time-varying effects
for marketing resource (Re) allocation. MIS Quarterly, 40(4), 911–940.
Shafer, T. (2018). The 42 V’s of big data and data science. Retrieved June 4, 2018, from htt
ps://www.kdnuggets.com/2017/04/42-vs-big-data-data-science.html.
Shollo, A., & Galliers, R. D. (2016). Towards an understanding of the role of business
intelligence systems in organisational knowing. Information Systems Journal, 26(4),
339–367.
Sun, W., Zhao, Y., & Sun, L. (2018). Big data analytics for venture capital application:
Towards innovation performance improvement. International Journal of Information
Management. In Press.
Tambe, P. (2014). Big data investment, skills, and firm value. Management Science, 60(6),
1452–1469.
Tarafdar, M., Gupta, A., & Turel, O. (2013). The dark side of information technology use.
Information Systems Journal, 23(3), 269–275.
Wade, M., & Hulland, J. (2004). The resource-based view and information systems
research: Review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 28
(1), 107–142.
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. International Journal of Production Economics, 165, 234–246.
Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S. J., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2017). Big
data analytics and firm performance: Effects of dynamic capabilities. Journal of
Business Research, 70, 356–365.
Wang, Y., Kung, L., & Byrd, T. A. (2016). Big data analytics: Understanding its
capabilities and potential benefits for healthcare organizations. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change.
Wang, Y., Kung, L., Wang, W. Y. C., & Cegielski, C. G. (2017). An integrated big data
analytics-enabled transformation model: Application to health care. Information &
Management. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0
378720617303129.
Ward, J. S., & Barker, A. (2013). Undefined by data: A survey of big data definitions.
ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1309.5821. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1309.5821.
Warth, J., Kaiser, G., & Kügler, M. (2011). The impact of data quality and analytical
capabilities on planning performance: Insights from the automotive industry.
Wirtschaftsinformatik, 87. Retrieved from http://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi
?article=1031&context=wi2011.
White, M. (2012). Digital workplaces: Vision and reality. Business Information Review, 29
(4), 205–214.
Xie, K., Wu, Y., Xiao, J., & Hu, Q. (2016). Value co-creation between firms and
customers: The role of big data-based cooperative assets. Information & Management,
53(8), 1034–1048.
Xu, J. D., Benbasat, I., & Cenfetelli, R. T. (2014). The nature and consequences of trade-
off transparency in the context of recommendation agents. MIS Quarterly, 38(2),
379–406.
Yaqoob, I., Hashem, I. A. T., Gani, A., Mokhtar, S., Ahmed, E., Anuar, N. B., et al. (2016).
Big data: From beginning to future. International Journal of Information Management,
36(6), 1231–1247.