Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
smallwarsjournal.com
Page 2 of 10
smallwarsjournal.com
2009, Small Wars Foundation
Analytic Standards
ICD 203 introduces quantifiable and qualifiable standards in the overall analytic transformation
process to which intelligence products can be evaluated. The Analytic Standards as specified in
ICD #203 are:
Objectivity: This standard requires that analysts and managers perform their analytic and
informational functions from an unbiased perspective. Analysis should be free of emotional
content, give due regard to alternative perspectives and contrary reporting, and acknowledge
developments that necessitate adjustments to analytic judgments.
Independent of Political Considerations: Analysts and managers should provide objective
assessments informed by available information that are not distorted or altered with the intent of
supporting or advocating a particular policy, political view point, or audience.
Timeliness: Analytic products that arrive too late to support the work of consumers weaken
utility and impact. Analysts will strive to deliver their products in time for them to be actionable
by customers. Analytic elements have a responsibility to be aware of the schedules and
requirements of consumers.
Based on All Available Sources of Intelligence: Analysis should be informed by all relevant
information that is available to the analytic effort. Where critical gaps exist, analytic elements
should work with collectors to develop appropriate collection, dissemination and access
strategies.
Exhibits Proper Standards of Analytical Tradecraft. The analytic tradecraft standards and the
required evaluation of intelligence products are the heart of the Analytical Standards directive.
The Standards of Analytical Tradecraft and evaluation criteria will be examined in later
paragraphs describing MCIAs implementation of ICD 203. Those analytical standards are:
Properly describes quality and reliability of underlying sources.
Properly caveats and expresses uncertainties or confidence in analytic judgments.
Properly distinguishes between underlying intelligence and analysts assumptions and
judgments.
Incorporates alternative analysis where appropriate.
Relevance to US national security.
Uses logical argumentation.
Exhibits consistency of analysis over time, or highlights changes and explains rationale.
Makes accurate judgments and assessments.
MCIA formally adopted the Analytical Standards for all finished or published intelligence
products in the summer of 2008. MCIA produces intelligence products and services providing
HQ USMC, USMC operating forces and supporting establishment components with the
following types of support:
Threat assessments, estimates, and intelligence for service planning and decision making.
Page 3 of 10
smallwarsjournal.com
2009, Small Wars Foundation
Intelligence support for doctrine, force structure development, systems and acquisitions.
War gaming.
Training and education.
Pre-deployment planning, training and exercise support for operating forces.
ODNIs Office of Analytic Integrity and Standards (AIS) vi provided training on the analytical
standards to MCIA analysts in July of 2008. MCIA analysts and supervisors hosted the threeday training evolution consisting of basic Analytical Standard definitions and concepts,
examples of intelligence products meeting the standards and evaluations of both good and not
so good intelligence products in order to reinforce the concepts. During the evaluation phase of
the training, MCIA analysts evaluated other IC agencies intelligence products against the
prescribed IC standards prior to evaluating MCIA products. While conducting the intelligence
product evaluations, the analysts were exposed to the evaluation tools MCIA subsequently
adopted.
AIS provided MCIA with a QA evaluation tool to help satisfy self-evaluation requirements as
specified in ICD 203. vii Each agency within the IC is responsible for administering its own
analytic and self-evaluation programs. The QA evaluation tool, a Microsoft Access database
program which can be modified to meet specific agency needs, allows MCIA to evaluate
intelligence products against the prescribed analytical standards and tradecraft requirements.
Using the QA evaluation tool as its benchmark MCIAs QA evaluation program is a 4-step
process to ensure MCIA disseminated intelligence products adhere to IC analytical standards. viii
Prior to publication or release, each MCIA intelligence product is reviewed by the
publishing analysts Branch Head to ensure compliance with IC standards as well as
MCIA specific analytical guidance.
MCIAs Senior Intelligence Analyst (SIA) leads a monthly QA panel reviewing 20% of
all MCIA disseminated intelligence products published during the month. The 3-person
panel utilizes the AIS QA evaluation tool and independently scores and comments on
each analytic standard and applicable analytical tradecraft standard. The panel forms a
consensus score and written comments for the purpose of identifying ways to improve the
analysts intelligence products. The SIA debriefs the analyst and the analysts Branch
Head and provides the panels consensus comments for the purpose of improving future
products, analytic techniques and writing skills.
The SIA heads a separate panel conducting quarterly reviews of the monthly QA scoring
looking for analytic trends requiring adjustments or additional training.
An internal audit group conducts annual reviews of the QA process.
Standards of Analytic Tradecraft
The driving force behind the Analytic Standards directive and QA evaluation program is to
ensure the IC is utilizing effective analytic tradecraft tools. The following paragraphs summarize
the analytic tradecraft standards as prescribed in ICD 203 and describe implementation and
evaluation challenges representing evaluation criteria that allow the analysts Branch Head and
the QA panel to score and comment on the application of each analytical tradecraft element:
Page 4 of 10
smallwarsjournal.com
2009, Small Wars Foundation
Page 5 of 10
smallwarsjournal.com
2009, Small Wars Foundation
smallwarsjournal.com
2009, Small Wars Foundation
Page 7 of 10
smallwarsjournal.com
2009, Small Wars Foundation
Page 8 of 10
smallwarsjournal.com
2009, Small Wars Foundation
Although long-term benefits will take months or years to evaluate, the standards articulated in
ICD 203 when combined with numerous other analytical initiatives will enhance the overall
intelligence support to the nations policy makers and military commanders. MCIA and the
entire IC are on the right track towards enhancing national security and achieving national policy
objectives.
Lieutenant Colonel Von Pigg is currently assigned as an Aviation Command and Control Officer
at Headquarters, US Marine Corps. He has commanded Marines conducting Aviation C2 and
Air Space Management missions in both Afghanistan (2005) and Iraq (2007). He recently
completed a Commandant of the Marine Corps Fellowship with the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence where he studied and researched Information Operations and the role of
IO in the USMC Vision and Strategy 2025.
The views expressed in this manuscript are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
views of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, any of the national Intelligence
Agencies or the Department of Defense.
This is a single article excerpt of material published in Small Wars Journal.
Published by and COPYRIGHT 2009, Small Wars Foundation.
Permission is granted to print single copies for personal, non-commercial use. Select non-commercial use is licensed
via a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 license and per our Terms of Use. We are in this together.
No FACTUAL STATEMENT should be relied upon without further investigation on your part sufficient to satisfy you in
your independent judgment that it is true.
Contact: comment@smallwarsjournal.com
Visit www.smallwarsjournal.com
Cover Price:
Notes:
i
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Analytic Standards, Intelligence Community Directive 203 (ICD
203), June 21, 2007, 1.
ii
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction,
Report to the President of the United States (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2005) (hereafter, WMD
Commission Report), 389; emphasis in the original.
iii
Office of the Director of National Intelligence, United States Intelligence Community 500 Day Plan:
Intelligence and Collaboration; (Washington, DC: Director of National Intelligence, 2007), Introduction.
Page 9 of 10
smallwarsjournal.com
2009, Small Wars Foundation
iv
Dr. Thomas Fingar, 2008 INSA Analytic Transformation Conference, Orlando Florida, Morning Keynote
Address, 4 September, 2008.
vi
vii
viii
Mr. Donald Bellah, SIA, PAC, MCIA, interview with author, 8 October, 2008.
ix
Ibid., 93.
xi
Ibid., 87.
xii
Richards J. Heuer, Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, (CIA: Center for the Study of Intelligence, 1999), 152.
xiii
Ms. Rebecca Strode, Deputy ADDNI for Analytic Integrity and Standards, interview with author, 15 Oct
2008.
xiv
Ibid.
Page 10 of 10
smallwarsjournal.com
2009, Small Wars Foundation