Introduction

Big data analytics refers to the sophisticated analysis of extensive datasets, both structured and
unstructured, aimed at extracting valuable insights for businesses. Widely adopted across diverse sectors
such as healthcare, education, insurance, artificial intelligence, retail, and manufacturing, its primary
goal is to enhance operational efficiency, identify areas for improvement, and ultimately drive
profitability. Throughout this guide, readers will gain a comprehensive understanding of big data
analytics, its significance, and its widespread benefits across industries. Moreover, they will explore
various types of analyses utilized in this field, familiarize themselves with common tools employed for
this purpose, and access recommended courses to kickstart their journey towards becoming proficient
data analytics professionals.

In the realm of big data analytics, algorithms are utilized to sift through large and complex datasets,
aiming to uncover patterns, correlations, and insights within the data itself. While big data analytics
holds promise for economic and social advancement across domains such as healthcare, public safety,
and service innovation, it has also attracted criticism for potential ethical implications. Concerns include
privacy breaches, extensive profiling, and discriminatory practices against customers, highlighting a clash
in values among stakeholders. This discrepancy arises from misalignments between organizational
interests and societal concerns, posing challenges in equitably distributing the benefits and drawbacks of
big data analytics.

To address these value conflicts, we adopt a stakeholder perspective, analyzing the interconnectedness
among various stakeholder groups. This approach is motivated by the principles of discourse ethics,
advocating for fair discussions among stakeholders, and the imperative outlined by information systems
scholars to explore the ethical dimensions of big data analytics. Despite recent scholarship raising
concerns about the ethics of big data analytics, there remains a gap in adopting a stakeholder-oriented
perspective to elucidate the intricate relationships among stakeholders in this domain.

In this paper, we develop theoretical frameworks to elucidate ethical concerns for stakeholder groups
engaged in big data analytics, namely individuals, organizations, and society. Through a Delphi study with
an explicit stakeholder perspective, we gather empirical data and apply the Gioia method to derive
theoretical concepts. Subsequently, we aim to foster an ideal communication scenario among
stakeholders, facilitating moral action. Leveraging these theoretical concepts and stakeholder theory, we
delve into the salience of specific stakeholders within the context of big data analytics, proposing
strategies to harmonize interactions across divergent stakeholder groups based on their relative
importance.

This paper offers a comprehensive exploration of big data analytics ethics, empowering individuals,
organizations, and society to navigate the ethical complexities of this burgeoning field. It unfolds with a
review of recent literature, grounding our inquiry in discourse ethics and stakeholder theory. Through
empirical analysis and theoretical development, we shed light on ethical considerations for various
stakeholders and propose avenues for future research, ultimately aiming to foster responsible and
equitable practices in big data analytics.

Research Background

Big data analytics is rapidly evolving and impacting individuals, organizations, and society in various
ways. However, the ethical implications of this phenomenon are not thoroughly understood. Our
research delves into this issue, using a Delphi study to identify and explore key ethical concepts in big
data analytics. We analyze these concepts through the lenses of stakeholder theory and discourse ethics,
aiming to balance interactions between individuals, organizations, and society for ethical big data use.
Traditionally, big data has been viewed through a technological lens, focusing on factors like volume,
variety, and velocity. Yet, this overlooks its social aspects, which affect different stakeholders. Our study
highlights three social processes in big data analytics: data sourcing, sharing, and algorithmic decision-
making. Organizations often gather extensive data from individuals, sometimes without their full
understanding or consent, for their own benefit. This data may then be circulated among organizations,
creating a secondary market for customer data. Algorithms used in data analysis can inadvertently profile
individuals based on various factors, influencing their choices and raising ethical concerns. We
specifically focus on how organizations use big data analytics to provide services and products to
customers, emphasizing the ethical issues surrounding data collection, analysis, sharing, and selling
without individuals' genuine consent or awareness. By incorporating discourse ethics and stakeholder
theory, we aim to address these challenges in promoting ethical practices in big data analytics.

Ethics involves questions about how people should behave and what constitutes honesty (Lewis, 1985).
While various traditional ethical approaches exist, such as Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and
Aristotelianism, each has its limitations and criticisms (Mingers & Walsham, 2010). For instance,
Utilitarianism may struggle to predict the consequences of actions in today's complex world and may
inadvertently overlook the needs of minority groups in society.

In our analysis of the ethics of big data analytics, we turn to discourse ethics. This framework, introduced
by Mingers and Walsham (2010), integrates traditional ethical theories like Kantianism and Utilitarianism
and emphasizes universal moral principles. Discourse ethics centers around moral discussions, aiming to
reach pragmatic and ethical norms through open debate (Habermas, 1990). According to Habermas,
ethical norms must be agreed upon by all stakeholders through a fair discourse process, where everyone
can freely express their views and concerns.

We adopt discourse ethics as our ethical framework for big data analytics, believing that ethical practices
will emerge from stakeholders engaging in ethical discourse. However, the success of this discourse relies
on equality among stakeholders and their satisfaction with the communication process. To further
understand stakeholders and their relationships, we also draw on stakeholder theory (Mitchell et al.,
1997). This theory helps us identify and analyze stakeholders and their interactions, contributing to a
more comprehensive ethical analysis of big data analytics.

We use stakeholder theory (Mitchell et al., 1997) to categorize the different players involved in big data
analytics and to understand their significance. Our definition of stakeholders is broad, encompassing any
group or individual who can influence or be impacted by big data analytics. Stakeholder salience is
determined by three factors: power, legitimacy, and urgency (Mitchell et al., 1997). Power refers to the
ability of a stakeholder to assert their influence, legitimacy relates to the desirability of their actions in
society, and urgency signifies the immediacy of their claims.

In the realm of big data analytics, we identify three primary stakeholder groups: individuals,
organizations, and society (Markus & Topi, 2015). Individuals are at the core of big data analytics, as their
interactions with digital technologies generate the data analyzed by organizations for economic gain.
Organizations wield control over big data, using it to make decisions that affect individuals and society at
large. Meanwhile, government agencies and societal authorities play a crucial role in governing and
regulating big data analytics.

We view big data analytics as a complex interplay among these stakeholders (individuals, organizations,
and society), where interactions may not always distribute costs and benefits fairly. Often, organizations
drive these interactions, while individuals and society bear the consequences—both positive and
negative. This unequal dynamic raises ethical concerns for all stakeholders involved.

While recent discussions have highlighted ethical issues in big data analytics, they often overlook the
diverse array of stakeholders and their potential for equitable engagement. To address this gap, we
conduct a stakeholder analysis to better understand their significance and foster ethical discourse among
them. This analysis is informed by theoretical concepts developed through our Delphi study (Dalkey &
Helmer, 1963), laying the groundwork for ethical discussions among stakeholders.

When faced with limited knowledge about a subject and its future implications, exploratory research
using the Delphi method offers a suitable approach (Paré, Cameron, Poba-Nzaou, & Templier, 2013). The
Delphi method entails gathering, organizing, and structuring opinions from a group of experts on a
complex topic until consensus is reached or until it's clear that further alignment is unlikely (Anderson,
Rungtusanatham, & Schroeder, 1994). This method involves several key aspects: 1) researchers
intentionally select a panel of experts, 2) experts remain anonymous to each other to prevent biases and
personal influences, 3) moderated communication is used to guide discussions and foster consensus, and
4) multiple rounds of opinion-seeking allow participants to refine their views based on feedback from
others (Worrell, Di Gangi, & Bush, 2013). Rigorous design is crucial for Delphi studies to ensure validity.
In Appendix A, we evaluate the rigor of our Delphi study using the checklist provided by Paré et al.
(2013).

The Gioia method, as described by Gioia et al. (2012), blends two methodologies, induction and
abduction, to formulate concepts that effectively elucidate a given phenomenon. Our analytical process
adhered to the three-stage framework proposed by Gioia et al. (2012). Initially, we employed induction
to derive preliminary categories from the data, leveraging the language used by participants.
Subsequently, in the second phase, we employed abduction, integrating our own expertise and existing
scholarly literature to refine and elaborate on these categories. This entailed discerning underlying
patterns and associations, consolidating initial categories into more comprehensive themes. Lastly, in the
third stage, we endeavored to organize these themes into overarching dimensions, structuring them to
address pertinent issues concerning each stakeholder involved. Detailed data structures delineating the
interrelations among initial concepts, themes, and dimensions are presented in Appendix B. Through this
iterative methodology, we ensured that our conceptual framework authentically mirrored both the input
from participants and the insights derived from our analysis, thereby enhancing the robustness and
comprehensiveness of our findings.

Our Delphi panel consisted of 34 experts well-versed in the realm of big data analytics and its ethical
considerations. Drawing from a diverse array of perspectives is a widely endorsed practice in Delphi
studies, as it ensures a comprehensive examination of the topic (Kiel, Lee, & Deng, 2013; Schmiedel, vom
Brocke, & Recker, 2013). Our selection process intentionally included experts from various disciplines
and professional backgrounds, encompassing academics, practitioners, and social activists. Academics
were required to actively contribute to research in the field of big data analytics and its implications for
stakeholders. Practitioners held senior roles in organizational initiatives related to big data analytics,
possessing insights into project risks and regulatory landscapes. Social activists played an active role in
advocating for social change concerning data usage. Initially, we identified 81 potential experts across
these categories and invited them to participate. Ultimately, 40 experts agreed to join the study, with 34
providing valid responses in the first round of data collection.

In assembling our Delphi panel, we aimed to ensure representation from individuals, organizations, and
society to obtain comprehensive insights into ethical considerations. While each panel member could
offer insights from all three perspectives, their expertise varied. To ensure a well-rounded panel, we
employed a fuzzy-sets approach to gauge the extent to which each member could contribute to ethical
discussions from individual, organizational, and societal standpoints. Further details on our fuzzy-set
analysis can be found in Appendix C, affirming the robustness and inclusivity of our panel's coverage
across all three perspectives.

In our Delphi study, we conducted three rounds of data collection and concept refinement, following
recommendations from various researchers in the field. These rounds were structured as brainstorming,
concept refinement, and validation phases. Over a three-week period in each round, we gathered data
from our expert panel using the Qualtrics platform and applied Gioia et al.'s methodology to analyze
qualitative data and develop concepts. The number of rounds was determined by the point at which the
panelists reached a sufficient level of consensus. We assessed consensus based on two criteria: the
qualitative feedback provided on concept names and definitions, and the satisfaction ratings given by the
panelists on a seven-point Likert scale. Consensus was reached when the mean satisfaction score was at
least 5.0, a criterion commonly used in Delphi studies involving concept definitions. Additionally, in the
third round, we ranked concepts within each stakeholder group based on their relative importance,
determined by the average score allocated to each concept out of a total of 100 points. This
comprehensive approach ensured that the concepts developed were both well-defined and reflective of
the stakeholders' perspectives.

In the initial round of our Delphi study, we engaged our expert panel in a brainstorming session to
uncover various ethical implications related to big data analytics. Each panelist was asked to identify and
define at least five ethical issues for individuals, organizations, and society. We posed specific questions
to guide their responses, focusing on current challenges and future considerations in the context of big
data analytics. The questions addressed concerns related to the use of big data analytics for individuals'
data, organizational services and products, and societal implications.

Upon receiving responses from the panelists, we utilized the Gioia method's three-stage process for data
analysis. Each member of our research team independently coded a portion of the data, maintaining the
original language and terms provided by the panelists to preserve their intended meaning. Subsequently,
the team collaborated to consolidate issues, eliminate duplicates, and refine definitions. Through
intensive discussions and consensus-building efforts, we identified and categorized seven concepts
pertaining to individuals, eleven concepts relevant to organizations, and seven concepts concerning
society.

Our analysis revealed a diverse array of ethical concerns spanning ownership, awareness, and control of
data for individuals, while organizational considerations encompassed aspects such as data quality,
decision-making, and ethical culture. Societal implications highlighted issues of power dynamics,
surveillance, and the need for guiding principles and governance structures. By systematically analyzing
the panelists' contributions and synthesizing key concepts, we gained valuable insights into the
multifaceted ethical landscape of big data analytics.

In this phase of our study, we focused on refining the theoretical concepts identified in the initial round.
Following established guidelines from prior research, we presented the participants with a list of the
identified ethical concepts along with their definitions. We then invited them to provide feedback by
suggesting additions, removals, or changes to the list, as well as rating their satisfaction with each
concept and offering suggestions for improvement.
Our approach to concept refinement aligned with the Gioia method, emphasizing the incorporation of
both our insights and those of our participants. The satisfaction ratings provided valuable insights, with
most concepts receiving high average ratings. However, some concepts, such as data ownership, decision
making, and ethical capability, fell short of achieving high satisfaction scores.

Based on both quantitative ratings and qualitative feedback, we iteratively refined the concept
definitions. This involved consolidating overlapping concepts, renaming certain concepts for clarity, and
adjusting definitions to better capture the essence of each concept. For instance, we removed the
concept of data ownership for individual issues and renamed self-determination to choice, reflecting the
nuanced nature of autonomy in decision-making. Similarly, within organizational issues, we removed the
concept of presentation and renamed ethical capability to behavior, reflecting a focus on observable
actions rather than abstract capabilities. Societal concepts were also refined, with dependence renamed
as coercion and climate as social mindset, reflecting the broader social dynamics at play.

Overall, this phase of refinement allowed us to incorporate valuable input from participants, resulting in
clearer and more comprehensive conceptualizations of ethical issues in big data analytics.

In the final round, we aimed to validate the conceptual framework for each stakeholder group and
ensure a sufficient level of consensus among our expert panelists. Like in the previous round, we
solicited feedback from the panelists regarding their overall satisfaction with the concepts and any
suggestions for improvements. Additionally, we introduced a ranking system where panelists allocated a
total of 100 points to each concept based on its perceived importance to each stakeholder group.

This ranking exercise encouraged panelists to critically evaluate the concepts, preventing complacency in
their responses. We used the average importance score assigned to each concept to guide the ranking
process for each stakeholder group. During this round, we made further adjustments to the conceptual
framework based on panelist feedback. For instance, we merged certain concepts to streamline the
framework and improve clarity.

By the end of the third round, we had achieved consensus on all concepts, with a minimum average
satisfaction rate of 5 out of 7 for each concept. Feedback from 23 expert panel members, comprising
both academics and practitioners, helped refine the wording of concept definitions. Although we
experienced a dropout rate of 28%, which is common in Delphi studies, we were able to establish a
robust conceptual framework that captured the ethical dimensions of big data analytics
comprehensively.
We organize our findings around the three main stakeholder groups: individuals, organizations, and
society. Figure 1 offers an overview of the concepts within each stakeholder group, along with their
relative importance.

For each stakeholder, we present a table highlighting the most significant theoretical concepts derived
from our data analysis, following the methodology outlined by Gioia et al. (2012). We exclude concepts
that received less than a 10 percent average ranking score from participants. Subsequently, we delve into
each concept, providing detailed explanations of how they contribute to ethical considerations in the
realm of big data analytics.

Privacy encompasses individuals' ability to manage and regulate how organizations utilize and disclose
their personal data (Bélanger & Crossler, 2011). Within this context, several key aspects of privacy
contribute to ethical concerns.

Firstly, individuals should retain control over what data organizations collect and share about them, even
when providing consent for data collection and sharing. It's crucial for individuals to have a say in which
parties can access their aggregated data, as the process of aggregating data may inadvertently reveal
their identity and allow access by unauthorized parties (Barocas & Nissenbaum, 2014; Tene &
Polonetsky, 2013).

Secondly, individuals must have the ability to update or delete their data to rectify any inaccuracies,
incompleteness, or outdated information (Halavais, 2015). This includes the capacity to modify
aggregated or shared data that may present them inaccurately.

Lastly, individuals should have a say in how organizations utilize their data. While individuals may
consent to primary organizations using their data, they should also have oversight over how other
parties who access it further utilize it (Tene & Polonetsky, 2013). Additionally, the insights derived from
big data analytics may reveal sensitive information about individuals, causing discomfort and potentially
leading to unintended consequences such as discrimination (Barocas & Nissenbaum, 2014; Wigan &
Clarke, 2013).

Trust is essential for individuals to feel secure in their interactions with organizations, especially
concerning the handling of their personal data. Within the realm of big data analytics, several facets of
trust are critical in addressing ethical concerns.

Firstly, individuals must trust that organizations will only collect their data with explicit consent and
utilize it for stated purposes (Barocas & Nissenbaum, 2014). It's vital for individuals to feel confident that
their privacy is respected and that they are not subject to covert surveillance or monitoring in their daily
lives. Any perception of manipulation or exploitation for data extraction purposes can erode trust in
organizations (Martin, 2015; Richards & King, 2014).

Secondly, individuals may face unwanted solicitations such as advertisements or promotional offers,
stemming from the widespread distribution of aggregated data by organizations (Halavais, 2015; Zuboff,
2015). Ensuring that organizations do not unfairly profile individuals or misuse their personal data is
crucial for maintaining trust (Martin, 2015).

Lastly, individuals need assurance that organizations prioritize the security of their data, particularly
given the prevalence of data sharing and storage in the context of big data analytics (Goes, 2014). This
includes safeguarding against breaches and unauthorized access to personal information, which is
paramount for maintaining trust in organizations.

Awareness is crucial for individuals to understand how big data analytics impacts them and their choices.
However, ethical concerns arise when individuals lack awareness about the purpose and processes
behind big data analytics. Key aspects of awareness include comprehending the nature of big data
analytics, knowing their rights concerning data usage, and understanding who controls their data and
why.

Firstly, individuals need to educate themselves about big data analytics and its implications on their lives
(Crawford & Schultz, 2014). Participating in public data literacy programs can help individuals grasp the
benefits and drawbacks of big data analytics, enabling them to make informed decisions (Zuboff, 2015).

Secondly, individuals should be aware of existing policies and regulations safeguarding their data privacy,
such as the GDPR, and actively engage in discussions to influence regulatory frameworks (Newell &
Marabelli, 2015).

Thirdly, individuals must know what data organizations collect about them, who owns it, and who can
access it (Crawford & Schultz, 2014). Often, organizations collect data without clear consent, making it
vital for individuals to understand these practices and their implications (Solove, 2013).

Big data analytics can also impact individuals' freedom of choice, leading to discrimination and
manipulation. Key ethical concerns in this regard include the restriction of choices based on data
profiling, inaccuracies in analytics, and the gamification of behavior.
In the realm of big data, information has become a commodity traded among organizations, often
obtained from individuals through various means such as digital interactions or purchased from other
sources. However, the processes involved in sourcing, sharing, and trading data present ethical
dilemmas. Key ethical challenges in data trading include obtaining explicit informed consent from
individuals, ensuring transparency in data sourcing and sharing practices, and safeguarding anonymity
and data integrity along the data value chain.

Data sourcing practices often collect information from individuals without their full understanding or
voluntary consent, as organizations embed data collection features in their products and services
without clear communication about data usage (Davenport & Kudyba, 2016). Additionally, terms and
conditions may lack clarity regarding data handling post-collection, leaving individuals unaware of the
fate of their data.

Data-sharing practices lack transparency, with organizations often failing to disclose the extent and
purpose of data sharing with third parties (Martin, 2015). This opacity can lead to uncertainties about
data usage and potential misuse.

As data is shared and aggregated, preserving individuals' anonymity becomes increasingly challenging,
potentially leading to re-identification and loss of privacy (Zuboff, 2015). Organizations may also
relinquish control over data quality and usage as it passes through multiple hands in the data value
chain.

Ethical governance plays a crucial role in addressing these challenges, encompassing both formal policies
and informal organizational culture. While formal governance involves establishing policies and
standards, informal governance relies on cultivating ethical norms and values within the organizational
culture (Wixom & Markus, 2017).

To promote ethical governance, organizations must prioritize education and training to instill shared
values and norms regarding data practices among employees (Wixom & Markus, 2017). Moreover,
establishing clear rules and procedures for data handling can enhance transparency and accountability,
particularly in the context of data sharing (Metcalf & Crawford, 2016).

However, achieving ethical governance requires a concerted effort to balance the benefits and costs of
big data analytics for both individuals and organizations. While big data analytics can yield significant
financial gains for organizations, there is a need to internalize the costs associated with data collection
and usage, ensuring fair treatment of individuals (Martin, 2015). Additionally, organizations must
consider the potential ethical implications of extensive data monitoring and manipulation, prioritizing
the well-being and autonomy of individuals in data-driven decision-making processes (Günther et al.,
2017).

Individuals play a crucial role in the world of big data analytics, serving as both sources of data for
organizations and subjects of decisions made using this data. However, there are significant challenges
stemming from the fact that individuals often lack awareness of how their data is collected, used, and
traded by organizations.

Many practices in big data trading lack transparency, with organizations obtaining data from individuals
without explicit consent and then combining, analyzing, and even selling it to third parties. This lack of
control over personal data can lead to distrust among individuals towards organizations using big data
analytics.

Moreover, individuals often find themselves unable to update or delete inaccurate data about
themselves, which raises concerns about privacy and trust. Organizations must establish ethical
governance practices to address these issues, both informally through shared values and norms, and
formally through policies and procedures.

The use of analytics by organizations to uncover new knowledge about individuals can also infringe upon
privacy rights, as this information may be used to customize offers or manipulate behavior without
individuals' consent. Such practices can result in economic exploitation and discrimination, undermining
individuals' freedom of choice and perpetuating social inequalities.

To address these challenges, individuals need to increase their understanding of big data analytics and
advocate for ethical governance practices within organizations. By empowering individuals to assert
control over their personal data and fostering transparent data-trading practices, both individuals and
organizations can work towards mutual benefits and ethical data practices.

Furthermore, the interactions between organizations and society are shaped by the widespread impact
of big data analytics, which introduces new dynamics that affect equality and power relationships. The
dominance of a few large organizations in data trading can create knowledge imbalances and
surveillance concerns, challenging the foundations of free markets and societal norms.

The impact of big data analytics on individuals and societies is significant, yet individuals and societies
often feel they have little influence over how these practices shape their lives. Participants in our
discussions emphasized that commercial interests drive the benefits derived from big data analytics,
highlighting the need for a balance of interests to address potential power imbalances. This balance
requires individuals to gain a deeper understanding of big data analytics and actively engage in societal
discussions to establish appropriate principles and guidelines. These guidelines should focus on
preventing unethical consequences, such as discrimination, and societies must enforce regulations to
hold organizations accountable.

Participating in society increasingly entails using apps, social networks, and sensors, sometimes to the
point where providing personal data feels obligatory rather than optional. Individuals have grown reliant
on big data analytics services without fully grasping their influence on their lives and the resulting
consequences. It's crucial for societies to grasp the implications of a surveillance economy and raise
awareness about the potential risks of big data analytics.

According to stakeholder theory, both individuals and societies must assert their importance in
interactions with organizations. Individuals should actively contribute to developing guidelines and
regulations to protect privacy and freedom of choice. Societies can facilitate education to enhance
individuals' understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of big data analytics. They must find ways to
share the benefits of big data analytics equitably without pressuring individuals to surrender their data
to participate in society. By increasing the prominence of individuals and societies in their interactions
with organizations, mutual benefits can be realized, fostering ethical discourse and motivating
organizations to adopt ethical practices in big data analytics.

Our study offers valuable insights for both research and practical application in the realm of big data
analytics. Firstly, we adopt a stakeholder perspective, defining big data analytics as a social process
shaped by interactions among individuals, organizations, and societies. Unlike the prevailing technical
view, we emphasize the ethical implications for each stakeholder group, facilitating discourse on ethical
challenges. By employing stakeholder theory and discourse ethics, we present researchers with a robust
framework to delve deeper into ethical issues in big data analytics. Secondly, we develop theoretical
concepts that underpin these ethical concerns for individuals, organizations, and societies, addressing a
gap in the existing body of knowledge. Our Delphi study provides empirical evidence for these concepts'
relevance, particularly in fostering ethical discourse.

Our findings equip stakeholders with the language and concepts necessary to address ethical dilemmas
in their engagement with big data analytics. Individuals gain insight into the impact of big data analytics
on their lives, empowering them to navigate its benefits and drawbacks. Organizations are informed
about factors contributing to ethical issues and are guided on ethical usage of big data analytics.
Moreover, our research sheds light on how big data analytics influences society, advocating for ethical
governance that benefits all stakeholders equitably.

However, our study has limitations. While we engaged a diverse panel, future research could involve a
broader range of perspectives, including those of social activists. Achieving consensus in Delphi studies
can be challenging, and although our process yielded strong convergence, further rounds may enhance
consensus. Additionally, while many concepts we identified already exist, our detailed definitions and
rankings contribute novelty to the field. Future research could explore stakeholder interactions and
expand our approach to different domains beyond individual data collection.

Despite these limitations, our study advances both scholarly inquiry and practical application in big data
analytics. By identifying and defining key concepts, we lay a foundation for future research to explore
ethical interactions among stakeholders, paving the way for more ethical practices in the realm of big
data analytics.