I'm thinking about this.

The problem here (following James March) is that the world is not just uncertain, it is ambiguous. If the world were simply uncertain, reduction of uncertainty via the aggregation of more and better information might prove just the ticket. But what happens when a decision has to be made between qualitatively different options? When more information does not provide a clear direction to go? Or when decision-making could actually increase, decrease, or change in fundamental ways the options themselves? At this point, information-mining actually becomes harmful to the extent that it replaces rather than augments real decision-making. Worse, making decisions is a skill, that needs to be flexed, and used. Understanding when and how information-mining would be useful seems to me a more important ability than even knowing how to manage the information-mining itself.

My emphasis. The focus here is on individual or group decision making. It looks different if the focus is on distributed decision making.