Structured analytical techniques are used to overcome a number of common obstructions when working through intelligence problems.
They help to order reporting, turning apparent randomness into clarity through a guided process. An added benefit of a structured method is that it helps guide the work of a group, drawing out information held by all parties and working it toward a common assessment. At a deeper level, analytical techniques are vital to overcome cognitive bias both internally and in groups, which when not checked leads to intelligence failures and organisational surprise.
Structured analytical techniques are one of the four core skills in every intelligence professional’s foundation training. But this was not always the case. Specific techniques have emerged throughout history, but the teaching of different methods as a group alongside an explanation of their importance to overcoming bias dates to the early 2000s. This was the intelligence community’s way of addressing flaws exposed in the intelligence analysis that was used to support the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] The institution of instruction on analytical methods and cognitive bias was accompanied by the inclusion of techniques used in formal assessments as evidence of objectivity for policy makers.
It would be easy to pad this article by expanding on the theory behind cognitive bias and assumptions, but what is more useful at the working level is to know how to apply the methods. The below outlines four different areas and which methods work well in those cases. It is not an exhaustive list but all of them have a track record of producing successful intelligence.
Strategic problems. These are normally looking at medium to long-term, big picture predictions. They also cover analysing the intentions of large organisations and the dynamics of complex environments. Techniques focused on determining and ordering key drivers are most useful for these types of problems. SWOT helps to understand the shape of an organisation, as well as the tensions it may have internally and with the external environment. The cone of plausibility is one of the most time consuming techniques when done correctly, but the pay off is worth it with robust reasoning behind any final assessments. Techniques that help produce multiple scenarios are also useful here to generate hypotheses and drive further collection, such as the cone of plausibility and scenario-axes method.
Tactical problems. Techniques that uncover patterns are best used at the tactical level. The time pattern analysis wheel, event series, and even marking events on a map are simple but highly effective. The other side of solving tactical problems is relationships and networks, where the association matrix, as well as link analysis programmes, help to visualise priority individuals and connections. Methods mentioned above under strategic problems can also be used at the tactical level when you want to assess where the group or network is heading in the short or far future.
Divergent and convergent techniques. Sometimes the problem is where to start or how to generate new ideas. Brainstorming is a simple and brilliant way to get thoughts both on paper and warm up the brain to think divergently. ‘What if?’ analysis specifically allows you to check standing assumptions, as well as generate new scenarios by deliberately taking the opposite view point, much the same as Red Teaming. Once you are well outside the box, converging techniques help to narrow in on useful assessments. The 'analysis of competing hypotheses' allows generated scenario outlines to be ranked against evidence and reporting. One of the reasons the cone of plausibility is so effective is because it combines both diverging and converging methods into one process.
Alternative uses of analytical techniques. Just like divergent techniques designed to drive new ways of looking at the same information, some techniques can be applied to other parts of the intelligence process or organisation more widely:
Analysis of competing hypotheses (ACH) is a useful tool for tracking assessments. In a proactive intelligence system, once you have generate scenarios and tasked collection, the ACH method can be used to monitor information coming as indicators of which scenario is developing.
PMESII/ASCOPEG is commonly used as a way to analyse human and physical terrain, but it is also a useful tool to simply collate this information in one resource for planners and decision-makers to refer to.
SWOT is widely used as an internal tool for taking stock of a team or organisation.
Combining analytical techniques, particularly divergent methods with convergent methods is an effective way to produce material for a complete intelligence product.
As stated above, this is not an exhaustive list of techniques. It provides a guide to apply them in practice. When paired with the skills required for good facilitation, analytical techniques are powerful tools for organising information, generating multiple perspectives, and driving toward objectivity. This thoroughness ensures the time spent in the analytical process results in a more accurate intelligence product that reduces organisational surprise.
[1] Lessons still to be learned from the Chilcot inquiry: Government Response to the Committee’s Tenth Report of Session 2016-2017 – Annex: Learning Lessons from the Iraq Inquiry: The National Security Adviser’s Report, 1 January 2017, UK Parliament, 9 January 2018, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmpubadm/708/70803.htm, accessed 22 September 2022; Dr Jamie Gaskarth, ‘How the Iraq War led to a legacy of public mistrust in intelligence,’ The British Academy, 24 Feb 2020, https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blog/how-iraq-war-led-legacy-public-mistrust-intelligence/ accessed 22 September 2022; The Good Operation, UK Ministry of Defence, 2017
Kommentare