Is there a case within the Intelligence Cycle for a validation phase?  I hear it argued that the Intelligence Cycle lacks depth due to its simplistic structure and its four basic stages of Direction, Collection, Processing and Dissemination.  Others maintain that its simplicity is its strength as long as its employment is controlled and managed by intelligence professionals.  I’m in the latter of these two camps as, I think, the situations we deal with on a daily basis are complex enough, without our doctrine also being overly complicated.

However, I have long felt that there is insufficient emphasis on the validation of our intelligence assessments.  A great deal is written, and efforts made, to ensure that we conduct efficiently and fully the Collation, Evaluation, Analysis, Integration and Interpretation phases of the Processing Stage within the Cycle.  This all makes perfect sense to me, with the exception that having completed all of those phases we do not specifically validate our final assessment.

This line of thought is driven by the fact that commonly practised analytical techniques are often considered separately from the Intelligence Cycle.  You would think that the Intelligence Cycle would drive the analyst towards particular methodology, although it is rare to see techniques linked directly to the achievement of a particular function; for example, what analytical techniques should be considered when trying to fulfil the Direction Stage?  Obviously, analysis is used throughout the four stages of the Intelligence Cycle, but when should specific techniques be employed and to what effect?

If you examine this situation in reverse, you should come to the conclusion that most analytical techniques can be employed at specific points within the Intelligence Cycle and will achieve specific outcomes to drive forward our thoughts.  Now this is a valuable thing to know and should revolutionise your thinking around the Intelligence Cycle and how it should be used.

The other useful deduction is that certain techniques cannot be placed within the Intelligence Cycle as it currently stands, and these techniques are mainly focussed on the validation of intelligence. This tends to support my suggestion that there needs to be a place within the Intelligence Cycle to consider Validation.  This could be added at the end of Processing Stage and would incorporate such analytical techniques as:

  • Analysis of Competing Hypothesis
  • Validation of Key Assumptions
  • Assurance of Diagnostic Value and Information Quality
  • Counter-Bias Check
  • Team A/Team B
  • Devil’s Advocacy
  • Thinking Backwards/What If?
  • High Impact/Low Probability

This should ensure that all intelligence forwarded into the dissemination stage will have been confirmed, authenticated and placed in context. Surely a good thing?

The Processing Stage of the Intelligence Cycle should perhaps look as follows –

Validation of Intelligence - The Intelligence Cycle

Is your intelligence team working efficiently?  Could they be more productive and enhance your business model?  To find out more about what QRO Global could do to assist your business or to learn more about the types of projects that we have worked on in the past, see our Services Page or email us today – info@qro-global.co.uk

[divider style=”hr-solid-double”]

Hindsight view of analysis:

Analyst – overestimates accuracy

Customer – underestimates value

Overseer – states events more easily seen than was the case