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.

Imagine a project where:

• The analysis consists of many factors.
• A high level of uncertainty exists about the outcome.
• Analysts or decision makers hold competing views.

How do you decide which analyst or opinion is right (or at least, more right)? Resist the urge to determine that your own (or your first) hypothesis should be the focus of your analysis by using the Multiple Hypothesis Generation structured analytic technique.

A hypothesis, in broadest terms, is a potential explanation or conclusion that is to be tested by collecting and presenting evidence. It is a declarative statement that has not been established as true – an “educated guess” based on observation to be supported or refuted by more observation or through experimentation.

Generate multiple hypotheses at the start of your project to avoid these common pitfalls:

• Coming to a premature closure.
• Being overly influenced by first impressions.
• Selecting the first answer that appears “good enough.”
• Focusing on a narrow range of alternatives that represent marginal, not radical, change.
• Opting for what elicits the most agreement or is desired by the boss.
• Selecting the alternative that avoids a previous error or replicates a past success.

A good hypothesis: is written as a statement (not a question); is based on observations and knowledge; is testable and falsifiable; predicts the anticipated results clearly; and contains a dependent and independent variable.

Here is a simple way to begin a Multiple Hypothesis Generation  exercise:

1. Gather a diverse group together to review the available evidence and explanations for a given issue, activity, or behavior.
2. Ask each member of the group to write down one to three alternative explanations or hypotheses.
3. Collect, consolidate, and display the results.
4. Employ group and individual brainstorming techniques to identify key forces and factors.
5. Aggregate the identified forces and factors into affinity groups, and label each group.
6. Use problem restatement and “considering the opposite” to develop new ideas.
7. Update the list of alternative hypotheses, striving to keep them mutually exclusive.
8. Select the most promising hypotheses.

---

Multiple Hypotheses Generator®

Globalytica’s Multiple Hypotheses Generator® can help analysts avoid traps and biases frequently faced at the start of the analytic process or when a hypothesis has become the “common wisdom.” This should be an integral part of any rigorous analytic process; it helps analysts avoid surprise if and when that common wisdom turns out to be wrong. The Multiple Hypotheses Generator® provides a structured way to generate a mutually exclusive set of hypotheses for explaining a particular issue, activity, or behavior. It decreases the likelihood of a key hypothesis being overlooked.

The Multiple Hypotheses Generator® works by using a permutation tree to create a set of hypotheses consisting of each possible combination of the analyst’s answers to the “Who”, “What”, “When”, “Where”, “Why”, and “How” questions. Here is a graphical representation of how the permutations are created in the Multiple Hypotheses Generator®.

A Multiple Hypothesis Generation exercise is possible to do by hand, but using the Multiple Hypotheses Generator® software makes this process more efficient because it creates and sorts the permutations for you.

Learn More > Globalytica’s Multiple Hypothesis Generator®.

---

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

During the summer months, we keep our doors closed to stifling heat, mosquitoes, and other pests. Similarly, when we perform analysis, we should strive to keep our mental doors closed to unsupported assumptions. The May edition of The Analytic Insider kicked off our summer series of the five most popular Structured Analytic Techniques (SAT) used in analysis today. This month’s SAT – Key Assumptions Check – teaches you how to leave your assumptions at the door.

Key Assumptions Check is an exercise to explicitly list and challenge the key working suppositions that underlie the basic analysis.

Key Assumptions Checks safeguard analysts against several classic mental mistakes, including the tendencies to overdraw conclusions, weight first impressions too heavily, and fail to factor into their thinking the absence of evidence. Preparing a written list of your working assumptions at the beginning of your project will help you:

• Achieve a better understanding of the most important dynamics at play.
• Gain a broader perspective and stimulate new thinking about the issue.
• Discover hidden relationships and links between factors.
• Identify what developments would call a key assumption into question.
• Avoid surprise should new information render old assumptions invalid.

The Method

The process of conducting a Key Assumptions Check is straightforward in concept, but can be challenging in practice. Statistically speaking, about one in four assumptions collapses upon careful examination. To conduct your Key Assumptions Check, gather a small group of individuals who are working the issue as well as a few “outsiders” who can share other perspectives.

Participants should provide their list of assumptions on 3×5 cards. Next:

• Record all of the assumptions on a whiteboard or easel.
• Elicit additional assumptions, using various devices to prod participants’ thinking, like the journalists’ questions: Who, What, When, Where, Why and How?
  • Use of phrases such as “will always,” will never,” or “would have to be” suggests that an idea is not being challenged. Perhaps it should be!
  • Use of phrases such as “based on” or “generally the case” suggests that a challengeable assumption is being made.
• After developing a full set of assumptions, go back and critically examine each assumption, and ask:
  • Why am I confident the assumption is correct?
  • In what circumstance might it be untrue?
  • Could it have been true in the past but no longer be true today?
  • How much confidence do I have that the assumption is valid?
  • If it turns out to be invalid, how much impact would this have on the analysis?
• Place each assumption in one of three categories:
  • Basically supported or solid.
  • Correct with some caveats.
  • Unsupported or questionable – these “key uncertainties.” Often merit additional attention.
• Refine the list, combining or refining some assumptions and
  adding new ones that emerge from the discussion.
• Consider whether to convert key uncertainties into intelligence
  collection requirements or research topics.

For more information about this and other SATs, click the link below to purchase Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis (2nd Edition). This book features fifty-five structured analytic techniques – five new to this edition – that represent the most current best practices in intelligence, law enforcement, homeland security, and business analysis.

Buy Now

---

Meet Us at GEOINT 2015

June 22-25 || Walter E. Washington Convention Center

Will you be attending the GEOINT 2015 Symposium June 22-25?Make sure to visit Pherson Associates, our sister company, at Booth 4078!

Meet us in person to learn how our training courses, consulting, certificate programs, and publications can help you and your organization.

---

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

If you regularly depend on your intuition when making decisions, make sure to ask yourself: Are you biased?

The problem is, unless you occasionally go against your gut, you haven’t put your intuition to the test. You can’t really know it’s helping you make good choices if you’ve never seen what happens when you ignore it. 

May 2015 Harvard Business Review article: Outsmart Your Own Biases (Authors Soll, Milkman, and Payne)

As Richards J. Heuer and I explain in our book, Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis — “Structured analytic techniques are debiasing techniques. They do not replace intuitive judgment. Their role is to question intuitive judgments by identifying a wider range of options for analysts to consider.”

The use of Structured Analytic Techniques is commonplace – Globalytica has been training analysts in the Law Enforcement, Homeland Security, and Intelligence Communities for over a decade.
Throughout the spring and summer, Analytic Insider will be sharing the most popular structured analytic techniques in use today, along with tips on using the techniques and resources for more information.

Structured Analytic Technique #1: Premortem Analysis and the Structured Self-Critique

The goal of Premortem Analysis and the Structured Self-Critique is to reduce the risk of surprise and the subsequent need for a postmortem investigation of what went wrong. It is an easy-to-use
technique that enables a group of analysts who have been working together on a paper or project to challenge effectively the accuracy of their conclusions or recommendations.

Thinking in this way has several benefits. First, it tempers optimism, encouraging a more realistic assessment of risk. Second, it helps you prepare backup plans and exit strategies. Third, it can highlight factors that will influence success or failure, which may increase your ability to control the results.

May 2015 Harvard Business Review article: Outsmart Your Own Biases (Authors Soll, Milkman, and Payne)

The value of the technique is that it legitimizes dissent by prompting analysts to reframe the issue. The process of asking questions about the same topic, but from a different perspective, opens new pathways in the brain. When stakeholders work together to identify weaknesses in their analysis, problems such as Premature Closure and Groupthink as well as potential interpersonal frictions are avoided. Team members who may have previously suppressed questions or doubts about the analysis are empowered to express previously hidden concerns. If this change in perspective is handled well, each team member will know they are adding value by participating in the process of criticizing the previous judgment, and then helping to correct any vulnerabilities.

The best time to conduct a Premortem Analysis is shortly after a group has reached a conclusion on an action plan, but before any serious drafting is done. The group leader makes a statement along the lines: “Okay, we now think we know the right answer, but we need to double-check this. To free up our minds to consider other possibilities, let’s imagine that we have made this judgment, our report has gone forward and been accepted, and now, x months or years later, we realize that our analysis was spectacularly wrong; things turned out very differently from what we had expected. Now, let’s put our imaginations to work and brainstorm what could have possibly happened to cause our analysis to be flawed.”

The first step is to organize a brainstorming session to explore what could have caused the analytic judgment to be so wrong. The next phase is to conduct a Structured Self-Critique by taking the team through an ordered set of questions. The group should consider, for example, if they have examined their key assumptions and have confidence in the validity of the evidence that justifies the key judgments. Other questions to ask are: Have you considered the presence of contradictory information; assessed the potential for deception; evaluated the completeness of the data; checked for the presence of common analytic pitfalls such as confirmation bias, “satisficing,” and historical analogy; and asked what impact the absence of information could have on the key judgments.

The team then lists any deficiencies they found and employs a tool or technique to address the new-found vulnerabilities, using techniques such as the Key Assumptions Check, Analysis of Competing Hypotheses, or Deception Detection checklists.

---

Analytic Tips & Insight

“The motivation for conducting a Premortem Analysis . . . is straightforward. Would you prefer to learn that you might be spectacularly wrong before your paper is edited or after it is published . . . ?”

Critical Thinking for Strategic Analysis, by Katherine Hibbs Pherson and Randolph H. Pherson is available for purchase here.

---

Don’t Miss Out on Your Chance to Anticipate the Future!

Globalytica is launching its newest professional certificate program, Foresight Structured Analytic Techniques (FSAT), designed for professional analysts seeking to improve the quality and impact of their analysis in forecasting future events, using indicators to track emerging trends, and developing strategic plans.

Dates: June 2, 9 & 16 ( total of three 3½ hour session)

Location: Online Platform (TH!NK Live™-Globalytica’s avatar-based virtual training program)

Cost: $1,085

About the FSAT Course

This course introduces students to the Strategic Foresight Decision Tool, which includes five Structured Analytic Techniques (Foresight Quadrant Crunching™, Indicators, Indicators Validator®, Outside-In Brainstorming, and Opportunities Incubator), for developing alternative scenarios of how events will unfold. Students work through case studies and hands-on exercises to learn how best to apply the techniques and understand their strengths and weaknesses. Students will use the Indicators Validator® software. Students who pass a final exam receive a Professional Certificate in Foresight Structured Analytic Techniques.

Register

---

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

Space is Limited – Register Now

Early bird discount is available!

Anticipate the future! Globalytica is launching its newest professional certificate program, Foresight Structured Analytic Techniques (FSAT), designed for professional analysts seeking to improve the quality and impact of their analysis in forecasting future events, using indicators to track emerging trends, and developing strategic plans.

Dates: May 26, June 2, 9 & 16 (Total of four 3-hour Sessions)

Location: Online Platform (TH!NK Live™-Globalytica’s avatar-based virtual training program)

Cost: $1,085

A 30% early bird discount is available to our members who register before April 17. Promo code – GLOBAL30

About the FSAT Course

This course introduces students to five structured analytic techniques (Mind Mapping, Key Drivers Generation, Foresight Quadrant Crunching™, Indicators, and Indicators Validator) for developing alternative scenarios of how events will unfold. In numerous hands-on exercises, students work through case studies to learn how best to apply the techniques and understand their strengths and weaknesses. Students will use the Indicators Validator™ software. Students who pass a final exam receive a Professional Certificate in Foresight Structured Analytic Techniques.

Read More

---

Certificate Program

Our certificate courses are designed to improve the quality of analytic and critical thinking skills.

Questions? 

think@globalytica.com

(703) 390-9900

---

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

Spring is (finally) in the air – have you dusted the cobwebs off your analytic skills? To boost your mental  spring cleaning, this month I’m sharing my fifth and final Habit of a Master Thinker: Understand the Context.

Analysts often get so engaged in collecting and sorting data that they risk missing the forest for the trees. Learning to stop and reflect on the overarching context for the analysis is the last, and the most critical of the five habits.

Most analysis is done under considerable time pressure. The tendency is to plunge in as soon as a task is assigned. If the analyst does not take time to reflect on the customer’s needs, the resulting
analysis could prove inadequate, and much of the research done a waste of time. You are better off learning how to “think above your pay grade” by putting yourself in the shoes of management or the individual requesting the analysis at the start.

Ask yourself: “What do they need from me?” “How can I help them frame the issue?” and “Do I need to place their question in a broader context?” Failing to do this at the outset can easily result in the analyst going down blind alleys. Or worse, the analyst may have to reconceptualize an entire paper if a key assumption is found to be incorrect during coordination or editing.

Freeware and proprietary software have been developed to help analysts apply these techniques with rigor while saving time. The Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) developed a freeware version of Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) under my and Richards J. Heuer’s guidance. Globalytica offers a collaborative, web-based version of ACH called Te@mACH®, which when combined with the Multiple Hypotheses Generator® and the Indicators Validator®, comprise TH!NK Suite®.

Globalytica is also developing two other tools, the Te@m Assumptions Check™ and Quadrant Crunching™, that guide analysts through the process of challenging their key assumptions and generating alternative scenarios. For more information about the software described above, click here.

---

Space is Limited – Register Now

Early bird discount is available!

Anticipate the future! Globalytica is launching its newest professional
certificate program, Foresight Structured Analytic Techniques (FSAT),
designed for professional analysts seeking to improve the quality and
impact of their analysis in forecasting future events, using indicators
to track emerging trends, and developing strategic plans.

Dates: June 2, 9 & 16 ( total of three 3½ hour sessions)

Location: Online (TH!NK Live™-Globalytica’s avatar-based virtual training platform)

Cost: $1,085

A 30% early bird discount is available to our members who register before April 17. Promo code – GLOBAL30

About the FSAT Course

This course introduces students to the Strategic Foresight Decision Tool, which includes five Structured Analytic Techniques (Foresight Quadrant Crunching™, Indicators, Indicators Validator®, Outside-In Brainstorming, and Opportunities Incubator), for developing alternative scenarios of how events will unfold. Students work through case studies and hands-on exercises to learn how best to apply the techniques and understand their strengths and weaknesses. Students will use the Indicators Validator® software. Students who pass a final exam receive a Professional Certificate in Foresight Structured Analytic Techniques.

Read More

---

Certificate Program

Our certificate courses are designed to improve the quality of analytic and critical thinking skills.

Questions? 

think@globalytica.com

(703) 390-9900

---

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