Advertisement

Collaboration Between Cognitive Science and Business Management to Benefit the Government Sector

  • Glory Emmanuel AviñaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9752)

Abstract

Cognitive science is an interdisciplinary science which studies the human dimension, drawing from academic disciplines such as psychology, linguistics, philosophy, and computer modeling. Business management is controlling, leading, monitoring, organizing, and planning critical information to bring useful resources and capabilities to a viable market. Finally, the government sector has many roles, but one primary goal is to bring innovative solutions to maintain and enhance national security. There currently is a gap in the government sector between applied research and solutions applicable to the national security field. This is a deep problem since a critical element to many national security issues is the human dimension and requires cognitive science approaches. One major cause to this gap is the separation between business management and cognitive science: scientific research is either not being tailored to the mission need or deployed at a time when it can best be absorbed by national security concerns. This paper addresses three major themes: (1) how cognitive science and business management benefits the government sector, (2) the current gaps that exist between cognitive science and business management, and (3) how cognitive science and business management may work to address government sector, national security needs.

Keywords

Cognitive science Business management Mission impact Applied research 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000, Sandia Report SAND2016-1668C. Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited. This research was funded in part or whole by an Interagency Agreement between the Transportation Security Administration and the Department of Energy.

References

  1. 1.
    The White House: President Obama. The Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative. https://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/cybersecurity/national-initiative. Accessed 23 Feb 2016
  2. 2.
    Silva, A., Emmanuel, G., McClain, J.T., Matzen, L., Forsythe, C.: Measuring expert and novice performance within computer security incident response teams. In: Schmorrow, D.D., Fidopiastis, C.M. (eds.) AC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9183, pp. 144–152. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Katulis, B.: Five national security issues to watch in 2015. The Wall Street Journal (2014). http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/12/31/5-national-security-issues-to-watch-in-2015/
  4. 4.
    Moore, G.A.: Crossing the Chasm: Marketing and Selling Technology Products to Mainstream Customers. HarperBusiness, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paleri, P.: National Security: Imperatives and Challenges, p. 521. Tata McGraw-Hill, New Delhi (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gregory, R., Fischhoff, B., McDaniels, T.: Acceptable input: using decision analysis to guide public policy deliberations. Decis. Anal. 2(1), 4–16 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moore, G.A.: To succeed in the long-term, focus on the middle-term. Harvard Bus. Rev. 85(7–8), 84–90 (2006)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winckler, G.: Excellence in strategic planning. In: Tayeb, O., Zahed, A., Ritzen, J. (eds.) Becoming a World-Class University, pp. 105–116. Springer International Publishing, Berlin (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Osburn, H.K., Hatcher, J.M., Zongrone, B.M.: Training and development for organizational planning skills. In: The Psychology of Planning in Organizations: Research and Applications, p. 334 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mumford, M.D., Frese, M. (eds.): The Psychology of Planning in Organizations: Research and Applications. Routledge, New York, NY (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quenk, N.L., Hammer, A.L.: MBTI Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, vol. 3. Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto (1998)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    TRACOM Group: The Social Intelligence Company. Social style: the world’s leading interpersonal effectiveness model (2016). http://www.tracomcorp.com/solutions/by-element/social-style/model/
  13. 13.
    Bess, T.L., Harvey, R.J.: Bimodal score distributions and the Myers-Briggs type indicator: Fact or artifact? J. Pers. Assess. 78(1), 176–186 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Furnham, A.: The development of single trait personality theories. Pers. Individ. Differ. 11(9), 923–929 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Larsen, R.J., Buss, D.M.: Personality Psychology. Naklada Slap, Jastrebarsko (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    DuFrene, D.D., Lehman, C.M.: Concept, content, construction, and contingencies: getting the horse before the PowerPoint cart. Bus. Commun. Q. 67(1), 84–89 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stowe, K., Schwartz, L., Parent, J., Sendall, P.: Are business school students prepared to present? The pedagogy of presentation skills in business schools. J. Acad. Bus. Educ. 11, 1–22 (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Baker, W.H., Thompson, M.P.: Teaching presentation skills. Bus. Commun. Q. 67(2), 216–220 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peierls, R.: Wolfgang Ernst Pauli. 1900–1958. Biographical Mem. Fellows R. Soc. 5, 174–192 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cole, S.: Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gottschall, J.: The Storytelling Animal: How Stories Make us Human. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fodor, J.A.: Concepts: Where Cognitive Science Went Wrong. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Clark, A.: Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behav. Brain Sci. 36(03), 181–204 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sandia National LaboratoriesLivermoreUSA

Personalised recommendations