The impact of perceived knowledge on marketing agility in the context of big data: role of deployment level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Against the backdrop of dynamic capabilities theory, this research examines the relationship between knowledge and marketing agility in the context of big data marketing analytics (BDMA). The relevant knowledge constructs under investigation are business/marketing, relational, technological and technology management. The level of BDMA deployment is also examined to determine its impact on these relationships. Design/methodology/approach A survey was used to gather data from marketing professionals working in firms with at least limited experience in big data (BD) deployment in the United States and Canada. The results were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) with a sample of 236 responses. Findings The results indicate that marketing professionals perceived the knowledge and marketing agility constructs differently than the previous research on IT professionals. The knowledge construct was perceived as a two-dimensional construct consisting of broad knowledge skills and specific technical knowledge skills. Only the broad knowledge skills construct was significantly related to the marketing agility construct, with progressively high predictive validity and relevance when the deployment of BDMA progresses. Originality/value The paper's originality stems from the different conceptualizations of the knowledge and marketing agility constructs due to the use of a novel sample of marketing professionals in this study. The research also contributes to the dynamic capabilities theory by emphasizing the critical role of vital knowledge when aiming to enhance marketing agility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".