Platforms · Systematic literature review

Big data analytics capabilities: Patchwork or progress? A systematic review of the status quo and implications for future research

Technological Forecasting and Social Change · 2023

Minh-Tay Huynh, Michael Nippa, Thomas Aichner

Summary

The review organizes BDAC research around core capability components and highlights fragmentation in how BDAC is conceptualized.

For your marketing

Possible founder application

Use a capability checklist spanning infrastructure, people, processes and managerial orchestration when planning analytics products.

Reported result

What the study found

The review organizes BDAC research around core capability components and highlights fragmentation in how BDAC is conceptualized.

Research question

What the authors investigated

How does the study’s stated design explain its reported outcome in this setting?

Design

Systematic literature review

Sample and setting

Published research on big-data analytics capabilities; corpus size not stated in fetched abstract

Scope and transfer

Limitations to keep in view

Review does not provide a single causal estimate; conclusions depend on included studies.

Research sources

abstract_only

Study strength

3.5/5 Abstract-level evidence is useful for framing questions; verify full methods before transfer.

How this was assessed

The 1–5 evidence-check score is a practical reading aid, not a formal peer review or a probability that a conclusion is true. It combines design strength (2 points), sample reporting (1), comparison/control clarity (1), and how much of the paper could be checked (1). Access affects how confidently this directory can assess a study, not the study's underlying quality. Blinding is reported separately because it is not relevant to every design.

Design transparency · 2/2

Based on the reported study design in the retrieved source.

Sample and setting · 1/1

The sample context is stated; a numerical count is preserved only when reported.

Outcome clarity · 1/1

The finding is summarized from publisher or article metadata.

Access for checking · 0.5/1

Only abstract or bibliographic access was confirmed.

Double-blind? The retrieved publisher record does not establish whether participants or outcome assessors were blinded.

Read the paper