SCM 1 PDF

RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas (Journal of Business Management)
FORUM
Submitted 09.26.2018. Approved 07.19.2019
Evaluated through a double-blind review process. Guest Scientific Editors: Eduardo de Rezende Francisco, José Luiz Kugler,
Soong Moon Kang, Ricardo Silva, and Peter Alexander Whigham
Original version
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020190605
INTENTION TO ADOPT BIG DATA IN SUPPLY

CHAIN MANAGEMENT: A BRAZILIAN
PERSPECTIVE
Intenção de adoção de big data na cadeia de suprimentos: Uma perspectiva brasileira
Intención de adopción de big data en la cadena de suministros: Una perspectiva
brasileña
ABSTRACT
Big data applications have been remodeling several business models and provoking strong radical transforma-
tions in supply chain management (SCM). Supported by the literature on big data, supply chain management,
and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), this study aims to evaluate the variables
that influence the intention of Brazilian SCM professionals to adopt big data. To this end, we adapted and vali-
dated a previously developed UTAUT model. A survey of 152 supply chain respondents revealed that facilitating
conditions (e.g., IT infrastructure) have a high influence on their intention to adopt big data. However, social
influence and performance expectancy showed no significant effect. This study contributes to the practical
field, offering valuable insights for decision-makers considering big data projects. It also contributes to the
literature by helping minimize the research gap in big data in the Brazilian context.
KEYWORDS | Big data, supply chain management, adoption, survey, partial least squares structural equation
modeling.
RESUMO
As aplicações de big data têm remodelado vários modelos de negócios e provocado grandes transformações na
gestão da cadeia de suprimentos (GCS). Apoiado pela literatura emergente de big data, GCS e teoria unificada
de aceitação e uso de tecnologia (UTAUT), este estudo tem como objetivo avaliar as variáveis que influen-
ciam os profissionais brasileiros que atuam na GCS a adotar big data. Assim, nós adaptamos e validamos um
modelo UTAUT previamente desenvolvido. Um total de 152 profissionais que atuam na gestão de cadeias de
suprimentos revelou que condições facilitadoras (como a infraestrutura de TI) têm uma grande influência na
adoção de big data. Por outro lado, a influência social e a expectativa de desempenho não apresentaram efeito
significativo. Este estudo contribui para a prática, com conhecimentos valiosos para os tomadores de decisão
que estão considerando projetos de big data. Além disso, ele ajuda a minimizar a lacuna em relação aos estu-
dos de big data no contexto brasileiro.
MACIEL M. QUEIROZ1 PALAVRAS-CHAVE | Big data, gestão da cadeia de suprimentos, adoção, survey, partial least squares structural
maciel.queiroz@docente.unip.br equation modeling.
ORCID: 0000-0002-6025-9191
RESUMEN
SUSANA CARLA FARIAS PEREIRA 2 Las aplicaciones de big data han estado remodelando varios modelos de negocios y han provocado fuertes
transformaciones en la cadena de suministro (CS). Con el apoyo de la literatura de big data, CS y la teoría unifi-
susana.pereira@fgv.br
cada de aceptación y uso de la tecnología (UTAUT), este estudio tiene objetivo evaluar las variables que afectan
ORCID: 0000-0002-3952-7489
a los profesionales brasileños para adoptar big data. Por lo tanto, adaptamos y validamos un modelo UTAUT
previamente desarrollado. Un total de 152 encuestados de CS revelaron que las condiciones de facilitación
Universidade Paulista,
1 (por ejemplo, la infraestructura de TI) tienen una gran influencia en la adopción de big data. Por otro lado, la
Programa de Pós-graduação em influencia social y la expectativa de desempeño no mostraron un efecto significativo. Este estudio contribuye
Administração, São Paulo, SP, a la práctica, con información valiosa para los responsables de la toma de decisiones que están considerando
Brazil proyectos de big data. Además, ayudamos a minimizar la brecha con respecto a los estudios de big data en el
contexto brasileño.
2
Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola
de Administração de Empresas PALABRAS CLAVE | Big data, gestión de la cadena de suministro, adopción, survey, partial least squares struc-
de São Paulo, SP, Brazil tural equation modeling.
389 © RAE | São Paulo | 59(6) | November-December 2019 | 389-401 ISSN 0034-7590; eISSN 2178-938X
FORUM | INTENTION TO ADOPT BIG DATA IN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT: A BRAZILIAN PERSPECTIVE
Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira
INTRODUCTION 2015; Mentzer et al., 2001), and UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003;
Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019) to develop
The rapid advancement of information and communication the hypotheses and model. The conceptual model was adapted
technologies (ICTs) has motivated logistics and supply chain and validated with partial least squares structural equation
management practitioners and scholars (Zinn & Goldsby, 2017b, modeling (PLS-SEM). The main findings offer strong theoretical
2017a) to understand the role of these new technologies, and and managerial implications. From the managerial perspective,
to determine how organizations can capture value through ICT we verified that facilitating conditions (e.g., infrastructure) exert
adoption. A highly disruptive and significant technology that high influence on the behavioral intention of big data adoption.
has emerged recently is big data (Davenport, 2006; Manyika et From the theoretical lens, our findings revealed that neither social
al., 2011; Rotella, 2012). The amount of data produced everyday influence nor performance expectancy are good predictors of
has been increasing drastically (Domo, 2017). This growth has the behavioral intention of big data adoption in Brazilian SCM
imposed several complexities concerning its management. In professionals.
this context, big data offers a powerful approach to helping This paper is organized as follows: next, we present the
organizations analyze (Croll, 2015) large amounts of data to emerging theoretical foundations for big data research, SCM,
provide insights into the decision-making process (Abawajy, 2015). and UTAUT. Then, the hypotheses and the research model are
The literature considered big data the “next big thing in described, followed by the survey methodology and analysis
innovation” (Gobble, 2013, p. 64) and “the fourth paradigm of using PLS-SEM. That is succeeded by a discussion on managerial
science” (Strawn, 2012, p. 34). Big data has impacted practically and theoretical implications as well as limitations of the current
all business models. For instance, 35% of Amazon.com’s revenue work and directions for future research. Finally, our conclusions
is generated through the use of big data (Wills, 2014), along with are elucidated.
the remodeling of marketing activities that capture rich data on
consumer behavior in real-time (Erevelles, Fukawa, & Swayne, 2016).
A field that has been making substantial efforts to harness big data THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
is supply chain management (SCM) (Gunasekaran et al., 2017;
Kache & Seuring, 2017; Richey, Morgan, Lindsey-Hall, & Adams, Big Data: Fundamentals, concepts, and
2016; K. J. Wu et al., 2017; R. Zhao, Liu, Zhang, & Huang, 2017). challenges
Despite the potential benefits of employing big data in
supply chain management (Hazen, Boone, Ezell, & Jones-Farmer, Big Data has emerged as a highly disruptive information and
2014; Kache & Seuring, 2017; Schoenherr & Speier-Pero, 2015), communication technology (ICT). A well-articulated and suitable
awareness of and initiatives on big data in the Brazilian SCM definition of Big Data is “[…] datasets whose size is beyond
context are rare, and the literature lacks strong empirical results the ability of typical database software tools to capture, store,
(Queiroz & Telles, 2018). The current initial stage of big data manage, and analyze” (Manyika et al., 2011, p. 1). Thus, Big
adoption presents an opportunity for scholars and practitioners to Data can be regarded as providing a robust approach to exploring
fill this gap. For example, to the best of our knowledge, no previous data in the context of descriptive, prescriptive, and predictive
study analyzed the intention of Brazilian SCM professionals to decisions (Phillips-Wren & Hoskisson, 2015). This approach is
adopt big data. To bridge this gap, this study provides an in-depth commonly called Big Data analytics (BDA), and is represented
understanding of Brazilian supply chain professionals' intention by a 5V approach (volume, velocity, variety, veracity, and value)
to use big data. We adapt a previously developed and validated (Queiroz & Telles, 2018; Wamba et al., 2017). In other words, BDA
unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) model uses sophisticated statistics, mathematical and computational
(Venkatesh, Morris, Davis, & Davis, 2003; Queiroz & Wamba, techniques to explore a large set of data to provide insights to
2019), by including a trust construct. More specifically, this study decision-makers. In this study, we use the definition of Big Data
answers the following research question: How do the variables proposed by Phillips-Wren and Hoskisson (2015).The authors
from the UTAUT model explain Brazilian SCM professionals' described Big Data as data that overtake the organization’s
intention to adopt big data? capabilities, regarding storage, and analysis to support and bring
To answer this question, this work draws on the literature insights to the decision-making process.
on big data (Davenport, 2006; Manyika et al., 2011; Queiroz & The volume of data has increased drastically in recent years,
Telles, 2018), supply chain management (Carter, Rogers, & Choi, mainly because of the variety of data produced today (Bibri &
Krogstie, 2017) (e.g., ERP systems, Twitter, Facebook, Google, Rungtusanatham, 2001), and this complexity has impacted the
Linkedin, GPS, among others) and the velocity of its spread increasing amount of data. Considering the use of Big Data in
(Munshi & Mohamed, 2017; Srinivasan & Swink, 2018). This SCM, it is clear that it assists in the decision-making process by
complex scenario impels organizations to develop distinctive providing powerful insights into SCM dynamics (e.g., customer
capabilities for storing, processing, and analyzing data to support buying patterns, cost analysis, market trends). With the help of
the decision-making process. However, creating value is not a robust prescriptive and descriptive analysis (G. Wang et al., 2016),
trivial task, mainly because of organizations’ limited capacity to businesses have witnessed many cases of significant performance
process and analyze a variety of data. Moreover, data veracity, enhancement (Akter et al., 2016; Gunasekaran et al., 2017).
which indicates data quality and trustworthiness (Munshi &
Mohamed, 2017; Nobre & Tavares, 2017), seems to be a huge
challenge for organizations. Technology acceptance models (TAMs) and
In the SCM-related fields, Big Data is being newly explored Unified theory of acceptance and use of
in different contexts: in SCM agility enhancement with Big Data technology (UTAUT)
and multi-agent-based systems (Giannakis & Louis, 2016), in an
optimization of green SCM considering hazardous materials and Scholars have studied the diffusion and proliferation of
carbon emission (R. Zhao et al., 2017), in the manufacturing sector information technology (IT) (Davis, 1989; Wamba, 2018; Morris
(Zhong, Newman, Huang, & Lan, 2016), and in the information & Venkatesh, 2000; Venkatesh & Brown, 2001) in terms of
exploitation of SCM (Kache & Seuring, 2017). It is clear that Big individuals’ beliefs and behavior toward their adoption and
Data can improve organizations' performance significantly (Akter, use (Mamonov & Benbunan-Fich, 2017; Youngberg, Olsen, &
Wamba, Gunasekaran, Dubey, & Childe, 2016; Gunasekaran et Hauser, 2009). The technology acceptance model (TAM) is a
al., 2017; Wamba, Akter, Edwards, Chopin, & Gnanzou, 2015; G. seminal and influential contribution in technology adoption
Wang, Gunasekaran, Ngai, & Papadopoulos, 2016). (Davis, 1989), with its roots in the theory of reasoned action
(TRA) (Azjen & Fishbein, 1980). The core of the TAM resides in
two latent variables: perceived usefulness (PU) and perceived
Supply chain management and the impacts of ease of use (PEOU). More recently, Venkatesh et al. (2003)
cutting-edge technologies proposed the consolidation of the acceptance model theories
leading previously into the unified theory of acceptance and
Recently, the logistics and SCM fields have been significantly use of technology (UTAUT).
impacted by the exponential growth in ICT usage. Accordingly,
scholars and practitioners have strived to understand its potential UTAUT
effects and application opportunities in their business models
(Zinn & Goldsby, 2017a, 2017b). In this context, SCM is defined as: The UTAUT model (Venkatesh et al., 2003) is a robust and
influential approach to understanding technology adoption and
The management of a network of relationships use at the individual behavior level. The model has four constructs
within a firm and between interdependent orga- directly focused on technology’s intended use: performance
nizations and business units consisting of mate- expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, and facilitating
rial suppliers, purchasing, production facilities, conditions.
logistics, marketing, and related systems that fa- Performance expectancy refers to “the degree to which
cilitate the forward and reverse flow of materials, an individual believes that using the system will help him or her
services, finances and information from the orig- to attain gains in job performance” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p.
inal producer to final customer with the benefits 447). Effort expectancy is “the degree of ease associated with
of adding value, maximizing profitability through the use of the system” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 450). Social
efficiencies, and achieving customer satisfaction influence denotes “the degree to which an individual perceives
(Stock & Boyer, 2009, p. 706). that important others believe he or she should use the new
system” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 451). Finally, facilitating
Moreover, SCM can be viewed as a network (Carter et al., conditions indicates “the degree to which an individual believes
2015) as well as a complex adaptive system (Choi, Dooley, & that an organizational and technical infrastructure exists to
support use of the system” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 453). The Trust
UTAUT model also has four moderators: gender, age, experience,
and voluntariness of use. However, following a previous study The trust construct has been studied extensively in the business
(Weerakkody, El-Haddadeh, Al-Sobhi, Shareef, & Dwivedi, 2013), management and management information systems (MIS) fields
we do not use these moderators in our adapted model (explained (Colquitt & Rodell, 2011; K. Wu, Zhao, Zhu, Tan, & Zheng, 2011).
in the next section) because this is a preliminary study of BDA Trust is defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to
adoption in the Brazilian SCM context. the actions of another party based on the expectation that the other
will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective
of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer, Davis,
Hypotheses and research model & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). This definition implies that trust is a
willingness to depend on the partner based on integrity, benevolence,
Supported by the emerging literature on Big Data, SCM, and UTAUT, and credibility. In this context, Big Data is trustworthy for users. In
we adapted a recent model reported in Queiroz and Wamba (2019) line with prior works (K. Wu et al., 2011), we hypothesize that:
to comprehend the Big Data adoption behavior of Brazilian supply H2a: Trust positively affects performance expectancy.
chain professionals. We adopted some of the constructs and
hypotheses proposed in Queiroz and Wamba´s (2019) model H2b: Trust positively affects behavioral intention to adopt
Big Data.
(Figure 1) as these have been adopted and validated by previous
studies (Exhibit 1). To these previous constructs reported in
Queiroz & Wamba (2019) we added a trust construct, previously Social influence
validated in the literature (Alalwan, Dwivedi, & Rana, 2017; Gefen,
As reported previously, social influence is a good predictor of
Karahanna, & Straub, 2003). Moreover, the constructs in our
technology behavioral intention and usage (Venkatesh et al.,
model have different relationships than the ones reported in the
2003). In this work, social influence denotes the extent to which
literature (Queiroz & Wamba, 2019).
SCM professionals believe their colleagues should use Big
Data. Previous studies highlight social influence as a predictor
Facilitating conditions of behavioral intention (Batara, Nurmandi, Warsito, & Pribadi,
2017; Oliveira, Faria, Thomas, & Popovič, 2014; Venkatesh et al.,
Facilitating conditions play a fundamental role in predicting user
2012). Our study argues that in the SCM context, social influence
acceptance and usage behavior (Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012).
relationships exert significant influence on trust (A. Chin, Wafa, &
In this study, facilitating conditions denotes SCM professionals’
Ooi, 2009) and, in turn, on the behavioral intention (Alalwan et
knowledge of their organization's capabilities and infrastructure
al., 2017). Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:
available to support the use of Big Data. Previous studies have
reported that facilitating conditions are a good predictor of H3a: Social influence positively affects trust.
the behavioral intention of Big Data adoption (Huang, Liu, &
H3b: Social influence positively affects behavioral intention
Chang, 2012; Sabi, Uzoka, Langmia, & Njeh, 2016). In this study,
to adopt Big Data.
we theorize that facilitating conditions, besides influencing
behavioral intention directly, are critical in professionals’ effort
Effort expectancy
expectancy (Dwivedi et al., 2017) and influence their performance
expectancy (C. Wang, Jeng, & Huang, 2017). Therefore, we propose
Effort expectancy is related to the system’s complexity of operation
the following hypotheses:
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). In this study, effort expectancy refers
H1a: Facilitating conditions positively affects effort expectancy. to the ease of use of Big Data systems for an SCM professional.
Previous studies discussed the direct effect of effort expectancy
H1b: Facilitating conditions positively affects performance in the behavioral intention and usage of a new technology (Batara
expectancy.
et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2012; Y. Zhao, Ni, & Zhou, 2018) as
H1c: Facilitating conditions positively affects behavioral well as in the adoption of blockchain in the SCM field (Francisco
intention to adopt Big Data. & Swanson, 2018). Accordingly, this study hypothesizes that:
H4: Effort expectancy positively affects behavioral intention organizations can analyze different types of data employing powerful
to adopt Big Data. statistics and machine learning techniques (Kune, Konugurthi,
Agarwal, Chillarige, & Buyya, 2016). This implies considerable time
Performance expectancy savings and productivity improvement for organizations, therefore
helping enhance its performance (Gunasekaran et al., 2017; Wamba
In this work, performance expectancy denotes the level to et al., 2017). Thus, we propose that:
which an SCM professional perceives that Big Data will improve
H5: Performance expectancy positively affects behavioral
his productivity and performance. With Big Data application,
intention to adopt Big Data.
Figure 1. Conceptual model
H4(+)
Effort
expectancy H1a(+)
Facilitating H1c(+)
H1b(+) conditions
Behavioral
H5(+) intention
Performance to adopt BDA
expectancy
H2a(+) H2b(+)
Trust
H3a(+)
Social
influence H3b(+)
METHODOLOGY Likert scale [1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)] (Wamba

et al., 2017). Before data collection, a pilot test was performed
Sample and data collection
with five senior academics and five senior SCM professionals.
A survey instrument based on Queiroz and Wamba (2019) was used Data were collected through the LinkedIn social network (Gupta
to test our proposed hypotheses. The web-based questionnaire & George, 2016; Queiroz & Telles, 2018). After the pilot, we sent
was grounded on constructs and scales that have been validated the questionnaire to 600 Brazilian supply chain professionals with
by previous studies (Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012; Gefen et al., experience in Big Data. The survey was conducted in August 2018,
2003). The Queiroz and Wamba (2019) model was developed and a total of 152 questionnaires were received, representing a
based on previous studies; their constructs were adapted from response rate of 25.33%. Exhibit 1 shows the constructs and their
recent studies on TAMs (Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al., respective items. We validated the questionnaire by employing
2003, 2012). As our main objective was to identify the intention to outer loadings (Hair et al., 2017), Cronbach’s alpha, composite
adopt Big Data, we adapted the Queiroz and Wamba (2019) survey reliability, average variance extracted (Hair et al., 2017; Nunnally,
instrument. All constructs were measured using a seven-point 1978; Riffai, Grant, & Edgar, 2012), and discriminant validity.
Exhibit 1. Measurement items
Construct Label Items Sources
PE1 I find big data useful in my daily life.
Using big data increases my chances of

PE2
completing tasks that are important to me. (Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al.,
Performance expectancy (PE)
Using big data helps me accomplish tasks 2003, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019)
PE3
more quickly.
PE4 Using big data increases my productivity.
EE1 Learning how to use big data is easy for me.
My interaction with big data is clear and

EE2
understandable. (Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al.,
Effort expectancy (EE)
2003, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019)
EE3 I find big data easy to use.
It is easy for me to become skilful at using

EE4
big data.
People who are important to me think I
SI1
should use big data.
People who influence my behaviour think I (Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al.,
Social influence (SI) SI2
should use big data. 2003, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019)
People whose opinions that I value prefer I
SI3
use big data.
I have the resources necessary to use big
FC1
data.
I have the knowledge necessary to use big
FC2
data. (Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al.,
Facilitating conditions (FC)
Big data is compatible with other 2003, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019)
FC3
technologies I use.
I can get help from others when I have
FC4
difficulties using big data.
BI1 I intend to use big data in the future.
(Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al.,

Behavioral intention to use (BI) BI2 I expect to use big data in the future
2003, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019)
BI3 I plan to use big data in future.
TR1 I believe that big data is trustworthy.
TR2 I have trust in big data.
TR3 I do not doubt the honesty of big data.

Trust (TR) (Alalwan et al., 2017; Gefen et al., 2003)
I feel assured that legal and technological
TR4 structures adequately protect me from
problems on big data.
TR5 Big data has the ability to fulfil its task.
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Larcker, 1981), confirming that all constructs show discrimination
(Ahmad & Khalid, 2017; Martins, Oliveira, & Popovič, 2014).
Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
(Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015; Shim, Lee, & Kim, 2018; Sun & Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents (n=152)
Teng, 2017) was applied to analyze the research model. PLS-SEM
Gender n %
is a powerful approach for analyzing simple and robust models in
business management (Hair, Sarstedt, Hopkins, & Kuppelwieser, Male 136 89.5
2014; Hair, Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017), and has gained the
attention of SCM scholars (Autry, Williams, & Golicic, 2014; Grawe, Female 16 10.5
Daugherty, & Ralston, 2015; Han, Wang, & Naim, 2017; Yadlapalli,
Rahman, & Gunasekaran, 2018). Its main advantages are its Age
flexibility in working with small samples (e.g., 100 respondents)
and its formative and reflective constructs (Hair et al., 2017). 26-33 40 26.32
Table 1 reports the characteristics of the respondents.
Male respondents comprised almost 90% of the total. Regarding 34-41 80 52.63
age distribution, most respondents (52.63%) were aged 34-41
years. A total of 55.26% respondents had a postgraduate/ 42-49 12 7.89
MBA—the highest education level in our sample—followed by
39.47% holding bachelor degrees and 5.26% holding a master 50+ 20 13.16
of science degree. Considering the experience at their respective

organizations, 50% respondents had worked there for 2-5 years, Highest education level
followed by 21.05% having worked for 6-10 years and 18.42%

Bachelor degree 60 39.47
working for less than one year. Finally, 46.05% of the sample
comprised logistics analysts, followed by 26.32% transportation
Postgraduate/MBA 84 55.26
managers, 18.42% operations managers, and 9.21% supply chain
managers.
Master of Science (MSc) 8 5.26
We analyzed the research model with SmartPLS 3.0 (Hair
et al., 2017; Ringle et al., 2015). First, the model was assessed Number of years spent working

by its loadings, Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, average in the organization
variance extracted, and discriminant validity.
Less than one year 28 18.42
2-5 years 76 50.00

Measurement model
6-10 years 32 21.05
All outer loadings highlighted in Table 2 exceeded the 0.70
threshold recommended in the literature (Hair et al., 2017).
11-15 years 16 10.53
Table 3 shows the main measures for construct reliability and
internal consistency of items. In this study, both Cronbach’s alpha
Occupation
value and composite reliability were above the 0.70 threshold,
and all average variance extracted values were above the 0.50 Logistics analyst 70 46.05
threshold (Hair et al., 2017; Nunnally, 1978; Riffai, Grant, & Edgar,
2012). Therefore, all constructs in the model have their utilization Operations manager 28 18.42
validated. Table 4 presents the discriminant validity results. In this
case, the square root of the average variance extracted for each Transportation manager 40 26.32
construct should be greater than the correlations between the
constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics, Supply chain manager 14 9.21
2009). Our results are higher than the 0.70 threshold (Fornell &
Table 2. Factor loadings

BI EE FC PE SI TR
BI1 0.887
BI2 0.916
BI3 0.900
EE1 0.945
EE2 0.906
EE3 0.947
EE4 0.900
FC1 0.789
FC2 0.884
FC3 0.719
FC4 0.800
PE1 0.764
PE2 0.803
PE3 0.914
PE4 0.899
SI1 0.953
SI2 0.983
SI3 0.967
TR1 0.964
TR2 0.944
TR3 0.918
TR4 0.937
TR5 0.913
Note: BI = Behavioral intention
EE = Effort expectancy
FC = Facilitating conditions
PE = Performance expectancy
SI = Social influence
TR = Trust.
Table 3. Reliability measures
Construct Cronbach's alpha Composite reliability Average variance extracted
BI 0.881 0.926 0.808
EE 0.942 0.959 0.853
FC 0.806 0.873 0.637
PE 0.864 0.908 0.715
SI 0.965 0.977 0.934
TR 0.963 0.971 0.871
Table 4. Discriminant validity
Construct BI EE FC PE SI TR
BI 0.901
EE 0.527 0.925
FC 0.614 0.577 0.800
PE 0.314 0.238 0.620 0.847
SI 0.399 0.390 0.508 0.421 0.968
TR 0.511 0.456 0.580 0.640 0.715 0.935
Structural model The results supported H3a (β = 0.710, p < 0.001). The rest of the
hypotheses had unexpected results. H3b theorized that SI has
Table 5 and 6 present the results of our structural model. Table 5 a significant positive effect on BI. Surprisingly, the relationship
highlights the path coefficients statistics.The findings indicated was found to be negative and non-significant. Therefore, H3b
that FC has a significant positive effect on EE (β = 0.578, p < was not supported (β = -0.073, p = 0.519). H4 argued that EE
0.001). Thus, H1a is supported. H1b hypothesized that FC has has a significant positive effect on BI. This hypothesis was not
a significant positive effect on PE. The results (β = 0.380, p supported either (β = 0.166, p < 0.1). Next, H5 theorized that PE
< 0.001) support H1b. H1c theorized that FC has a significant has a significant positive effect on BI. Surprisingly, the results
positive effect on BI. This hypothesis was also supported (β (β = -0.214, p < 0.05) showed a negative significant effect on BI.
= 0.490, p < 0.001). Next, H2a argued that TR has a significant Thus, H5 was not supported.Table 6 demonstrates the variance
positive effect on PE. Our results (β = 0.413, p < 0.001) support of the model: 46% variance in BI; 33.30% in EE; 49.80% in PE;
this hypothesis. Then, H2b argued that TR has a significant and finally, 50.30% in TR. In line with the literature (W. W. Chin,
positive effect on BI. The results supported H2b (β = 0.327, p < 1998), all r-squares of the model exceeded the 0.20 threshold
0.05). H3a theorized that SI has a significant positive effect on TR. (Martins et al., 2014).
Table 5. Path coefficients
Path Beta Standard deviation t-statistics p-value Result
FC -> EE 0.578 0.053 10.921* 0.000 Supported
FC -> PE 0.380 0.064 5.875* 0.000 Supported
FC -> BI 0.490 0.097 5.016* 0.000 Supported
TR -> PE 0.413 0.080 5.301* 0.000 Supported
TR -> BI 0.327 0.112 2.987** 0.003 Supported
SI -> TR 0.710 0.047 15.17* 0.000 Supported
SI -> BI -0.073 0.097 0.646 0.519 Rejected
EE -> BI 0.166 0.090 1.86 0.063 Rejected
PE -> BI -0.214 0.099 2.184** 0.029 Rejected
Note: *p < 0.001; **p < 0.05.
Table 6. R² results (dependent variables) Theoretical implications, limitations, and

Construct R2
R adjusted
2 future research
BI 0.477 0.460
From the theoretical perspective, this study makes critical
EE 0.337 0.333
contributions to the field of logistics in SCM. First, by integrating
PE 0.504 0.498
the literature on BDA, SCM, and UTAUT, we validated a strong
R 0.506 0.503
theoretical model. We adapted and applied a previously developed
model for use with Brazilian SCM professionals, and the results
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS validated it. The theoretical model explained 46% of behavioral
The main objective of this study was to gain an in-depth intention, outperforming the 20% threshold in the literature (W. W.
understanding of the intention of Big Data adoption in the Brazilian Chin, 1998; Martins et al., 2014). As previously mentioned, since
supply chain context. In light of the lack of Brazil-based studies our results regarding discriminant validity are consistent with
on cutting-edge technologies (Queiroz and Telles, 2018), this work those in the literature, they support our hypothesized structural
contributes to advancing the literature on BDA, SCM, and TAMs. The paths. In other words, the model actually measures the behavioral
results offer significant managerial and theoretical implications as intention to adopt Big Data by SCM professionals.
well as valuable directions to adapt and extend the adopted model. Our findings reveal that facilitating conditions are a good
predictor of the behavioral intention to use Big Data. Future
Managerial implications research could focus on an in-depth understanding of the
enablers of facilitating conditions, as well as its barriers. In
We believe the main findings of this study provide important the proposed model, in line with a prior study (Alalwan et al.,
implications for managers and practitioners interested in gaining 2017), trust was a good predictor of performance expectancy
deeper insights about BDA in SCM and their adoption enablers. In and behavior intention. On the other hand, social influence
line with the literature that regards Big Data as an essential tool was not found to be a good predictor of behavioral intention,
to improve supply chain performance (Gunasekaran et al., 2017; following the results reported in Alalwan et al. (2017). This
Hazen, Skipper, Ezell, & Boone, 2016; G. Wang et al., 2016), our finding suggests the need for further investigation of the role
study first showed that Big Data can be a suitable tool to help of social influence in Big Data adoption and other technologies
SCM managers gain insights and thus support their decision- that are emerging in the SCM field.
making process. Second, facilitating conditions exert a high This study suffers from some limitations. We believe
influence on Big Data adoption. This implies that managers have that, first, a moderator variable could be incorporated into the
to pay sufficient attention to IT infrastructure, internet speed, and model (Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012) to capture the nuances
integration with other systems, among other considerations (Sabi and differences in the sample, such as industry, gender, and
et al., 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2003). experience. Second, because of the scarcity of Brazilian studies
Surprisingly, despite the literature reporting performance on Big Data adoption, our findings cannot be compared with other
expectancy as a good predictor of behavioral intention towards similar works in this context. However, it opens up opportunities
technology adoption (Dwivedi et al., 2017; Farooq et al., 2017; for scholars and practitioners to apply the validated model and to
Venkatesh et al., 2003; Weerakkody et al., 2013), in this study, adapt it to other contexts. Third, the adopted model was tested
performance expectancy was not found to be a good predictor in an emerging economy; because of this, the results cannot be
of the behavioral intention to use Big Data among Brazilian SCM generalized globally. Consequently, obtaining more empirical
professionals. This finding indicates a challenge for managers evidence by applying the adopted model in other countries could
because it can be a significant barrier to the adoption of Big be an exciting stream for future research.
Data technologies. It also opens up research directions for Finally, this study was one of the first attempt to
scholars and practitioners to investigate. On the other hand, understand the behavioral intention to adopt Big Data by Brazilian
social influence as a predictor of trust is a high influencer (A. SCM professionals. There is an urgent need and opportunities
Chin et al., 2009). However, based on our results, it can realize for additional investigations on this and other cutting-edge
that social influence did not affect behavioral intention to adopt technologies (e.g., blockchain, internet of things, 3D printing,
Big Data, thus, regarding more investigation to support decision- etc.), regarding the relationship, as also compare the hypotheses
makers is needed. of this model into other contexts.
CONCLUSION Azjen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting
social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
The purpose of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding Batara, E., Nurmandi, A., Warsito, T., & Pribadi, U. (2017). Are
government employees adopting local e-government transformation?
of Big Data behavior intention among Brazilian SCM professionals Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(4), 612–
and to adjust and apply a model that captures the constructs 638. doi:10.1108/TG-09-2017-0056
of adoption behavior. In this regard, our study contributes to a Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). ICT of the new wave of computing
more thorough understanding of the intention to adopt BDA in for sustainable urban forms: Their big data and context-aware
augmented typologies and design concepts. Sustainable Cities and
the Brazilian SCM field. Society, 32, 449-474. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.04.012
The contributions of this study are threefold. First,
Carter, C. R., Rogers, D. S., & Choi, T. Y. (2015). Toward the theory of
supported by a strong theoretical literature (Akter et al., 2016; the supply chain. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(2), 89-97.
Alalwan et al., 2017; Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012; doi:10.1111/jscm.12073
Queiroz & Wamba, 2019) we adapted and applied a model to Chin, A., Wafa, S., & Ooi, A.-Y. (2009). The effect of internet trust and
understand behavioral intention concerning Brazilian SCM social influence towards willingness to purchase online in Labuan,
Malaysia. International Business Research, 2(2), 72-81.
professionals. Second, our findings provide strong implications
Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling.
for theory and practice. For instance, one implication is that
MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.
only facilitating conditions, and trust were good predictors of
Choi, T. Y., Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks
behavioral intention. Contrary to findings of previous studies and complex adaptive systems: Control versus emergence. Journal
(Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012), social influence was not a of Operations Management, 19(3), 351-366. doi:10.1016/S0272-
6963(00)00068-1
predictor of behavioral intention, but this result is in line with
the recent findings reported by Alalwan et al. (2017). Third, both Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness:
A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives.
performance expectancy and effort expectancy were not good Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1183–1206. doi:10.5465/
predictors of behavioral intention. This interesting finding opens amj.2007.0572
up opportunities to further exploration of this behavior. Finally, Croll, A. (2015). Data: Emerging trends and technologies. Retrieved
our study contributes to fill a gap in the Brazilian empirical from http://www.oreilly.com/data/free/data-emerging-trends-and-
technologies.csp
literature on Big Data in SCM, while simultaenously motivates
Davenport, T. H. (2006). Competing on analytics. Harvard Business
logistics and SCM scholars to advance this stream of research.
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-
REFERENCES 340. doi:10.2307/249008
Domo. (2017). Data never sleeps 4.0. Retrieved from https://www.
Abawajy, J. (2015). Comprehensive analysis of big data variety domo.com/blog/data-never-sleeps-4-0/
landscape. International journal of parallel. Emergent and Distributed
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Janssen, M., Lal, B., Williams, M. D., &
Systems, 30(1), 5-14. doi:10.1080/17445760.2014.925548
Clement, M. (2017). An empirical validation of a unified model of
Ahmad, S. Z., & Khalid, K. (2017). The adoption of M-government services electronic government adoption (UMEGA). Government Information
from the user’s perspectives: Empirical evidence from the United Quarterly, 34(2), 211–230. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.001
Arab Emirates. International Journal of Information Management, Erevelles, S., Fukawa, N., & Swayne, L. (2016). Big Data consumer
37(5), 367-379. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.03.008 analytics and the transformation of marketing. Journal of Business
Akter, S., Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2016). Research, 69(2), 897-904. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.001
How to improve firm performance using big data analytics capability Farooq, M. S., Salam, M., Jaafar, N., Fayolle, A., Ayupp, K., Radovic-
and business strategy alignment? International Journal of Production Markovic, M., & Sajid, A. (2017). Acceptance and use of lecture
Economics, 182, 113-131. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.018 capture system (LCS) in executive business studies: Extending
Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Factors influencing UTAUT2. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(4), 329-348.
doi:10.1108/ITSE-06-2016-0015
adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending
UTAUT2 with trust. International Journal of Information Management, Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models
37(3), 99-110. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.002 with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of
Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Doi:10.2307/3151312
Autry, C. W., Williams, B. D., & Golicic, S. (2014). Relational and process
multiplexity in vertical supply chain triads: An exploration in the Francisco, K., & Swanson, D. (2018). The supply chain has no clothes:
U.S. restaurant industry. Journal of Business Logistics, 35(1), 52-70. Technology adoption of blockchain for supply chain transparency.
doi:10.1111/jbl.12034 Logistics, 2(1), 2. doi:10.3390/logistics2010002
Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An Mamonov, S., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2017). Exploring factors affecting
integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51-90. doi:10.2307/30036519 social e-commerce service adoption: The case of Facebook gifts.
International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 590-600.
Giannakis, M., & Louis, M. (2016). A multi-agent based system with doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.05.005
big data processing for enhanced supply chain agility. Journal of
Enterprise Information Management, 29(5), 706-727. doi:10.1108/ Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C.,
JEIM-06-2015-0050 & Byers, A. H. (2011). Big data: The next frontier for innovation,
competition, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved
Gobble, M. M. (2013). Big data: The next big thing in from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-
innovation. Research-Technology Management, 56(1), 64-67. mckinsey/our-insights/big-data-the-next-frontier-for-innovation
doi:10.5437/08956308X5601005
Martins, C., Oliveira, T., & Popovič, A. (2014). Understanding the
Grawe, S. J., Daugherty, p. J., & Ralston, p. M. (2015). Enhancing internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and
dyadic performance through boundary spanners and innovation: An use of technology and perceived risk application. International
assessment of service provider-customer relationships. Journal of Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.
Business Logistics, 36(1), 88-101. doi:10.1111/jbl.12077 ijinfomgt.2013.06.002
Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S. F., Childe, S. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model
J., Hazen, B., & Akter, S. (2017). Big data and predictive analytics for of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-
supply chain and organizational performance. Journal of Business 734. doi:10.2307/258792
Research, 70, 308-317. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.004
Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D.,
Gupta, M., & George, J. F. (2016). Toward the development of a big data & Zacharia, Z. G. (2001). Defining supply chain management. Journal
analytics capability. Information & Management, 53(8), 1049-1064. of Business Logistics, 22(2), 1-25. doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.07.004 tb00001.x
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force.
tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121. Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375-403. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.
doi:10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128 tb00206.x
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer Munshi, A. A., & Mohamed, Y. A. R. I. (2017). Big data framework for
on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed.. analytics in smart grids. Electric Power Systems Research, 151, 369-
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 380. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2017.06.006
Han, J. H., Wang, Y., & Naim, M. (2017). Reconceptualization of Nobre, G. C., & Tavares, E. (2017). Scientific literature analysis on big
information technology flexibility for supply chain management: An data and internet of things applications on circular economy: A
empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 187, bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 111(1), 463-492. doi:10.1007/
196-215. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.02.018 s11192-017-2281-6
Hazen, B. T., Boone, C. A., Ezell, J. D., & Jones-Farmer, L. A. (2014). Data Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory: 2d Ed. New York, NY:
quality for data science, predictive analytics, and big data in supply McGraw-Hill.
chain management: An introduction to the problem and suggestions Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M. A., & Popovič, A. (2014). Extending
for research and applications. International Journal of Production the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets
Economics, 154, 72-80. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.04.018 TTF and ITM. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5),
Hazen, B. T., Skipper, J. B., Ezell, J. D., & Boone, C. A. (2016). Big data 689-703. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.004
and predictive analytics for supply chain sustainability: A theory- Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M. A. & Popovič, A. (2014). Extending
driven research agenda. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets
592-598. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.06.030 TTF and ITM. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5),
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of 689-703. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.004
partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In Phillips-Wren, G., & Hoskisson, A. (2015). An analytical journey towards
R. Sinkovics & P. Ghauri (Eds.), New challenges to international big data. Journal of Decision Systems, 24(1), 87-102. doi:10.1080/12
marketing (Vol 20, pp. 277-319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 460125.2015.994333
Huang, T. C. K., Liu, C. C., & Chang, D. C. (2012). An empirical Queiroz, M. M., & Telles, R. (2018). Big data analytics in supply chain and
investigation of factors influencing the adoption of data mining tools. logistics: An empirical approach. International Journal of Logistics
International Journal of Information Management, 32(3), 257-270. Management, 29(2), 767-783. doi:10.1108/IJLM-05-2017-0116
doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.11.006
Queiroz, M. M., & Wamba, S. F. (2019). Blockchain adoption challenges
Kache, F., & Seuring, S. (2017). Challenges and opportunities of digital in supply chain: An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India
information at the intersection of big data analytics and supply and the USA. International Journal of Information Management, 46,
chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production 70-82. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.021
Management, 37(1), 10-36. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-02-2015-0078
Richey, R. G., Morgan, T. R., Lindsey-Hall, K., & Adams, F. G. (2016). A
Kune, R., Konugurthi, p. K., Agarwal, A., Chillarige, R. R., & Buyya, R. global exploration of big data in the supply chain. International
(2016). The anatomy of big data computing. Software: Practice and Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(8), 710-
Experience, 46(1), 79-105. doi:10.1002/spe.2374 739. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2016-0134
Riffai, M. M. M. A., Grant, K., & Edgar, D. (2012). Big TAM in Oman: Wamba, S. F. (2018, March). Social media use in the workspace:
Exploring the promise of on-line banking, its adoption by applying an extension of the technology acceptance model across
customers and the challenges of banking in Oman. International multiple countries. In World Conference on Information Systems and
Journal of Information Management, 32(3), 239-250. doi:10.1016/j. Technologies (pp. 385-392). Springer, Cham.
ijinfomgt.2011.11.007
Wang, C. S., Jeng, Y. L., & Huang, Y. M. (2017). What influences teachers to
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. continue using cloud services? The role of facilitating conditions and
Boenningstedt, Germany: SmartPLS GmbH. social influence. The Electronic Library, 35(3), 520-533. doi:10.1108/
Rotella, p. (2012). Is data the new oil? Forbes. Retrieved from http:// EL-02-2016-0046
www.forbes.com/sites/perryrotella/2012/04/02/is-data-the-new- Wang, G., Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E. W. T., & Papadopoulos, T. (2016).
oil/#44ed5b8e77a9 Big data analytics in logistics and supply chain management: Certain
Sabi, H. M., Uzoka, F. E., Langmia, K., & Njeh, F. N. (2016). Conceptualizing investigations for research and applications. International Journal of
a model for adoption of cloud computing in education. International Production Economics, 176, 98-110. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.03.014
Journal of Information Management, 36(2), 183-191. doi:10.1016/j. Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, R., Al-Sobhi, F., Shareef, M. A., & Dwivedi,
ijinfomgt.2015.11.010 Y. K. (2013). Examining the influence of intermediaries in facilitating
Schoenherr, T., & Speier-Pero, C. (2015). Data science, predictive e-government adoption: An empirical investigation. International
analytics, and big data in supply chain management: Current state Journal of Information Management, 33(5), 716-725. doi:10.1016/j.
and future potential. Journal of Busienss Logistics, 36(1), 120-132. ijinfomgt.2013.05.001
doi:10.1111/jbl.12082
Wills, M. J. (2014). Decisions through data: Analytics in
Shim, S., Lee, B., & Kim, S. L. (2018). Rival precedence and open platform healthcare. Journal of Healthcare Management, 59(4), 254-262.
adoption: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Information
Wu, K. J., Liao, C. J., Tseng, M. L., Lim, M. K., Hu, J., & Tan, K. (2017).
Management, 38(1), 217-231. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.10.001
Toward sustainability: Using big data to explore the decisive
Srinivasan, R., & Swink, M. (2018). An investigation of visibility and attributes of supply chain risks and uncertainties. Journal of Cleaner
flexibility as complements to supply chain analytics: An organizational Production, 142(Part 2), 663-676. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.040
information processing theory perspective. Production and
Operations Management, 27(10), 1849-1867. doi:10.1111/poms.12746 Wu, K., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Q., Tan, X., & Zheng, H. (2011). A meta-analysis of
the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: Investigation
Stock, J. R., & Boyer, S. L. (2009). Developing a consensus definition of of moderating influence of subject and context type. International
supply chain management: A qualitative study. International Journal Journal of Information Management, 31(6), 572-581. doi:10.1016/j.
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(8), 690-711. ijinfomgt.2011.03.004
doi:10.1108/09600030910996323
Yadlapalli, A., Rahman, S., & Gunasekaran, A. (2018). Socially
Strawn, G. (2012). Scientific research: How many paradigms? EDUCAUSE responsible governance mechanisms for manufacturing firms
Review. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/ in apparel supply chains. International Journal of Production
recordDetail?accno=EJ970900 Economics, 196, 135-149. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.11.016
Sun, J., & Teng, J. T. C. (2017). The construct of information systems Youngberg, E., Olsen, D., & Hauser, K. (2009). Determinants of
use benefits: Theoretical explication of its underlying dimensions
professionally autonomous end user acceptance in an enterprise
and the development of a measurement scale. International
resource planning system environment. International Journal
Journal of Information Management, 37(5), 400-416. doi:10.1016/j.
of Information Management, 29(2), 138-144. doi:10.1016/j.
Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2001). A longitudinal investigation of
Zhao, R., Liu, Y., Zhang, N., & Huang, T. (2017). An optimization model
personal computers in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging
for green supply chain management by using a big data analytic
challenges. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 71-102. doi:10.2307/3250959
approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 1085-1097.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User
acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Zhao, Y., Ni, Q., & Zhou, R. (2018). What factors influence the mobile
Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. doi:10.2307/30036540 health service adoption? A meta-analysis and the moderating role of
age. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 342-350.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.08.006
use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of
acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. Zhong, R. Y., Newman, S. T., Huang, G. Q., & Lan, S. (2016). Big data for
doi:10.2307/41410412 supply chain management in the service and manufacturing sectors:
Challenges, opportunities, and future perspectives. Computers &
Wamba, S. F., Akter, S., Edwards, A., Chopin, G., & Gnanzou, D. (2015). Industrial Engineering, 101, 572-591. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.07.013
How “big data” can make big impact: Findings from a systematic
review and a longitudinal case study. International Journal of Zinn, W., & Goldsby, T. J. (2017a). In search of research ideas? Call a
Production Economics, 165, 234-246. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.031 professional. Journal of Business Logistics, 38(1), 4-5. doi:10.1111/
jbl.12160
Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S. J. fan, Dubey, R., &
Childe, S. J. (2017). Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects Zinn, W., & Goldsby, T. J. (2017b). The role of academic research in
of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 70, 356-365. supply chain practice: How much are we contributing? Journal of
doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.009 Business Logistics, 38(4), 236-237. doi:10.1111/jbl.12175
RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas | FGV EAESP
FÓRUM
Submetido 26.09.2018. Aprovado 19.07.2019
Avaliado pelo sistema double blind review. Editores Científicos Convidados: Eduardo de Rezende Francisco, José Luiz Kugler,
Soong Moon Kang, Ricardo Silva e Peter Alexander Whigham
Versão traduzida
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020190605
INTENÇÃO DE ADOÇÃO DE BIG DATA NA

CADEIA DE SUPRIMENTOS: UMA PERSPECTIVA
BRASILEIRA
Intention to adopt big data in supply chain management: A Brazilian perspective
Intención de adopción de big data en la cadena de suministros: Una perspectiva
brasileña
RESUMO
As aplicações de big data têm remodelado vários modelos de negócios e provocado grandes transforma-
ções na gestão da cadeia de suprimentos (GCS). Apoiado pela literatura emergente de big data, GCS e teoria
unificada de aceitação e uso de tecnologia (UTAUT), este estudo tem como objetivo avaliar as variáveis que
influenciam os profissionais brasileiros que atuam na GCS a adotar big data. Assim, nós adaptamos e vali-
damos um modelo UTAUT previamente desenvolvido. Um total de 152 profissionais que atuam na gestão de
cadeias de suprimentos revelou que condições facilitadoras (como a infraestrutura de TI) têm uma grande
influência na adoção de big data. Por outro lado, a influência social e a expectativa de desempenho não
apresentaram efeito significativo. Este estudo contribui para a prática, com conhecimentos valiosos para os
tomadores de decisão que estão considerando projetos de big data. Além disso, ele ajuda a minimizar a
lacuna em relação aos estudos de big data no contexto brasileiro.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE | Big data, gestão da cadeia de suprimentos, adoção, survey, partial least squares structural
equation modeling, PLS-SEM.
ABSTRACT
Big data applications have been remodeling several business models and provoking strong radical transforma-
tions in supply chain management (SCM). Supported by the literature on big data, supply chain management,
and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT), this study aims to evaluate the variables
that influence the intention of Brazilian SCM professionals to adopt big data. To this end, we adapted and vali-
dated a previously developed UTAUT model. A survey of 152 supply chain respondents revealed that facilitating
conditions (e.g., IT infrastructure) have a high influence on their intention to adopt big data. However, social
influence and performance expectancy showed no significant effect. This study contributes to the practical field,
offering valuable insights for decision-makers considering big data projects. It also contributes to the literature
by helping minimize the research gap in big data in the Brazilian context.
KEYWORDS | Big data, supply chain management, adoption, survey, partial least squares structural equation
MACIEL M. QUEIROZ¹
modeling, PLS-SEM.
maciel.queiroz@docente.unip.br
ORCID: 0000-0002-6025-9191
RESUMEN
SUSANA CARLA FARIAS PEREIRA² Las aplicaciones de big data han estado remodelando varios modelos de negocios y han provocado fuertes
susana.pereira@fgv.br transformaciones en la cadena de suministro (CS). Con el apoyo de la literatura de big data, CS y la teoría unifi-
ORCID: 0000-0002-3952-7489 cada de aceptación y uso de la tecnología (UTAUT), este estudio tiene objetivo evaluar las variables que afectan
a los profesionales brasileños para adoptar big data. Por lo tanto, adaptamos y validamos un modelo UTAUT
¹ Universidade Paulista, previamente desarrollado. Un total de 152 encuestados de CS revelaron que las condiciones de facilitación
Programa de Pós-graduação em (por ejemplo, la infraestructura de TI) tienen una gran influencia en la adopción de big data. Por otro lado, la
Administração, São Paulo, SP, influencia social y la expectativa de desempeño no mostraron un efecto significativo. Este estudio contribuye
Brasil a la práctica, con información valiosa para los responsables de la toma de decisiones que están considerando
proyectos de big data. Además, ayudamos a minimizar la brecha con respecto a los estudios de big data en el
² Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola contexto brasileño.
de Administração de Empresas de PALABRAS CLAVE | Big data, gestión de la cadena de suministro, adopción, survey, partial least squares struc-
São Paulo, SP, Brasil tural equation modeling, PLS-SEM.
389 © RAE | São Paulo | V. 59 | n. 6 | nov-dez 2019 | 389-401 ISSN 0034-7590; eISSN 2178-938X
FÓRUM | INTENÇÃO DE ADOÇÃO DE BIG DATA NA CADEIA DE SUPRIMENTOS: UMA PERSPECTIVA BRASILEIRA
INTRODUÇÃO Para responder a essa pergunta, este trabalho baseia-se

na literatura relacionada ao big data (Davenport, 2006; Manyika
O rápido avanço de tecnologias da informação e comunicação et al., 2011; Queiroz & Telles, 2018), GCS (Carter, Rogers, & Choi,
(TICs) motivou profissionais e estudiosos de logística e cadeia 2015; Mentzer et al., 2001) e UTAUT (Queiroz & Wamba, 2019;
de suprimentos (Zinn & Goldsby, 2017a, 2017b) a entender o que Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012) para
as organizações podem agregar com essas tecnologias. Uma desenvolver as hipóteses e o modelo. O modelo conceitual foi
tecnologia inovadora e impactante que surgiu recentemente é o adaptado e validado utilizando modelos de equações estruturais
big data (grande volume de dados) (Davenport, 2006; Manyika de mínimos quadrados parciais (partial least squares structural
et al., 2011; Rotella, 2012). A quantidade de dados produzidos equation modeling – PLS-SEM). As principais conclusões têm
diariamente tem aumentado drasticamente nos últimos anos fortes implicações teóricas e gerenciais. Da perspectiva gerencial,
(Domo, 2017). Esse crescimento trouxe diversos desafios ao verificamos que condições facilitadoras (exemplo: infraestrutura)
gerenciamento de dados. Nesse contexto, o big data é uma exercem grande influência sobre a IC de adotar big data. Sob a
abordagem robusta para ajudar organizações a analisarem (Croll, ótica teórica, nossos resultados revelaram que a influência social
2015) grandes quantidades de dados e aprimorarem o processo e expectativa de desempenho não são bons preditores da IC de
de tomada de decisão (Abawajy, 2015). profissionais brasileiros de GCS em adotar big data.
A literatura considera o big data a “próxima grande ino Este artigo está organizado da seguinte forma. Inicialmente,
vação” (Gobble, 2013, p. 64) e “o quarto paradigma da ciência” apresentamos os principais fundamentos teóricos para estudos
(Strawn, 2012, p. 34), e que tem impacto em praticamente de big data, GCS e UTAUT. Em seguida, descrevemos as hipóteses,
todos os modelos de negócios. Por exemplo, 35% da receita o modelo de pesquisa e metodologia, bem como a análise
da Amazon.com é gerada utilizando big data (Wills, 2014), baseada em PLS-SEM. Discutimos as implicações gerenciais
juntamente com a reformulação de atividades de marketing e teóricas, assim como as limitações do presente estudo e
que coletam dados importantes sobre o comportamento dos orientações para pesquisas futuras. Finalmente, as principais
consumidores em tempo real (Erevelles, Fukawa, & Swayne, conclusões são destacadas.
2016). Um campo que vem realizando esforços significativos
para utilizar o big data é a gestão da cadeia de suprimentos
(GCS) (Gunasekaran et al., 2017; Kache & Seuring, 2017; Richey, BASES TEÓRICAS
Morgan, Lindsey-Hall, & Adams, 2016; Wu et al., 2017; Zhao, Liu,
Zhang, & Huang, 2017). Big data: Fundamentos, conceitos e desafios
Apesar dos potenciais benefícios do emprego do big
data no GCS (Hazen, Boone, Ezell, & Jones-Farmer, 2014; Kache O big data surgiu como uma TIC altamente inovadora. Uma
& Seuring, 2017; Schoenherr & Speier-Pero, 2015), ainda há definição abrangente e adequada de big data é “[...] conjuntos
pouco conhecimento sobre big data e poucas iniciativas para de dados cujo tamanho está além da capacidade das ferramentas
adotá-lo no mercado brasileiro de GCS, e a literatura carece de de software de banco de dados de coletar, armazenar, gerenciar,
fortes resultados empíricos (Queiroz & Telles, 2018). O estágio e analisar” (Manyika et al., 2011, p. 1). Assim, o big data pode
atual de utilização de big data constitui uma oportunidade ser considerado uma abordagem robusta para analisar dados
para acadêmicos e profissionais preencherem essa lacuna. Por no contexto de decisões descritivas, prescritivas e preditivas
exemplo, até onde sabemos, nenhum estudo anterior analisou (Phillips-Wren & Hoskisson, 2015). Essa abordagem é comumente
a intenção comportamental (IC) dos profissionais brasileiros chamada de big data analytics (BDA) e envolve uma abordagem
de GCS de adotar big data, e o presente estudo visa preencher de cinco Vs (volume, velocidade, variedade, veracidade e valor)
essa lacuna. Adaptamos um modelo previamente desenvolvido (Queiroz & Telles, 2018; Wamba et al., 2017). Em outras palavras,
e validado de aceitação e uso de tecnologia (Unified theory of o BDA usa estatísticas sofisticadas e modelos matemáticos e
acceptance and use of technology - [UTAUT]) (Venkatesh, Morris, computacionais para analisar grandes volumes de dados e
Davis & Davis, 2003; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019), incluindo um fornecer informações aos tomadores de decisão. Neste estudo,
construto de confiança. Mais especificamente, este estudo usamos a definição de big data proposta por Phillips-Wren e
responde à seguinte pergunta: Como as variáveis do modelo Hoskisson (2015) como a quantidade de dados que supera a
UTAUT explicam a IC dos profissionais brasileiros de GCS de capacidade das organizações de armazená-los e analisá-los para
adotar big data? apoiar e melhorar o processo de tomada de decisão.
O volume de dados aumentou drasticamente nos últimos Além disso, o GCS pode ser considerado uma rede (Carter
anos devido à variedade de dados produzidos (Bibri & Krogstie, et al., 2015) e um sistema adaptativo complexo (Choi, Dooley e
2017) (por exemplo, ERP, Twitter, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, GPS, Rungtusanatham, 2001), e a crescente quantidade de dados
entre outros) e à velocidade da transmissão de dados (Munshi tem aumentado essa complexidade. O uso de big data no GCS
& Mohamed, 2017; Srinivasan & Swink, 2018). Esse cenário auxilia o processo de tomada de decisão, fornecendo informações
complexo impulsiona organizações a desenvolverem recursos relevantes sobre a dinâmica do sistema (por exemplo, padrões de
específicos para armazenar, processar e analisar dados para compra de clientes, análise de custos e tendências de mercado).
auxiliar o processo de tomada de decisão. No entanto, criar valor Análises descritivas e prescritivas robustas (Wang et al., 2016)
não é uma tarefa fácil, principalmente porque a capacidade das têm melhorado significativamente o desempenho de empresas
organizações de processar e analisar dados é limitada. Além disso, (Akter et al., 2016; Gunasekaran et al., 2017).
confirmar a veracidade dos dados, que indica a sua qualidade
e confiabilidade (Munshi & Mohamed, 2017; Nobre & Tavares,
2017), é um grande desafio para as empresas. Modelos de aceitação de tecnologia (MATs)
Big data está sendo utilizado no aprimoramento do GCS e Teoria unificada de aceitação e uso de
utilizando sistemas baseados em múltiplos agentes (Giannakis
tecnologia (UTAUT)
& Louis, 2016), otimização do GCS verde considerando
materiais perigosos e emissão de carbono (Zhao et al., 2017), Vários estudos avaliaram o desenvolvimento e disseminação da
setor manufatureiro (Zhong, Newman, Huang, & Lan, 2016) e tecnologia da informação (TI) (Davis, 1989; Morris & Venkatesh,
exploração de informações de GCS (Kache & Seuring, 2017). Foi 2000; Venkatesh & Brown, 2001; Wamba, 2018) e valores e
demonstrado que o big data pode melhorar significativamente comportamentos individuais em relação à adoção e uso de TI
o desempenho das empresas (Akter, Wamba, Gunasekaran, (Mamonov & Benbunan-Fich, 2017; Youngberg, Olsen, & Hauser,
Dubey, & Childe, 2016; Gunasekaran et al., 2017; Wamba, Akter, 2009). O MAT é uma contribuição importante na adoção da tecnologia
Edwards, Chopin, & Gnanzou, 2015; Wang, Gunasekaran, Ngai, (Davis, 1989) e tem suas raízes na teoria da ação racional (Azjen
& Papadopoulos, 2016). & Fishbein, 1980). Os fundamentos do MAT baseiam-se em duas
variáveis: utilidade percebida e facilidade de uso percebida. Mais
recentemente, Venkatesh et al. (2003) propuseram a consolidação
Gestão da cadeia de suprimentos e os das teorias do MAT que antecederam a UTAUT.
impactos de tecnologias de ponta
UTAUT
Recentemente, os campos de logística e GCS foram impactados
significativamente pelo crescimento exponencial do uso de TICs. O modelo UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) é uma abordagem
Dessa forma, acadêmicos e empresários procuraram entender robusta e relevante para entender comportamentos individuais de
os possíveis efeitos e oportunidades de aplicar o GCS em seus adoção e uso da tecnologia. O modelo possui quatro constructos
modelos de negócios (Zinn & Goldsby, 2017a, 2017b). Nesse voltados a intenção de uso da tecnologia: expectativa de
contexto, o GCS é definido como: desempenho (ED), expectativa de esforço (EE), influência social
(IS) e condições facilitadoras (CFs).
O gerenciamento de uma rede de relacionamentos A ED refere-se ao “grau em que um indivíduo acredita que o
dentro de uma empresa e entre organizações uso do sistema o ajudará a melhorar seu desempenho profissional”
e unidades de negócios interdependentes, (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 447). A EE é “o grau de facilidade
incluindo fornecimento de materiais, compras, associado ao uso do sistema” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 450). A
produção, logística, marketing, e sistemas IS denota “o grau em que um indivíduo percebe que outras pessoas
relacionados que facilitam o fluxo de materiais, importantes acreditam que ele ou ela deve usar o novo sistema”
serviços, finanças, e informações do produtor (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p. 451). As CFs indicam “o grau em que um
original ao cliente final com o objetivo de agregar indivíduo acredita que existe uma infraestrutura organizacional e
valor, maximizar a lucratividade por meio de técnica de suporte ao uso do sistema” (Venkatesh et al., 2003, p.
eficiências, e satisfazer o cliente. (Stock & Boyer, 453). O modelo UTAUT possui quatro moderadores: gênero, idade,
2009, p. 706) experiência e voluntariedade de uso. No entanto, seguindo as
premissas de um estudo anterior (Weerakkody, El-Haddadeh, controlar a contraparte” (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 712).
Al-Sobhi, Shareef, & Dwivedi, 2013), esses moderadores não foram Essa definição indica que confiança é a disposição de depender
empregados no presente modelo adaptado (explicado na próxima de uma contraparte com base na integridade, benevolência e
seção) porque se trata de um estudo preliminar de adoção de BDA credibilidade. Nesse contexto, o big data é confiável para os
no contexto brasileiro de GCS. usuários. Em consonância com trabalhos anteriores (Wu et al.,
2011), propomos as seguintes hipóteses:
H2a: Confiança afeta positivamente a ED.
Hipóteses e modelo de pesquisa H2b: Confiança afeta positivamente a IC de adotar big data.
Com o apoio da literatura relevante sobre big data, GCS e UTAUT,

Influência social
adaptamos um modelo descrito por Queiroz e Wamba (2019)
para compreender o comportamento de adoção de big data por A IS é um bom preditor da IC de usar a tecnologia (Venkatesh
profissionais brasileiros de GCS. Adotamos alguns conceitos et al., 2003). Neste trabalho, a IS denota até que ponto os
e hipóteses propostos no modelo de Queiroz e Wamba (2019) profissionais de GCS acreditam que seus colegas devem usar
(Figura 1), pois estes foram previamente validados (Quadro 1), big data. Estudos anteriores destacam que a IS afeta a IC (Batara,
e um constructo de confiança previamente validado que foi Nurmandi, Warsito, & Pribadi, 2017; Oliveira, Faria, Thomas, &
adicionado a esses conceitos (Alalwan, Dwivedi, & Rana, 2017; Popovič, 2014; Venkatesh et al., 2012). A nossa hipótese é que,
Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub, 2003). Além disso, os constructos
no contexto do GCS, a IS afeta significativamente a confiança
utilizados em nosso modelo têm relacionamentos diferentes
(Chin, Wafa, & Ooi, 2009) e, por sua vez, a IC (Alalwan et al.,
daqueles descritos na literatura (Queiroz & Wamba, 2019).
2017). Portanto, propomos as seguintes hipóteses:
H3a: IS afeta positivamente a confiança.
Condições facilitadoras
H3b: IS afeta positivamente a IC de adotar big data.
As CFs desempenham um papel fundamental na previsão da

aceitação e intenção de uso de tecnologia (Venkatesh et al., Expectativa de esforço
2003, 2012). Neste estudo, as CFs denotam o conhecimento
A EE está relacionada à complexidade de operação do sistema
dos profissionais de GCS sobre os recursos e infraestrutura
(Venkatesh et al., 2003). Neste estudo, a EE refere-se à facilidade
organizacional disponíveis para dar suporte ao uso de big data.
de uso de sistemas de big data por profissionais de GCS. Estudos
Estudos anteriores relataram que CFs são um bom preditor da
anteriores discutiram o efeito da EE na IC e uso de uma nova
IC de adotar big data (Huang, Liu, & Chang, 2012; Sabi, Uzoka,
tecnologia (Batara et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2012; Zhao, Ni,
Langmia, & Njeh, 2016). O presente estudo postula que CFs
& Zhou, 2018) e na adoção de blockchain em GCS (Francisco &
influenciam diretamente a IC e são fundamentais na EE (Dwivedi
Swanson, 2018). Nesse sentido, a seguinte hipótese foi postulada:
et al., 2017) e também influenciam a ED (Wang, Jeng & Huang,
2017). Portanto, propomos as seguintes hipóteses: H4: A EE afeta positivamente a IC de adotar big data.
H1a: CFs afetam positivamente a EE.

Expectativa de desempenho
H1b: CFs afetam positivamente a ED.
H1c: CFs afetam positivamente a IC de adotar big data.
Neste trabalho, a ED denota o nível em que um profissional
de GCS percebe que o big data melhorará sua produtividade e
Confiança
desempenho. As empresas podem analisar diferentes tipos de
O conceito de confiança foi estudado exaustivamente nos campos dados utilizando estatísticas robustas e técnicas de aprendizado
de administração e sistemas de informação (Colquitt & Rodell, de máquina (Kune, Konugurthi, Agarwal, Chillarige, & Buyya,
2011; Wu, Zhao, Zhu, Tan, & Zheng, 2011). Confiança é definida 2016), resultando em considerável economia de tempo e
como “a predisposição de uma pessoa de se tornar vulnerável às melhora da produtividade nas organizações, aumentando seu
ações de outra pessoa (contraparte) com base na expectativa de desempenho (Gunasekaran et al., 2017; Wamba et al., 2017).
que a contraparte realize uma ação específica importante para Portanto, apresentamos a seguinte hipótese:
o credor, independentemente da capacidade de monitorar ou H5: ED afeta positivamente a IC de adotar big data.
Figura 1. Modelo conceitual
H4(+)
Expectativa de
esforço H1a(+)
Condições H1c(+)
H1b(+) facilitadoras
Intenção
H5(+) comportamental de
Expectativa de adotar big data
desempenho
H2a(+) H2b(+)
Confiança
H3a(+)
Influência
social H3b(+)
METODOLOGIA composta, variância média extraída (Hair et al., 2017; Nunnally,

1978; Riffai, Grant, & Edgar, 2012) e validade discriminante.
Amostra e coleta de dados
RESULTADOS E ANÁLISES
Um questionário baseado em Queiroz e Wamba (2019) foi utilizado
para testar as hipóteses propostas. O questionário on-line O PLS-SEM (Ringle, Wende, & Becker, 2015; Shim, Lee, & Kim,
foi baseado em conceitos e escalas validados anteriormente 2018; Sun & Teng, 2017) foi utilizado para analisar o modelo
(Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012; Gefen et al., 2003). O modelo de de estudo. O PLS-SEM é uma abordagem eficaz para analisar
Queiroz e Wamba (2019) foi desenvolvido com base em estudos modelos simples e robustos da área de gestão e negócios (Hair,
anteriores, e seus constructos foram adaptados de estudos Sarstedt, Hopkins, & Kuppelwieser, 2014; Hair et al., 2017) e
recentes envolvendo MATs (Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et ganhou a atenção de estudiosos de GCS (Autry, Williams, &
al., 2003, 2012). Utilizamos o questionário desenvolvido por Golicic, 2014; Grawe, Daugherty, & Ralston, 2015; Han, Wang,
Queiroz e Wamba (2019) porque nosso principal objetivo era & Naim, 2017; Yadlapalli, Rahman, & Gunasekaran, 2018). Suas
identificar a intenção de adotar big data. Todas os constructos principais vantagens são a flexibilidade no trabalho com amostras
foram mensurados usando uma escala Likert de sete pontos, pequenas (por exemplo, 100 respondentes) e a presença de
variando de 1 [discordo totalmente] a 7 [concordo totalmente] constructos formativos e reflexivos (Hair et al., 2017).
(Wamba et al., 2017). Antes da coleta de dados, foi realizado um As características dos entrevistados estão apresentadas na
teste-piloto com cinco acadêmicos seniores e cinco profissionais Tabela 1. Os entrevistados do sexo masculino representaram cerca
seniores de GCS. Os dados foram obtidos da rede social LinkedIn de 90% da amostra. A maioria (52,63%) dos entrevistados tinha
(Gupta & George, 2016; Queiroz & Telles, 2018). Após o teste- entre 34 e 41 anos. Os entrevistados possuíam pós-graduação/
piloto, enviamos um questionário a 600 profissionais brasileiros MBA (nível acadêmico mais alto da amostra, 55,26%), diploma de
de GCS com experiência em big data. A pesquisa foi realizada bacharel (39,47%), ou mestrado acadêmico (5,26%). O tempo de
em agosto de 2018, em que recebemos 152 questionários experiência profissional dos entrevistados em suas respectivas
válidos, representando uma taxa de resposta de 25,33%. Os organizações foi de 2 a 5 anos (50%), de 6 a 10 anos (21,05%), ou
constructos e seus respectivos itens estão mostrados no Quadro menos de 1 ano (18,42%). A amostra foi composta por analistas
1. O questionário foi validado empregando cargas fatoriais (Hair, de logística (46,05%), gerentes de transporte (26,32%), gerentes
Hult, Ringle, & Sarstedt, 2017), alfa de Cronbach, confiabilidade de operações (18,42%) e gerentes de GCS (9,21%).
Quadro 1. Itens de mensuração
Constructo Descrição Itens Fontes
ED1 Big data é útil na minha vida diária.
O uso de big data aumenta minhas chances

ED2
de concluir tarefas importantes para mim.
(Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al.,
Expectativa de desempenho (ED)
O emprego de big data me ajuda a realizar 2003, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019)
ED3
tarefas mais rapidamente.
A aplicação de big data aumenta minha

ED4
produtividade.
EE1 Aprender a utilizar big data é fácil para mim.
Minha interação com o big data é clara é

EE2
adequada. (Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al.,
Expectativa de esforço (EE)
2003, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019)
EE3 Big data é fácil de usar.
Consigo me tornar proficiente no uso de big

EE4
data rapidamente.
As pessoas que são importantes para mim

IS1
pensam que eu deveria empregar big data.
As pessoas que são importantes para mim (Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al.,
Influência social (IS) IS2
acham que eu deveria utilizar big data. 2003, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019)
Pessoas cujas opiniões eu valorizo preferem

IS3
que eu use big data.
Eu tenho os recursos necessários para

CF1
adotar o big data.
Eu tenho o conhecimento necessário para

CF2
adotar big data. (Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al.,
Condições facilitadoras (CFs)
Big data é compatível com outras 2003, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019)
CF3
tecnologias que eu utilizo.
Posso obter ajuda de outras pessoas

CF4
quando tenho dificuldades em usar big data.
IC1 Pretendo usar big data no futuro.
Intenção comportamental (IC) de (Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al.,

IC2 Espero utilizar big data no futuro.
utilizar big data 2003, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba, 2019)
IC3 Tenho planos para adotar big data no futuro.
CO1 Acredito que big data é confiável.
CO2 Confio em big data.
CO3 Não duvido da credibilidade do big data.

Confiança (CO) (Alalwan et al., 2017; Gefen et al., 2003)
Tenho certeza de que estruturas legais e
CO4 tecnológicas me protegem adequadamente
de problemas em big data.
CO5 Big data cumpre as funções pretendidas.
Tabela 1. Perfil demográfico da amostra (n=152) (Hair et al., 2017; Nunnally, 1978; Riffai et al., 2012). Portanto,
todos os constructos adotados no modelo foram validados. Os
Gênero n %
resultados de validade discriminante estão descritos na Tabela
Masculino 136 89,5 4. Nesse caso, a raiz quadrada da variância média extraída de
cada constructo deve ser maior que as correlações entre os
Feminino 16 10,5
constructos (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Henseler, Ringle, & Sinkovics,
Idade (anos) 2009). Os valores obtidos foram superiores ao limiar de 0,70
26-33 40 26,32 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981), demonstrando que todos os constructos
apresentaram validade discriminante (Ahmad & Khalid, 2017;
34-41 80 52,63
Martins, Oliveira, & Popovič, 2014).
42-49 12 7,89
Tabela 2. Cargas fatoriais
≥50 20 13,16
Nível educacional IC EE CF ED IS CO
Bacharelado 60 39,47 IC1 0,887
Pós-graduação/MBA 84 55,26 IC2 0,916
Mestrado acadêmico 8 5.26 IC3 0,900
EE1 0,945
Tempo de experiência profissional

(anos) EE2 0,906
<1 28 18,42 EE3 0,947
2-5 76 50,00 EE4 0,900
CF1 0,789
6-10 32 21,05
CF2 0,884
11-15 16 10,53
CF3 0,719
Profissão
CF4 0,800
Analista de logística 70 46,05
ED1 0,764
Gerente de operações 28 18,42
ED2 0,803
Gerente de transporte 40 26,32 ED3 0,914
Gerente de cadeia de suprimentos 14 9,21 ED4 0,899
IS1 0,953
O modelo de estudo foi analisado utilizando o software SmartPLS
versão 3.0 (Hair et al., 2017; Ringle et al., 2015). Primeiro, o IS2 0,983
modelo foi avaliado por suas cargas fatoriais, alfa de Cronbach, IS3 0,967
confiabilidade composta, variância média extraída e validade CO1 0,964
discriminante.
CO2 0,944
CO3 0,918
Modelo de mensuração
CO4 0,937
Todas as cargas fatoriais excederam o limiar de 0,70 recomendado CO5 0,913
na literatura (Hair et al., 2017) (Tabela 2). As principais medidas de
IC, intenção comportamental;
confiabilidade do constructo e consistência interna dos itens são
EE, expectativa de esforço;
mostradas na Tabela 3. O valor alfa de Cronbach e a confiabilidade CF, condições facilitadoras;
composta ficaram acima do limite de 0,70, e todos os valores ED, expectativa de desempenho;
médios de variância extraídos ficaram acima do limiar de 0,50 IS, influência social; CO, confiança.
Tabela 3. Medidas de confiabilidade

Constructo Alfa de Cronbach Confiabilidade composta Variância média extraída
IC 0,881 0,926 0,808
EE 0,942 0,959 0,853
CF 0,806 0,873 0,637
ED 0,864 0,908 0,715
IS 0,965 0,977 0,934
CO 0,963 0,971 0,871
Tabela 4. Validade discriminante

Constructo IC EE CF ED IS CO
IC 0,901
EE 0,527 0,925
CF 0,614 0,577 0,800
ED 0,314 0,238 0,620 0,847
IS 0,399 0,390 0,508 0,421 0,968
CO 0,511 0,456 0,580 0,640 0,715 0,935

IC, intenção comportamental; EE, expectativa de esforço; CF, condições facilitadoras; ED, expectativa de desempenho; IS, influência social; CO, confiança.
Modelo estrutural
Os resultados do modelo estrutural estão nas Tabelas 5 e 6. A Tabela 5 destaca as estatísticas dos coeficientes de correlação. Os resultados
corroboraram as seguintes hipóteses: H1a (CFs têm um efeito positivo significativo na EE) (β = 0,578; p < 0,001), H1b (CFs têm um efeito
positivo significativo na ED) (β = 0,380; p < 0,001), H1c (CFs têm um efeito positivo significativo na IC) (β = 0,490; p < 0,001), H2a (a
confiança tem um efeito positivo significativo na ED) (β = 0,413; p < 0,001), H2b (a confiança tem um efeito positivo significativo na IC)
(β = 0,327; p < 0,05), e H3a (a IS tem um efeito positivo significativo na confiança) (β = 0,710; p < 0,001). Os resultados considerando
as outras hipóteses foram inesperados: H3b (a IS tem um efeito positivo significativo na IC). O relacionamento foi negativo e não-
significante (β = -0,073; p = 0,519). Assim, H3b não foi suportada. H4 (o EE tem um efeito positivo significativo na IC) não foi suportada
também (β = 0,166; p < 0,1), assim como H5 (a ED tem um efeito positivo significativo na IC) (β = -0,214; p < 0,05). A Tabela 6 destaca
as seguintes variâncias que foram obtidas: IC (46,0%), EE (33,3%), ED (49,8%) e confiança (50,3%) (Tabela 6). Todos os valores de R2
do modelo excederam o limiar de 0,20, o que corrobora estudos anteriores (Chin, 1998; Martins et al., 2014).
Tabela 5. Coeficientes de caminhos

Valor Beta Desvio-padrão Estatísticas t Valor de p Resultados
CF -> EE 0,578 0,053 10,921* 0,000 Aceito
CF -> ED 0,380 0,064 5,875* 0,000 Aceito
CF -> IC 0,490 0,097 5,016* 0,000 Aceito
CO -> ED 0,413 0,080 5,301* 0,000 Aceito
CO -> IC 0,327 0,112 2,987** 0,003 Aceito
IS -> CO 0,710 0,047 15,17* 0,000 Aceito
IS -> IC –0,073 0,097 0,646 0,519 Rejeitado
EE -> IC 0,166 0,090 1,86 0,063 Rejeitado
ED -> IC –0,214 0,099 2,184** 0,029 Rejeitado
IC, intenção comportamental; EE, expectativa de esforço; CF, condições facilitadoras; ED, expectativa de desempenho; IS, influência social; CO, confiança.
*p < 0,001; **p < 0,05. .
Tabela 6. Resultados de R² (variáveis dependentes) Implicações teóricas, limitações e perspectivas

Constructo R 2
R ajustado
2 futuras
IC 0,477 0,460 Do ponto de vista teórico, este estudo traz contribuições
EE 0,337 0,333 significativas para o campo da logística e da GCS. Primeiro, ao
ED 0,504 0,498 analisar a literatura sobre BDA, GCS e UTAUT, validamos um
modelo teórico robusto. Adaptamos e aplicamos um modelo
CO 0,506 0,503
previamente desenvolvido, para utilização junto aos profissionais
IC, intenção comportamental; EE, expectativa de esforço; ED, expectativa de brasileiros de GCS, e nossos resultados validaram o modelo. O
desempenho; CO, confiança
modelo teórico explicou 46% da IC, excedendo o limiar de 20%
reportado na literatura (Chin, 1998; Martins et al., 2014). Além
DISCUSSÃO E IMPLICAÇÕES disso, os resultados de validade discriminante foram consistentes
O objetivo deste estudo foi compreender a intenção de adotar big com a literatura e, portanto, apoiaram as hipóteses estruturais,
data no contexto do GCS no Brasil. Em vista da falta de estudos e demonstraram que o modelo efetivamente mensura a IC de
sobre tecnologias de ponta no Brasil (Queiroz e Telles, 2018), profissionais de GCS de adotar big data.
este trabalho contribui para o conhecimento sobre BDA, GCS Nossos achados destacam que CFs são um bom preditor
e MATs. Os resultados têm implicações gerenciais e teóricas da IC de usar big data, e pesquisas futuras podem se concentrar
significativas e oferecem orientações valiosas para adaptar e em avaliar CFs e suas limitações. No modelo proposto, em
melhorar o modelo adotado. consonância com um estudo anterior (Alalwan et al., 2017), a
confiança foi um bom preditor de ED e IC. Por outro lado, a IS não
foi uma boa preditora de IC, o que corrobora o resultado de um
Implicações gerenciais
estudo anterior (Alalwan et al., 2017). Esse resultado sugere a
As principais conclusões deste estudo têm implicações importan- necessidade de uma investigação mais aprofundada do papel da
tes para gerentes e profissionais de GCS envolvidos com BDA e seus IS na implementação de big data e outras tecnologias emergentes
facilitadores de adoção. De acordo com a literatura que considera o na área de GCS.
big data uma ferramenta essencial para melhorar o GCS (Gunaseka- Este estudo tem algumas limitações. Primeiro, uma
ran et al., 2017; Hazen, Skipper, Ezell, & Boone, 2016; Wang et al., variável moderadora poderia ser incorporada ao modelo
2016), o presente estudo demonstrou que o big data pode ser uma (Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012) para identificar nuances e
ferramenta adequada para ajudar os profissionais que trabalham diferenças na amostra, como tipo de indústria, gênero e
no GCS a obterem conhecimento e tomarem decisões. Segundo, experiência profissional. Segundo, devido a escassez de
as CFs exercem uma grande influência na adoção de big data. Isso estudos sobre a adoção de big data no Brasil, nossos resultados
significa que os gerentes devem considerar a infraestrutura de TI, possuem limitação relativo a comparação com outros estudos.
velocidade da internet e integração com outros sistemas, além de No entanto, este estudo abre oportunidades para estudiosos
outros fatores (Sabi et al., 2016; Venkatesh et al., 2003). e profissionais aplicarem o modelo validado e adaptarem-no
Surpreendentemente, apesar de a literatura indicar que a a outros contextos. Terceiro, o modelo adotado foi testado em
ED é um bom preditor da IC de adotar tecnologia (Dwivedi et al., uma economia emergente; por esse motivo, os resultados não
2017; Farooq et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2003; Weerakkody podem ser generalizados. Portanto, estudos adicionais são
et al., 2013), o presente estudo demonstrou que a ED não foi necessários para obter evidências empíricas em outros países
um bom preditor da IC de usar big data entre profissionais utilizando esse modelo.
brasileiros de GCS. Esse resultado pode representar uma barreira Este estudo é um dos primeiros a avaliar a IC de
à adoção desse tipo de tecnologia e abre novas oportunidades profissionais brasileiros de GCS de adotar big data. Há uma
de pesquisa. Por outro lado, a IS é forte preditora de confiança necessidade urgente e oportunidades de realizar investigações
(Chin et al., 2009). Entretanto, a IS não afetou a IC de adotar adicionais sobre essa e outras tecnologias de ponta (e.g.,
big data. Portanto, mais pesquisas que auxiliem tomadores de blockchain, internet das coisas e impressão 3D) e comparar as
decisão são necessárias. hipóteses desse modelo em outros contextos.
CONCLUSÃO Batara, E., Nurmandi, A., Warsito, T., & Pribadi, U. (2017). Are
government employees adopting local e-government transformation?
Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(4), 612–
Os objetivos deste estudo foram: 1. elucidar a IC de profissionais
638. doi:10.1108/TG-09-2017-0056
brasileiros de GCS de empregar big data; e 2. aplicar um modelo
contendo constructos relacionados à IC. Este estudo forneceu Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). ICT of the new wave of computing
for sustainable urban forms: Their big data and context-aware
uma compreensão mais aprofundada da intenção de adotar o
augmented typologies and design concepts. Sustainable Cities and
BDA no GCS no Brasil.
Society, 32, 449-474. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2017.04.012
As três contribuições deste estudo foram: 1. com base em
literatura teórica robusta (Akter et al., 2016; Alalwan et al., 2017; Carter, C. R., Rogers, D. S., & Choi, T. Y. (2015). Toward the theory of
the supply chain. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(2), 89-97.
Davis, 1989; Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012; Queiroz & Wamba,
doi:10.1111/jscm.12073
2019), adaptamos e aplicamos um modelo para entender a IC
de profissionais brasileiros de GCS; 2. os resultados têm fortes Chin, A., Wafa, S., & Ooi, A.-Y. (2009). The effect of internet trust and
implicações teóricas e práticas; uma implicação teórica é que social influence towards willingness to purchase online in Labuan,
Malaysia. International Business Research, 2(2), 72-81.
CFs e confiança são bons preditores de IC; em contrapartida, a IS
não foi um preditor de IC, o que contraria os resultados de dois Chin, W. W. (1998). Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling.
estudos (Venkatesh et al., 2003, 2012), mas corrobora um estudo MIS Quarterly, 22(1), 7-16.
(Alalwan et al., 2017); e 3. a ED e EE não são bons preditores de
Choi, T. Y., Dooley, K. J., & Rungtusanatham, M. (2001). Supply networks
IC. Portanto, esses resultados abrem oportunidades para melhor and complex adaptive systems: Control versus emergence. Journal
entender esses dois constructos, ajuda a preencher uma lacuna of Operations Management, 19(3), 351-366. doi:10.1016/S0272-
na literatura empírica brasileira sobre o uso de big data no GCS e 6963(00)00068-1
estimula profissionais de logística e GCS a melhor compreender Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness:
essa tecnologia. A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives.
Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1183–1206. doi:10.5465/
amj.2007.0572
REFERÊNCIAS Croll, A. (2015). Data: Emerging trends and technologies. Retrieved

from http://www.oreilly.com/data/free/data-emerging-trends-and-
Abawajy, J. (2015). Comprehensive analysis of big data variety technologies.csp
landscape. International journal of parallel. Emergent and Distributed
Davenport, T. H. (2006). Competing on analytics. Harvard Business
Systems, 30(1), 5-14. doi:10.1080/17445760.2014.925548
Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/
Ahmad, S. Z., & Khalid, K. (2017). The adoption of M-government services
from the user’s perspectives: Empirical evidence from the United Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and
Arab Emirates. International Journal of Information Management, user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-
37(5), 367-379. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.03.008 340. doi:10.2307/249008
Akter, S., Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Dubey, R., & Childe, S. J. (2016). Domo. (2017). Data never sleeps 4.0. Retrieved from https://www.
How to improve firm performance using big data analytics capability domo.com/blog/data-never-sleeps-4-0/
and business strategy alignment? International Journal of Production
Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Janssen, M., Lal, B., Williams, M. D., &
Economics, 182, 113-131. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.08.018
Clement, M. (2017). An empirical validation of a unified model of
Alalwan, A. A., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Factors influencing electronic government adoption (UMEGA). Government Information
adoption of mobile banking by Jordanian bank customers: Extending Quarterly, 34(2), 211–230. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2017.03.001
UTAUT2 with trust. International Journal of Information Management,
Erevelles, S., Fukawa, N., & Swayne, L. (2016). Big Data consumer
37(3), 99-110. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.01.002
analytics and the transformation of marketing. Journal of Business
Autry, C. W., Williams, B. D., & Golicic, S. (2014). Relational and process Research, 69(2), 897-904. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.07.001
multiplexity in vertical supply chain triads: An exploration in the
U.S. restaurant industry. Journal of Business Logistics, 35(1), 52-70. Farooq, M. S., Salam, M., Jaafar, N., Fayolle, A., Ayupp, K., Radovic-
doi:10.1111/jbl.12034 Markovic, M., & Sajid, A. (2017). Acceptance and use of lecture
capture system (LCS) in executive business studies: Extending
Azjen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting UTAUT2. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 14(4), 329-348.
social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. doi:10.1108/ITSE-06-2016-0015
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of
with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In
Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Doi:10.2307/3151312 R. Sinkovics & P. Ghauri (Eds.), New challenges to international
marketing (Vol 20, pp. 277-319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Francisco, K., & Swanson, D. (2018). The supply chain has no clothes:
Technology adoption of blockchain for supply chain transparency. Huang, T. C. K., Liu, C. C., & Chang, D. C. (2012). An empirical
Logistics, 2(1), 2. doi:10.3390/logistics2010002 investigation of factors influencing the adoption of data mining tools.
International Journal of Information Management, 32(3), 257-270.
Gefen, Karahanna, & Straub. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2011.11.006
integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51-90. doi:10.2307/30036519
Kache, F., & Seuring, S. (2017). Challenges and opportunities of digital
Giannakis, M., & Louis, M. (2016). A multi-agent based system with information at the intersection of big data analytics and supply
chain management. International Journal of Operations & Production
big data processing for enhanced supply chain agility. Journal of
Management, 37(1), 10-36. doi:10.1108/IJOPM-02-2015-0078
Enterprise Information Management, 29(5), 706-727. doi:10.1108/
JEIM-06-2015-0050 Kune, R., Konugurthi, p. K., Agarwal, A., Chillarige, R. R., & Buyya, R.
(2016). The anatomy of big data computing. Software: Practice and
Gobble, M. M. (2013). Big data: The next big thing in
Experience, 46(1), 79-105. doi:10.1002/spe.2374
innovation. Research-Technology Management, 56(1), 64-67.
doi:10.5437/08956308X5601005 Mamonov, S., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2017). Exploring factors affecting
social e-commerce service adoption: The case of Facebook gifts.
Grawe, S. J., Daugherty, p. J., & Ralston, p. M. (2015). Enhancing International Journal of Information Management, 37(6), 590-600.
dyadic performance through boundary spanners and innovation: An doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.05.005
assessment of service provider-customer relationships. Journal of
Business Logistics, 36(1), 88-101. doi:10.1111/jbl.12077 Manyika, J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C., &
Byers, A. H. (2011). Big data: The next frontier for innovation, com-
Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R., Wamba, S. F., Childe, S. petition, and productivity. McKinsey Global Institute. Retrieved from
J., Hazen, B., & Akter, S. (2017). Big data and predictive analytics for https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/
supply chain and organizational performance. Journal of Business our-insights/big-data-the-next-frontier-for-innovation
Research, 70, 308-317. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.004
Martins, C., Oliveira, T., & Popovič, A. (2014). Understanding the
Gupta, M., & George, J. F. (2016). Toward the development of a big data internet banking adoption: A unified theory of acceptance and
use of technology and perceived risk application. International
analytics capability. Information & Management, 53(8), 1049-1064.
Journal of Information Management, 34(1), 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.
doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.07.004
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model
least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) An emerging
of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-
tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106-121. 734. doi:10.2307/258792
doi:10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Mentzer, J. T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J. S., Min, S., Nix, N. W., Smith, C. D.,
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer & Zacharia, Z. G. (2001). Defining supply chain management. Journal
on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling. 2nd ed.. of Business Logistics, 22(2), 1-25. doi:10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. tb00001.x
Han, J. H., Wang, Y., & Naim, M. (2017). Reconceptualization of Morris, M. G., & Venkatesh, V. (2000). Age differences in technology
information technology flexibility for supply chain management: An adoption decisions: Implications for a changing work force.
empirical study. International Journal of Production Economics, 187, Personnel Psychology, 53(2), 375-403. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2000.
196-215. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.02.018 tb00206.x
Hazen, B. T., Boone, C. A., Ezell, J. D., & Jones-Farmer, L. A. (2014). Data Munshi, A. A., & Mohamed, Y. A. R. I. (2017). Big data framework for
quality for data science, predictive analytics, and big data in supply analytics in smart grids. Electric Power Systems Research, 151, 369-
380. doi:10.1016/j.epsr.2017.06.006
chain management: An introduction to the problem and suggestions
for research and applications. International Journal of Production Nobre, G. C., & Tavares, E. (2017). Scientific literature analysis on big
Economics, 154, 72-80. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.04.018 data and internet of things applications on circular economy: A
bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 111(1), 463-492. doi:10.1007/
Hazen, B. T., Skipper, J. B., Ezell, J. D., & Boone, C. A. (2016). Big data
s11192-017-2281-6
and predictive analytics for supply chain sustainability: A theory-
driven research agenda. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory: 2d Ed. New York, NY:
592-598. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.06.030 McGraw-Hill.
Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M. A., & Popovič, A. (2014). Extending Stock, J. R., & Boyer, S. L. (2009). Developing a consensus definition of
the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets supply chain management: A qualitative study. International Journal
TTF and ITM. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5), of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39(8), 690-711.
689-703. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.004 doi:10.1108/09600030910996323
Oliveira, T., Faria, M., Thomas, M. A. & Popovič, A. (2014). Extending Strawn, G. (2012). Scientific research: How many paradigms? EDUCAUSE
the understanding of mobile banking adoption: When UTAUT meets Review. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/
TTF and ITM. International Journal of Information Management, 34(5), recordDetail?accno=EJ970900
689-703. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.004
Sun, J., & Teng, J. T. C. (2017). The construct of information systems
use benefits: Theoretical explication of its underlying dimensions
Phillips-Wren, G., & Hoskisson, A. (2015). An analytical journey towards
and the development of a measurement scale. International
big data. Journal of Decision Systems, 24(1), 87-102. doi:10.1080/12
460125.2015.994333
Queiroz, M. M., & Telles, R. (2018). Big data analytics in supply chain and
Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2001). A longitudinal investigation of
logistics: An empirical approach. International Journal of Logistics
personal computers in homes: Adoption determinants and emerging
Management, 29(2), 767-783. doi:10.1108/IJLM-05-2017-0116 challenges. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 71-102. doi:10.2307/3250959
Queiroz, M. M., & Wamba, S. F. (2019). Blockchain adoption challenges Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User
in supply chain: An empirical investigation of the main drivers in India acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS
and the USA. International Journal of Information Management, 46, Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. doi:10.2307/30036540
70-82. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.11.021
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and
Richey, R. G., Morgan, T. R., Lindsey-Hall, K., & Adams, F. G. (2016). A use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of
global exploration of big data in the supply chain. International acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 46(8), 710- doi:10.2307/41410412
739. doi:10.1108/IJPDLM-05-2016-0134
Wamba, S. F., Akter, S., Edwards, A., Chopin, G., & Gnanzou, D. (2015).
Riffai, M. M. M. A., Grant, K., & Edgar, D. (2012). Big TAM in Oman: How “big data” can make big impact: Findings from a systematic
Exploring the promise of on-line banking, its adoption by review and a longitudinal case study. International Journal of
customers and the challenges of banking in Oman. International Production Economics, 165, 234-246. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.031
Wamba, S. F., Gunasekaran, A., Akter, S., Ren, S. J. fan, Dubey, R., &
Childe, S. J. (2017). Big data analytics and firm performance: Effects
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. of dynamic capabilities. Journal of Business Research, 70, 356-365.
Boenningstedt, Germany: SmartPLS GmbH. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.009
Wamba, S. F. (2018, March). Social media use in the workspace:

Rotella, p. (2012). Is data the new oil? Forbes. Retrieved from http://
applying an extension of the technology acceptance model across
www.forbes.com/sites/perryrotella/2012/04/02/is-data-the-new-
multiple countries. In World Conference on Information Systems and
oil/#44ed5b8e77a9
Technologies (pp. 385-392). Springer, Cham.
Sabi, H. M., Uzoka, F. E., Langmia, K., & Njeh, F. N. (2016). Conceptualizing
Wang, C. S., Jeng, Y. L., & Huang, Y. M. (2017). What influences teachers to
a model for adoption of cloud computing in education. International
continue using cloud services? The role of facilitating conditions and
Journal of Information Management, 36(2), 183-191. doi:10.1016/j. social influence. The Electronic Library, 35(3), 520-533. doi:10.1108/
ijinfomgt.2015.11.010 EL-02-2016-0046
Schoenherr, T., & Speier-Pero, C. (2015). Data science, predictive Wang, G., Gunasekaran, A., Ngai, E. W. T., & Papadopoulos, T. (2016).
analytics, and big data in supply chain management: Current state Big data analytics in logistics and supply chain management: Certain
and future potential. Journal of Busienss Logistics, 36(1), 120-132. investigations for research and applications. International Journal of
doi:10.1111/jbl.12082 Production Economics, 176, 98-110. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2016.03.014
Shim, S., Lee, B., & Kim, S. L. (2018). Rival precedence and open platform Weerakkody, V., El-Haddadeh, R., Al-Sobhi, F., Shareef, M. A., & Dwivedi,
adoption: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Information Y. K. (2013). Examining the influence of intermediaries in facilitating
Management, 38(1), 217-231. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.10.001 e-government adoption: An empirical investigation. International
Srinivasan, R., & Swink, M. (2018). An investigation of visibility and ijinfomgt.2013.05.001
flexibility as complements to supply chain analytics: An organizational
information processing theory perspective. Production and Wills, M. J. (2014). Decisions through data: Analytics in
Operations Management, 27(10), 1849-1867. doi:10.1111/poms.12746 healthcare. Journal of Healthcare Management, 59(4), 254-262.
Wu, K. J., Liao, C. J., Tseng, M. L., Lim, M. K., Hu, J., & Tan, K. (2017). Zhao, R., Liu, Y., Zhang, N., & Huang, T. (2017). An optimization model
Toward sustainability: Using big data to explore the decisive for green supply chain management by using a big data analytic
attributes of supply chain risks and uncertainties. Journal of Cleaner approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 1085-1097.
Production, 142(Part 2), 663-676. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.040
Zhao, Y., Ni, Q., & Zhou, R. (2018). What factors influence the mobile
Wu, K., Zhao, Y., Zhu, Q., Tan, X., & Zheng, H. (2011). A meta-analysis of health service adoption? A meta-analysis and the moderating role of
the impact of trust on technology acceptance model: Investigation age. International Journal of Information Management, 43, 342-350.
of moderating influence of subject and context type. International doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2017.08.006
ijinfomgt.2011.03.004 Zhong, R. Y., Newman, S. T., Huang, G. Q., & Lan, S. (2016). Big data for
supply chain management in the service and manufacturing sectors:
Yadlapalli, A., Rahman, S., & Gunasekaran, A. (2018). Socially Challenges, opportunities, and future perspectives. Computers &
responsible governance mechanisms for manufacturing firms Industrial Engineering, 101, 572-591. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2016.07.013
in apparel supply chains. International Journal of Production
Economics, 196, 135-149. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2017.11.016 Zinn, W., & Goldsby, T. J. (2017a). In search of research ideas? Call a
professional. Journal of Business Logistics, 38(1), 4-5. doi:10.1111/
Youngberg, E., Olsen, D., & Hauser, K. (2009). Determinants of jbl.12160
professionally autonomous end user acceptance in an enterprise
resource planning system environment. International Journal Zinn, W., & Goldsby, T. J. (2017b). The role of academic research in
of Information Management, 29(2), 138-144. doi:10.1016/j. supply chain practice: How much are we contributing? Journal of
ijinfomgt.2008.06.001 Business Logistics, 38(4), 236-237. doi:10.1111/jbl.12175
Copyright of RAE: Revista de Administração de Empresas is the property of Fundacao
Getulio Vargas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.

SCM 1 PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SCM 1 PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

RAE-Revista de Administração de Empresas (Journal of Business Management)

INTENTION TO ADOPT BIG DATA IN SUPPLY

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

Figure 1. Conceptual model

METHODOLOGY Likert scale [1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)] (Wamba

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

Exhibit 1. Measurement items

Construct Label Items Sources

PE1 I find big data useful in my daily life.

Using big data increases my chances of

PE4 Using big data increases my productivity.

EE1 Learning how to use big data is easy for me.

My interaction with big data is clear and

It is easy for me to become skilful at using

BI1 I intend to use big data in the future.

(Alalwan et al., 2017; Venkatesh et al.,

BI3 I plan to use big data in future.

TR1 I believe that big data is trustworthy.

TR2 I have trust in big data.

TR3 I do not doubt the honesty of big data.

TR5 Big data has the ability to fulfil its task.

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

of science degree. Considering the experience at their respective

followed by 21.05% having worked for 6-10 years and 18.42%

2-5 years 76 50.00

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

Table 2. Factor loadings

Table 3. Reliability measures

Construct Cronbach's alpha Composite reliability Average variance extracted

BI 0.881 0.926 0.808

EE 0.942 0.959 0.853

FC 0.806 0.873 0.637

PE 0.864 0.908 0.715

SI 0.965 0.977 0.934

TR 0.963 0.971 0.871

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

Table 4. Discriminant validity

FC 0.614 0.577 0.800

PE 0.314 0.238 0.620 0.847

SI 0.399 0.390 0.508 0.421 0.968

TR 0.511 0.456 0.580 0.640 0.715 0.935

Table 5. Path coefficients

Path Beta Standard deviation t-statistics p-value Result

FC -> EE 0.578 0.053 10.921* 0.000 Supported

FC -> PE 0.380 0.064 5.875* 0.000 Supported

FC -> BI 0.490 0.097 5.016* 0.000 Supported

TR -> PE 0.413 0.080 5.301* 0.000 Supported

TR -> BI 0.327 0.112 2.987** 0.003 Supported

SI -> TR 0.710 0.047 15.17* 0.000 Supported

SI -> BI -0.073 0.097 0.646 0.519 Rejected

EE -> BI 0.166 0.090 1.86 0.063 Rejected

PE -> BI -0.214 0.099 2.184** 0.029 Rejected

Note: *p < 0.001; **p < 0.05.

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

Table 6. R² results (dependent variables) Theoretical implications, limitations, and

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira

INTENÇÃO DE ADOÇÃO DE BIG DATA NA

Maciel M. Queiroz | Susana Carla Farias Pereira