Need help

Reply 100 words each it’s 4 discussions!

Companies have more data at their fingertips now than ever before. With the rise of Big Data, organizations can collect and analyze massive amounts of structured information to gain insights and make informed decisions. So, why do many companies still need to make better decisions despite having access to such unprecedented amounts of data? According to the textbook, "Big data requires a nontraditional approach; it requires that managers throw out the old way of thinking and take a totally new approach to data processing (Daft, 2021, p372)". One reason could be the over-reliance on Big Data alone. Big Data consists of significant volumes of data that are easily quantifiable and provide statistical analysis. While valuable, this data type may not always capture the whole picture or the emotional nuances involved in decision- making. This is where Thick Data comes into play. Unlike Big Data, Thick Data involves qualitative, context-rich insights that can uncover the 'why' behind the 'what'. It delves into the human element, capturing the stories, emotions, and behaviors that quantitative data may miss.      Another factor contributing to lousy decision-making is that organizations need more data literacy. Even with access to vast amounts of data, not all employees may be equipped to interpret and apply the insights effectively. Without the necessary skills to navigate data, employees may misinterpret information or overlook critical details, leading to poor decisions. Furthermore, the pressure to act quickly in a competitive market can also drive companies to make hasty decisions based on incomplete or biased data. In their rush to stay ahead, organizations may neglect thorough analysis or fail to consider the long-term implications of their choices. According to a Journal of Business & Finance Librarianship article, "Working with and managing that data effectively prevents the loss of time, money, and opportunity, but requires employees throughout all areas of an organization to be data literate (Pothier et al., 2020)".      To overcome these challenges, companies need to establish a balance between Big Data and Thick Data, ensuring they consider both the quantitative and qualitative aspects of decision- making. Additionally, investing in data literacy training for employees and fostering a culture that values critical thinking and evidence-based decision-making can help organizations harness the power of data more effectively. According to a Three Frameworks for Data Literacy article, "Data literacy is the ability to collect, manage, evaluate, and apply data, in a critical manner. It is a relatively new field of study, dating only from the 2010s (Downes, 2023)".

  Companies love large amounts of data when making decisions, which makes perfect sense when trying to grow or improve. Different types of data can make a real difference when making

good decisions. One of the more popular types of data companies use is called big data. “Big data refers to any massive data set that exceeds the boundaries and conventional processing capabilities of traditional IT. Big data requires a nontraditional approach; it requires that managers throw out the old way of thinking and take a totally new approach to data processing. Big data includes data sets with sizes beyond the ability of traditional software tools to manage and process the data within an acceptable time frame” (Daft, 2021, P. 372).       Another type of data that takes a more social look instead of just looking at numbers is thick data. “Thick Data is data brought to light using qualitative, ethnographic research methods that uncover people’s emotions, stories, and models of their world. Thick Data is the opposite of Big Data, which is quantitative data at a large scale that involves new technologies around capturing, storing, and analyzing” (Wang, 2016, P. 7).       This is one of the cases of so many companies making bad decisions. Having large amounts of data might mean not having the right data, or not having the data that is best for the situation. “Things have changed significantly with the appearance of the humanistic trend and, in consequence, with the expansion of the research subject of management to the issues related to the role of people in the organization, the classification of human personality, motivation, social relations or cultural determinants of behavior. Therefore, the narratives, not numbers, determined the essence of the problems of the emerging type of research subjects. Consequently, the qualitative research methods should be considered relevant” (Lanka et al., 2021, also cited in Bieńkowska & Sikorski, 2024, P.3).       Tricia Wang saw how Nokia used only quantitative data and did not take seriously qualitative, thick data when making decisions. Wang writes, “There are many reasons for Nokia’s downfall, but one of the biggest reasons that I witnessed in person was that the company over-relied on numbers. They put a higher value on quantitative data, they didn’t know how to handle data that wasn’t easily measurable, and that didn’t show up in existing reports. What could’ve been their competitive intelligence ended up being their eventual downfall” (Wang, 2016, P. 4). 

According to Kenton, (2024),” An externality is an event that occurs as a byproduct of another event occurring. An externality can be good or bad, often noted as a positive externality or negative externality. An externality can also be generated when something is made (a production externality) or used (a consumption externality). Pollution caused by commuting to work, or a chemical spill caused by improperly stored waste are examples of externalities. Governments and companies can rectify externalities by financial and social measures” (Kenton, 2024, p. 89-91).       I think that a specific public good is national defense. When it comes to national defense, it is a service provided by the government to protect its citizens from external threats, such as

military attacks or invasions. It is considered a public good because it is non-excludable. Once national defense is provided, no one can be excluded from its benefits and one person's benefits from national defense do not diminish another’s. National defense primarily addresses a positive externality. A positive externality occurs when a third party benefits from an economic transaction they are not directly involved in. The provision of national defense enhances the security and stability of a nation, benefiting all citizens and even those outside the country who may enjoy peace as a result of that nation’s military presence or deterrence capabilities. The existence of national defense leads to increased economic activity, social stability, and overall well-being for society at large. The free rider problem associated with national defense arises because individuals can benefit from the protection offered without contributing to its funding. Since national defense is funded through taxation, those who do not pay taxes still receive the benefits of security and safety provided by the military. This situation creates an incentive for individuals to avoid paying taxes while enjoying the protection afforded by national defense. For example, if a person chooses not to pay their fair share of taxes but still enjoys the security provided by the military such as protection against foreign invasion or terrorism, they are effectively free riding on the contributions made by others. This leads to under-funding of national defense since fewer people contribute financially than would be necessary to maintain an adequate level of security. If too many individuals opt out of contributing due to this free rider problem, it could ultimately weaken national defense capabilities, making everyone more vulnerable. This free rider issue complicates policymaking and funding decisions regarding national defense because it relies on collective action and cooperation among citizens. If too many individuals decide to take advantage of the system without contributing, it may lead to insufficient resources being allocated toward maintaining effective military forces or other aspects related to national security.       According to Rasure, (2024),” Free riding is considered a failure of the conventional free market system. The problem occurs when some members of a community fail to contribute their fair share to the cost of a shared resource. Their failure to contribute makes the resource economically infeasible to produce. 

A public good is a commodity or service provided without profit to all members of a society, typically funded by the government. Public goods are characterized by two key features. They are non-excludable meaning everyone can access them regardless of whether they pay for them. Arnold (2024) advises, “Many economists maintain that the market fails to produce non- excludable public good” (p. 744). There are also non-rivalrous meaning one person's consumption does not reduce availability for others. One prominent example of a public good is

public transportation such as city buses, trains, or subways. According to Ahammad (2024), “Public transportation, also known as public transport or public transit, can refer to any group mode of travel open to use by the general public” (p. 1). Public transportation mitigates these negative externalities by offering a shared alternative that reduces the number of vehicles on the road, easing congestion, and lowering emissions. Public transport systems are typically funded and operated by the government, allowing society to benefit from cleaner air, less crowded roads, and more efficient travel. Additionally, public transit infrastructure supports urban development by providing mobility, reducing the need for individual car ownership, and promoting environmentally sustainable living. Public transportation also experiences the free rider. A free rider is someone who benefits from a good or service without contributing to its cost. In the case of public transportation, even individuals who rarely use it, or do not pay for tickets when they do, still gain the advantages it provides. For example, a person who drives everywhere might not pay for public transit fares, yet they benefit indirectly through reduced traffic on the roads they drive. The free rider problem can become even more pronounced when public transportation is funded through taxes rather than user fees. This structure means that residents contribute to the maintenance and expansion of public transit through their taxes, even if they do not directly use it. While it is beneficial to keep public transit widely accessible, a large number of free riders can strain resources, lead to overcrowded services, and reduce available funding for system improvements or expansions. Public transportation exemplifies how public goods can alleviate negative externalities like pollution and congestion while facing the challenge of free riders. The effectiveness of the public transportation system depends on balancing accessibility with financial sustainability and addressing the free rider problem in a way that preserves the public good’s benefits for all.