Implementing and Incorporating Data Analytics in Different Businesses

BISM2201 Principles of Business Analytics
Article Review – Briefing Notes
Background
The course BISM2201 Principles of Business Analytics has three assessment items: an article review, a case study and presentation, and a School-based take-home assessment item. These notes outline my expectations for the article review. The article review is intended as a precursor to the case study – perhaps exciting your interest in a topic and building your knowledge of the topic, as well as and demonstrating your ability to critique what is currently written on the topic. Before discussing the review further, outlining the nature and scope of business analytics and the broad requirements of the case study has some value (more details on the case study later in the Semester). I think of the domain of business analytics as a matrix in two dimensions – with domains of business analytics in one dimension and methods of business analytics in another. Think of the domains as potential application areas of analytics: financial analytics, marketing analytics, supply chain analytics, talent analytics, etc. Methods include predictive and prescriptive analytics, machine learning and deep learning. Hence, the concept of the “business analytics matrix.” In this course –
Principles of Business Analytics – the principal focus is the domains of business analytics. Methods of business analytics are the principal focus of the companion course BISM2204 Methods of Business Analytics.
In a little more detail, the domains of business analytics include accounting/financial analytics, people/talent analytics, operations analytics, marketing analytics, social media analytics, and supply chain analytics, etc. Broadly speaking, the domains relate to the application of analytics to substantive business questions (the application areas). The methods of business analytics include data visualisation, predictive analytics/forecasting, data mining/machine learning, text/web analysis, and optimisation/simulation techniques, and machine learning techniques supporting artificial intelligence, etc. The methods are the engine room of analytics.
Towards the Case Study
Try to write the article review with the case study in mind. The purpose of the case study (the second assignment) is to show your understanding of how a business is applying analytics to create a competitive advantage – or could use analytics to do so. The case study might address the following broad questions. (1) What is the impact of business analytics on business practice, and how is this impact demonstrated? (2) What is the future of business analytics, in what ways are the applications of business analytics changing? (3) How is a particular domain of business analytics evolving – what are the business questions that are asked, how is analytics helping to address these questions?
Scoping your case study is probably the most fundamental choice you have to make – doing so may help to set the direction for your article review. For example, (1) you could focus on a particular business and the practice and impact of analytics and on that business. Or (2) you could write a more general case study identifying a particular aspect of business analytics and its implications for an industry sector, or (3) you might address your case study to public policy makers or consumers – linking analytics to issues of potential concern to policy makers. You may be able to think of other approaches than these three. You decide the scope, but you may find writing a more focused case study more rewarding than writing one with a broader focus.
The papers listed in the appendix may help you to get started with your reading program for the article review and case study. You will probably need to look outside this list if you write on a specific domain of business analytics (e.g., accounting/financial analytics, marketing analytics, etc.). I strongly encourage you to draw your articles from the established business magazines including Business Horizons, California Management Review, Harvard Business Review, MIT Sloan Management Review, etc. I am not asking you to and nor do I expect you to review papers from academic journals (e.g., Journal of Finance, Journal of Marketing). Keep the focus on business magazines – you might even adopt the style of these articles in writing your review and case study.
With this background, what form should the articular review take and what steps are necessary to complete it? Recall, the article review is intended as a precursor to the case study. Hence, it would probably make sense for you to approach and write the article review with your anticipated approach to the case study in mind. Of course, you can change your mind later about the direction of the case study and pursue a different line of attack. Perhaps the feedback on the review you receive will be useful in making this decision.
Key Sections in the Article Review
The review will probably have sections like the following ones.
1. Background
2. Review/synthesis
3. Critical discussion
4. Implications for practice
5. Conclusion
The background section should introduce the approach and outline the scope of the review. The review itself might take one of several different approaches. Perhaps the easiest way to write the review is to review one paper after another in chronological order. Of course, this may not be the best way to present the review. You might be able to see a pattern in the papers – contrasting earlier versus later papers, identifying shifts in thinking across the papers, establishing points of agreement and/or disagreement, etc. You decide the approach and keep in mind your review should “add value.” A chronological approach is often a natural place to start, but may not offer much of a value-add. (You may find yourself writing and rewriting the review.)
The review/synthesis should not simply be a review of one paper after another – try to synthesise the papers in some way. Can you present the papers by chronological order, or by theme, or by some other ways that shows understanding and insight? In summarising each article, it may be useful to ask yourself the following questions. (1) What is the article trying to achieve, what are its broad objectives? (2) What are the key ideas put forward in the article, what is the core claim(s) the author(s) makes? (3) What evidence does the author(s) advance to support the key concepts/ideas? (4) How practical are the recommendations, what barriers might organisations have to overcome to achieve them? Of course, you might think of additional points to address.
Perhaps the key section to the article review is the critical discussion. Writing the review/synthesis should build your domain knowledge. In the critical discussion section, you should offer your opinions and your critique – of the papers, the field, the applications you have read about, etc. Offer a balanced perspective – what is “good/bad” about the papers, “important/unimportant,” even what is “feasible/infeasible” (from an organisational perspective). How has reading the papers broadened your perspective and what, if anything is missing from the papers you read for the review?
In writing the section on implications for practice, you should try to extract the managerial implications of the papers you have read. That is, what do the articles imply for practice, how should business practices change to accommodate the recommendations the author(s) make? You may even be able to identify a specific business or businesses that would benefit from the ideas and practices discussed in the articles. In broad terms, the practical implications should specifically identify the message(s) or take away for business (that may be relevant when you construct your case study). Think about the counterfactual – would will likely happen to businesses that do not act on the implications?
The implication section should then set-up your conclusion section. In the conclusion, you might be explicit about the likely direction of your case study. In particular, can you think of some potentially “big” and or “provocative” ideas worth exploring further, or a business or issue you would like to write more about? The conclusion should offer a bridge between the articles you have read and your initial ideas for your case study – its broad direction, ambitions, focus, etc.
Submission Guidelines
Your review should take the form of a Word document and you should submit your review using the Turnitin link on the course Blackboard page. Note the review is worth 20 percent of your score in the course and is due in Teaching Week 6 per the course profile. In marking the reviews, we will read every section carefully. In addition, we will particularly consider your review against the following three generic criteria for university-level writing. Take these criteria to be reflective of the specific marking criteria used for assessing your review.
Sequence and structure – is your writing a logical sequence of ideas, organised into paragraphs that works to establish a clear line of argument for the reader?
Language/mechanics/professionalism – have you used the vocabulary and expression appropriate for formal academic/professional writing, have you edited your work for errors in spelling, grammar, or sentence construction?
Research/referencing – have you conducted a targeted review of the relevant business literature, in order to achieve a synthesis of your own ideas and those of the literature, have you referenced your sources correctly both within your document and reference list?
Getting Started
You might consider the following steps in getting started on the article review. Probably the most important step is establishing the scope – do so with a vision for your case study in mind.
1. Set the scope: a broad review or a specific review focused on a theme or domain
2. Identify the articles you wish to critique
3. Read and summarise the papers
4. Synthesise the papers/integrate their perspectives
5. Develop your own views – critique the papers, develop your own opinions
6. Come to some conclusion – what’s “good/bad,” “insightful/uncritical,” etc.
7. Suggest a question(s) you may address in your case study
Finally, think of these notes as a guide only. They communicate my broad expectations – but you may think of different and better ways to approach the review.
Appendix: Example Articles on Business Analytics
The Analytics Revolution
Kiron, David, Pamela Kirk Prentice, Renee Boucher Ferguson (2014), “The Analytics Mandate,” MIT
Sloan Management Review, 55(4), 1-25.
Mcafee, Andrew and Erik Brynjolfsson (2012), “Big Data: The Management Revolution,” Harvard
Business Review, 90(10), 60-128.
Urban, Glen, Artem Timoshenko, Paramveer Dhillon, and John R. Houser (2020), “Is Deep Learning a
Game Changer for Marketing Analytics?” MIT Sloan Management Review, 61(2), 71-76.
The Analytics Advantage
Acito, Frank and Vijay Khatri (2014), “Business Analytics: Why Now and What Next?” Business
Horizons, 57(5), 565-570.
Fountaine, Tim, Brian McCarthy, and Tamim Saleh (2019), “Building the AI-Powered Organization,”
Harvard Business Review, 97(4), 62-73.
Ransbotham, Sam and David Kiron (2017), “Analytics as a Source of Business Innovation,” MIT Sloan
Management Review, 58(3).
Data Literacy/Strategy
Pigni, Federico, Gabriele Piccoli, and Richard Watson (2016), “Digital Data Streams: Creating Value
from the Real-Time Flow of Big Data,” California Management Review, 58(3), 5-25.
Dallemule, Leandro and Thomas H. Davenport (2017), “What’s Your Data Strategy? The Key is to
Balance Offense and Defense,” Harvard Business Review, 95(3), 112.
Reid, Hoffman (2016), “Using Artificial Intelligence to Set Information Free,” MIT Sloan Management
Review, 58(1), 20-22.
Analytics: Fulfilling the Promise
Adomavicius, Gediminas, Jesse Bockstedt, Shawn P. Curley, Jingjing Zhang, and Sam Ransbotham
(2019), “The Hidden Side Effects of Recommendation Systems,” MIT Sloan Management Review,
60(2), 13-15.
Barton, Dominic and David Court (2012), “Making Advanced Analytics Work for You,” Harvard
Business Review, 90(10), 78-83, 128.
Davenport, Thomas H. and Rajeev Ronanki (2018), “Artificial Intelligence for the Real World,”
Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 108-116.
Shah, Shvetank, Andrew Horne, and Jaime Capella (2012), “Good Data Won’t Guarantee Good
Decisions: Most Companies have Too Few Analytics-Savvy Workers. Here’s How to Develop Them,”
Harvard Business Review, 90(4), 23.