A continuing need exists to establish “analysis-driven collection” in the intelligence community. After all, identifying gaps in what one knows and collecting and analyzing information to answer those gaps is the primary function of intelligence. In order to do so, collectors and analysts must work together toward identifying what is and what is not known, and to collect on those issues that remain unanswered according to policymaker’s priorities.
The harsh truth is collectors and analysts don’t work together. Past recommendations cite the need for both professions to understand each other’s processes and methods, but this approach hasn’t, isn’t, and won’t solve the problem.
One of the primary reasons these two professions lack the spirit of cooperation necessary is they are not structured to work together “collaboratively.” Sure information is coordinated back and forth haphazardly, but not in an efficient, fluid-like way, and certainly not directly from analysts to collectors. For example, if Bob the analyst writes a report using Mary the collector’s report, the only way Mary will know Bob found the report useful is if Bob writes another report (evaluation) on Mary’s report. Not only this, but Bob must submit it through another layer of bureaucracy, known as collection management. Certainly collection management provides a “quality control” aspect to the evaluation, however, this process lacks the speed, agility, and relationship building between the collector and the analyst to respond to the rapidly changing security we now must face.
A New Way: A lesson from the blog world
One powerful function of blogs is the trackback feature, which gives an author notification when one of their products is cited somewhere else. Imagine if every document had this feature, whereby the value of a given report could be determined by the number of individuals linking to it. The collector could see “automatically” and immediately how their product was used. In addition, this product could have a feature where analysts could instantly attach further questions to the collector’s report, removing the “middle-man” out of the process. I know many will counter that collection management serves a purpose, but the added benefit (particularly speed) will likely outweigh the detractions, such as spelling or grammar errors.
In addition, collection reports go “unevaluated” everyday because analysts simply lack the desire or time to write these reports and submit them through collection management. If greater swarms of analysts were participating then the collective interaction would bring a whole new level of professional collaboration between analysts and collectors, finally allowing analysis-driven collection to self-organize itself into the process.
