Exploring the Differences Between the Cross Industry Process for Data Mining and the National Intelligence Model Using a Self Organising Map Case study

Part of the Advanced Information and Knowledge Processing book series (AI&KP)


All Police Analysts in the UK, and many Forces in Europe and the USA, use the National Intelligence Model as a means to provide relevant, timely and actionable intelligence. In order to produce the required documentation analysts have to mine a variety of in-house data systems but do not receive any formal data mining training. The Cross Industry Standard Process for Data Mining is a database agnostic data mining methodology which is logical and easy to follow. By using a self-organising map to suggest offenders who may be responsible for sets of house burglary, this study explores the difference between both processes and suggests that they could be used to complement each other in real Police work.


Data Mining Process Actionable Intelligence Modus Operandi Free Text Field Problem Profile 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Police Grant (England and Wales) 2012/13, The Stationary Office, London, HC 1797 Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Police Grant (England and Wales) 2011/12, The Stationary Office, London, HC 1771 Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Police Grant (England and Wales) 2010/11, The Stationary Office, London, HC 278 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dhani, A.: Police Service Strength England and Wales, 30 September 2011, HOSB 3/12, London (2012) Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaplin, R., Flatley, J., Smith, K.: Crime in England and Wales 2010/11 findings from the British Crime survey and police recorded crime (2nd edn.), HOSB: 10/11 (2011) Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Crime shows biggest rise for a decade (2012), Mail online. Accessed 30th August 2012
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Shearer, C.: The CRISP-DM model: the new blueprint for data mining. J. Data Warehous. 5, 13–22 (2000) Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Witten, I.H., Frank, E., Hall, M.A.: Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques. Morgan Kaufman, San Mateo (2011) Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wu, X., Kumar, V., Quinlan, J.R., Ghosh, J., Yang, Q., Motoda, H., McLachlan, G.J., Ng, A., Liu, B., Yu, P.S., Zhou, Z.-H., Steinbach, M., Hand, D.J., Steinberg, D.: Top 10 algorithms in data mining. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 14(1), 1–37 (2008) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kohavi, R.: A study of cross-validation and bootstrap for accuracy estimation and model selection. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence 2, vol. 12, pp. 1137–1143. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo (1995) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Adderley, R.: The use of data mining techniques in active crime fighting. In: International Conference on Computer, Communication and Control Technologies and the 9th International Conference on Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis, Orlando, 31 July–3 August 2003, pp. 356–361 (2003) Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A E Solutions (BI) Ltd (2012) Authority miner, Accessed 4th September 2012
  14. 14.
    IBM SPSS Modeler (2012), Accessed 2nd October 2012
  15. 15.
    WEKA (2012), Accessed 2nd October 2012
  16. 16.
  17. 17.
    Kohonen, T.: Self organising formation of topologically correct feature maps. Biol. Cybern. 43(1), 59–69 (1982) MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Home Office Counting Rules For Recorded Crime, HMSO 2012 Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brantingham, P., Brantingham, P.: Crime pattern theory. In: Wortley, R., Mazerolle, L. (eds.) Enviromental Criminology and Crime Analysis, pp. 78–93 (2008) Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.A E Solutions (BI) LtdEveshamUK

Personalised recommendations