Frontiers of Business Intelligence and Analytics

For the fourth iteration, we decide to use the empirical-to-conceptual approach to test a new sample of literature objects (step 4). We now examine whether all 75 papers that resulted from the literature search can be classified with the revised taxonomy from the third iteration (step 4e). In step 5e, we check whether new dimensions or characteristics are needed. After assigning each of the 75 papers to one characteristic and dimension, we conclude that the taxonomy does not need further characteristics or dimensions. We add all literature search hits into the taxonomy, shown in Fig. 9 (Step 6e). Finally, we check the ending conditions again (step 7).

The taxonomy fully meets all qualitative conditions. It is concise as it still has many dimensions but it is easier to receive an overview about the results, compared to the concept matrix of Eggert. It is robust because it clearly differentiates the literature objects into the dimensions and distinct characteristics. The taxonomy is comprehensive as we are able to classify the complete sample of 75 literature objects. It is extendible allowing the inclusion of additional dimensions and characteristics. Most importantly, the dimensions are more explanatory and less descriptive, which results in a useful taxonomy for a structured literature review.

The quantitative conditions are met, except for condition B. The characteristic Grounded theory (dimension research method and evaluation) has no object. Nevertheless, we suggest keeping this characteristic because of the limited sample size. Furthermore, one objective of the literature review at hand is the identification of research gaps. Having all characteristics addressed by the sample objects hinders the identification of unrepresented characteristics, which are potentially important. In the following section, we present the results of the taxonomy application for all 75 identified papers from the literature search.