Article

The Impact of Big Data Analytics on Company

Performance in Supply Chain Management
Ionica Oncioiu 1,*, Ovidiu Constantin Bunget 2, Mirela Cătălina Türkeș 3, Sorinel Căpușneanu 1,
Dan Ioan Topor 4, Attila Szora Tamaș 4, Ileana-Sorina Rakoș 5 and Mihaela Ștefan Hint 4
1 Faculty of Finance-Banking, Accounting and Business Administration, Titu Maiorescu University,
040051 Bucharest, Romania
2 Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, West University of Timisoara,

300223 Timisoara, Romania

3 Faculty of Finance, Banking and Accountancy, Dimitrie Cantemir Christian University,

040051 Bucharest, Romania

4 Faculty of Economic Sciences, 1 Decembrie 1918 University, 510009 Alba-Iulia, Romania

5 Faculty of Sciences, University of Petrosani, 20 Universitatii, 332006 Petrosani, Romania

* Correspondence: nelly_oncioiu@yahoo.com ; Tel.: +40-744-322-911

Received: 08 August 2019; Accepted: 03 September 2019; Published: 5 September 2019

Abstract: Big data analytics can add value and provide a new perspective by improving predictive
analysis and modeling practices. This research is centered on supply-chain management and how
big data analytics can help Romanian supply-chain companies assess their experience, strategies,
and professional capabilities in successfully implementing big data analytics, as well as assessing
the tools needed to achieve these goals, including the results of implementation and performance
achievement based on them. The research method used in the quantitative study was a sampling
survey, using a questionnaire as a data collection tool. It included closed questions, measured with
nominal and ordinal scales. A total of 205 managers provided complete and useful answers for this
research. The collected data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
package using frequency tables, contingency tables, and main component analysis. The major
contributions of this research highlight the fact that companies are concerned with identifying new
statistical methods, tools, and approaches, such as cloud computing and security technologies, that
need to be rigorously explored.

Keywords: supply-chain management; implementation; big data analytics; industry 4.0; results;
benefits; barriers; analytic tools

1. Introduction
Massive data has become the most important resource for future company wealth against the
background of the continuous development of information technology and Industry 4.0 [1]. Growing
exponentially [2], this explosion of big data is focused on several areas of activity, contributing to the
intensification of global innovation in science and technology. Companies across the globe face
numerous market expansions and strict quality standards, and they are overwhelmed by the massive
amount of information coming from different customers and suppliers, and must manage it as
efficiently as possible. Data management and integration becomes critical in addressing the
challenges of linking supply-chain management systems between producers and suppliers as well as
between their partners. Addressing supply-chain management challenges at each level and activity,
data management and integration ensures the visibility of both producers and suppliers as well as
their partners, thus contributing to improved relationships of trust and long-term collaboration. The

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864; doi:10.3390/su11184864 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 2 of 22

provenance of structured and unstructured data makes it somewhat more difficult to analyze and
generate information, but with supply-chain management systems, they are transformed and tailored
to end user requirements. The supply chain covers all activities from the development of production
to production and logistics to maximize customer value and achieve sustainable competitive
advantages.
Many companies still do not understand how to apply analytical techniques to achieve superior
performance within the supply chain. Through this study, undertaken within Romanian companies,
we consider that we are making an important contribution to clarifying the aforementioned aspects.
First, we identified the companies’ experience in implementing big data analytics (BDA) in supply-
chain management (SCM) and the difficulties encountered in this process, followed by the adoption
of company strategies for implementing BDA in SCM. The two issues investigated are also related to
the existence of professional capacities needed to develop information through BDA and to identify
the supply-chain analysis tools used by companies and their future intention to implement new tools
and technologies. Second, the paper article provides an in-depth understanding of the benefits and
performance of companies after implementing BDA in SCM. Also, there have been some challenges,
such as the acceptance and use of new technologies, as well as their regulation.
This study consists mainly of six parts. In Section 2, the evolution of big data (BD) and BDA for
SCM are mentioned as they are presented in the literature, accompanied by the importance and
applications of BDA for SCM, along with drivers of and barriers to its implementation. In Section 3,
the method used in the quantitative marketing study is presented. In Sections 4 and 5, we present the
results obtained by applying the method and their interpretation. Section 6 presents the conclusions
and future directions of research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Big Data and Big Data Analytics

New challenges in capturing, collecting, analyzing, archiving, sharing, transferring, and
processing large datasets in organizations led to the emergence of the BD concept. The determinant
factor behind this concept is digitalization, with increased social and media popularity among
electronic device users [3,4]. The big data concept has been applied to datasets that are very large and
difficult to handle by traditional database management systems. In other words, their size exceeds
the current capacity of software tools and storage systems for capturing, storing, managing, and
processing data in an acceptable time [5].
According to specialists, the BD concept has different approaches, such as the “3Vs”: volume
(the volume of current datasets in big data is a significant attribute, since such data is considered to
be excluded from the traditional management techniques of databases); velocity (the rate at which
data is collected); and variety (unstructured data are generated by sources such as social media, e-
mails, and communication) [6,7].
Based on the 3V concept, other specialists define big data as follows: (1) “High-volume, high-
speed, and/or large-scale computer equipment that requires cost-effective and innovative forms of
information processing to enable improved understanding, decision-making and process
automation” [8]; (2) “big data as volume, high speed and data of great variety used in decision-
making and requiring innovative management techniques” [8]; and (3) “special type of large-scale
data that cannot be stored, manipulated, and analyzed by means of a conventional system together
with an anonymous source, various dimensions and its relationship cannot be easily measured due
to its complexity and dynamic nature” [9].
The big data concept is expanded to “5Vs” by adding two more features (veracity, or reliability
of collected data, and the value of datasets involving substantial investments). BDA is defined as a
holistic approach for managing, processing, and analyzing data sizes (volume, variety, velocity,
veracity, and value) that are needed to create action-oriented information for sustained delivery,
performance measurement, and competitive advantage [10–12]. The 5Vs can be explained as follows:
(1) volume refers to the magnitude of data that requires increased storage devices [13]; (2) variety is
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 3 of 22

reflected by generating data from heterogeneous sources Internet of Things (IoT), online social
networks, and structured, semi-structured, and unstructured formats) [14]; (3) velocity is given by
the time to access, process, and use data in real time [11]; (4) veracity reflects the importance of data
quality and confidence in the data used [15,16]; and (5) value is reflected by revealing unused data in
big data and can support decision-making [17,18].
BDA involves the use of advanced analytical techniques for extracting important information
from large volumes of data to facilitate decision-making [19]. Developed from the field of operational
research, advanced analysis has had various classifications [20], among which descriptive, predictive,
and prescriptive analysis are considered representative [21]. Descriptive analysis is based on the
analysis of data describing past business situations, trends, patterns, and exceptions. The techniques
used for descriptive analysis can be characterized as [22] standard reports and scoreboards, ad hoc
reporting, query drilldown (OLAP) alerts, and viewing.
Predictive analysis is based on real-time data analysis and historical data to predict the
likelihood of future events. This technology learns from existing data using machine learning
techniques and computational algorithms [23], including (1) advanced time series and advanced
predictions used in SCM for marketing measures such as stockpiles or sales forecasts (ARIMA,
ARMA); (2) supervised learning including linear and logistic regressions, statistical algorithms (K-
NN, Naive Bayes, Bayes Network, CART, random vector trees, Neural networks); (3) clustering; and
(4) size reduction. Prescriptive analysis is based on data-based predictions to inform and suggest
proposed action sets that can be advantages or avoid certain results and may include: (1) studies
addressing the variability of expected outcomes by analyzing the scenario game theory; and (2)
optimization and simulation under conditions of special relevance in the context of uncertainty based
on computational stochastic programming of random variables (Monte Carlo).

2.2. Big Data Analytics in Supply-Chain Management

The SCM concept has been debated by specialists around the world. It has been defined as
“management alongside and within a network of upstream and downstream organizations, both of
which have relationships and flows of material, information and resources” [24]. The supply chain
can be considered to be a combination of four independent and interconnected entities (marketing,
sourcing, inventory management, and transport). SCM is responsible for creating and maintaining
links between the different entities in a business responsible for purchasing raw materials for final
delivery of the product [25]. New technologies such as big data analytics synchronize SCM in a
separate stream [26] and allow organizations to capture, process, analyze, store, and exchange data
about their operations [27].
An extended supply chain is a multilayered system that connects organizations through
collaboration and integration, as competition between supply chains is perceived as higher than
between individual firms [28]. Among the computer systems used for this purpose are Electronic
Data Interchange (EDI), Vendor Managed Inventory (VMI), Efficient Consumer Response (ECR),
Collaborative Planning Forecasting and Replenishment (CPFR), Collaborative Planning System
(CPS), Sales Force Automation (SFA), Point of Sale (POS) data, and Customer Relationship
Management (CRM) [29]. Among all SCM information flows, big data analytics focuses on data
analysis and tools are included in the “analytics” domain. Analytics applies mathematics and
statistics to large amounts of data. Big data without analytics is just a lot of data, and analytics without
big data is simply math, statistical tools, and applications [30].
Thus, a first attempt to define BDA is based on the 3V framework: (1) weekly generated data
volume greater than 300 TB classifies companies in the BDA category; (2) the velocity of data creation
and transmission plays a key role in transferring data from batch processing to real-time operation;
and (3) the variety of data provided to users can include, in addition to classical SQL or XML formats,
digital information such as video, text, or images [7]. Starting from this attempt to define BDA within
the supply chain, some specialists have presented other approaches: (1) the process of extracting and
presenting supply-chain information to ensure measurement, monitoring, forecasting, and supply-
chain management [31]; (2) a broad and unique view of the entire supply chain to disclose component
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 4 of 22

or full production, including analyses and key performance indicators (KPIs) [32]; (3) using
quantitative methods to obtain prospective information from data in order to understand in depth
what is going upstream and downstream, in order to assess the operational decision-making impact
of the supply chain [33]; (4) the operational leap from data response management models that can
help specialists analyze larger datasets using proven analytical and mathematical techniques [34];
and (5) the combination resulting from the application of quantitative and qualitative methods to
SCM theory to solve SCM problems and predict results, taking into account the quality and
availability of data [35].
Studies on the impact of Big Data (BD) on sustainable investment in a supply chain (SC) have
indicated the following aspects: (1) stimulation of the co-creation of value by reducing risks, with BD
helping to shorten SC stages by extending economic marginalization and facilitating sustainable
planning of smart investments in health care [36]; (2) a positive impact between the number of
observations of market information and increased profit by using the updating information Bayesian
approach of [37]; and (3) perfection of SC through investments made by both parties (suppliers and
traders) in the profit generating BD and regulated by revenue distribution contracts between them
[38].
An essential factor in motivating members within a SC to make sustainable investments in
innovative technologies is related to equity concerns. They can promote and coordinate members of
the SC, without the problem of advantageous inequity in view of the considerable investment in new
sustainable innovative technologies [39]. A study was also conducted to explore the application of
BDA in mitigating the social risk of a SC and how it can contribute to achieving ecological, economic,
and social sustainability. The results indicated that companies can predict various social problems
(labor safety, fuel consumption monitoring, health of the workforce, security, physical condition of
vehicles, ethical behavior, theft, speed and traffic violations through big data analysis) that can be
managed through the information provided, thus contributing to the mitigation of social risks [40].
The influence of block-chain technology on the exchange of information between participants in
a SC is highlighted with the help of mean-Conditional Value at Risk (CVaR) to characterize the risk-
aversion behavior of the traders. The CVaR-based revenue distribution contract is used to coordinate
the SC and profit distribution. Research carried out by specialists indicated that profits from the SC
system are higher in a centralized than a decentralized decision-making process. Through block-
chain technology, transaction costs between SC members can be reduced, information exchange can
be achieved, and benefits can be improved [41].
Using game theory, another study dedicated to investigating the risk-aversion behavior of
producers and traders within a closed-loop SC examined making optimal decisions about wholesale,
retail, and recycling prices in centralized and decentralized decision scenarios. By analyzing some
parameters that influence the revenue distribution contract, a new contract model was proposed to
increase the SC members’ profits by identifying the optimal income distribution ratio [42].
Other equally interesting studies were devoted to the research and development of a new model
based on the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) method called the KTT-
GSCM (Knowledge-Technology Transfer–Green Supply-Chain Management) multicriteria model
which demonstrated the mutual influences between GSCM, KTT, and technological innovation [43].
Based on a relational vision of inter-organizational competitive advantage, another study focused on
empirical research of drivers and their results in integrating a low-carbon supply chain (logistics
service providers (LSPs) with supply-chain integration (SCI)). The results of the study highlighted
the fact that between the corporate environmental responsibility of the LSP and the environmental
requirements of the clients, there are positive relationships with SCI with the low-carbon emissions
of the LSP, and the latter is positively related to the financial and environmental performance of the
LSP [44].
To ensure environmentally sustainable logistics, companies must have an environmentally
sustainable logistics performance management (ESLPM) process. Transposing the integration of
processes within the SC to increase performance was achieved by developing a framework aimed at
integrating the ESPLM process and third-party logistics (3PL). This framework can provide guidance
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 5 of 22

for practitioners in identifying the degree of integration of logistics performance management

processes and decision-making at the senior level [45].
Large companies (with more than 250 employees) are already using supply-chain analytics tools
such as KPMG Spectrum Third-Party Intelligence, Deloitte Supply-Chain Solutions, Halo Supply-
Chain Analytics and Business Intelligence Software, Tableau, and Neubrain Supply-Chain and
Logistics Analytics Software. Numerous software solutions are also in use, such as Relax, FusionOps,
Blue Ridge Supply-Chain Analytics and Inventory Analytics Software, IMI Supply-Chain Analytics,
and Qlik Supply-Chain Analytics [29]. These companies manage large volumes of data of thousands
of Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

2.3. Importance and Application of BDA in SCM

The technological advances recorded by supply-chain entities, the volume of data generated,
and the speed of distribution have led to significant increases in structured and unstructured data
analysis to get a clearer picture of customer needs and improve cost-related aspects of supply-chain
processes. Big data analytics can make significant contributions to areas such as product
development, market demand prediction, supply decisions, distribution optimization, and customer
feedback. Companies with a disciplined strategy of using big data analytics have had better results
with investments [46]. In other words, a clear and systematic strategy of big data analytics can
provide a better return on investment (ROI) in certain areas of the supply chain, such as marketing,
purchasing, shipping, and storage [47].
Other specialists have demonstrated the importance and contribution of BDA to SCM by: (1)
improving manufacturing performance by linking IoT and BD to manufacturing systems to minimize
bottlenecks by developing forecasting techniques [48]; (2) observing current trends in supply-chain
management by using Twitter and developing a new conceptual framework in this regard [49]; (3)
investigating the potential use of TD for the management of product life cycles [50]; (4) measuring
the sustainability of supply chains using BD prediction analysis [15]; and (5) establishing a
relationship between sustainable supply-chain management and logistics operations in the food
industry [51], and developing a methodology for analyzing social data for supply-chain analysis and
logistics operations in the food industry [52].
From the above approaches we can see that: (1) the information from SCM analysis should be
presented and extracted in a way that will help end users; (2) enhanced data integration and SCM
analysis have helped to increase visibility across the supply chain; (3) data retrieval methods and
their permanent updates have helped to improve the speed of data processing, with real-time
capability for various decision situations; (4) data analysis has been forward-looking and the impact
assessment of prospective decisions has led to the emergence of a new advanced supply-chain
management using proactive models; and (5) there is a need to include knowledge in the use and
analysis of data. In other words, BDA is the natural evolution of big data in SCM [53].

2.4. Benefits and Constraints of BDA for SCM

Due to the upsurge of unstructured data in complex processes across entities, big data analytics
has become the biggest challenge for the supply chain. The competitive position on the market is
maintained under the conditions of proper management of the entities in the supply chain. Entities
are interconnected through material flows, financial flows, and significant electronic information
exchanged simultaneously among all supply-chain partners. Connections between different parts or
elements of the supply chain may be direct or indirect, and significant interactions between them
determine the complexity of the system.
To understand this impact, we need to take into account the following key features: (1) the
number of entities in the supply chain; (2) the diversity of entities; (3) the existing interdependence
between items, products, and supply-chain partners; (4) the dynamics of the system, represented by
variety; and (5) the existence of uncertainties. The great interest of specialists is shown by the
empirical studies undertaken, which highlight several advantages of BDA within EMS, such as
reducing operational costs, increasing customer satisfaction, and increasing SC agility [35,54–56].
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 6 of 22

In previous studies of specialists, numerous benefits related to SCM information technology (IT)
optimization have been identified, such as (1) the exchange of information between SC stakeholders
[57–60]; (2) the transformation of intra- and inter-organizational business processes (cancellation,
redesign, automation) [61–63], operational efficiency [64] and revenue growth [59], profitability, and
improvement of stakeholder relations [65,66]; and (3) improving relational and contractual
governance by effectively mitigating the opportunism of partners [67]. In addition, BDA could also
generate future opportunities for stakeholders such as obtaining a competitive advantage [68] and
reducing exposure to fraud or other malfunctions [69,70].
According to specialist studies, several constraints have been identified in the
adoption/implementation of BDA in SCM: technological barriers, expertise, and investment barriers,
data barriers, organizational barriers, etc. In the category of technological barriers, the following
issues were identified as the basis for BDA implementation in SCM: (1) a lack of understanding of
the implementation of new technologies or a lack of tools needed to implement BDA in SCM [54]; (2)
a lack of infrastructure facilities [71–73]; (3) low acceptance, routine, and BDA assimilation by SCM
organizations and partners [73,74]; and (4) data security [35,75].
With regard to expertise and investment barriers, specialist studies have shown interesting
aspects of BDA in SCM: (1) a lack of qualified IT staff and high investment cost [72,73]; and (2) a lack
of funds and facilities for research and development of BDA instruments [70]. Data barriers have
highlighted interesting aspects of the implementation of BDA in SCM, such as: (1) complexity of data
integration and data quality [72,73,76]; and (2) data security, confidentiality, performance, and
scalability [72,73]. Organizational barriers have been identified as negative limits in implementing
BDA in SCM: (1) the absence of a data-sharing policy between organizations and a lack of thinking
in terms of large data [69]; and (2) a lack of training facilities and time constraints [72,77].

2.5. Big Data Analytics and Supply-Chain Management in Romania

Studies in Romania related to the implementation of BD and BDA are scarce. The most
significant studies were in the fields of health and information and communication technology. BD
can help physicians choose treatments more correctly and faster, based on information collected by
health care professionals. Thus, patients can benefit from appropriate treatment in due time, and will
be better informed about health care providers [78]. In the field of information and communication
technology, the themes of large data management and management and analysis (big data) have been
analyzed in terms of their relevance for the solutions they offer to increase competitiveness in
intelligent specialization at a national level [79].
On the other hand, the role of Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) in information and
communication technology (ICT) in supporting the development of the economy and society,
focusing on the business environment, identifies among the four priorities e-commerce, research and
development (R&D) and innovation in ICT [80].
In line with these priorities, in the Digital Agenda for Romania Program, the electronic services
section includes the project “ICT Research and Development and Innovation: Developing innovative
products and services serving the 10 sectors (tourism and ecotourism, wood and furniture, creative
industries, automotive and components, information and communication technology, food and
beverage processing, health and pharmaceuticals, energy and environmental management, bio-
economy, biopharmaceutics, and biotechnology) identified in smart specialization” (TIC-SI), with the
objective of investigating and implementing this role.
In Romania, the SC concept is widely used, having being given more meanings, such as: (1) the
variation and nonexistence of a uniform designation between SC and SCM [81]; and (2) the use of
synonyms for SC (supply network, logistics network, supply-chain management, supply-chain
provision) [82–88]. Supply-chain management involves challenges such as building trust, sharing
information on market needs, developing new products and services, and meeting customer
requirements as efficiently as possible [89,90].
The starting point of research regarding the stage of implementation, expansion, and
development of SCM in Romanian companies is the logistics sector. Despite with a background of
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 7 of 22

poor transport infrastructure and public policy and an economic crisis [91], this sector managed to
make some progress, justified by the presence of large companies and international groups in
Romania. This can also be noticed by tracking foreign investments in the economy following the large
central areas (Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca, Arad, Constanta, and Ploiesti) compared to the performance
level of logistics platforms of large companies in developed countries such as the US or European
countries. Romanian logistics activities are carried out internally with specialized companies, as well
as externally (the tendency is increasing, with outsourcing to specialized suppliers) [92]. During 2008,
the stage of development of SCM was low, with only extension and integration of companies with
suppliers and distributors [93].
The implementation of SCM within Romanian companies is influenced by two major factors: (1)
physical capital (technology not updated) and poor human capital (reduction of wage costs); and (2)
limited vision of the inter-organizational structure [94]. The directions for improvement have been
investment in new technology and human capital, assimilation of new values by managers and
continuous adaptation, and improvement of employees’ skills and their adaptation to new
technologies.
The implementation of SCM within Romanian companies requires organizational changes based
on the “Eight I’s that Create We’s” approach, which considers the following characteristics:
individual excellence, importance, interdependence, investment, information, integration,
institutionalization, and integrity [95]. Unlike later research in Romania, our paper aims to explore
aspects related to the state of implementation of BDA for SCM, the adoption of BDA strategies in
SCM, the identification of BDA’s capabilities and tools in SCM, and the measurement of future
intentions of Romanian companies regarding the implementation of other BDA tools for SCM.

3. Research Methodology
Given the importance of using Industry 4.0’s new tools and technologies, which make a
substantial contribution to improving business performance, we conducted a study of companies in
Romania. Industry 4.0 represents the fourth industrial revolution with a major impact on the
production of the future, which integrates innovative elements and technologies such as big data
analytics, Internet of things and others, and which ensures constant communication and connection
in addressing customer services. Through this study, we wanted to find out the future intention of
companies to implement new tools and technologies that impact their performance. The quantitative
market research had the following objectives:
Objectives 1: Identify the companies' experience in implementing analytics in supply chain and the
difficulties encountered in this process.
Objectives 2: Identify strategy adoption by companies for implementing large data analytics (including
the supply chain) and determine its main development priorities.
Objectives 3: Identify the existence of professional capabilities needed to develop insights through BDA.
Objectives 4: Identify the supply-chain analytics tools used by companies and the future intended
implementation of new tools and technologies to gain valuable supply-chain insights.
Objectives 5: Highlight the results obtained by companies following the use of BDA in the supply chain.
Objectives 6: Measure the influence of experience, strategies, professional capabilities, annual sales
revenues, and industry on the future intention of companies to implement new tools and technologies to gain
valuable supply-chain insights.
Taking into account the objectives of the study, we formulated the following research
hypotheses:
Hypotheses 1: There is no link between the size of the company and its experience in implementing
analytics in supply chain.
Hypotheses 2: There is a link between the size of the company and its strategy for implementing BDA.
Hypotheses 3: There is a link between years of operating experience and professional capabilities to
develop insights through BDA.
Hypotheses 4: Most of the Romanian companies intend to implement new tools and technologies to gain
valuable supply-chain insights.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 8 of 22

Hypotheses 5: The company’s experience influences its future intention to implement new tools and
technologies to gain valuable supply-chain insights.
Hypotheses 6: The strategies adopted by companies to implement BDA influences their future intention
to implement new tools and technologies to gain valuable supply-chain insights.
Hypotheses 7: Professional capabilities influence the future intention of companies to implement new
tools and technologies to gain valuable supply-chain insights.
Hypotheses 8: Annual sales revenue influences the future intention of companies to implement new tools
and technologies to gain valuable supply-chain insights.
Hypotheses 9: Industry influences the future intention of companies to implement new tools and
technologies to gain valuable supply-chain insights.
To achieve the above-mentioned objectives, but also to test the model proposal, it was necessary
to collect data from different companies. The study was conducted between January and March 2019.
The relevant population for our study (www.insse.ro) was identified in the metadata database of the
National Institute of Statistics in Romania. Starting from the information provided, the sampling base
was defined and built. The process ended with a cross-listing of 550 companies. In view of some
errors (such as inactive, noncontact, or already dissolved), the sampling base (list) was reduced to
460 enterprises. After companies were identified, contact with their managers was established to
receive the survey agreement and know which managers were to get the online questionnaire,
included in an e-mail link to be completed later.
The research method used in the quantitative study was a survey by sampling, using the
questionnaire as the data collection tool. It included closed questions, measured with nominal and
ordinal scales. The study was carried out with the support of six interviewers with experience in the
field. Managers who agreed to participate in the survey received an electronic link via e-mail for the
online questionnaire. The process ended with the conclusion of participation agreements with 226
companies included in the list. The response rate was 90.7%, i.e., 205 managers provided complete
and useful answers for this research (Appendix A, Table A1). The collected data were analyzed with
the SPSS package, using the frequency and contingency tables, the hi-square test, the Student’s t-test,
factorial correspondence analysis, and the binary logistic regression model.
In this respect, the binary logistic regression model was used, which indicates the relation
between a nominal variable Y (value 1 = success; 0 = failure) and k factorial variables. Factorial
variables are quantitative or categorical, while Y is a binary variable that has a Bernoulli type
distribution, with the parameter p = P (Y = 1). The general equation underlying the linear logistic
regression model is [96]:

(    ⋯ 
P(y = 1/𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 , . . . 𝑥 ) = (1)
(    ⋯ 

where P is the probability of getting a certain behavior or intent (yes answer); 𝑥 , 𝑥 , 𝑥 , … , 𝑥

are independent variables included in the model; and  ,  ,  , … ,  are the model coefficients
obtained according to the dependence of the values of the variables.

4. Results and Discussions

The first research goal (O1) was to identify the companies' experience in implementing BDA in
SCM and the difficulties encountered in this process. Using the chi-square test, we can see the
distribution of companies according to the experience gained in implementing BDA in the SC in five
size categories in Table 1. In total, there are more than four times as many experienced companies
(164) as companies with no experience (41).
From the analysis of the differences between observed and expected frequencies, it can be seen
that there are differences in the levels of all subgroups formed by the crossing of two variables. In the
subgroups of companies with more than 250 employees, observed experience is higher than expected
(58 > 48.8 and 46 > 36.8), and in companies with lack of experience in implementing analytics in the
supply chain, expected frequency is higher than observed (12.2 > 3 and 9.2 > 0).
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 9 of 22

Table 1. Observed and expected frequencies. BDA, big data analytics; SC, supply chain.

Number of Employees
Total
0–9 10–49 50–249 250–549 >550
Count 13 12 13 3 0 41
No
Does your company have experience in Expected Count 3.2 5.4 11.0 12.2 9.2 41.0
implementing BDA in the SC? Count 3 15 42 58 46 164
Yes
Expected Count 12.8 21.6 44.0 48.8 36.8 164.0
Count 16 27 55 61 46 205
Total
Expected Count 16.0 27.0 55.0 61.0 46.0 205.0

As can be seen in Table 2, the critical report has a value of 68,226, and for number of degrees of
freedom df = 4. Since the significance level is 0.000, which is less than α = 0.05, the hypothesis is
rejected, and the alternative hypothesis is accepted, according to which there is a connection between
the size of the company and the experience accumulated in the implementation of BDA in SC.

Table 2. Critical report for Chi-Square Tests.

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 68.226 a 4 0.000
Likelihood ratio 68.549 4 0.000
Linear-by-linear association 61.462 1 0.000
No. of valid cases 205
a One cell (10.0%) has expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.20.

From the analysis of the answers, it can be seen that there are certain differences between
companies (grouped by income-based size) regarding the difficulties encountered in the process of
BDA implementation in SCM. Managers of companies with annual sales revenue up to €10 million
said that the first three potential barriers to implementation were “Large investment required”
(10.3%), “Security issues” (10.3%), and “Lack of executive support” (10.3%). Companies with annual
sales revenues of over €11 million encountered obstacles related to “Large investment required”
(54.6%), “Security issues” (44.8%), and “Privacy issues” (39%). All respondents faced difficulties
involving “Lack of business case” (47.3%), “Lack of executive support” (38.5%), and “No capacity to
execute” (36.1%) (Figure 1).

4.4
Large investment required 10.7
10.2
11.2
5.9
Security issues 9.8
Responses

6.8
8.8 Under € 5 million
4.9
Privacy issues 4.4 Between € 6- € 10 million
5.9
11.7 Between € 11- € 25 million
2.4
Lack of business case 7.8 Between € 26- € 50 million
8.8
10.7 Between € 51- € 75 million
4.4
Lack of executive support 4.9 Between € 76- € 100 million
5.9
8.3 Over € 101 million
1.5
No capacity to execute 6.3
5.9
6.8

0 5 10 15 20
Annual Sales Revenue

Figure 1. Distribution of difficulties faced according to annual sales revenue.

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 10 of 22

The second research goal (O2) was to identify companies adopting a strategy for implementing
BDA in SCM and determining their main development priorities. Using the same chi-square test,
some differences can be seen between company size and BDA implementation strategy. Study results
indicate that 9 out of 10 companies adopted a strategy for implementing BDA that also involved the
SC; 23 companies of the sample (with up to 249 employees) had not yet adopted a strategy (Table 3).
In the subgroups of companies with more than 50 employees, the observed strategy is higher than
expected (51 > 48.8, 61 > 54.2, and 46 > 40.8) and in the absence of BDA strategy the expected frequency
is higher than the observed (6.2 > 4, 6.8 > 0, and 5.2 > 0).

Table 3. Strategy according to company size.

Number of Employees
Count Total
0–9 10–49 50–249 250–549 >550
Count 9 10 4 0 0 23
No
Did your company adopt a strategy for Expected Count 1.8 3.0 6.2 6.8 5.2 23.0
BDA? Count 7 17 51 61 46 182
Yes
Expected Count 14.2 24.0 48.8 54.2 40.8 182.0
Count 16 27 55 61 46 205
Total
Expected Count 16.0 27.0 55.0 61.0 46.0 205.0
From the data presented in Figure 2, it is noted that 38.5% (79) of the managers of companies
included in the survey sample stated that they adopted an enterprise-wide strategy that includes,
among other things, the SC. Only 35.6% (73) of surveyed companies had adopted a supply-chain-
specific strategy for BD, while only 11.2% (23) had applied a BD strategy in some form for some
processes.

Responses
1.0%
Yes, it has adopted an enterprise-wide strategy that 3.9%
12.2%
includes, among other things, the supply chain 12.7%
8.8%
1.5%
Yes, it has adopted a supply chain-specific strategy for big 3.4% Number of
9.3% employees
data 12.2%
9.3%
0-9
1.0%
Yes, there is a big data strategy in some form - for some 1.0% 10-49
3.4%
processes 50-249
4.4%
250-549
4.4% > 550
4.9%
No current strategy 2.0%

0% 5% 10% 15%

Percentages

Figure 2. Distribution of strategies according to company size.

The difference is also confirmed by applying the chi-square (X2) test, which means the existence
of a link between two variables (Table 4). The calculated value of X2calc is 65,002, higher than X20.05;4 =
9.49, so hypothesis H2 is accepted, which means that we can guarantee with 95% probability that
there is a connection between the variables company size and strategy for implementing BDA.

Table 4. Critical report for Chi-Square Tests.

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 11 of 22

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 65.022 a 4 0.000
Likelihood ratio 57.749 4 0.000
Linear-by-linear association 50.680 1 0.000
No. of valid cases 205
a Two cells (20.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.80.

It is noted that all calculated coefficients (Phi, Cramer’s and Contingency Coefficient) have small
values (close to zero) and the significance levels are less than 0.05, so we can identify a weak link
between company size and adoption of a strategy for implementing BDA (Table 5).

Table 5. Coefficients to measure the association of nominal variables.

Symmetric Measures Value Approx. Sig.

Phi 0.563 0.000
Nominal by nominal Cramer’s V 0.563 0.000
Contingency Coefficient 0.491 0.000
No. of valid cases 205
The results show that 24.2% of companies in manufacturing have adopted a strategy based on
improving predictions of customer needs. Similarly, 7.1% of technology companies and 4.4% of e-
commerce companies said improving predictions of customer needs is the top strategic priority in
implementing BDA. Only companies in consulting (4.4%) recognize that improving the efficiency of
the supply chain is the priority in their own strategy (Figure 3).

Area of industry

24.2%
Manufacturing 14.3%
15.4%
8.8%
6%

8.2% Responses
Consulting 4.4%
17.6%
1.6% Improving Predictions on
6%
Customer Needs
4.4% Improving Efficiency of
E-commerce 2.2%
13.7% Supply Chain
3.8%
1.6% Improving Risk Assessment
in Supply Chain
Technology 7.1%
3.8%
9.3% Improving Traceability in
company 12.1%
11% Supply Chain
Improving the Reaction
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Time

Percentages

Figure 3. Distribution of main development priorities of BDA for supply chain strategy according to
industry.

The third research goal (O3) was to identify the existence of professional capabilities needed to
develop insights through BDA.
The distribution of companies by professional capability to develop insights through BDA based
on years of operating experience is presented in Table 6. Of the 18 companies that do not have such
professional capacity, 13 have a history in the Romanian market up to 5 years. Of the 187 companies
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 12 of 22

that have this professional capacity, 46.56% have been in the domestic market for up to 5 years and
26.2% for up to 10 years.
As indicated in Table 6, the observed and expected frequencies in all subgroups formed by
crossing the variables occupational capabilities and years of operational experience have different
but close values. For companies with experience of up to five years, the observed professional
capacity is higher than expected (40 > 37.4 and 87 > 85.7), with a corresponding decrease if there is no
capacity, for which the expected frequency is greater than the observed (3.6 > 1 and 8.3 > 7).

Table 6. Observed and expected frequencies.

Years of operating experience

Total
<1 year 1–5 years 5–10 years >10 years
Count 1 7 6 4 18
Does your company have No
Expected Count 3.6 8.3 4.8 1.3 18.0
professional capabilities to develop
insights via BDA? Count 40 87 49 11 187
Yes
Expected Count 37.4 85.7 50.2 13.7 187.0
Count 41 94 55 15 205
Total
Expected Count 41.0 94.0 55.0 15.0 205.0
For number of degrees of freedom df = 3, the critical ratio is 8.570 and the significance level is
0.036, less than p = 0.05. Therefore, the hypothesis is rejected, and the alternative hypothesis is
accepted, according to which there is a connection between years of operational experience and
professional capability to develop insights through BDA (Table 7).

Table 7. Critical report for Chi-Square Tests.

Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 8.570 a 3 0.036
Likelihood ratio 7.410 3 0.060
Linear-by-linear association 7.077 1 0.008
No. of valid cases 205
a Three cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.32.

Of the 68 companies (31.2%) that have an independent team of data specialists focused on BDA
on an ongoing basis, only 21.5% have up to five years of operating experience and 9.7% have over
five years. Four out of 10 companies surveyed said they had a specialist in the IT or supply
department with the necessary training who knows how to use sophisticated tools to generate
insights (Figure 4). Analyzing the managers' responses, we can say that most of the companies that
did not resort to professional capacities offered by third parties hesitated or were not able to attract
specialized personnel with training in the use of sophisticated tools to generate insights or this
priority was not included in their strategy.
The fourth objective (O4) was to identify the supply-chain analytics tools used by companies and
the future intended implementation of new tools and technologies to gain valuable supply-chain
insights. Large companies (with more than 250 employees) use several supply-chain analytics tools,
including KPMG Spectrum Third-Party Intelligence, Halo Supply-Chain Analytics and Business
Intelligence Software, and Neubrain Supply Chain and Logistics Analytics Software (Figure 5).
Deloitte Supply-Chain Solutions, KPMG Spectrum Third-Party Intelligence, and SAP Ariba are
useful software solutions preferred by companies with more than 550 employees. About 5.9% of
sample companies use other software solutions and data analytics tools such as Relax, FusionOps,
Blue Ridge Supply-Chain Analytics and Inventory Analytics Software, IMI Supply-Chain Analytics,
and Qlik Supply-Chain Analytics.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 13 of 22

Years of operating
Responses
experience
Yes, in-house capabilities - a specialized
10.2% person who uses sophisticated tools to
Less than 1 5.9%
3.4% generate insights (the supply chain function
year
0.5% or IT)
Yes, an independent team of specialists
18% focuses on a big data analysis and ongoing
15.6%
1 – 5 years 8.8% basis (at enterprise or supply chain function
3.4% level)
Yes, traditional database (part of IT team)
13.7% who does not have sophisticated tools to
7.3%
5 – 10 years 2.9% analyze vast quantities of data and generate
2.9% insights
No one in-house, it turns to professional
2% capacities offered by third parties
More than 2.4%
10 years 1%
2%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Percentages

Figure 4. Distribution of professional capabilities to develop insights via BDA according to years of
operating experience.
Type of supply chain analytics tools

Intellestra by Voxware (Voxware_Inc)

KPMG Spectrum Third Party Intelligence (KPMG)

PeopleSoft Supply Chain Analytics (Oracle)

Halo Supply Chain Analytics and Business…

Birst Supply Chain Analytics (BirstBI)

Deloitte Supply Chain Solutions (DeloitteUS)

Tableau (tableau)

JDA Supply Chain Solutions (JDASoftware)

Neubrain Supply Chain and Logistics Analytics…

TARGIT Decision Suite (TARGIT)

Descartes Reporting Services Supply Chain…

Solvoyo (Solvoyo)

AIMMS Supply Chain Analytics (AIMMS)

SAP Ariba (SAPAriba)

Logility Voyager Solutions (Logility_Inc)

Other

0% 0,5% 1% 1.5% 2% 2,5% 3% 3,5%

Number of
employees Percentage

0-9 10-49 50-249 250-549 > 550

Figure 5. Distribution of supply-chain analytics tools according to company size.

Given the company’s intention to deploy new tools and technologies to gain valuable supply-
chain insights, only 41% of entities are interested in engaging in such actions; the remaining 59% have
not allocated budgets for such initiatives.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 14 of 22

To verify hypothesis H4, that most Romanian companies intend to implement new tools and
technologies to gain valuable supply-chain insights, Student’s t-test was used. Table 8 shows the
statistical significance of the difference between the percentage of companies that want to implement
new techniques (41%) and the value of the test (50%), given that most of the Romanian entities want
to be involved in such future actions.

Table 8. Data obtained from Student’s t-test.

Test Value = 0.5

95% Confidence
One-Sample Test Sig. (2- Mean Interval of the
t df Difference
tailed) Difference
Lower Upper
Will your company intend in future to implement
new tools and technologies to gain valuable supply- −2.621 204 0.009 −0.090 −0.16 −0.02
chain insights?
Table 8 shows the value of the critical ratio tcalc = −2.621, which is less than the value in the
distribution law table of the unilateral right test t0.05;205 = 1.64. Moreover, the significance level p = 0.009
< 0.05, and the difference between the two values is negative. We therefore accept the null hypothesis
(H4); we cannot guarantee with 95% probability that the percentage of companies in the population
surveyed is more than 50% and we reject the alternative hypothesis.
The fifth objective of the research (O5) was to highlight the results obtained by companies
following the use of BDA in SCM. Correspondence factor analysis was used to describe the
relationship between the variables years of operating experience and results obtained after using
BDA in SCM. The analysis of the data in Table 9 indicates that the calculated value of the test X2calc is
37.650 and the minimum significance level is 0.048 < 0.050, therefore the alternative hypothesis is
accepted (i.e., the distribution of the variable differs from the normal distribution). Here, too, we can
see that the first component explains a spread of 46.1%, the second of 39.7%, and the last one of 14.2%.

Table 9. Statistics on factors and their importance.

Proportion of Inertia Confidence Singular Value

Singular Chi-
Dimension Inertia Sig. Accounted Standard Correlation
Value Square Cumulative
For Deviation 2
1 0.291 0.085 0.461 0.461 0.065 0.053
2 0.270 0.073 0.397 0.858 0.063
3 0.161 0.026 0.142 1.000
Total 0.184 37.650 0.048 a 1.000 1.000
a 27 degrees of freedom.

Companies with more than five years’ seniority are in opposition to the group of companies
with less than one year and between one and five years. They are strongly associated with benefits
such as “Improvement in customer service and demand fulfillment,” “Improved cost to serve,”
“Increase in supply-chain efficiency,” and “Optimization of inventory and asset productivity.” Other
companies with less than one year’s seniority in the domestic market indicated “Greater integration
across the supply chain” and “Optimizing inventory and asset productivity” (Figure 6).
Instead, the fewer benefits that have been gained by companies operating in the market for
nearly five years have been linked to “Optimized inventory and asset productivity,” “Shortened
order-to-delivery cycle times,” “Improvement in demand driven operations,” and “Improved cost to
serve.” However, benefits such as “Increase in supply-chain efficiency,” “Better customer and
supplier relationships,” “Faster and more effective response time to supply-chain issues,” and “More
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 15 of 22

efficient supply and operation process and decision-making” have been strongly associated with
these companies.
The ultimate goal of the research (O6) was to measure the influence of experience, strategy,
professional capabilities, annual sales revenue, and industry on the future intention of companies to
implement new tools and technologies to gain valuable supply chain insights.

Figure 6. Graphical representation of the correspondence between the categories years of operating
experience and results obtained after using big data analytics in the supply chain.

In the binary logistic regression model, the following independent variables (factorials) are
included: Experience (x1), Annual Sales Revenue (x2), Strategy (x3), Professional Capabilities (x4), and
Industry (x5). The use of these variables is required to test hypotheses H5–H9.
The dependent variable included in the model is given by the future intention of companies to
implement new tools and technologies to obtain valuable supply-chain insights. Table 10 presents
empirical model parameter estimates using the binary logistic regression method.

Table 10. Coefficients of binary logistic regression model.

Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 16 of 22

95.0% C.I. for EXP(β)

β S.E. Wald df Sig. Exp(β)
Lower Upper
Experience 0.990 0.623 2.523 1 0.042 3.691 1.093 9.127
Strategy 0.126 0.799 0.025 1 0.875 1.135 0.237 5.434
Professional Capabilities 0.508 0.601 0.714 1 0.038 3.662 1.512 9.401
Industry 3.561 3 0.313
Industry (Manufacturing) 0.344 0.369 0.865 1 0.352 1.410 0.684 2.908
Industry (Consulting) 0.816 0.439 3.459 1 0.063 2.262 0.957 5.344
Industry (E-commerce) 0.520 0.575 0.817 1 0.366 1.682 0.545 5.194
Step 1 a Annual Sales Revenue 10.322 6 0.031
Annual Sales Revenue (Under €5 million) −0.080 0.781 0.011 1 0.049 3.123 1.200 7.269
Annual Sales Revenue (€6–10 million) 1.160 0.578 4.025 1 0.045 3.189 1.027 9.899
Annual Sales Revenue (€11–25 million) 1.208 0.525 5.291 1 0.021 3.348 1.196 9.375
Annual Sales Revenue (€26–50 million) 0.934 0.464 4.052 1 0.044 2.544 1.025 6.314
Annual Sales Revenue (€51–75 million) 0.300 0.519 0.333 1 0.564 1.349 0.488 3.730
Annual Sales Revenue (€76–100 million) 0.148 0.593 0.063 1 0.802 1.160 0.363 3.712
Constant −2.693 0.860 9.814 1 0.002 0.068
Experience 1.056 0.466 5.148 1 0.023 2.876 1.155 7.162
Professional Capabilities 0.515 0.599 0.738 1 0.029 3.673 1.517 9.415
Industry 3.547 3 0.315
Industry (Manufacturing) 0.338 0.368 0.845 1 0.358 1.402 0.682 2.882
Industry (Consulting) 0.807 0.435 3.444 1 0.064 2.242 0.956 5.261
Industry (E-commerce) 0.510 0.572 0.796 1 0.372 1.666 0.543 5.110
Annual Sales Revenue 10.328 6 0.031
Step 2 a
Annual Sales Revenue (Under €5 million) −0.094 0.776 0.015 1 0.047 3.910 3.199 8.167
Annual Sales Revenue (€6–10 million) 1.159 0.578 4.021 1 0.045 3.188 1.027 9.900
Annual Sales Revenue (€11–25 million) 1.204 0.524 5.271 1 0.022 3.333 1.193 9.315
Annual Sales Revenue (€26–50 million) 0.935 0.464 4.063 1 0.044 2.547 1.026 6.319
Annual Sales Revenue (€51–75 million) 0.302 0.519 0.338 1 0.561 1.352 0.489 3.736
Annual Sales Revenue (€76–100 million) 0.151 0.593 0.065 1 0.799 1.163 0.364 3.719
Constant −2.635 0.773 11.631 1 0.001 0.072
Experience 1.164 0.451 6.668 1 0.010 3.203 1.324 7.751
Industry 3.462 3 0.326
Industry (Manufacturing) 0.324 0.366 0.781 1 0.377 1.382 0.674 2.834
Industry (Consulting) 0.801 0.434 3.404 1 0.065 2.228 0.951 5.218
Industry (E-commerce) 0.455 0.563 0.652 1 0.420 1.576 0.522 4.752
Annual Sales Revenue 9.974 6 0.026
Step 3 a Annual Sales Revenue (Under € 5 million) −0.091 0.775 0.014 1 0.047 3.913 1.200 7.168
Annual Sales Revenue (€6–10 million) 1.109 0.572 3.754 1 0.044 3.031 1.987 9.304
Annual Sales Revenue (€11–25 million) 1.198 0.525 5.210 1 0.022 3.315 1.185 9.276
Annual Sales Revenue (€26–50 million) 0.911 0.461 3.900 1 0.048 2.486 1.007 6.138
Annual Sales Revenue (€51–75 million) 0.284 0.518 0.301 1 0.583 1.329 0.482 3.666
Annual Sales Revenue (€76–100 million) 0.164 0.593 0.076 1 0.782 1.178 0.368 3.766
Constant −2.227 0.595 14.021 1 0.000 0.108
Experience 1.197 0.447 7.178 1 0.007 3.309 1.379 7.939
Annual Sales Revenue 8.692 6 0.029
Annual Sales Revenue (Under €5 million) −0.064 0.770 0.007 1 0.042 2.938 1.207 4.245
Step 4 a Annual Sales Revenue (€6–10 million) 0.883 0.553 2.553 1 0.040 2.419 1.819 7.149
Annual Sales Revenue (€11–25 million) 1.121 0.516 4.720 1 0.030 3.069 1.116 8.441
Annual Sales Revenue (€26–50 million) 0.871 0.455 3.659 1 0.056 2.390 0.979 5.836
Annual Sales Revenue (€51–75 million) 0.227 0.511 0.198 1 0.656 1.255 0.461 3.417
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 17 of 22

Annual Sales Revenue (€76–100 million) 0.188 0.586 0.103 1 0.748 1.207 0.383 3.806
Constant −1.873 0.542 11.958 1 0.001 0.154
Experience 1.097 0.409 7.214 1 0.007 2.996 1.345 6.674
Step 5 a Annual Sales Revenue 1.023 0.507 4.540 1 0.030 3.057 1.109 8.411
Constant −1.269 0.377 11.303 1 0.001 0.281
a Variable(s) entered are: Experience, Strategy, Professional Capabilities, Industry, Annual Sales Revenue.

Using the model’s coefficients (B) from Table 10, we completed the binary logistic regression as
Equation (2):
1
𝑃 𝑦=
𝑥 ,𝑥
exp(−1.269 + 1.097 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 + 1.023 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒) (2)
=
1 + exp(−1.269 + 1.097 𝐸𝑥𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 + 1.023 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒)
The probability of engaging in future actions to implement new tools and technologies to gain
valuable supply-chain insights is high for companies with high annual sales revenue (0.030 < 0.05
(Sig.)), they have the professional capabilities to develop insights through big data analytics (0.029 <
0.05 (Sig.)) and greater experience in implementing analytics in the supply chain (0.007 < 0.05 (Sig.)).
The probability is low that the industry (0.326 > 0.05 (Sig.)) and adoption strategy for implementing
big data analytics (0.875 > 0.05 (Sig.)) will influence these actions.
The results obtained from testing the binary logistic regression model indicate that at a
confidence level of 95%, hypotheses H6 and H9 are rejected and hypotheses H5, H7, and H8 are valid.

5. Conclusions
Massive volumes of data coming from different sources have a positive effect on real-time
decision-making. The variety of data sources, the quality of the data to be integrated, and their
visualization are some of the challenges for big data analytics integration. The survey results indicate
that 80% of Romanian companies have accumulated big data analytics experience, integrating
different software solutions into the supply chain. Big companies (with more than 250 employees)
allocate large annual budgets to undertake projects aimed at implementing big data analytics in the
supply chain or to employ specialists in the field. The difficulties encountered in the implementation
of big data analytics in the supply chain by companies with annual sales revenues of up to €10 million
are related to large investment requirements, security issues, and lack of executive support. Entities
with annual sales over €11 million have encountered obstacles related to security and privacy issues.
Moreover, 90% of respondents have adopted an enterprise-wide strategy (that includes the
supply chain), facilitating the use of big data to add business value. Some of these entities have
adopted a dedicated supply-chain strategy (35.6%), and 11.2% have applied a big data strategy in
some form for some processes. Some manufacturing (24.2%) and e-commerce (4.4%) companies have
adopted a strategy that focuses on improving predictions of customer needs, while consulting
companies (4.4%) have as a priority improving the efficiency of the supply chain. To develop insights
through big data analytics, Romanian companies need professional capabilities; about 91.22% of
entities use such capacities and are 5–10 years old. Of these, 43.9% have a specialized team using
sophisticated tools to generate insights, 31.2% have an independent team, and 16.1% have a
traditional database (part of the IT team).
Company managers admit that technological changes have changed work processes lately, with
investments in training and staff development for large data analytics needed. Companies with over
five years of experience in the market that have benefited from the expertise of specialists have
achieved results including “Improvement in customer service and demand fulfillment,” “Improved
cost to serve,” “Increase in supply-chain efficiency,” and “Optimization of inventory and asset
productivity.” Other companies that are smaller and newer in the Romanian landscape, benefiting
from the support of teams of specialists, have obtained results related to “Greater integration across
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 18 of 22

the supply chain,” “Faster and more efficient response time to supply-chain issues,” and
“Optimization of inventory and asset productivity.”
Managers agree that new capabilities and technologies are needed to transform, manage, and
analyze company-wide information. The main challenges they face are the acceptance and use of new
technologies, as well as their regulation. The most notable problems to overcome are based on the
difficulty of analyzing large volumes of data to achieve timely accurate results, and the need for
standardization, interoperability, security, confidentiality, expertise, and funding to develop big data
analytics infrastructure and integrate sets of already available data.
Managers recognize that their concerns include identifying new methods, tools, and statistical
technology approaches, such as cloud computing and security technologies, to be rigorously
explored. Big data analytics is an opportunity to use new types of data to create more agile businesses
to solve problems that were previously considered unsolvable, leading to better business results. This
will lead to radical changes in business operations that change from the use of a model based mainly
on the experience of decision-makers to an information model that gives real value to the business
and organization itself.
Starting from the objectives presented and analyzed in our study, we propose the following
possible future research directions: (1) Studying the opportunities, challenges, advantages and
disadvantages of BD in large companies and/or SMEs in the state or private sector; (2) Studying how
BD systematically affects the economic value in the business environment; (3) Studying the
implementation of BD in various sectors of activity and the efficiency of using the information
obtained in making decision process; (4) Studying the capabilities and benefits of using BDA in
optimizing SCM; (5) Studying the impact of BDA on SCM by using various tools dedicated to
analyzing information.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, I.O. and S.C.; Methodology, M.C.T., O.C.B., and D.I.T.; Validation,
M.C.T. and S.C.; Formal Analysis, I.O. and A.S.T.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, S.C. and M.C.T.;
Writing—Review and Editing, I.O., I.-S.R., and M.S.H.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1.

Indicators Frequency Percent (%)

0–9 16 7.8
10–49 27 13.2
Number of employees 50–249 55 26.8
250–549 61 29.8
>550 46 22.4
75 36.6 75
42 20.5 42
Industry
19 9.3 19
69 33.7 69
Under €5 million 16 7.8
€6–10 million 23 11.2
€11–25 million 31 15.1
Annual sales revenue €26–50 million 45 22.0
€51–75 million 30 14.6
€76–100 million 19 9.3
Over €101 million 41 20.0
Years of operating experience Less than 1 year 41 20.0
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 19 of 22

1–5 years 94 45.9

5–10 years 55 26.8
More than 10 years 15 7.3
Total 205 100.0

References
1. Türkeș, M.C.; Oncioiu, I.; Aslam, H.D.; Marin-Pantelescu, A.; Topor, D.I.; Căpușneanu, S. Drivers and
barriers in using industry 4.0: A perspective of SMEs in Romania. Processes 2019, 7, 153.
2. Manyika, J.; Chui, M.; Brown, B.; Bughin, J.; Dobbs, R.; Roxburgh, C.; Byers, A.H. Big Data: The Next
Frontier for Innovation, Competition and Productivity; Mckinsey Global Institute, 2016. Available online:
https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/big-data-the-next-frontier-
for-innovation (accessed on 10 March 2019).
3. Hellerstein, J. Parallel Programming in the Age of Big Data. Available online:
https://gigaom.com/2008/11/09/mapreduce-leads-the-way-for-parallel-programming/ (accessed on 11
September 2008).
4. Lohr, S. The Age of Big Data. The New York Times. 2012. Available online:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/sunday-review/big-datas-impact-in-the-world.ht (accessed on 20
June 2019).
5. Kubick, W.R. Big data, information and meaning. Appl. Clin. Trials 2012, 21, 26–28.
6. Wisner, J.; Tan, K.C.; Leong, G.K. Principles of Supply Chain Management: A Balanced Approach, 4th ed.;
Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2012.
7. Laney, D. 3D data management: Controlling data volume, velocity and variety. META Group Res. Note 2001,
6, 1.
8. Beyer, M.A.; Laney, D. The Importance of “Big Data”: A Definition; Gartner Publications: Stamford, CT, USA,
2012.
9. Sun, E.W.; Chen, Y.T.; Yu, M.T. Generalized optimal wavelet decomposing algorithm for big financial data.
Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 165, 194–214.
10. Wamba, S.F.; Akter, S.; Edwards, A.; Chopin, G.; Gnanzou, D. How ‘big data’ can make big impact:
Findings from a systematic review and a longitudinal case study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 165, 234–246.
11. Assunção, M.D.; Calheiros, R.N.; Bianchi, S.; Netto, M.A.S.; Buyya, R. Big data computing and clouds:
Trends and future directions. J. Parallel Distrib. Comput. 2015, 79, 3–15.
12. Emani, C.K.; Cullot, N.; Nicolle, C. Understandable big data: A survey. Comput. Sci. Rev. 2015, 17, 70–81.
13. Chen, C.L.P.; Zhang, C.Y. Data-intensive applications, challenges, techniques and technologies: A survey
on big data. Inf. Sci. 2014, 275, 314–347.
14. Tan, K.H.; Zhan, Y.; Ji, G.; Ye, F.; Chang, C. Harvesting big data to enhance supply chain innovation
capabilities: An analytic infrastructure based on deduction graph. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 165, 223–233.
15. Gandomi, A.; Haider, M. Beyond the hype: Big data concepts, methods, and analytics. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
2015, 35, 137–144.
16. White, M. Digital workplaces: Vision and reality. Bus. Inf. Rev. 2012, 29, 205–214.
17. Lee, A.H.I.; Kang, H.-Y.; Ye, S.-J.; Wu, W.-Y. An integrated approach for sustainable supply chain
management with replenishment, transportation, and production decisions. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3887.
18. Oracle. Big Data for the Enterprise; Oracle: Redvud, CA, USA, 2012.
19. Tsai, C.-W.; Lai, C.-F.; Chao, H.-C.; Vasilakos, A.V. Big data analytics: A survey. J. Big Data 2015, 2, 21.
20. Chae, B.; Sheu, C.; Yang, C.; Olson, D. The impact of advanced analytics and data accuracy on operational
performance: A contingent resource based theory (RBT) perspective. Decis. Support Syst. 2014, 59, 119–126.
21. Lustig, I.; Dietrich, B.; Johnson, C.; Dziekan, C. The analytics journey. Anal. Mag. 2010, 3, 11–13.
22. Zeng, X.; Lin.; D.; Xu, Q. Query performance tuning in supply chain analytics. In Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Computational Sciences and Optimization (CSO), Kunming and Lijang City,
China, 15–19 April 2011; p. 327.
23. Siegel, E. Predictive Analytics: The Power to Predict Who Will Click, Buy, Lie, or Die; Wiley Publishing:
Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2013.
24. Christopher, M. Logistics & Supply Chain Management, 4th ed.; FT Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NY,
USA, 2011.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 20 of 22

25. Halo. Descriptive, Predictive, and Prescriptive Analytics Explained. 2018. Available online:
https://halobi.com/blog/descriptive-predictive-and-prescriptive-analytics-explained/ (accessed on 22 June
2019).
26. Edwards, P.; Peters, M.; Sharman, G. The effectiveness of information systems in supporting the extended
supply chain. J. Bus. Logist. 2001, 22, 1–27.
27. Smith, G.E.; Watson, K.J.; Baker, W.H.; Pokorski, J.A. A critical balance: Collaboration and security in the
IT-enabled supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 45, 2595–2613.
28. Antai, I.; Olson, H. Interaction: A new focus for supply chain vs. supply chain competition. Int. J. Phys.
Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2013, 43, 511–528.
29. Barratt, M., Oke, A. Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply chains: A resource-based theory
perspective. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 1217–1233.
30. Sanders, N.R. Big Data Driven Supply Chain Management: A Framework for Implementing Analytics and Turning
Information into Intelligence, 1st ed.; Pearson: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2014.
31. Marabotti, D. Build supplier metrics, build better product. Quality 2003, 42, 40–43.
32. Sahay, B.S.; Ranjan, J. Real time business intelligence in supply chain analytics. Inf. Manag. Comput. 2008,
16, 28–48.
33. Niu, S.; Zhuo, H.; Xue, K. DfRem-driven closed-loop supply chain decision-making: A systematic
framework for modeling research. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3299.
34. O’Dwyer, J.; Renner, R. The promise of advanced supply chain analytics. Supply Chain Manag. Rev. 2011,
15, 32–37.
35. Moro Visconti, R.; Morea, D. Big data for the sustainability of healthcare project financing. Sustainability
2019, 11, 3748.
36. Cheng, Y.; Kuang, Y.; Shi, X.; Dong, C. Sustainable investment in a supply chain in the big data era: An
information updating approach. Sustainability 2018, 10, 403.
37. Xu, L.; Gao, R.; Xie, Y.; Du, P. To be or not to be? Big data business investment decision-making in the
supply chain. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2298.
38. Du, B.; Liu, Q.; Li, G. Coordinating leader-follower supply chain with sustainable green technology
innovation on their fairness concerns. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2017, 14, 1357.
39. Mani, V.; Delgado, C.; Hazen, B.T.; Patel, P. Mitigating supply chain risk via sustainability using big data
analytics: Evidence from the manufacturing supply chain. Sustainability 2017, 9, 608.
40. Liu, L.; Li, F.; Qi, E. Research on risk avoidance and coordination of supply chain subject based on
blockchain technology. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2182.
41. Zou, H.; Qin, J.; Yang, P.; Dai, B. A coordinated revenue-sharing model for a sustainable closed-loop supply
chain. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3198.
42. Pinto, M.M.A.; Kovaleski, J.L.; Yoshino, R.T.; Pagani, R.N. Knowledge and technology transfer influencing
the process of innovation in green supply chain management: A multicriteria model based on the
DEMATEL Method. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3485.
43. Qian, C.; Wang, S.; Liu, X.; Zhang, X. Low-carbon initiatives of logistics service providers: The perspective
of supply chain integration. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3233.
44. Persdotter Isaksson, M.; Hulthén, H.; Forslund, H. Environmentally sustainable logistics performance
management process integration between Buyers and 3PLs. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3061.
45. Waller, M.A.; Fawcett, S.E. Data science, predictive analytics, and big data: A revolution that will transform
supply chain design and management. J. Bus. Logist. 2013, 34, 77–84.
46. Accenture. Accenture Big Success with Big Data Survey. 2014. Available online:
https://www.slideshare.net/polenumerique33/accenture-bigdatapov1 (accessed on 20 June 2019).
47. Benabdellah, A.C.; Benghabrit, A.; Bouhaddou, I.; Zemmouri, E.M. Big data for supply chain management:
Opportunities and challenges. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACS 13th International Conference of Computer
Systems and Applications (AICCSA), Agadir, Morocco, 29 November—2 December 2016.
48. Bi, Z.; Cochran, D. Big data analytics with applications. J. Manag. Anal. 2014, 1, 249–265.
49. Chae, B. Insights from hashtag #supplychain and Twitter analytics: Considering Twitter and Twitter data
for supply chain practice and research. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 165, 247–259.
50. Li, J.; Tao, F.; Cheng, Y.; Zhao, L. Big data in product lifecycle management. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2015,
81, 667–684.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 21 of 22

51. Hazen, B.T.; Boone, C.A.; Ezell, J.D.; Jones-Farmer, L.A. Data quality for data science, predictive analytics,
and big data in supply chain management: An introduction to the problem and suggestions for research
and applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2014, 154, 72–80.
52. Singh, A.; Shukla, N.; Mishra, N. Social media data analytics to improve supply chain management in food
industries. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 2018, 114, 398–415.
53. Rozados, I.V.; Tjahjono, B. Big data analytics in supply chain management: Trends and related research. In
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Operations and Supply Chain Management, Bali,
Indonesia, 10–12 December 2014; 13p.
54. Schoenherr, T.; Speier-Pero, C. Data science, predictive analytics, and big data in supply chain
management: Current state and future potential. J. Bus. Logist. 2015, 36, 120–132.
55. Sheffi, Y. Preparing for disruptions through early detection preparing for disruptions through early
detection. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2015, 57, 31–42.
56. Ramanathan, U.; Subramanian, N.; Parrott, G. Role of social media in retail network operations and
marketing to enhance customer satisfaction. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2017, 37, 105–123.
57. Sahin, F.; Robinson, E.P. Flow coordination and information sharing in supply chains: Review,
implications, and directions for future research. Decis. Sci. 2002, 33, 505–536.
58. Saeed, K.A.; Malhotra, M.K.; Grover, V. Examining the impact of interorganizational systems on process
Efficiency and sourcing leverage in buyer–supplier dyads. Decis. Sci. 2005, 36, 365–396.
59. Rai, A.; Patnayakuni, R.; Seth, N. Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration
capabilities. MIS Q. 2006, 30, 225–246.
60. Eric, T.G.W.; Hsiao-Lan, W. Interorganizational governance value creation: Coordinating for information
visibility and flexibility in supply chains. Decis. Sci. 2007, 38, 647–674.
61. Wamba, F.S.; Lefebvre, L.A.; Bendavid, Y.; Lefebvre, É. Exploring the impact of RFID technology and the
EPC network on mobile B2B eCommerce: A case study in the retail industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 112,
614–629.
62. Wamba, F.S. Achieving supply chain integration using RFID technology: The case of emerging intelligent
B-to-B e-commerce processes in a living laboratory. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2012, 18, 58–81.
63. Asoo, J.V. E-business and supply chain management. Decis. Sci. 2002, 33, 495–504.
64. Devaraj, S.; Krajewski, L.; Wei, J.C. Impact of eBusiness technologies on operational performance: The role
of production information integration in the supply chain. J. Oper. Manag. 2007, 25, 1199–1216.
65. Sethuraman, M.S. Big Data’s Impact on the Data Supply Chain. In Cognizant 20–20 Insights; Cognizant:
Teaneck, NJ, USA, 2012.
66. Zhang, T. How do information technology resources facilitate relational and contractual governance in
green supply chain management? Sustainability 2019, 11, 3663.
67. Vasan, S. Impact of Big Data and Analytics in Supply Chain Execution. Supply Chain Digital. 2014.
Available online: https://www.supplychaindigital.com/logistics/impact-big-data-and-analytics-supply-
chain-execution (accessed on 10 March 2019).
68. Hagstrom, M. High-performance analytics fuels innovation and inclusive growth: Use big data,
hyperconnectivity and speed to intelligence to get true value in the digital economy. J. Adv. Anal. 2012, 2,
3–4.
69. Kenny, J. Big Data Can Have Big Impact on Supply Chain Management: The Use of Data Analytics is
underused in Supply Chain Management to Minimize Risk Exposure; IC Inside Counsel, 2014. Available
online: http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/04/23/big-data-can-have-big-impact-on-supply-chain-manag
(accessed on 10 March 2019).
70. Abdul Moktadir, Md.; Mithun Ali, S.; Kumar, P.S.; Shukla, N. Barriers to big data analytics in
manufacturing supply chains: A case study from Bangladesh. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2019, 128, 1063–1075.
71. Trelles, O.; Prins, P.; Snir, M.; Jansen, R.C. Big data, but are we ready? Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12, 224–224.
72. Malaka, I.; Brown, I. Challenges to the organisational adoption of big data analytics: A case study in the
South African telecommunications industry. In Proceedings of the 2015 Annual Research Conference on
South African Institute of Computer Scientists and Information Technologists, Stellenbosch, South Africa,
28–30 September 2015; pp. 1–9.
73. Alharthi, A.; Krotov, V.; Bowman, M. Addressing barriers to big data. Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 285–292.
74. Gunasekaran, A.; Papadopoulos, T.; Dubey, R.; Wamba, S.F.; Childe, S.J.; Hazen, B.; Akter, S. Big data and
predictive analytics for supply chain and organizational performance. J. Bus. Res. 2017, 70, 308–317.
Sustainability 2019, 11, 4864 22 of 22

75. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Childe, S.J.; Wamba, S.F.; Papadopoulos, T. The impact of big data on world-
class sustainable manufacturing. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2016, 84, 631–645.
76. Fallik, D. For big data, big questions remain. Health Aff. 2014, 33, 1111–1114.
77. Zhong, R.Y.; Newman, S.T.; Huang, G.Q.; Lan, S. Big data for supply chain management in the service and
manufacturing sectors: Challenges, opportunities, and future perspectives. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2016, 101,
572–591.
78. Alexandru, A.; Coardoş, D. Utilizarea Tehnologiilor Big Data şi IoT în Domeniul Sănătăţii. Rev. Română
Inform. Autom. 2018, 28, 61–84.
79. Vladimir, F.; Neagu, G. Abordări şi soluţii specifice în managementul, guvernanţa şi analiza datelor de
mari dimensiuni (BigData). Rev. Română Inform. Autom. 2016, 26, 5–22.
80. SN-ADR. Strategia Naţională Privind Agenda Digitală Pentru România 2020; Ministerul pentru Societatea
Informaţională: Bucharest, Romania, 2015.
81. Butilc, D.; Crişan, E.; Salanţă, I.; Ilieş, L. The adoption/adaption of the “supply chain” concept in Romanian.
Annals Univ. Oradea 2011, 20, 657–668.
82. Lupşe, V.; Cosma, O. ERP extension—Supply chain management (SCM). Inform. Econ. 2006, 38, 120–123.
83. Fotache, D.; Hurbean, L. Supply chain management: From linear interactions to networked processes.
Inform. Econ. 2006, 4, 73–77.
84. Pelău, C. Structuri organizatorice la nivel de întreprindere pentru implementarea marketing-
controllingului. Manag. Mark. Buchar. 2007, 1, 133–142.
85. Cucui, G.; Ionescu, C.A.; Goldbach, I.R.; Coman, M.D.; Marin, E.L.M. Quantifying the economic effects of
biogas installations for organic waste from agro-industrial sector. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2582.
86. Amancei, B. Managementul Lanţului de Aprovizionare-Noţiuni Teoretice, Viziuni Strategice şi Abordări Practice;
Editura Universitară: București, Romania, 2009.
87. Mocuţa, G.E. Logistica-instrument și concept în continuă evoluţie. Bul. AGIR 2009, 2–3, 88–93.
88. Popa, V. Managementul Lantului de Distribuţie/Aprovizionare Pentru un Răspuns Eficient Consumatorului;
Valahia University Press: Târgoviște, Romania, 2009.
89. Felea, M.; Albăstroiu, I. Defining the concept of supply chain management and its relevance to Romanian
academics and practitioners. Amfiteatru Econ. J. 2013, 15, 74–88.
90. Batrancea, I.; Morar, I.-D.; Masca, E.; Catalin, S.; Bechis, L. Econometric modeling of SME performance.
Case of Romania. Sustainability 2018, 10, 192.
91. Moanţă, D. The principles of an evolutionary algorithm for non-linear transportation. Econ. Comput. Econ.
Cybern. Stud. Res. 2008, 42, 227–236.
92. Dinu, V. The logistics of merchandise. Amfiteatru Econ. J. 2008, 10, 5–6.
93. Vasiliu, C.; Dobrea, M. State of Implementation of supply chain management in companies in Romania.
Amfiteatru Econ. J. 2013, 15, 44–55.
94. Glaser-Segura, D.A.; Anghel, L.-D.; Tucci, J.E. Supply chain management and the Romanian transition.
Amfiteatru Econ. 2006, 8, 18–26.
95. Moss-Kanter, R. Collaborative advantage. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1994, 72, 96–112.
96. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis with Readings; Prentice-Hall:
Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1998.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).