The end of June brings the last day of school and months of new activities. Family members’ various opinions and schedules can bring complexity to even the most basic decisions. Fortunately, we have some Decision Support Techniques to help you with your summer planning!

We know making decisions is hard when they involve tradeoffs among competing goals, values, or preferences. Because of the limitations of short-term memory, we often struggle with making sure we have evaluated rigorously all the aspects of a problem before deciding what we will do. One way to deal with this challenge is to use simple decision-support techniques that lay out the options in graphic form so that you can evaluate the results of alternate solutions while keeping the problem as a whole in view. The technique you choose should depend on the type of problem you are confronting. In Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, we describe seven techniques that you can use at work, but just as easily at home. In fact, many of our students find that the techniques work surprisingly well when dealing with real time problems like which car to buy, how best to explain a new rule, or even whom to date!

Below are some everyday scenarios you may face this summer, paired with the tools that can help you make your decision.

Globalytica’s Decision Support Techniques

Decision Trees are a simple way to chart the range of available options, estimate the likelihood of each one, and weigh alternatives. Use this technique to chart various vacation activities.

The Decision Matrix is a simple but powerful device for making tradeoffs among conflicting goals or preferences. For example, if you are buying a car, the matrix can help you evaluate options such as gas efficiency and the number of safety features. The technique forces you to determine how to decide and sometimes surprises you when you see the outcome.

Pros-Cons-Faults-and-Fixes is a useful tool for critiquing new ideas. Most of us have made lists of Pros and Cons, but this technique takes the decision process one step further by asking you to also consider how one could “Fault the Pros” or “Fix the Cons.” You could use it to decide if it is worth upgrading your current home computer system.

Force Field Analysis helps you decide how to solve a problem or if it is even possible to do so. It can answer questions like “What will it take to get this new policy adopted?” or “Who do we need to lobby the most to accomplish our stated goals?” This summer, use this technique to help you convince your relatives to organize a family reunion at your choice of location.

If you have set an ambitious goal, but you are not sure if it can be achieved, use SWOT Analysis. This tool helps you develop a plan or strategy for achieving a goal by focusing on Strengths and Weaknesses of your organization along with the Opportunities and Threats in the external environment.

The Impact Matrix is used by leaders to figure out the most effective way to implement a new–and sometimes highly unpopular–policy in an organization by evaluating what impact it will have on all key actors before the new policy is announced. It is a good way to anticipate trouble before it is too late! Use the Impact Matrix to help you explain to potentially uncooperative family members why taking a cross-country road trip is more fun than flying.

The Complexity Manager provides a simple but rigorous approach for understanding highly complex problems. It helps uncover unintended consequences, assess chances for success, and identify opportunities for influencing the outcome of a decision. Use this tool to help you anticipate all the ways a wedding could go wrong or (preferably) right.

Spring is upon us, and for many of us the warmer weather means working in our yards and gardens. Gardeners are often praised for their green thumbs, but in reality there is no secret to a healthy lawn or blooming plants – all it takes is proper planning to make your garden grow. The same can be said for analysis: just as the best gardens start with a design or a plan, if you invest some time to design your project or outline your paper before getting started, your analysis will thrive!

One of the biggest mistakes analysts make is to plunge in and begin writing or researching as soon as they are given a task or a question to answer. When Globalytica developed its Analysts’ Roadmap listing the primary tasks all analysts should perform when generating an analytic paper, the process was divided into five steps. The first-and most important step-is to Stop and Reflect before plunging in.

When beginning a website search, for example, we often tell students to write down their key search terms before typing them into the computer. This may sound like a waste of valuable time, but writing down the terms on a piece of paper forces you to reflect on which keywords would be the most effective for your specific search criteria. As a result, you do not lose minutes or hours reviewing bad “hits” or revising search parameters multiple times.

Similarly, considerable time can be saved if you ask yourself simple questions before beginning a project such as “Has anyone written on this topic before?” or “Who can I talk to who would know how best to begin my research?” or “Where would I expect to find the best information?” At Globalytica we have captured some of the best questions to ask at the start of a project in the Getting Started Checklist (below). We consider the checklist so important that we published it in two of our books: Critical Thinking for Strategic Intelligence and Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis.

Stopping to reflect can also be a group activity. We recommend that analytic units create a short list of key questions they should address before beginning work on any paper. They should review the list as a group. Typical questions include: What is a realistic deadline? What is the client expecting? Are we answering the right question? Do we need to reach out to other experts? What have we told the client about this issue before?

Attempting to jump into the analysis without these simple but effective tools is like planting without preparing your soil. By using the Getting Started Checklist, your analysis is much more likely to produce fruit. Happy planting!

Globalytica’s Getting Started Checklist

The Getting Started Checklist is a simple tool to help analysts start a new project. Analysts should answer the following questions before they start to draft.

1. What has prompted the need for the analysis? For example, was it a news or intelligence report, a new development, a new report, a perception of change, or a customer request?
2. What is the key intelligence question that needs to be addressed?
3. Why is this issue important, and how can analysis make a meaningful contribution?
4. Has your organization or any other organization ever answered this (or a similar) question before, and if so, what was said? To whom was that analysis delivered, and what has changed since then?
5. Who are the principal clients? Are their needs well understood? If not, try to gain a better understanding of their needs and the style of reporting they like.
6. Are there other stakeholders who would have an interest n the answer to this question? Who might see the issue from a different perspective and prefer that a different question be answered? Consider meeting with others who see the question from a different perspective.
7. From your first impressions, what are all the possible answers to this question? For example, what alternative explanations or outcomes should be considered before making an analytic judgment on the issue?
8. Depending on responses to the previous questions, consider rewording the key intelligence question. Consider adding subordinate or supplemental questions.
9. Generate a list of potential sources or streams of reporting to be explored. 10. Reach out and tap the experience and expertise of analysts in other offices or organizations – both within and outside the government – who are knowledgeable on this topic. For example, call a meeting or conduct a virtual meeting to brainstorm relevant evidence and to develop a list of alternative hypotheses, driving forces, key indicators, or important players.

One of the biggest tricks analysts can play on themselves is to forget to stop and reflect before plunging into a project or initiating a keyword search for information. For example, we tell analysts that if they enter the first keywords that come to mind when searching the web, they usually will discover — often after tens of minutes have gone by — that they have reviewed several screens of data without finding a high quality source or citation. In essence, they fooled themselves into thinking that by plunging in they would save time when the opposite is true.

A far better approach is to pick up a pencil and write down the search terms you intend to use before typing them on the keyboard. This forces you to stop and reflect on what would be the most effective terms to use. If you wanted to learn more about the value of using Structured Analytic Techniques to combat cognitive bias, it would be highly inefficient to enter keywords such as “structured,” “analytic,” “techniques,” “cognition,” or “bias.” Words like “Heuer,” “Pherson,” or “intuitive traps” would get you to key materials much faster.

The need to stop and reflect is just as important when writing analytic papers. Before submitting a draft for review, use Globalytica’s Critical Thinker’s Checklist to ensure that you have produced a high quality product. By taking a little time up front to make sure your paper is soundly written, you and your editors can avoid wasting hours going back and forth on how the paper needs to be improved. Use the Critical Thinker’s Checklist before delivering your product or presentation to avoid being an April Fool!

Critical Thinker’s Checklist

Before delivering your product for review, these are the “must do” questions you should ask yourself. Does the report, assessment, or presentation…

1. Answer the client’s key questions.
2. Include both the What and the So What?
3. Articulate a clear line of analysis, putting the bottom line up front.
4. Provide new insights and further our understanding of the issue.
5. Present clearly and accurately all the forces and dynamics at play.
6. State the main point of the paper in the title and the first paragraph.
7. Support all key assumptions underpinning the analysis.
8. Reflect whether all the elements of the Who, What, How, When, Where, Why, and So What? have been adequately researched and addressed in the paper.
9. Provide sufficient reasoning and compelling evidence to support all judgments.
10. Consider alternative hypotheses, including the null hypothesis; assume the activities observed could be legal until proven otherwise.
11. Identify important contrary evidence and gaps.
12. Ensure that each section, paragraph, and sentence advances the storyline.
13. Avoid bias, advocacy, and value-laden terms.
14. Incorporate graphics to advance and underscore the message.
15. Ensure that the paper includes required citations, and that all source references are correct.
16. Express clearly the analysts’ levels of confidence in the key judgments and present the reasons for any uncertainty.

Upcoming Certificate Workshops

Globalytica, in conjunction with the International Association for Intelligence Education (IAFIE) and IAFIE-Europe, is offering those attending IAFIE’s 12th Annual Conference in Breda, the Netherlands, a unique opportunity to earn certificates in Strategic Foresight Analysis and Critical Thinking & Effective Writing.

Join Globalytica’s team of expert instructors prior to the start of the Annual IAFIE Conference at The Apollo Hotel in Breda, the Netherlands on June 22, 2016.

Randy Pherson, Globalytica CEO and Kathy Pherson, Globalytica President will lead exclusive, one-day workshops that provide attendees with:

• Interactive, hands-on experience with experts in the field Certificates in new skill-sets Opportunities to connect with other conference attendees
• Certificates in new skill-sets
• Opportunities to connect with other conference attendees

Strategic Foresight Analysis Certificate Workshop: Redefining the Trans-Atlantic Security Paradigm. How might the EU and the US restructure their security framework in the wake of potential disruptors such as the Brexit vote on 23 June, a Trump (or Republican) presidency, and the migration crisis?

Critical Thinking and Effective Writing Certificate Workshop: Practice leading-edge critical thinking skills that all good analysts should master. Visit our website for more information.

Conducting brainstorming sessions in multiple countries for diverse customers, including banks, intelligence services, and political action committees, we have learned one major lesson: all brainstorming activities need to include a time when the participants are not allowed to talk. It sounds counterproductive, but it is really true!

Why does silent brainstorming work? People process information differently, and a significant component of the population cannot think productively when others are talking. In every brainstorming session, I facilitate, I ask the participants to specify whether they think better as part of a give-and-take discussion or would prefer to work in silence while gathering their thoughts before the discussion begins. Usually, at least 20 percent of the group falls into the second category; in classes that are dominated by analysts, the “silent worker” percentage can be as high as 80 percent. If the brainstorming session consists of constant dialogue, these individuals will usually opt out, and their contributions will be lost in the process.

How can you be inclusive of all types of thinkers? Some steps you can take include:

1. Begin a brainstorming session by asking participants to write down their three best answers to the focal question-the question the brainstorming is supposed to answer. Collect these ideas and write them down on the whiteboard. Then everyone has already contributed to a solution, and everyone’s voice has been heard.
2. If several people appear to be dominating the discussion, pass out 3″ x 5″ notecards and ask everyone to provide input to a key issue under discussion. When you collect the cards, discretely put the cards belonging to the talkative on the bottom of the pack. Then read out the answers or write them on the whiteboard to stimulate further discussion
3. At the conclusion of a brainstorming session, always ask participants to write down their key takeaway on a 3″ x 5″ notecard and give it to you before they leave the room. Then consolidate everyone’s key takeaways and send them out to the group. You will be surprised by how effective this technique can be to validate the idea of holding the session as well as promoting a continuing dialogue on the topic. You may even want to send the list to the supervisor of invitees who was unable to attend, asking for his or her input as well.

Over the years, we have learned that almost all structured analytic techniques benefit from having one or two silent brainstorming sessions incorporated into the process. This extra consideration guarantees that you generate a superior final product.

Don’t Hibernate – Use these Eight: 8 Rules for Successful Brainstorming

When winter weather forces us indoors, do not retreat behind your desk. Shake things up by conducting a brainstorming session!

The August 2015 issue of Analytic Insider highlighted the importance of Structured Brainstorming, explained when to use the technique, and outlined how to conduct a Structured Brainstorming session. (Click here to reread the article.)

The eight rules shown below are simple but important guidelines to follow when running any brainstorming session. We hope you use them soon!

While you are thinking about your 2016 resolutions, consider adopting new practices to counter weaknesses in your analysis. The ideal structured analytic technique to help you get started is the Structured Self-Critique.

Structured Self-Critique is a systematic procedure used to identify weaknesses in analysis, where team members change perspective to become critics rather than supporters of their own analysis. By responding to a list of questions about potential weaknesses in their evidence, assumptions, logic, and cognitive processes, the team is forced to reexamine its own analysis and identify how it might be spectacularly wrong!

How To Get Started

Form a small team composed of the authors, peer reviewers, editors, or other potential stakeholders in the paper. Make sure all the members of the Structured Self-Critique group are wearing the “black hat” of a critic. They should compete among themselves to see who can find the most glaring errors in the analysis. The group should work from a list of known past mistakes, including some or all of the following topics:

• Sources of uncertainty: Identify the sources and types of uncertainty, using these questions:
  • Is the question being analyzed a puzzle or a mystery? Puzzles have answers, and correct answers can be identified if enough pieces of the puzzle are found. A mystery has no single answer; it depends on the future interaction of many factors, known and unknown.
  • How does the team rate the quality and timeliness of its evidence? Are there a greater than usual number of assumptions because of insufficient evidence or the situation’s complexity?
  • Is the team dealing with a relatively stable situation or one that is undergoing, or likely to experience, significant change?
• Analytic process: If the team did not perform the following actions in the initial analysis, consider doing them, or lower the level of confidence in your judgments.
  • Identify alternative hypotheses and seek out information based on these hypotheses.
  • Identify and challenge key assumptions.
  • Seek a broad range of diverse opinions by including analysts from other sectors
• Critical assumptions: If the team has identified key assumptions, focus on those that would have the greatest impact on the analytic judgment, if they turned out to be wrong. How recent and well-documented is the evidence that supports each key assumption? Brainstorm circumstances that could cause each one to be wrong. Would the reversal of any of these assumptions support any alternative hypotheses?
• Diagnostic evidence: IIdentify alternative hypotheses and the most diagnostic items of evidence that enable the team to reject alternative hypotheses. Brainstorm reasonable alternative interpretations of these items of evidence that could make them consistent with alternative hypotheses.
• Information gaps: Reevaluate confidence in your conclusion based on gaps in available information, dated information, and absence of information.
• Missing evidence: Are you missing evidence that one would expect to see in the regular flow of intelligence or open source reporting?
• Anomalous evidence: Is there any item of evidence that would have been important if it had been believed or related to the issue of concern; but was rejected as unimportant because it was not believed or its significance was not known? If so, try to imagine how this item might be a key clue to an emerging alternative hypothesis.
• Changes in the broad environment: Could social, technical, economic, environmental, or political changes play a role in what is happening or will happen? Could these factors have an impact on whether the analysis proves to be right or wrong?
• Alternative decision models: If the analysis deals with decisions by a foreign government or non-state actor, was the group’s judgment about foreign behavior based on a rational actor assumption? If so, consider the potential applicability of other decision models.
• Cultural expertise: If the topic being analyzed involves a foreign or unfamiliar culture, does the team have cultural expertise on thought processes in that culture?
• Deception: Does another country, NGO, or commercial competitor have a motive, opportunity, or means to engage in deception to influence US policy or to change your behavior? Does this country, NGO, or competitor have a history of engaging in denial, deception, or influence operations?

After reviewing these questions, the team must decide a) what additional research is needed, b) what text should be revised, and c) if the level of confidence in the judgments provided is appropriate. If few problems are identified, then the initial judgments have been reaffirmed; if problems emerged from the process, then the paper should not go forward until they have been corrected. More information, such as the best time to use this technique, value added, and potential pitfalls, are found in Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis, 2nd Edition by Richards J. Heuer Jr. and Randolph H. Pherson. Details on this publication can be found here.

Don’t Take Near Misses for Granted

Analytic units will often create their own list of Structured Self-Critique questions that are tailored to their specific work environment. Usually the first items on this list are examples of past errors that the unit does not want to repeat. This is called learning from your mistakes. For most of us, however, it is pretty easy to recall when we made a mistake and remember not to do it again. A bigger challenge is to remember past “near misses” or incidents when we got it wrong-or almost got it wrongand we were lucky that no one noticed.

For example, when a major 5.8 magnitude earthquake hit the US East Coast centered in Mineral, Virginia on August 23, 2011, the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant was only 11 miles away. The earthquake shut down the two nuclear power reactors and three of four diesel generators started up to supply electricity to the safety systems. The initial reaction to this was: “Good news! A nuclear disaster similar to what occurred at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant the previous March has just been averted!” Fortunately a fifth back-up generator was brought on line to replace the broken generator that suffered a coolant leak.

But no one had anticipated that one of the diesel generators would not work. What would have happened if all four or even two or three of the generators failed when the earthquake hit? The plant was designed to survive an earthquake of a magnitude of 5.9 to 6.2 which suggests the event qualified as a very fortunate near miss. The near miss gave Dominion Power the opportunity to review its safety standards and make appropriate adjustments. As analysts we also need to learn from our near misses as well as our failures and use techniques such as the Structured Self-Critique to ensure that we do.

Joyeuses Fêtes! Felices Fiestas! Glade Feriedage! Forhe Feiertage!  せな! Buone Feste! Mutlu Bayramlar! Trevlig Helg! No matter how you say it, the message is the same. Globalytica wishes our worldwide network of clients and partners — Happy Holidays!

And a Happy New Year
To date, Government institutions and universities in more than 20 countries, as well as several Fortune 50 companies, have tapped Globalytica’s expertise in building analytic cultures. Globalytica looks forward to expanding our outreach even more in 2016.

Globalytica instructors have been teaching courses in structured analytic techniques and analytic writing and production at the University Rey Juan Carlos for five years. Students at the London
School of Economics and Liverpool Hope University in England, the Hertie Foundation in Berlin, the Autonomous University of Barcelona, and the University of Copenhagen have also benefited from our instruction. Also, governments in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia have asked Globalytica to conduct tailored workshops for their analysts on strategic foresight analysis, structured analytic techniques, and critical thinking skills. Pherson-authored books have been purchased by people in over 30 countries worldwide.

Globalytica is becoming a recognized brand at international  conferences, including the International Association of Intelligence Education (IAFIE) conference, biannual Five Eyes Analytic Workshops, and International Studies Association (ISA) conventions where our annual reception has become a major opportunity for intelligence professionals to network. Our presence is growing overseas. In October, Randy Pherson was the keynote speaker for the 21st Conference on Intelligence in the Knowledge Society in Bucharest, Romania. In June 2016, Randy Pherson, Kathy Pherson, and Leanne Cotten will be conducting workshops and presenting papers at the 12th Annual IAFIE Conference in Breda, The Netherlands.

---

Reflections on San Bernardino
By Randolph Pherson
As the horrendous events in San Bernardino, California unfolded in early December, I was reminded of the importance of applying the Five Habits of the Master Thinker, as published in our October issue:

Always challenge your assumptions. At the outset, many assumed that the male shooter was “in charge” and the female just an accomplice; later it was suggested that the female might have been the one who radicalized the male. Time will tell how this actually played out – and can we assume that the couple acted alone with no accomplices?

Consider multiple hypotheses. Initially, the press was careful not to jump to the conclusion (which would reflect premature closure) that the shooter was the individual who left the holiday party after an argument. That was commendable. When it became obvious that the shooter was that person, most then assumed that the event was motivated by the male shooter’s argument with attendees at the holiday party. Later we learned that the female shooter had posted a statement on the internet pledging allegiance to ISIL, which prompted the assumption that the shooting was motivated or inspired by ISIL. A third hypothesis could be that the couple were planning a major shooting at an iconic target and stopped off at the holiday party to do a “quick shoot” before proceeding to conduct a much more dangerous assault, but were foiled by law enforcement officers before they could pull off the attack they had initially planned.

Don’t ignore inconsistent evidence. The couple took major steps to cover their tracks before the shooting began, including removing their hard drive and discarding and destroying their cell
phones. These actions, as well as the large amounts of ammunition and guns they had cached, suggest that the couple was planning a much more destructive activity, not just venting their anger at the social services agency. Will we learn some day what was the initial target?

Identify key drivers. Much more research needs to be done on how to identify individual US citizens who are becoming radicalized. What key drivers would explain what is sparking this radicalization? How best can we anticipate where else it might be occurring? What would be the key indicators?

Establish the context; think above your pay grade. Do not let fear drive action. Before someone offers a critique of how the government has dealt with this incident, they should stop and ask themselves what would they do if they were a senior FBI, Homeland Security, or local law enforcement official who faced these challenging issues every day. What actions would they take to
effectively address the core problem? As California Governor Brown pointed out, more attention needs to be paid to how radical ideas are spread by ISIL and other international terrorist groups (and how to combat that pernicious process) and less on “bullets.”

---

A unique gift for anyone looking to improve their writing or critical thinking skills. Perfect for analysts of all ages!

Analytic Writing Guide
by Louis M. Kaiser and Randolph H. Pherson

Offers a mix of strategic and tactical advice for writers of analytic papers, ranging from how to get started to how to order information in a paragraph.

Structured Analytic Techniques are gaining attention and adherents from around the world! More than 17,500 copies of Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis have been sold since the publication of the first edition in 2011. Plaza y Valdés Editores, a publishing company headquartered in Mexico, has just published a Spanishlanguage version of Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis titled: TÉCNICAS ANALÍTICAS ESTRUCTURADAS PARA EL ANÁLISIS DE INTELIGENCIA. It includes a new foreword by Professors Rubén Arcos, and Fernando Velasco, Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid, Spain. Rubén Arcos perfected the translation, taking great care to ensure it used the exact terminology to best express the concepts and make them more memorable to the reader. TÉCNICAS ANALÍTICAS ESTRUCTURADAS PARA EL ANÁLISIS DE INTELIGENCIA can be purchased here.

Other countries have expressed interest in translating Pherson publications including China, Germany, Canada (French), and Saudi Arabia (Arabic). Several Pherson-authored books including Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis and Critical Thinking for  Strategic Intelligence are currently being translated into Chinese. In addition, Pherson Associates will collaborate with a German counterpart to publish a book next year in German and English on Strategic Foresight Analysis. The impetus for the book is growing demand in government organizations and the private sector for insight into the best methodologies to apply in generating multiple scenarios of how the future is likely to unfold.

---

Gobble Up Globalytica’s Analytic Library Over the Holidays

The Holidays are a great time to curl up with a good book-or buy one as a gift for a college student! Globalytica’s cadre of experts have authored books and case studies to help you with your analysis! We offer publications such as Analytic Writing Guide, by Louis M. Kaiser and Randolph H. Pherson; Intelligence Communication in the Digital Era, by Rubén Arcos and Randolph H. Pherson (Editors); and many more. To browse and learn more about our publications click here.

---

TH!NK Suite®

Enhance the Impact of Your Analysis.

Our collaborative webbased tools help analysts employ Structured Analytic Techniques effectively. They can be used routinely making the analysis more rigorous while saving time.

Learn more

Structured analytic techniques help us counter common analytic biases and intuitive traps we often confront as analysts.

Cognitive Bias: Mental errors caused by our simplified information processing strategies.

Behavioral scientists have studied the impact of cognitive biases on analysis and decision-making in many fields such as psychology, political science, medicine, economics, business, and education – ever since Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman introduced the concept of cognitive biases in the early 1970s. Richards Heuer’s work for the CIA in the following decades, followed by his book Psychology of Intelligence Analysis,* applied Tversky and Kahneman’s insights to problems encountered by intelligence analysts. Since the publication of Heuer’s book, others associated with the US Intelligence Community (including Jeffrey Cooper and Rob Johnston) have identified cognitive biases as a major cause of analytic failure at the CIA.

“Cognitive biases are similar to optical illusions in that the error remains compelling even when one is fully aware of its nature. Awareness of the bias, by itself, does not produce a more accurate perception.” 

Richards J. Heuer, Jr., Psychology of Intelligence Analysis

What causes bias?

How we perceive data is strongly influenced by past experiences, training or education, cultural values, and role requirements as a recipient of data, and being a stakeholder in a particular decision. The mental models we construct are usually quick to form and highly resistant to change. Some of the most common analytic pitfalls include:

• Discounting facts that do not support our analysis
• Relying on first impressions
• Overstating conclusions based on a small sample of data
• Not changing our conclusions despite mounting contradictions
• Assuming the future will be like the past
• Ignoring data if we do not have an appropriate category or bin to store it in

How does one counter bias?

Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs) help analysts mitigate, avoid, or overcome analytic bias and intuitive traps. They do not replace intuitive judgment, but help analysts question intuitive judgments by adding rigor to their process. No formula exists for perfect analysis, but use of SATs can reduce the frequency and severity of error. They can help analysts mitigate proven cognitive limitations, sidestep some of the known analytic biases, and explicitly confront problems associated with unquestioned mental models or mindsets.

Use Structured Analytic Techniques to:

• Avoid failures by reducing error rates
• Encourage more collaborative work processes
• Increase accountability
• Make the analytic process more transparent to the decisionmaker

The graphic below highlights five common cognitive biases and SATs designed to counter the biases. Future issues of Analytic Insider will explore these biases more deeply, and explain how using the SAT solution can help. Stay tuned!

*Click here for more information on this publication.

---

TH!NK Suite®

Enhance the Impact of Your Analysis.

Our collaborative webbased tools help analysts employ Structured Analytic Techniques effectively. They can be used routinely making the analysis more rigorous while saving time.

Learn more

Competition is usually a good thing. It allows us to push our limits and attempt to better our own performance. In analysis, having a variety of competing explanations or estimates (perhaps a result of Multiple Hypothesis Generation) prevents us from several pitfalls, including being overly influenced by first impressions, selecting the first answer that appears “good enough,” focusing on a narrow range of alternatives, and Confirmation Bias. However, when faced with a set of mutually exclusive alternative explanations or outcomes, how do we weed out the choices? Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH), the fifth and final technique in our summer series of popular Structured Analytic Techniques, is a useful tool when you have disparate data to evaluate.

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) is an analytic process that identifies a complete set of alternative hypotheses, systematically evaluates data that are consistent or inconsistent with each hypothesis, and rejects hypotheses rather than trying to confirm what appears to be the most likely hypothesis.

Use ACH:

• When you need a systematic approach to prevent being surprised by an unforeseen outcome.
• On controversial issues when it is desirable to identify precise areas of disagreement and to leave an audit trail to show what relevant information was considered.
• When you have a robust flow of data to absorb and evaluate.
• When you have a small team whose members can question one another’s evaluation of the relevant information.

The Method:

1. Identify and list the hypotheses to be considered. The list should allow for all reasonable possibilities, including a deception hypothesis – if that is appropriate. Develop a brief scenario or “story” to explain how each hypothesis might be true.
2. Make a list of significant information – including evidence,  assumptions, and the absence of things one would expect to see if a hypothesis were true.
3. Create a matrix* with each hypothesis displayed across the top and each item of relevant information listed down the left side. Analyze each input by asking, “Is this consistent (C) with the
   hypothesis, inconsistent (I), or is it not relevant or applicable (NA)?” Use “CC” for particularly compelling items of information and “II” if the piece of information strongly undercuts the hypothesis. Complete the matrix by either filling in each cell row-by-row or using a survey method that randomly selects a cell in the matrix for the analyst to rate. After the items of information have been sorted for diagnosticity**, note how many of the “II” ratings are based on assumptions. Consider how much confidence you should have in those assumptions and then adjust the confidence in the ACH Inconsistency scores accordingly.
4. If working with several analysts, review where they differ in their assessments and decide if adjustments are needed in the ratings. Differences in ratings can often be traced back to different assumptions about the hypotheses.
5. Refine the matrix by reconsidering the hypotheses. Does it make sense for two hypotheses to be combined into one or should a new, previously unconsidered hypothesis be added? Relevant information can be added at any time.
6. Draw tentative conclusions about the relative likelihood of each hypothesis, basing your conclusions on an analysis of the diagnosticity rating of each item of relevant information. The ACH software* helps the analyst by ranking each hypothesis from least Inconsistent to most Inconsistent. The hypothesis with the lowest Inconsistency score is tentatively the most likely hypothesis.
7. Analyze the sensitivity of your tentative conclusion to a change in the interpretation of a few critical items of relevant information. Consider the consequences for your analysis if one or more of these critical items of relevant information were wrong or deceptive. If a different interpretation would be sufficient to change your conclusion, go back and doublecheck the accuracy of your interpretation.
8. Report the conclusions. Consider the relative likelihood of all the hypotheses. State which items of relevant information were the most diagnostic and how compelling a case they make in identifying the most likely hypothesis.
9. Identify indicators or milestones for future observation. Generate two lists: the first focusing on future events or what might be developed through additional research that would help prove the validity of your judgment; the second, a list of indicators that would suggest your judgment is less likely to be correct or the situation has changed. Validate the indicators and monitor both lists on a regular basis, remaining alert to whether new information strengthens or weakens your case.

*Click here for more information about ACH as well as a link to free matrix software.

** To perform sort for diagnosticity and adjustment of confidence level, use the ACH software (link shown above).

---

SATs can (literally) save your life!

Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs) improve efficiency in analysis, but can be just as important outside the workplace. As explained in Randy Pherson’s upcoming publication, Questions You Should Ask Your Doctor If You Don’t Want To Die!, SATs (including four of those discussed in recent issues of the Analytic Insider) can benefit your personal life – and perhaps even save your life.

If you want to get your doctor’s attention and regain control over how you will be treated, ask these five questions:

1. What key assumptions are you making and could any of them be wrong? (Key Assumptions Check)
2. What alternative explanations might there be for my problem? (Multiple Hypothesis Generation)
3. What confirming indicators should I look for that would suggest a particular explanation is correct? (Indicators and Indicators Validator)
4. What disconfirming indicators should I look for that would suggest a particular explanation cannot be correct and can be dismissed? (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses and Disconfirming Evidence)
5. If six months from now, you had to explain in hindsight why I died, and the current diagnosis was found to be incorrect or the current treatment of no value, how would you explain my death? (Premortem Analysis and Structured Self-Critique)

Clear, concise instructions for each question/technique are included in the book as well as obstacles to anticipate and tips to help stay alive. Questions You Should Ask Your Doctor If You Don’t Want To Die! will be published in 2016.

---

Learn to Crack The Code – Register before it’s too late!

Seats are still available for Globalytica’s popular certificate course later this month:

What: Crack the Code-Diagnostic Structured Analytic Techniques Certificate Course (DSAT)

When: 22-24 September; 0900-1300 Daily

Where: Globalytica Training Facility in Reston, VA

**Click here for details and to register**

Our DSAT Course is designed for analysts interested in learning  techniques to help uncover information gaps and inform future research design. DSAT provides students with a set of analytic tools and techniques to help formulate and refine ideas about what has happened or is currently occurring. Students will:

• Learn to identify the dynamics at play in an issue or problem.
• Practice reframing issues to understand better how forces or elements might combine to generate different outcomes in the future.

For more information or to find out about group pricing, please contact us at: think@globalytica.com.

---

TH!NK Suite®

Enhance the Impact of Your Analysis.

Our collaborative webbased tools help analysts employ Structured Analytic Techniques effectively. They can be used routinely making the analysis more rigorous while saving time.

Learn more

In August, the temperature may be rising, but productivity can be on the decline.

Don’t allow summer slump to affect your analysis. Keep your skill set sharp by practicing the fourth in our series of most popular Structured Analytic Techniques: Structured Brainstorming.

Why use Structured Brainstorming?

• Brainstorming can expose you to a greater range of ideas and perspectives than while working alone, resulting in a better analytic product.
• Brainstorming can help you overcome the traps of giving too much weight to first impressions, allowing first-hand information to have too much impact, and ignoring the absence of key information.

When to use Structured Brainstorming:

• Use it at the beginning of a project to identify relevant variables; key driving forces; alternative hypotheses; key players; available evidence or sources; or potential solutions, scenarios or outcomes. For law enforcement, it can help identify potential suspects or avenues of investigation.
• Use it later to pull yourselves and your team out of an analytic rut, brainstorm new investigative leads, or stimulate more creative thinking.

How to conduct a Structured Brainstorming session:

• Distribute sticky notes and Sharpie-pens to your group (5-10 participants works best).
• Have someone write the main topic or focal question on a board for everyone to see.
• Tell each participant to write three to five-word responses on a sticky note and give it to the facilitator.
• Read each response to the group and post them on the wall or board.
• Point out as the notes are read out that new ideas will be generated as participants react to what they hear.
• Select a subset of the participants to silently arrange the notes into affinity groups. (Depending on the number of participants, the complexity of the problem, and the number of “outliers”–
  ideas that do not fit into any obvious category–other subgroups can review and change the groupings).
• Once the group has arranged the notes into groups of similar ideas, choose a word or phrase to describe each affinity group. Pay particular attention to outlier ideas.
• Identify the potentially most useful ideas by having the facilitator establish up to five criteria for judging the value or importance of the ideas and score/rank the ideas. Alternately, give each participant ten votes and allocate them in any way they prefer (ten votes for one note or affinity group label, ten different notes, or any combination in between).
• Assess the results and determine areas for further work or brainstorming. Set priorities and decide on a work plan for the next steps in the analysis.

More information about Structured Brainstorming, including the Eight Basic Rules of Effective Brainstorming, can be found in Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis (2nd Edition).

Additional Resource: Read “Breakthrough Thinking from Inside the Box,” Harvard Business Review by Kevin Coyne, Patricia Gorman Clifford, and Renée Dye.

---

Hot Off the Press!
Globalytica’s NEW Instructional Guide on Analysis

This month Pherson Associates published Analytic Production Guide for Managers of Intelligence and Business Analysts, the latest in a series of instructional guides on analysis. The 75-page Guide, written by Walter Voskian and Randolph H. Pherson, two former CIA managers of analysis, is a synthesis of their experiences and lessons learned in developing strong analytic units. The Guide also contains the thoughts and writings of other senior CIA managers and instructional tips from Agency trainers.

The Guide fills a longstanding need for a “how to” volume for first-line supervisors managing analysts, both within the private sector and across the intelligence community. Much of the management of analysis takes place at the first-line supervisor level. These first-line supervisors are closest to the two most important elements in analytic production: analysts and analysis.

The Guide discusses the first-line supervisors’ role in working with analysts, producers, collectors, clients, and experts. It discusses best practices, ways to implement them, missteps to avoid and why, and what steps to take instead. Also, the Guide examines the importance of first-line supervisors in exercising leadership and understanding the issues and process of intelligence analysis. It emphasizes the role of employing the “three Rs”–relevance, solid reasoning, and readable text–for managers in ensuring that analytic products achieve these goals. The Guide concludes by discussing how to give effective feedback, communicate up the line, review a draft, and understand the perspective of the consumer.

---

You Asked, We Listened!

Back by popular demand, we are pleased to offer a classroom version of Crack the Code-Diagnostic Structured Analytic Techniques this Fall!

What: Crack the Code-Diagnostic Structured Analytic Techniques Certificate Course (DSAT)
When: 22-24 September; 0900-1300 Daily
Where: Globalytica Training Facility in Reston, VA
Cost: $1,085
**Click Here to Register**

Our DSAT Course is designed for analysts interested in learning techniques to help uncover information gaps and inform future research design. DSAT provides students with a set of analytic tools
and techniques to help formulate and refine ideas about what has happened or is currently occurring. Students will:

• Learn to identify the dynamics at play in an issue or problem.
• Practice reframing issues to understand better how forces or elements might combine to generate different outcomes in the future.

For more information or to find out about group pricing, please contact us at: think@globalytica.com.