Intelligence cycle (target-centric approach)

The target-centric approach to intelligence is a method of intelligence analysis that Robert M. Clark introduced in his book 'Intelligence Analysis: A Target-Centric Approach' in 2003 to offer an alternative methodology to the traditional intelligence cycle. Its goal is to redefine the intelligence process in such a way that all of the parts of the intelligence cycle come together as a network. It is a collaborative process where collectors, analysts and customers are integral, and information does not always flow linearly. The target-centric approach to intelligence is a method of intelligence analysis that Robert M. Clark introduced in his book 'Intelligence Analysis: A Target-Centric Approach' in 2003 to offer an alternative methodology to the traditional intelligence cycle. Its goal is to redefine the intelligence process in such a way that all of the parts of the intelligence cycle come together as a network. It is a collaborative process where collectors, analysts and customers are integral, and information does not always flow linearly. The most common view of the intelligence process is the model known as the intelligence cycle. In the original concept of this model, the steps are isolated stages where each part has a designated purpose or task. When the contributors and collectors complete data collection, the cycle continues. While this procedure completes each part of the cycle, it may constrain the flow ofinformation. The intelligence community often discusses the problems with this pure model and offers multiple approaches to solving them. In the pure model, there is limited opportunity for contributors or consumers to ask questions or provide feedback. To fully understand what they analyze, analysts should have the opportunity to ask questions about the sources where collectors gathered information. Likewise, when the decision-maker receives an intelligence estimate, he or she should have the opportunity to ask questions concerning not only how the analyst reached a particular conclusion, but also questions concerning the reliability of sources. Sherman Kent the 'father of intelligence analysis,' left a legacy in not only his work, but in the faculty members at the Sherman Kent Center. The faculty teaches intelligence principles to future intelligence analysts. According to Jack Davis, of the Sherman Kent Center, Kent encouraged arguments and dissent among analysts, as well as taking into account a 'wide range of outside opinions.' Kent also encouraged 'collective responsibility for judgment,' which supports a network approach to intelligence. In such a network, analysts are directly accountable for the work, and a decision maker or consumer's questions help the intelligence process by leading by pushing the analyst to challenge and refine his or her own work. It is important to note that agencies constantly modify the traditional, pure model in intelligence practice. For example, various 'centers' under the Director of National Intelligence deliberately put collectors and analysts into teams. The traditional intelligence cycle separates collectors, processors, and analysts and too often results in 'throwing information over the wall' to become the next person’s responsibility. Everyone neatly avoids responsibility for the quality of the final product. Because this 'compartmentalized process results in formalized and relatively inflexible requirements at each stage, it is more predictable and therefore more vulnerable to an opponent’s countermeasures.” Kurt April and Julian Bessa examined weaknesses of the competitive intelligence community in their article 'A Critique of the Strategic Competitive Intelligence Process within a Global Energy Multinational.' They examined two competitive intelligence processes: Competitive Strategic Business Intelligence (CIAD) and Competitive Technical Intelligence (CTI). According to April and Bessa, CIAD is a linear process where the intelligence product moves upward through the layers of the organization. In contrast, CTI is a more networked model. They found that the organizational structure associated with CIAD prevents open-sharing of information and ideas, and is a stumbling block to intelligence analysis.” Testifying to the House Committee on Homeland Security Mr. Eliot A. Jardines, President of Open Source Publishing, Incorporated, presented a statement and supported the target-centric approach to intelligence. According to Mr. Jardines, Dr. Robert Clark 'proposes a more target-centric, iterative and collaborative approach which would be far more effective than our current traditional intelligence cycle.'With a target-centric approach to intelligence analysis, intelligence is collaborative, because this model creates a system where it can include all contributors, participants, and consumers. Each individual can question the model and get answers along the way. The target-centric model is a network process where the information flows unconstrained among all participants, who also focus on the objective to create a shared picture of the target. For other models and their limitations, see Analysis of competing hypothesesand cognitive traps for intelligence analysis. Conceptual models are useful for the analytic process, and are particularly helpful to help understand the target-centric approach to intelligence. A conceptual model is an abstract invention of the mind that best incorporates and takes advantage of an analyst's thought process. The model allows the analyst to use a powerful descriptive tool to both estimate current situations and predict future circumstances.