of the potentially sensitive nature of the data they are analyzing, while also realizing that a primary constraint on their work is not to violate privacy. Understanding how analysts manage the delicate balance between looking for answers and protecting privacy is another important area of research for analyst-focused KDD researchers.
Inquiring Organizations as Knowledge
to monitor and continually assess the fit between knowledge foraging strategies and processes and the larger environmental context in which they compete.
Effective knowledge foragers share characteristics of effective inquiring organizations.
As noted by Courtney et al. (1998), “effective inquiring organizations create knowledge and learn from behaviors to adjust to changing circumstances” (p. 1). Such learning propels the organization toward progress through what Churchman (1971, p. 201) refers to as a heroic mood, which is created by the collective unconscious. The knowledge foraging concept supports the possibility that this heroic mood may result from fundamental evolutionary processes designed to increase the organization’s survivabil- ity within a competitive environment that can be characterized as wicked and unpredict- able. As noted by Malhotra (1998), “knowledge management caters to the critical issues of organizational adaptation, survival, and competence in the face of increasingly discontinuous environmental change.” Essentially, it embodies organizational pro- cesses that seek a synergistic combination of data, information processing capacity from information technologies, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings.
The concept of knowledge foraging suggests that evolutionary forces that help to ensure survivability via the maximization of knowledge yields may guide these organi- zational processes.
Knowledge foraging organizations include individual information foragers, some of which may be engaged in KDD processes. As inquiring organizations, knowledge foragers may also count the full range of inquirer types (Hegelian, Liebnizian, Lockean, Kantian, and Singerian) among its members. The knowledge foraging concept would include the possibility that the most effective mix of inquiry approaches may vary in response to changes in an organization’s competitive environment. The optimal mix for one organization (or environment) may be suboptimal for another organization (or environment). Environmental changes are likely to trigger changes in optimal mix of inquiry approaches. Organizations that readily adapt to environmental changes may do so because they are able to quickly develop and embrace new knowledge foraging strategies.
Arguably, the introduction of the knowledge foraging concept to corporate epistemol- ogy represents only a small departure from Churchman’s (1971) depiction of Singerian organizations as organizations with the broadest and most comprehensive form of inquiry and knowledge creation systems. As noted by Kienholz (1999), Singerian inquirers (Pragmatists) are able to draw upon whatever inquiry mode (Hegelian, Leibnizian, Lockean, or Kantian) or combination of inquiry modes that best suit the needs of the moment. In the long run, research evidence may support Churchman’s implication that Singerian organizations are a superior organizational form because they respect, value, and behave ethically toward all constituencies. Such a finding would not be inconsistent with the knowledge foraging concept: if Singerian inquiry were, in fact, observed to provide organizations with sustainable competitive advantage across time, there would be support for the notion that this organizational form provides the foundation for an optimal knowledge foraging strategy. Note, however, that the evolutionary emphasis of the knowledge foraging concept would also entertain the possibility that major changes in the competitive environment could result in Singerian inquiry being superseded by other knowledge foraging strategies that are better suited to new environmental condi- tions.
Conclusion
This chapter has proposed a new agenda for analyst-centered research into KDD within inquiring organizations. It maintains that further research focused on the analyst’s interaction with data within the KDD process can provide substantial insights into the knowledge creation processes utilized by many modern organizations. Moreover, we argued that such research would very likely shed further light on how organizations potentially operationalize Lockean, Kantian, and Singerian knowledge creation pro- cesses. We have also highlighted that IFT supports the view that fundamental evolu- tionary forces geared toward maximizing information yields may guide KDD processes.
We also extended the notion of IFT beyond individual information foraging theory by introducing the new concept of knowledge foraging. We predict that knowledge foraging will shortly become an important construct within organization theory and Knowledge Management, as we believe it holds the potential to greatly aid our under- standing of how knowledge management processes within inquiring organizations mature and evolve.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48, 35-44.
Bionski, S., Quatrone, R. P., & Swartz, H. (2000). Substrate and tool use by Brown Capuchins in Suriname: Ecological contexts and cognitive bases. American An- thropologist, 102(4), 741-761.
Brachman, R. J., & Anand, T. (1996). The process of knowledge discovery in databases.
In U. M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth, & R. Uthurusamy (Eds.), Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 37–57), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
Brankovic, L., & Estivill-Castro, V. (1999, July 14-16). Privacy issues in knowledge discovery and data mining. In C.R. Simpson (Ed.), Proceedings of the First Australian Institute of Computer Ethics International Conference on Computer Ethics (pp. 89-99), Melbourne, Australia.
Choi, J. N., & Kim, M. U. (1999). The organizational application of groupthink and its limitations in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 297-306.
Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of systems and organizations. New York: Basic Books.
Courtney, J. F. (2001). Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring orga- nizations: Toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS. Decision Support Systems, 31, 17-38.
Courtney, J. F., Croasdell, D. T., Paradice, D. B. (1998). Inquiring organizations. Austra- lian Journal of Information Systems, 6, 3-15. Reprinted in Foundations of infor-
mation systems: Towards a philosophy of information technology. Retrieved September 25, 2004, from http://www.cba.uh.edu/~parks/fix/fis.htm
Cox, K. C., Eick, S. G., Wills, G. J., & Brachman, R. J. (1997). Visual data mining:
Recognizing telephone calling fraud. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 1, 225-231.
Curley, S. P., & Browne, G. J., (2001). Normative and descriptive analyses of Simpson’s paradox in decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84, 308-333.
Datta, A., & Thomas, H. (1999). The cube data model: A conceptual model and algebra for on-line analytical processing in data warehouses. Decision Support Systems, 27, 289-301.
Driskell, J. E., & Salas, E. (1991). Group decision making under stress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 473-478.
Elder, J. F., IV, & Pregibon, D. (1996). A statistical perspective on knowledge discovery in databases. In U. M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth, & R. Uthurusamy (Eds.), Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 83-113), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
Estivill-Castro, V. , Brankovic, L., & Dowe, D. L. (1999). Privacy in data mining. Privacy - Law and Policy Reporter, 9(3): 33-35, Septermber 1999.
Fayyad, U. M., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., Smyth, P., & Uthurusamy, R. (Eds.). (1996).
Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/
MIT Press.
Feldens, M. A., de Moraes, R. L., Pavan, A., Castilho, J. M. V. (1998). Towards a methodology for the discovery of useful knowledge combining data mining, data warehousing and visualization. Proceedings of the Conferência Latino Americana de Informática, Quito, Equador.
Frawley, W., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Matheus, C. (1992). Knowledge discovery in databases: An overview. AI Magazine, 14(3), 57-70.
Gunderloy, M., & Sneath, T. (2001). SQL server developer’s guide to OLAP with analysis services. Almeda, CA. Sybex.
Heinrichs, J. H., & Lim, J. (2003). Integrating Web-based data mining tools with business models for knowledge management. Decision Support Systems, 35, 103-112.
Holyoak, K. J. (1995). Problem solving. In E. E. Smith & D. N. Osherson (Eds.), An invitation to cognitive science (Vol. 3: Thinking, 2nd ed.) (pp. 267–296). Cam- bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Inzana, C. M., Driskell, J. E., Salas, E., & Johnston, J. H. (1996). Effects of preparatory information on enhancing performance under stress. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 81, 429-435.
Kienholz, A. (1999). Systems rethinking: An inquiring systems approach to the art and practice of the learning organization. Retrieved September 25, 2004, from http://
www.bauer.uh.edu/parks/fis/inqre2a1.htm
Klosgen, W. (1996). Explora: A multipattern and multistrategy discovery assistant. In U.
M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth, & R. Uthurusamy (Eds.), Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 249–271), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
Lam, S. S. K., & Schaubroeck, J. (2000). Improving group decisions by better pooling information: A comparative advantage of group decision support systems. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 85, 565-573.
Lin, A. (2002). Sensitivity to conditional contingencies in the use of on-line analytical processing. Unpublished honour’s thesis, The University of New South Wales, School of Information Systems, Technology and Management, Australia.
Louie, T. A., Curren, M. T., & Harich, K. R. (2000). “I knew we would win”: Hindsight bias for favorable and unfavorable team decision outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 262-272.
Mackinnon, M. J., & Glick, N. (1999). Data mining and knowledge discovery in databases:
An overview. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Statistics, 41, 255-275.
Malhotra, Y. (1997, August 15-17). Knowledge management in inquiring organizations.
Proceedings of the 3rd Americas Conference on Information Systems (Philosophy of Information Systems Minitrack)(pp. 293-295), Indianapolis, IN.
Malhotra, Y. (1998). Knowledge management for the new world of business. Retrieved September 25, 2004, from http://www.brint.com/km/whatis.htm
McElroy, M., W. (2003). The new knowledge management: Complexity, learning, and sustainable innovation. Boston: KMCI Press, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Metcalf, J. (1986). Premonitions of insight predict impending error. Journal of Experi- mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 12, 623-634.
Mitroff, I., & Linstone, H. A. (1993). The unbounded mind: Breaking the chains of traditional business thinking. New York: Oxford University Press.
Montovoni, G. (2001). The psychological construction of the internet: From information foraging to social gathering to cultural meditation. CyberPsychology and Behav- ior, 4, 47-56.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Leary, D. E. (1995). Some privacy issues in knowledge discovery. IEEE Expert, 10, 48- 52.
Pianka, P. (1997). Animal foraging: Past, present, and future. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 12(9), 360-364.
Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106, 643-675.
Reichgelt, H. (1991). Knowledge representation: An AI perspective. New York: Ablex.
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169.
Senge, P. M. (1992). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organi- zation. New York: Doubleday.
Simoudis, E., Livezey, B., & Kerber, R. (1996). Integrating inductive and deductive reasoning for data mining. In U. M. Fayyad, G. Piatetsky-Shapiro, P. Smyth, & R.
Uthurusamy (Eds.), Advances in knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 353–
373), Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press/MIT Press.
Spellman, B. A., Price, C. M., & Logan, J. M., (2001). How two causes are different from one: The use of (un)conditional information in Simpson’s paradox. Memory &
Cognition, 29, 193-208.
Van Krogh, G., Roos, J., & Slocum, K. (1994). An essay on corporate epistemology.
Strategic Management Journal, 15, 53-71.
Wahlstrom, K., & Roddick, J. F., (2000). On the impact of knowledge discovery and data mining. In J. Barlow & M. Warren (Eds.), Australian Institute of Computer Ethics Conference. AICE, 2000, Canberra, November 11.
Weldon, M. S., & Bellinger, K. D. (1997). Collective memory: Collaborative and individual processes in remembering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 1160-1175.