Data Mining Tool Selection

It is sometimes argued that all one needs to engage in Data Mining (DM) is data and a willingness to “give it a try.” Although this view is attractive from the perspective of enthusiastic DM consultants who wish to expand the use of the technology, it can only serve the purposes of one-shot proofs of concept or preliminary studies. It is not representative of the complex reality of deploying DM within existing business processes. In such contexts, one needs two additional ingredients: a process model or methodology, and supporting tools. Several Data Mining process models have been developed (Fayyad et al, 1996; Brachman & Anand, 1996; Mannila, 1997; Chapman et al, 2000), and although each sheds a slightly different light on the process, their basic tenets and overall structure are essentially the same (Gaul & Saeuberlich, 1999). A recent survey suggests that virtually all practitioners follow some kind of process model when applying DM and that the most widely used methodology is CRISP-DM (KDnuggets Poll, 2002). Here, we focus on the second ingredient, namely, supporting tools. The past few years have seen a proliferation of DM software packages. Whilst this makes DM technology more readily available to non-expert end-users, it also creates a critical decision point in the overall business decision-making process. When considering the application of Data Mining, business users now face the challenge of selecting, from the available plethora of DM software packages, a tool adequate to their needs and expectations. In order to be informed, such a selection requires a standard basis from which to compare and contrast alternatives along relevant, business-focused dimensions, as well as the location of candidate tools within the space outlined by these dimensions. To meet this business requirement, a standard schema for the characterization of Data Mining software tools needs to be designed.