Assessment tabling: an integrated structured analytic technique for improved intelligence analysis and reasoning visualisation

ABSTRACT

Structured analytic techniques (SATs) are a commonly accepted tradecraft tool for intelligence analysts. A problem, however, is that a plethora of such techniques exist and the training on them is often less than ideal. This hinders their use and undermines their perceived value. To counter these concerns, this article proposes the use of an integrated SAT called ‘Assessment Tabling’, an easy to understand/use SAT that incorporates multiple other SATs within itself. The article explicates this technique and articulates its advantages: specifically, its use of both intuitive and deliberative analytic reasoning, and its comprehensiveness, making it an ideal SAT for analysts.

KEYWORDS:

• assessments
• assessment tabling
• intelligence analysis
• reasoning
• structured analytic techniques

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. Chang et al., ”Restructuring Structured Analytic Techniques,” 337; United States (US) Government, A Tradecraft Primer. For example, Welton Chang et al. note that SATs ‘are a central feature of U.S. intelligence analysis training programs’, a claim supported, for instance, by the 2009 release of a primer on SATs by the US Government.

2. Chang et al., ”Restructuring Structured Analytic Techniques.”

3. Artner et al., ”Assessing the Value of Structured Analytic Techniques”; Coulthart, ”An Evidence-Based Evaluation of 12 Core Structured Analytic Techniques.”

4. Beebe and Pherson, Cases in Intelligence Analysis; Pherson and Heuer, Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis; Khalsa, ”The Intelligence Community Debate over Intuition versus Structured Technique,” 80–85.

5. Coulthart, ”Why do analysts use structured analytic techniques?”

6. As an example of the key elements of other SATs, consider the ‘Analysis of Competing Hypotheses’ (ACH) SAT. Richards J. Heuer – the founder of the ACH technique – notes that, rather than trying to confirm which hypothesis is correct, a key aspect of the ACH is that it focuses on refuting different hypotheses by examining which pieces of data are inconsistent with those hypotheses (Heuer, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, 108) (see endnote 9 for a definition of ‘data’). But as will be shown, assessment tabling does the same by noting which pieces of data are inconsistent/unlikely with various hypotheses, thus also refuting them and thereby employing a key strength of the ACH technique. However, in saying this, it is understood that reasonable disagreement between analysts could exist concerning what part of a SAT is considered ‘key’. Nevertheless, assessment tabling seeks to use the elements from various SATs that are broadly considered critical to them – by analysts like Heuer, for instance.

7. For instance, Timothy Pychyl – an expert on the issue of procrastination – notes that the ”first and most prominent challenge in goal pursuit that is commonly identified as procrastination is getting started.”; Pychyl, ”Overcoming Procrastination.”

8. Weigelt and Syrek, ”Ovsiankina’s Great Relief,” 1.

9. In this paper, the term ‘data’ is being used in a broad sense: it means any piece of information or fact that is relevant to the issue under analysis, and could thus include source reporting, physical data, etc.

10. What is meant by an ‘appropriate’ level of detail is that the amount of detail the analyst includes in the technique is circumstance dependent. If the analyst’s assessment table will be provided to management for review or to support operational decision-making, then it can be extremely detailed, whereas if the table is just for the analyst’s own use, then it can be less detailed.

11. While this paper uses the term ‘hypothesis/hypotheses’, this term should be understood as interchangeable with the term ‘explanation’.

12. Tokhadze, ”Likelihoodism and Guidance for Belief,” 502.

13. Three further points are worth mentioning here. First, it is understood that strategic forecasting must integrate further factors, like military concerns, economic concerns, etc., into the overall assessment, but this does not undermine the claim that forecasting routinely examines an entity’s overall intent, capability, and opportunity to take some course of action. Second, while there may be some disagreement about what forecasting is, this does not negate the fact that assessment tabling can be used to assess an entity’s intent, capability, and opportunity, which is what is important here. Finally, third (for the sake of clarity), the difference between opportunity and capability is the following: ‘opportunity’ concerns whether the entity can access the target that they wish to conduct the action against (such as an attack, etc.), whereas ‘capability’ concerns whether the entity has the skills, training, and tools needed to conduct the particular action against their target.

14. Pease, Leading Intelligence Analysis, 66–67.

15. Clark, Intelligence Analysis, 72.

16. Ibid.

17. Chang et al., ”Restructuring Structured Analytic Techniques,” 344.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rad Miksa

Rad Miksa is an independent researcher employed in the Canadian national security community. His primary research interests focus on intelligence analysis and analytic training.