Homeland Security forum

 Intelligence Analysis

 

Intelligence analysis falls under several different methods. These methods are rational choice, brainstorming analysis. Red Team (Red Cell) Analysis, CARVER Threat Analysis and Analysis of Competing Hypothesis.  

 

Rational Choice Theory

Rational Choice Theory is used as an analytic framework in case studies and can explain human behavior by examining the casual approach. The main concepts of Rational Choice are rational in that they have reasons (usually tied to their beliefs and desires) that cause them to act (behave or decide), agents are able to order their preferences for action or outcomes, agent’s preferences are both complete and transitive, and agents act or make decisions based upon their level of risk acceptance. 

 

Brainstorming Analysis

Brainstorming analysis is when a group of analysts work together to determine the outcome of intelligence gathered. It is best conducted in phases which included divergent and convergent thinking. The main pitfall of brainstorming analysis is the tendency of the group of analysts to fall into the groupthink trap. It is critical that the analysts take a systematic approach.  

 

Red Team Analysis

A Red Team (Red Cell) Analysis is used to encourage analysts to see opposing viewpoints. It requires analysts to pretend they are in the shoes of their enemy by trying to determine what type of attack they might try and how they might conduct it.  

 

Carver Threat Analysis

The Carver threat analysis is a systematic means for generating preferences of targets. Carver is actually an acronym and stands for criticality, accessibility, recoverability, vulnerability, effect and recognizability. 

 

C riticality means to identify critical systems, single points of failure or choke points (1 = multiple points of failure/choke points, 5 = none).

Accessibility mean to determine ease of access to critical systems (1 = substantial ease of access, 5 = difficult access).

Recoverability is to compare time it would take to replace or restore a critical system against maximum acceptable period of disruption (1 = maximum restoration time, 5 = minimal restoration time).

Vulnerability is to assess likelihood that potential adversaries would target critical systems (1 = high likelihood, 5 = low or no likelihood).

Effect is to consider scope and magnitude of adverse consequences that would result from malicious actions and responses to them (1 = maximum consequences, 5 = minimal or no consequences).

Recognizability is to evaluate likelihood that potential adversaries would recognize that a system was critical (1 = high likelihood, 5 = low or no likelihood) 

 

Analysis of Competing Hypothesis

The Analysis of Competing Hypotheses is useful when an analyst has a significant amount of data available (Heuer 1999). It is more detailed than the CARVER and allows the analyst to examine which target and with which weapon the terrorist might strike. 

 

References

 

Heuer, R. (1999). Chapter 8, Analysis of Competing Hypotheses. Psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/PsychofIntelNew.pdf

 

Heuer, R. (1999). Chapter 14, Improving Intelligence Analysis. Psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/psychology-of-intelligence-analysis/PsychofIntelNew.pdf