Comments on: Curing Analytic Pathologies

By: robert schaefer

robert schaefer — Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:47:38 +0000

In the end, does the existence of analytic pathologies really matter when it is the decider who makes the decisions? http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/25/2751/

By: Robert L. Cerra

Robert L. Cerra — Fri, 05 May 2006 11:32:13 +0000

Thanks Mr Aftergood for making this report available on your website.
I am digesting Mr Cooper’s 73 page report and my initial reaction is that he is mixing information analysis and the end product of intelligence. I would be more comfortable if Mr. Cooper’s report read Curing Analytical Pathologies: Pathways to Improved Information Analysis. In that parts that I have read he uses intelligence and information interchangably -that suggests to me a basic misunderstanding of the intelligence process and how one applies it. I want to read all of his report before I comment further.

Regards
Bob Cerra

By: robert schaefer

robert schaefer — Wed, 03 May 2006 20:53:54 +0000

Think “systems”.
Where the author writes “structure”, it appears the author means “structure” as a black box, not as a white box. The black box model cannot be controlled because the insides are too complex and too resistant to change. The internal decision making processes, the white box model of the organization needs to change. But it cannot because it is too difficult, too many people with vested interests – they succeed although the purpose of the organization does not.
Possible solution alternatives are to start over from scratch – (not likely to happen because what will happen while there is nothing?) or create parallel alternative structures with the culture and model the author proposes. Experiment with alternative organizations. Slowly replace the equivalent functions of the failed organization with the new (one hopes better) organization.
Another alternative – implement employee suggestion programs. The employees know the work the best, better than any planner of organizations. Ask them what they think should be done, then test it out.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 03 May 2006 19:02:34 +0000

The Intelligence Community presently lacks many of the scientific community's self-correcting features,...." well, there is room for improvement and scientific community is also concerned about its review processes: "For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap" http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02docs.html

By: K. A. Taipale

K. A. Taipale — Wed, 03 May 2006 18:52:46 +0000

Re wikis and blogs in intel: See Andrus, D. Calvin, "The Wiki and the Blog: Toward a Complex Adaptive Intelligence Community" . Studies in Intelligence, September 2005 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=755904 and Feds look to ants, wikis and blogs, FCW.com (Apr. 21, 2006) http://www.fcw.com/article94152-04-21-06

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 03 May 2006 18:20:51 +0000

Re the previous comment by Preston: The use of blogs and wikis by analysts at the CIA has exploded during the past couple of years, and their use has spread to other intel agencies. Their use as a means of info-sharing and improving analysis is, believe it or not, being encouraged in at least some quarters of the intel community.

By: Preston

Preston — Wed, 03 May 2006 18:00:31 +0000

Perhaps a “CIA wiki” might help the analysis issue. That way, one author’s analysis can be posted as an article on the wiki, approved analysts can modify/correct/update the article (changes are tracked by the wiki), and a broader community can benefit from the “living” analysis.

This is also an alternative method for publishing books as a series of wiki articles, which might be a better way to circulate Mr. Cooper’s book.