Together, the combination of description and advice provide a good primer for executives seeking a better understanding of this emerging era of sophisticated number-crunching. According to Siegel's estimate, we are adding 2.5 quintillion bytes of data every single day. Words have become data; the physical states of our machinery have become data; our physical locations have become data; and even our interactions with each other have become data. "Data can frequently be collected passively, without much effort or even awareness on the part of those being recorded. And because the cost of storage has fallen so much, it is easier to justify keeping data than discarding it,"observe Mayer-Schänberger and Cukier. Indeed, we are awash in information, but what does it all mean? In their book, Mayer-Schänberger and Cukier explain three new imperatives: 1. Use all the data, not just a sample. In the past, businesses did not have the economical means to capture, store and analyze all the data from their operations, so they had to settle for a sample of it. But now a company like Amazon can economically capture and store data from every single customer transaction. 2. Accept messiness. Inaccuracies in measurements are less harmful than they once were because they can often be smoothed over by the sheer quantity of data. In the authors'words, "more trumps better." 3. Embrace correlation. For many purposes, correlation is sufficient and people don't need to know causality. Quantifying the likelihood that a particular person will do something -whether it is defaulting on a loan, upgrading to a higher level of cable service or seeking another job -is at the heart of Siegel's Predictive Analytics. The author describes how quantitative techniques can be deployed to find valuable patterns in data, enabling companies to predict the likely behavior of customers, employees and others. Even a modest increase in the accuracy of predictions can often result in substantial savings.

This is an MIT Sloan Management Review article. Dan Ariely is one of the world's foremost experts in behavioral economics, the study of how people behave when making business and financial decisions. Ariely's insights should make executives think twice about the wisdom of the decisions they regularly make -- as well as the inner processes they rely on to make those decisions. Why, for example, will managers veto a 10% cost increase for a $1 million project while thinking nothing of a 1% overrun on a $10 million budget -- even though the actual amount is the same? Why will they often agonize trying to choose between two close alternatives when they're frequently better off just flipping a coin? In this wide-ranging interview, Ariely talks about how Apple Inc.'s initial decision to price the iPhone at $600 only to drop it to $400 soon after might not have been a mistake but instead a very shrewd marketing maneuver. He also explains why a product monopoly might not necessarily be desirable because it can lead to consumer confusion, resulting in slow sales. With regards to hiring practices, Ariely strongly questions the interviewing processes routinely used and asserts that some companies might be better off hiring graduates from reputable colleges at random. Toward the end of the interview, he describes his research that has investigated ways in which teams might be better able to make group decisions. Lastly, Ariely explains one of his most valuable managerial insights -- that adding even just a little meaning to employees' work will often increase their motivation enormously.

"Please don't tell me that I need to have a baby to have this time off." Those words were still ringing in the ears of Jessica Gonon an hour after a tense meeting with Jana Rowe, one of her key account managers. Jessica, the vice president of sales and customer support at ClarityBase, considered Jana's request for a four-day workweek, for which she was willing to take a corresponding 20% cut in pay. Although the facts seemed simple, the situation was anything but. Just last week, Davis Bennett, another account manager, had made a similar request. Both Jana and Davis were well aware that Megan Flood, another account manager, had been working a reduced schedule for nearly two years in order to spend more time with her children. The eight account managers were in charge of helping the company's largest clients install and maintain database applications, which often required hand-holding and coddling. Because Megan had an abbreviated schedule, the other account managers were assigned the more difficult clients. But if Jessica agreed to a shorter workweek for Jana and Davis, who would take on the toughest customers? And what would happen if the other account managers started asking for similar deals? How can Jessica maintain the productivity of her department and meet her staff's needs for flexible work schedules while striking an equitable solution for both parents and nonparents? In R0103A and R0103Z, Michele S. Darlin, Chris Dineen, Elinor Burkett, and Steward D. Friedman advise Jessica on her next move in this fictional case study.

"Please don't tell me that I need to have a baby to have this time off." Those words were still ringing in the ears of Jessica Gonon an hour after a tense meeting with Jana Rowe, one of her key account managers. Jessica, the vice president of sales and customer support at ClarityBase, considered Jana's request for a four-day workweek, for which she was willing to take a corresponding 20% cut in pay. Although the facts seemed simple, the situation was anything but. Just last week, Davis Bennett, another account manager, had made a similar request. Both Jana and Davis were well aware that Megan Flood, another account manager, had been working a reduced schedule for nearly two years in order to spend more time with her children. The eight account managers were in charge of helping the company's largest clients install and maintain database applications, which often required hand-holding and coddling. Because Megan had an abbreviated schedule, the other account managers were assigned the more difficult clients. But if Jessica agreed to a shorter workweek for Jana and Davis, who would take on the toughest customers? And what would happen if the other account managers started asking for similar deals? How can Jessica maintain the productivity of her department and meet her staff's needs for flexible work schedules while striking an equitable solution for both parents and nonparents? In R0103A and R0103Z, Michele S. Darlin, Chris Dineen, Elinor Burkett, and Stewart D. Friedman advise Jessica on her next move on this fictional case study.

"Please don't tell me that I need to have a baby to have this time off." Those words were still ringing in the ears of Jessica Gonon an hour after a tense meeting with Jana Rowe, one of her key account managers. Jessica, the vice president of sales and customer support at ClarityBase, considered Jana's request for a four-day workweek, for which she was willing to take a corresponding 20% cut in pay. Although the facts seemed simple, the situation was anything but. Just last week, Davis Bennett, another account manager, had made a similar request. Both Jana and Davis were well aware that Megan Flood, another account manager, had been working a reduced schedule for nearly two years in order to spend more time with her children. The eight account managers were in charge of helping the company's largest clients install and maintain database applications, which often required hand-holding and coddling. Because Megan had an abbreviated schedule, the other account managers were assigned the more difficult clients. But if Jessica agreed to a shorter workweek for Jana and Davis, who would take on the toughest customers? And what would happen if the other account managers started asking for similar deals? How can Jessica maintain the productivity of her department and meet her staff's needs for flexible work schedules while striking an equitable solution for both parents and nonparents? In R0103A and R0103Z, Michele S. Darlin, Chris Dineen, Elinor Burkett, and Stewart D. Friedman advise Jessica on her next move on this fictional case study.

Many top executives say they routinely make big decisions without relying on any logical analysis. Instead, they call upon their "intuition," or "gut instinct"--but they can't describe the process much more than that. What exactly is gut instinct? In this article, author Alden Hayashi interviews top executives from companies such as America Online and Johnson and Johnson to find out how they make decisions. Hayashi also presents the research of leading scientists who suggest that our emotions and feelings might not only be important in our intuitive ability to make good decisions but may actually be essential. Specifically, one theory contends that our emotions help us filter various options quickly, even if we're not consciously aware of the screening. Other research suggests that professional judgment can often be reduced to patterns and rules; indeed, truly inspired decisions seem to require an ability to see similar patterns across disparate fields. But various traits of human nature can easily cloud our intuitive decision making. One potential pitfall is our tendency to see patterns where none exist.