Summary – What are the main points?
It’s generally a look back and current analysis of data analysis itself – It refers to two previous data standards “before big data and after big data“, and the current standard of Analytics 3.0, “a new resolve to apply powerful data-gathering and analysis methods not just to a company’s operations but also to its offerings – to embed data smartness into the products and services customers buy“. It mostly explains how a newer form of data analysis has emerged, which is called 3.0 by the article, or “the era of data enriched offerings“, which is basically giving data enrichment to clients and not withholding it in the company itself, and then going on to explain how to capitalise on doing this.
Referenced article: https://hbr.org/2013/12/analytics-30
Davenport, T. H. (2013, December). Analytics 3.0 Harvard Business Review
Where was the article published?
Harvard Business Review, hbr.org, a management magazine published by Harvard Business Publishing (Link).
How credible is it?
The article is written by one person, and to a magazine rather than a research journal and lacks peer reviewing, which damages the credibility compared to the article discussed in part 1, Beyond the Data Deluge
Using google scholar, it shows that over 150 articles have cited to article as a source (Link) which doesn’t really prove or disprove credibility.
What other articles has the author written? Do they lend credibility?
Thomas H. Davenport has written articles/books on business computing (Link), business data management (Link), and information technology (Link), which all relate to data, analysis and IT. This adds credibility as it shows he has established knowledge and publish work in relation to the Analysis 3.0 article, especially as he’s the only author of the article so it helps that he does have familiarity with the subjects since there wasn’t someone else to consult during the writing of it.
How much other work has been written about the subject? And how does this affect the credibility?
Most articles I found which reference the Analytics 3.0 article are focused on the 2.0 section, big data rather than the enriched data/3.0 segment. I didn’t come across any which did discuss a similar subject to the 3.0 segment, but haven’t had much time to look.
If there are only a few articles written on a subject, as it seems with this, then that would reduce the credibility of the research. Only having one source or authority on a subject means a reduction of evidence that the source work is accurate, and also means if the work is proven to be inaccurate then all other materials which referenced that source could be affected or withdrawn, depending on the impact of the citing on the additional research.
Eg, if an article discussed the impact of 3.0 analysis and based most of their sourcing on just the one article, then already the article wouldn’t have strong evidence for their discussion as it only has one source, but additionally if the original/referenced article was debunked then the referencing article would also be proven inaccurate, as it was based on the information in the original article.
An article being less credible doesn’t make it wrong, just lacking additional research and evidence to prove if true or false either way, which in turn makes it less valid as a cited source.