Towards a Better Integration of Data Mining and Decision Support
via Computational Intelligence
Sylvain Delisle
Département de mathématiques et d’informatique
Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Québec, Canada, G9A 5H7
Sylvain_Delisle@uqtr.ca www.uqtr.ca/~delisle
Abstract
Despite a high level of activity and a large number
of researchers involved, current research in data
mining is plagued with several serious problems that
should be regarded as top-priority challenges. First,
large-scale, visible results and benefits seem rare.
Second, the field has become utterly specialized and a
lot of work remains to be done at the “big picture”
level. Finally, data mining is very poorly integrated
with the decision support level. This paper
concentrates on the latter challenge and presents a
research proposal in that direction.
1. Introduction
With the relentless growth of information available
on the Internet, combined with the storage of gigantic
quantities of data on personal and corporate computers,
individuals and businesses often find themselves in
situations where they feel overwhelmed by the sheer
amount of data they must process to make time-
constrained but informed decisions.
To add to this already challenging state of affairs, the
last couple of years have brought along a new twist:
valuable information could be "hidden" in your
personal/corporate/Web data, and data mining (DM)
may allow you to uncover it. And so DM, and various
related methodologies, techniques and tools are now
becoming more and more widely used in order to
uncover this implicit and potentially useful information
or knowledge.
Unfortunately, despite the huge interest and
sometimes unrealistic hopes it has generated, DM still
faces several serious challenges. One of these is the
fact that large-scale, systematic, and predictable
applications of DM to the benefit of numerous
organizations and businesses seem rather uncommon.
Another challenge is the fact that the majority of
current progress in DM research seems to be based on
Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’05)
1529-4188/05 $20.00 © 2005 IEEE
utterly-specialized (computer science- or mathematics-
related) techniques, whereas research on strategic,
methodological, and even epistemological aspects of
DM are rare—too few people seem to be working at
the level of the forest and too many at the level of the
individual tree! Yet another challenge, and one on
which we will focus in this paper, is the fact that DM
remains essentially very poorly integrated with the
decision support level (and its corresponding
computerized systems) it is supposed to serve, thus not
fully realizing its very own raison d'être.
In this paper, we present the core of our new
research project currently in its initial stage: integrating
DM and decision support (DS) through computational
intelligence. Our main goal is to make DM more
accessible and effective for decision makers to support
application-oriented DS. We believe there is currently
a lack of research in this area; progress in that direction
could foster significant advancement in applied DM.
2. Research Goals
The long term goal of this research project is to
discover and evaluate new solutions to the crucial and
very challenging problem of poor integration between
DM and DS. These solutions will be based mainly on
computational intelligence concepts and tools (e.g.
ontologies and reasoning systems), but also on new
development methodologies that take DM aspects early
into consideration in the development cycle of
information and DS systems. The combination of these
two domains, knowledge and methodology, constitutes
a most promising avenue relative to the current state of
the art in computer science. Our short term objective is
to find solutions to the following specific problems
which constitute serious limitations in typical
situations of DM and DS integration:
i) Current DM processes make very little use of
already existing corporate knowledge, even when
such knowledge has been (partially) formalized
 and computerized. Consequently, DM is more
tedious than needed and its results tend to produce
“already known information”.
ii) Most DM projects occur as a posteriori
development for which specific databases and pro-
cessing capabilities must be (re-)developed, and
for which special (non-interactive and non-robust)
means are used to make DM results usable by the
DS level. Thus, the lack of methodological and
technical integration with standard information
systems causes DM projects to appear as “extra
work” for which the return on investment can
hardly be measured.
iii) There is a lack of standardisation in DM that
generates a lot of redundant work and complicates
in a major way the evaluation and comparison of
tools, methods, and results. Steps must be made
towards the adoption of effective DS-oriented DM
standards, at least at the local (e.g. enterprise)
level.
Because we live in an information-based world, the
problem and research objectives identified above are of
the greatest importance, both at the scientific and
economic levels. They are directly related to the all-
pervading problem of information overload for which
DM offers valuable (though partial) solutions, even
more so if adequately coupled with modern businesses’
DS systems. We think our project offers great potential
for advancing the state of the art in DM applied to
information and DS systems.
3. Related Work
The problem of poor DM and DS integration has
only recently been clearly acknowledged in the
scientific literature and little work has been done along
the lines presented here. Some recent conference calls
for papers confirm the relevance of our viewpoint, such
as [1]: “Recently emerged the idea that database
management systems should provide support and
technology for data mining, as it occurred for OLAP
and data warehouses in the last decade”. [15], as
several others, mentions “integration of data
warehousing, OLAP and data mining” in its list of
preferred topics of interest. Some conferences are
aimed more specifically at decision making and less so
at the technological infrastructure supporting it, as in
the work of [3], while others are associated with the
field of multiagent systems ([17]): “Integrated
knowledge intensive systems emerge in all domains of
business and engineering, when intelligent decision
support … requires knowing how this knowledge is
produced, measured, communicated, and
interpreted”—see also [27] for an agent-based
approach to DM. The recent domain of grid
intelligence, see e.g. [16], is concerned with large-scale
Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’05)
1529-4188/05 $20.00 © 2005 IEEE
distributed enterprises information systems and can
surely be considered promising as it strives to integrate
the so-called data and computational grids with the
knowledge grid—see also [8].
One of the rare references dealing in some depth
with DM and DS is that of [19] with chapters dedicated
to various aspects of the integration of DM and DS—
these researchers have proposed the equation “data
mining + decision tools = better business”. Work in
meta-learning is also quite relevant as it attempts to
support DM: see METAL (www.metal-kdd.org), [6],
and [24]. Other recent work in the field of KDD
(Knowledge Discovery in Databases) is that of [13] in
which an ontology is used to model domain knowledge
to support the KDD process, that of [20] where an
environment for the rapid development of pre-DM
processing chains is introduced, and that of [25] in
which expert system and machine learning
technologies are combined to support DM. Work
dealing with conceptual queries and online/Web
(interactive) DM is also of interest since it must take
into account some elements of the DS dimension: see
[9], for instance.
In the domain of DS systems, the Journal of
Decision Support Systems published in 2002 a special
issue on “directions for the next decade” containing
several key papers: [7] propose to integrate DS and
knowledge management processes using DM; [21]
propose the concept of a knowledge warehouse to
manage the knowledge of the firm; and [22] sum-
marize the evolution of DS systems and emphasize the
importance of data warehouses, OLAP, and DM in
those systems. Also of interest is case-based reasoning
(CBR) which offers valuable tools for DS, as
exemplified in the works of [2], [18], and [23].
Because decision makers tend to use analogy-based
reasoning processes when solving problems and
because they usually do so by considering only a very
limited number of cases, especially in the field of
business administration, we hypothesize that CBR
constitutes a promising approach for our research
project—more on this in the following section.
4. For a Better Integration of DM and DS
Holsapple & Whinston ([14]) consider that DS
systems’ raison d’être is to increase the productivity of
decision makers through implementing their abilities to
manipulate knowledge, by facilitating problem-
solving, and by providing an aid for non-structured
problems. Nowadays, this requires the constant
processing of phenomenal quantities of data and
information and always involves the use of
computerized systems. DM methods and tools, hold
the promise of facilitating the decision maker’s life by
extracting hidden information from a sea of data, and
 compacting it into a form easily amenable to decision
making. But as we argued before, DM is poorly
integrated with DS and, consequently, cannot
effectively support decision makers.
We start from the work of Bolloju et al. ([7]) in
order to depict the typical situation addressed by our
proposal, from a DS perspective. Indeed, as shown in
Figure 1 below, DM and DS systems are two distinct
components that do not usually interact through a
computerized tool. Thus, DM and DS are not
integrated at all—Bolloju et al. do not consider this
question in their work which focuses on knowledge
management. From a DM perspective and in relation to
our objectives, we must remark that all too often in
DM or machine learning, the zero-knowledge (tabula
rasa) hypothesis is used and, not very surprisingly,
leads to results that can be qualified as “already known
information or knowledge” (e.g. “rediscovering”
database functional dependencies).
Figure 1 (Source: Bolloju et al. 2002 [7]).
EIS=Enterprise Information System; DSS=Decision Support System(s); model bases= models used by decision makers
DS is now an important application domain of case-
based reasoning ([4], [12]) as it embodies well the
processing performed by actual decision makers,
including their potential usefulness with regard to
decision explanation ([10]). The case-based approach
we suggest here is somewhat similar to that of [20],
although more much elaborated. KIVE will not only
consider pre-DM processing, but all aspects of DM
related to DS. Also, contrary to [20], we do not
exclude unsuccessful cases as they can also be quite
informative for DM purposes. Thus, KIVE will
constitute a DS-oriented DM environment that contains
the following main components: a user interface
suitable for decision makers that includes a DS-
oriented DM wizard; a catalogue of KIVs which are
linked to other relevant resources, information and DS
Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’05)
1529-4188/05 $20.00 © 2005 IEEE
What we propose, in order to support a fruitful
integration of DM and DS, is to better exploit existing
knowledge—be it background or specialized, or,
relative to the enterprise, internal or external—via what
we will be referring to as KIVs, i.e. Knowledge (DM-
DS) Integration Vectors. We define a KIV as a source
of data, information or knowledge that plays a role in
DM and DS, and in their integration. Examples of
KIVs are data models, decision models, general and
domain-specific ontologies, and general and domain-
specific rule bases. All KIVs will be exploitable and
managed by KIVE, i.e. the KIV Environment we
propose. KIVE could be added to the architecture
depicted in Figure 1 as a new system interfacing with
decision makers and interconnected with existing
resources. KIVE will contain a case-based system that
will index (see [5]) all relevant information to facilitate
DM, and ultimately decision making, from the decision
maker’s viewpoint.
systems; a feature/attribute selection and engineering
tool; a catalogue of DM algorithms; a catalogue of
(positive and negative) commented cases that will be
indexed on multiple criteria, including information on
the decision problem related to it; and a case learner
and knowledge acquisition module.
The development and implementation of the
proposed KIVE environment is a challenging project
that will allow us to study fundamental issues related
to the problem of DM-DS integration. Ultimately, this
will support significant progress in applied DM. We
now consider many key questions (in no particular
order) that will motivate our thinking during this
research project:
• KIVs include a wide variety of data, information,
and knowledge. What is the best way to represent
 KIVs, especially for DM purposes and in a format
(and language) amenable to DS? How to ensure
that existing corporate knowledge is properly
formalized and accessible in due time to supply
reliable KIVs?
• What types of metadata and ontologies should be
developed to successfully guide the DM process?
How can recent work on meta-learning be put to
use here? Should metadata be related to a specific
DM methodology and/or to a specific theory of
knowledge?
• How to define cases, or derive them from
databases ([20], [26]) in order to serve both the
objectives of DM and DS? Meta-learning seems
promising, as well as knowledge extraction from
DM experts. And what is the best way to process
(i.e. index, retrieve, assess similarity, adapt) them
within KIVE’s case system?
• How should the knowledge base of KIVE’s wizard
be developed in the first place, and what type of
rule should it use? Should it put more emphasis on
DM or on DS aspects? Should it be data- or
model-oriented, or both? Should the wizard’s rule-
based system be replaced altogether by a case
system instead (with learning capacities)?
• To what extend can the trial and error strategy,
which is often used in DM, be minimized during
the interaction with the KIVE interactive wizard
when no pre-existing case is available? Here
again, meta-learning could be useful. How to
define a productive concept of interactive DS
through DM when many DM processes may
require a lot more time than what is usually
understood by “online, interactive”?
• How can standard development methodologies for
information systems and database systems be
revised or adjusted to include right from the start
relevant requirements and specifications related to
DM and DS? Or should entirely new
methodologies be devised?
• How DM and DS integration should be balanced
(i.e. with more emphasis on DM or on DS) to
better serve the needs of typical decision makers?
Should DM-specific and DS-specific functions be
accessible separately (through the wizard) when
needed? Can we define precisely the notion of
DM-DS integration and propose a theoretical
model supporting it? Can this integration be
measured or quantified?
5. Conclusion
We have briefly presented the core of our new
research project currently in its initial stage.
Consequently, this paper has put forward more
Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’05)
1529-4188/05 $20.00 © 2005 IEEE
questions than definite answers. We believe finding
answers to some of these questions could trigger
significant advancement in applied DM, especially in
the context of decision support.
Our goal is to develop an intelligent environment
(named KIVE) to support decision makers in their
appropriate application of DM so that they can
efficiently make better decisions in a given domain. So
the “first order” goal is DM for DS, i.e. DM for
application-domain-related DS. However, intelligently
supporting DM involves DM-related DS (e.g. how to
select the most appropriate DM technique during the
DM process). Thus, the “second order” goal is DS for
DM. Both first and second order goals will be tackled
with DM, DS, and computational intelligence concepts
and techniques.
For instance, KIVE should be able to allow a
manager to perform an in-depth analysis, involving
DM, of the last two years’ production data in order to
derive decision trees, classification rules, or regression
functions that would help him/her better understand
how to control production costs and thus be in a
position to make better decisions in that area. Another
example could be the use of DM on enterprise data in
order to derive a parameterized model of its overall
performance (see our related work in [11]).
This work is oriented towards the elaboration of new
conceptual models and computer-oriented techniques,
and their implementation and testing in software and
related methodologies—but all this while keeping “the
forest” in mind. We hypothesize that the current state
of the art in DM is limited by hyper-specialized sub-
disciplines not sufficiently taking into consideration
other DM-related disciplines and challenges from a
broader perspective.
DM is a multidisciplinary field. It obviously involves
statistical and computer-science related techniques, but
it also involves decision theory and epistemological
aspects at an equally important level. We think that
much more research is needed on the synergistic
combination of the various sub-fields of DM,
especially, as we have argued here, with regard to
decision support and computational intelligence.
6. Acknowledgments
We thank the anonymous reviewers who provided
judicious comments that helped us improve our paper.
We acknowledge the financial support of the National
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
(NSERC).
7. References
[1] ACM/SAC (2005), The 2005 ACM Symposium on
Applied Computing, Special Track on Data Mining, CFP,
Santa Fe (New Mexico, USA), March 2005.
 [2] Angehrn, A.A. & S. Dutta (1998), “Case-Based Decision
Support”, Communications of the ACM, 41(5).
[3] Arnott, D., G. Pervan, P. O’Donnell & G. Dodson (2004),
“An Analysis of Decision Support Systems Research:
Preliminary Results”, The 2004 IFIP International
Conference on Decision Support Systems, Prato (Italy), July
2004.
[4] Avesani, P., S. Ferrari & A. Susi (2003), “Case-Based
Ranking for Decision Support Systems”, The ICCBR 2003
Conference, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 2689
(Spinger), 35-49, Trondheim (Norway), June 2003.
[5] Azuaje, F., W. Dubitzky, N. Black & K. Adamson
(2000), “Retrieval Strategies for Case-Based Reasoning: A
Categorized Bibliography”, The Knowledge Engineering
Review, 15(4), 371-379.
[6] Blanzieri, B., P. Giorgini, P.Massa & S. Recla (2001),
“Data Mining, Decision Support and Meta-Learning:
Towards an Implicit Culture Architecture for KDD”,
Workshop on Positions, Developments and Future
Directions, 2001 ECML/PKDD Conference, Freiburg
(Germany), September 2001.
[7] Bolloju, N., M. Khalifa & E. Turban (2002), “Integrating
Knowledge Management into Enterprise Environments for
the Next Generation Decision Support”, Decision Support
Systems, 33, 163-176.
[8] Cannataro, M. & D. Talia (2003), “The Knowledge
Grid”, Communications of the ACM, 46(1).
[9] Chen, Q., X. Wu & X. Zhu (2004), “OIDM: Online
Interactive Data Mining”, The 2004 IEA/AIE Conference,
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 3029 (Springer-
Verlag), 66-76, Ottawa (Canada), May 2004.
[10] Cunningham, P., D. Doyle & J. Loughrey (2003), “An
Evaluation of the Usefulness of Case-Based Explanation”,
The ICCBR 2003 Conference, Lecture Notes in Artificial
Intelligence 2689 (Spinger), 122-130, Trondheim (Norway),
June 2003.
[11] Delisle, S., J. St-Pierre & T. Copeck (to appear), “A
Hybrid Diagnostic-Advisory System for Small and Medium-
Sized Enterprises: A Successful AI Application", Applied
Intelligence (The International Journal of Artificial
Intelligence, Neural Networks, and Complex Problem-
Solving Technologies), Springer.
th
[12] ECCBR (2004), The 7 European Conference in Case-
Based Reasoning, CFP, Madrid (Spain), August 2004.
[13] Euler, T. & M. Scholz (2004), “Using Ontologies in a
KDD Workbench”, Workshop on Knowledge Discovery and
Ontologies, 2004 ECML/PKDD Conference, Pisa (Italy),
September 2004.
[14] Holsapple, C.W. & A.B. Whinston (1996), Decision
Support Systems: A Knowledge-Based Approach, West.
[15] ICDM (2004), The Fourth IEEE International
Conference on Data Mining, CFP, Brighton (U.K.),
November 2004.
[16] KGGI (2003), Workshop on Knowledge Grid and Grid
Intelligence, The 2003 IEEE/WIC International Conference
on Web Intelligence / Intelligent Agent Technology, Halifax
(Nova-Scotia, Canada), October 2003.
Proceedings of the 16th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA’05)
1529-4188/05 $20.00 © 2005 IEEE
[17] KIMAS (2005), The 2005 IEEE International
Conference on Integration of Knowledge Intensive Multi-
Agent Systems, Waltham (Massachusetts, USA), April 2005.
[18] Lee, J.K. & J.K. Kim (2002), “A Case-Based Reasoning
Approach for Building a Decision Model”, Expert Systems,
19(3).
[19] Mladenic, D., N. Lavrac, M. Bohanec & S. Moyle
(2003), Data Mining and Decision Support (integration and
collaboration), Kluwer.
[20] Morik, K. & M. Scholz (2004), “The MiningMart
Approach to Knowledge Discovery in Databases”, in
Intelligent Technologies for Information Analysis, N. Zhong
& J. Liu (eds.), Springer.
[21] Nemati, H.R., D.M. Steiger, L.S. Iyer & R.T.Herschel
(2002), “Knowledge Warehouse: An Architectural
Integration of Knowledge Management, Decision Support,
Artificial Intelligence and Data Warehousing”, Decision
Support Systems, 33, 143-161.
[22] Shim, J.P., M. Warkentin, J.F. Courteny, D.J. Power, R.
Sharda & C. Carlsson (2002), “Past, Present, and Future of
Decision Support Technology”, Decision Support Systems,
33, 111-126.
[23] Sun, B., L.D. Xu, X. Pei & H. Li (2003), “Scenario-
Based Knowledge Representation in Case-Based Reasoning
Systems”, Expert Systems, 20(2).
[24] Vilalta, R., C. Giraud-Carrier, P. Brazdil & C. Soares
(2004), “Using Meta-Learning to Support Data Mining”,
International Journal of Computer Science and Applications,
1(1), 31-45.
[25] Weiss, S.M., S.J. Buckley, S. Kapoor & S. Damgaard
(2003), “Knowledge-Based Data Mining”, The 2003
SIGKDD Conference, Washington (D.C., USA), August
2003.
[26] Yang, Q. & H. Cheng (2003), “Case Mining from Large
Databases”, The ICCBR 2003 Conference, Lecture Notes in
Artificial Intelligence 2689 (Spinger), 691-702, Trondheim
(Norway), June 2003.
[27] Zhang, Z., C. Zhang & S. Zhang (2003), “An Agent-
Based Hybrid Framework for Database Mining”, Applied
Artificial Intelligence, 17, 383-398.