IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/osfxxx/jg4pr.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A New Approach to Business Value Driven Planning for Data Projects

Author

Listed:
  • Nagle, Tadhg
  • Sammon, David
  • Cleary, Walter

Abstract

With the advent of new technology and digital trends, realizing value from data is a top priority for organizations. Along with this, the increased awareness that every business is a data business is beginning to take hold, especially in organizations engaging in data projects through the use of technologies such as Big Data, the Internet of Things and Advanced Analytics. However, it has been shown that there is a lack of understanding on how these projects will deliver value or benefit for the organization (LaValle et al. 2011). Or indeed, there is a lack of understanding on how to effectively manage and govern such projects and capabilities (Tallon 2013). In other words, implementing a data project does not automatically deliver business value, execute as expected, or make your organization data driven. To make your organization more effective when implementing data projects and developing a mature data capability, conversations need to be initiated between stakeholders and focus on the key problem to be solved by the data project. This focus is provided by answering six simple questions: why, what, when, who, where, and how. Yet, given the multitude of conversations that need to take place around the problem there are a lack of appropriate tools that can enable stakeholders to reach a shared understanding when planning data projects. Our research with major public and private sector organizations over the past three years has resulted in the development of a new ‘discursive template’ (c.f. Tsoukas and Chia 2002) (namely the Data Value Map - DVM to promote new transformative conversations within data projects while also producing a more rigorous and robust validation of the potential value of those projects. Moreover, this new approach is the output of four studies, which include: (i) a survey of over 50 organizations worldwide which examined the drivers, goals and barriers of data analytics, (ii) an analysis of 18 projects focused on developing data solutions, (iii) an analysis of over 100 implementations of the DVM, and (iv) one in-depth case study with multiple implementations. The objective of this paper is to present both our new approach for planning data projects along with the insights gained from these studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Nagle, Tadhg & Sammon, David & Cleary, Walter, 2019. "A New Approach to Business Value Driven Planning for Data Projects," OSF Preprints jg4pr, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:jg4pr
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/jg4pr
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5d6d6fba72151000179d6414/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/jg4pr?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Haridimos Tsoukas & Robert Chia, 2002. "On Organizational Becoming: Rethinking Organizational Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(5), pages 567-582, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Burt, George & Mackay, David J. & van der Heijden, Kees & Verheijdt, Charlotte, 2017. "Openness disposition: Readiness characteristics that influence participant benefits from scenario planning as strategic conversation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 16-25.
    2. Shahzad Khurram & Sandra Charreire Petit, 2017. "Investigating the Dynamics of Stakeholder Salience: What Happens When the Institutional Change Process Unfolds?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 485-515, July.
    3. Gary T. Burke & Carola Wolf, 2021. "The Process Affordances of Strategy Toolmaking when Addressing Wicked Problems," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 359-388, March.
    4. Guiette, Alain & Vandenbempt, Koen, 2017. "Change managerialism and micro-processes of sensemaking during change implementation," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 65-81.
    5. Marina Fiedler & Isabell Welpe & Arnold Picot, 2010. "Understanding Radical Change: An Examination of Management Departments in German-speaking Universities," management revue. Socio-economic Studies, Rainer Hampp Verlag, vol. 21(2), pages 111-134.
    6. Risien, Julie, 2019. "Curators and sojourners in learning networks: Practices for transformation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 71-79.
    7. Lise Arena & Anthony Hussenot, 2021. "From Innovations at Work to Innovative Ways of Conceptualizing Organization: A Brief History of Organization Studies," Post-Print hal-03290300, HAL.
    8. Beth A. Bechky, 2006. "Gaffers, Gofers, and Grips: Role-Based Coordination in Temporary Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 3-21, February.
    9. Dragos Vieru & Pierre-Emmanuel Arduin, 2016. "Sharing Knowledge in a Shared Services Center Context: An Explanatory Case Study of the Dialectics of Formal and Informal Practices," Post-Print hal-01458031, HAL.
    10. Lorino, Philippe & Mourey, Damien & Schmidt, Géraldine, 2017. "Goffman's theory of frames and situated meaning-making in performance reviews. The case of a category management approach in the French retail sector," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 32-49.
    11. Domagoj Hru?ka, 0000. "Leading with Purpose: Framework for Recontextualizing Organizations Through Metaphors," Proceedings of International Academic Conferences 11313240, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    12. Francesco Virili & Cristiano Ghiringhelli, 2021. "Uncertainty and Emerging Tensions in Organizational Change: A Grounded Theory Study on the Orchestrating Role of the Change Leader," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, April.
    13. Tang, Ryan W., 2023. "Institutional unpredictability and foreign exit−reentry dynamics: The moderating role of foreign ownership," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 58(2).
    14. Daniel Hjorth & Bengt Johannisson, 2008. "Building new roads for entrepreneurship research to travel by: on the work of William B. Gartner," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 31(4), pages 341-350, December.
    15. Dean A. Shepherd & Jeffery S. Mcmullen & William Ocasio, 2017. "Is that an opportunity? An attention model of top managers' opportunity beliefs for strategic action," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(3), pages 626-644, March.
    16. Orlikowski, W. J. & Scott, Susan V., 2015. "Exploring material-discursive practices," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 57600, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Kristin R. Eschenfelder & Kalpana Shankar & Greg Downey, 2022. "The financial maintenance of social science data archives: Four case studies of long‐term infrastructure work," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(12), pages 1723-1740, December.
    18. Omar N. Solinger & Woody van Olffen & Robert A. Roe & Joeri Hofmans, 2013. "On Becoming (Un)Committed: A Taxonomy and Test of Newcomer Onboarding Scenarios," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 1640-1661, December.
    19. Shivani Gupta & Dr. Anju Singla, 2016. "Organizational Change and Job Satisfaction: An Analysis of Mediating Effect of Organizational Trust," Indian Journal of Commerce and Management Studies, Educational Research Multimedia & Publications,India, vol. 7(3), pages 07-13, September.
    20. Claus Dierksmeier, 2020. "From Jensen to Jensen: Mechanistic Management Education or Humanistic Management Learning?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(1), pages 73-87, September.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:osfxxx:jg4pr. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.