25% and 29.9%) functions. HR will have static reports/interactive dashboards, descriptive analytics, and prescriptive analytics applications as the top three analytics applications. Marketing and operations can expect similar future use patterns, with static reports/interactive dashboards, predictive analytics, and big data analytics applications as their top-three analytics applications. These patterns suggest data-literacy programs and associated analytics investments will need to be function- and work-specific in the future.

Fourth, we found the functions are changing at different rates in terms of their expected future use of analytics applications for different dimensions of work. The finance function will see the greatest point increases in prescriptive analytics for implementing-related work. On the other hand, the HR function will see the greatest point increase in descriptive analytics for all dimensions of work. Both marketing and operations functions will experience the greatest point increases in predictive analytics across all dimensions of work. Our data indicates across all dimensions of managerial work, the finance function lags in today’s use of an analytics application nine times, while that lag for HR, marketing, and operations occurs four, one, and one time, respectively. However, in the future, the finance function will lag six times, while HR, marketing, and operations will lag four, five, and zero times, respectively. These results suggest some functions are more quick to embrace the capabilities of analytics to help them accomplish their work.

Finally, these survey results provide a benchmark for different functions in their current and future use of different types of analytics applications. Our findings can be used as a starting point for discussion within organizations about their current and anticipated future use of analytics to support different types of managerial work.

Acknowledgments

We thank Andrew A. Chien, Robert D. Austin, and the anonymous reviewers for providing very helpful comments that improved the quality of this article.

References

1. Cappelli, P. Talent management for the 21st century.

Harvard Business Review 86, 3 (2008), 1–9.

2. Cappelli, P. and Tavis, A. The performance management revolution. Harvard Business Review 94,

10 (2016), 58–67.

3. Collins, L., Fineman, D. R., and Tsuchida, A. People analytics: Recalculating the route. Deloitte Insights

(Feb. 28, 2017), https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/ us/en/focus/human-capital-trends/2017/people- analytics-in-hr.html

4. Davenport, T.H., Harris, J., and Shapiro, J. Competing on talent analytics. Harvard Business Review 88, 10

(2010), 52–58.

5. Davenport, T.H. and Tay, A. Finance must ramp up role as analytics leader. Argyle Executive Forum CFO, Aug. 26, 2016, http://ww2.cfo.com/analytics/2016/08/ finance-must-ramp-role-analytics-leader/

6. Drucker, P. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. Harper & Row, Heinemann, London, U.K., 1974.

7. Fayol, H. General and Industrial Management. Pitman, London, U.K., 1949.

8. Horne, J.H. and Lupton, T. The work activities of ‘middle’ managers: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Studies 2, 1 (Feb. 1965), 14–33.

9. Howson, C., Sallam, R.L., Richardson, J.L., Tapadinhas, J., Idoine, C. J., and Woodward, A. Magic Quadrant for Analytics and Business Intelligence Platforms. Gartner, Stamford, C T, Feb. 26, 2018; https://www. gartner.com/document/3861464

10. IDC. Executive Summary Data Growth, Business Opportunities, and the I T Imperatives. Framingham, MA, Apr. 2014; https://www.emc.com/leadership/ digital-universe/2014iview/ executive-summary.htm

11. Iervolino, C. and Van Decker, J.E. The Future of Financial Planning and Analysis. Gartner, Stamford, CT, Nov. 1, 2017; https://www.gartner.com/ document/3823072

12. Kappelman, L., McLean, E., Johnson, V., and Gerhart, N. The 2014 SIM I T key issues and trends study. MIS Quarterly Executive 13, 4 (2014), 237–263.

13. Kelly, J. The study of executive behaviour by activity sampling. Human Relations 17, 3 (Aug. 1964), 277–287.

14. Kluemper, D. H., Rosen, P. A., and Mossholder, K. W.

Social networking websites, personality ratings, and the organizational context: More than meets the eye?

Journal of Applied Social Psychology 42, 5 (May 2012),

1143–1172.

15. Logan, V. A. Information as a Second Language: Enabling Data Literacy for Digital Society. Gartner, Stamford, CT, Sept. 21, 2018; https://www.gartner. com/document/3890564

16. Moorman, C. The CMO Survey. World Market Watch LLC, Chapel Hill, NC, Feb. 2017; https://cmosurvey. org/results/february-2017/

17. Richardson, J.L., Tapadinhas, J., Howson, C., Sallam, R. L., Idoine, C. J., and Woodward, A. Critical Capabilities for Analytics and Business Intelligence Platforms. Gartner, Stamford, CT, May 7, 2018; https:// www.gartner.com/document/3874285

18. Ward, P. T., McCreery, J.K., Ritzman, L.P., and Sharma, D. Competitive priorities in operations management.

Decision Sciences 29, 4 (Sept. 1998), 1035–1046.

19. Wedel, M. and Kannan, R.K. Marketing analytics for data-rich environments. Journal of Marketing 80, 6

(Nov. 2016), 97–121.

20. Xiao, L. and Ding, M. Just the faces: Exploring the effects of facial features in print advertising. Marketing Science 33, 3 (Feb. 2014), 338–352.

 

Vijay Khatri ( [e-mail]) is a professor and Arthur M. Weimer faculty fellow in the Operations and Decision Technologies Department of Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business, Bloomington, IN, USA.

Binny M. Samuel ( [e-mail]) is an assistant professor in the Operations, Business Analytics, and Information Systems Department of the Lindner College of Business at the University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA.

© 2019 ACM 0001-0782/19/04 $15.00

analytics applications is on the rise within all four functions. As different types of data become available for decision making (such as time-series scanner panel data, text-based user-generated content, social network data, and consumer location data19) our findings suggest that, in the future, managers will need to be engaged in different types of analytics applications as a core aspect of their responsibility.

Second, in general, we found static
reports/interactive dashboards are
and will continue to be a frequently
used analytics application for all four
functions. Our survey findings sug-
gest managers need to continue to de-
velop competency in their use of static
reports/interactive dashboards, and
business intelligence initiatives. How-
ever, their use will decrease signifi-
cantly—in the range of 10 percentage
points to 20. 5 percentage points. This is
consistent with a Gartner report that
found spending on traditional busi-
ness intelligence has been decreasing
since 2015, with concomitant broad
and pervasive deployment of self-service
analytics. 9 This decrease is happen-
ing as software for advanced analytics
applications is becoming easier to
use, and, with increased data literacy,
business functions are starting to dis-
cover how more-sophisticated analytics
applications can help managers ac-
complish their respective work. For ex-
ample, dedicated applications that can
predict financial riskiness of indi-
viduals based on their mouse move-
ments while completing loan appli-
cations are now being used by the
finance function.b
Third, we found the functions will
differ as to which will be most used in
the future. We found that the manage-
rial work in the finance function will
continue to rely on static reports/in-
teractive dashboards the most, with
projected future use at 41.7%, 49%, and
54.1% for planning-, implementing-,
and controlling-related work, respec-
tively. On the other hand, reliance on
static reports/interactive dashboards is
relatively lower for marketing (between
23.8% and 27.4%), HR (between 25%
and 28.5%), and operations (between
b https://www.wsj.com/articles/your-
moods-change-the-way-you-move-your-
mouse-1452268410