With the recent catastrophic outcomes in U.S. intelligence capabilities we suggest that current design metaphors are inadequate to address the changing reality of U.S. intelligence needs. In-depth interviews and concept mapping efforts with intelligence analysts suggest that the intelligence domain be characterized as a distributed cognitive work system. Current mechanical or information processing metaphors that encourage techno-centric system design solutions neglect the emergent, pluralistic and distributed nature of information that supports situational awareness and decision making in the intelligence domain. Instead, we suggest that weather systems are a more appropriate metaphor for understanding the cognitive activity of intelligence analysts and to guide the design of cognitive aides, information sharing and knowledge management systems, and data processing tools used to support intelligence work.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BodnarJ. W. (2003). Warning analysis for the information age: Rethinking the intelligence process. Washington, DC: Joint Military Intelligence College Center for Strategic Intelligence Research.
2.
ClarkR. M. (2004). Intelligence analysis: A target-centric approach. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
3.
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. (2005, March 31). Report to the President, http://www.wmd.gov/index.html
4.
ConnorsE. S.CravenP. L.McNeeseM. D.JeffersonT.Jr.BainsP.HallD. L. (2004). An application of the AKADAM approach to intelligence analyst work. Paper presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA.
5.
ElmW.PotterS.TittleJ.WoodsD.PattersonE.GrossmanJ. (2005). Finding decision support requirements for effective intelligence analysis tools. Paper presented at the 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, Washington, D.C.
6.
FriedenT. (2005, February 3). Report: FBI wasted millions on ‘Virtual Case File’ [Electronic Version]. CNN. Retrieved February 3, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com.
7.
HeuerR. J. J. (1999). Psychology of intelligence analysis. [Electronic Version]: CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence.
8.
HutchinsE. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
9.
HutchinsS. G.PirolliP. L.CardS. K. (in press). What makes intelligence analysis difficult? A cognitive task analysis of intelligence analysts. In HoffmanR., Expertise out of context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10.
JosephsonJ.JosephsonS. (1994). Abductive Inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
KleinG. A.CalderwoodE.McGregorD. (1989). Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge. IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics, 19(3), 462–472.
12.
McNeeseM. D.HallD. L., and the MINDS Research Group (2004). An assessment of image analyst work using the living lab framework. Report to the National Geospatial-intelligence Agency (NGA). Washington DC
OrlikowskiW. J.IaconoS. C. (2001). Desperately, Seeking the ‘IT’ in IT Research - A Call to Theorizing the IT Artifact. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 121–134.
15.
OrlikowskiW. J. (1992). The Duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.
16.
PattersonE.RothE. M.WoodsD. (2002). Predicting vulnerabilities in computer-supported inferential analysis under data overload. Cognition, Technology, and Work, 3(4), 224–237.
17.
PoppR.ArmourT.SenatorT.NumrychK. (2004). Emerging technologies for homeland security: Countering terrorism through information technology. Communications of the ACM, 47(3), 36–43.
18.
Report: Iraq intelligence ‘dead wrong’. (2005, March 31). CNN Retrieved March 31, 2005, from http://www.cnn.com
19.
SalomonG. (1993). Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20.
ScholtzJ.MorseE.HewettT. (2005). In depth observational studies of professional intelligence analysts. Paper presented at the 2005 International Conference on Intelligence Analysis, McLean, VA.
21.
SchultzeU.OrlikowskiW. J. (2001). Metaphors of virtuality: Shaping an emergent reality. Information and Organization, 11, 45–77.
22.
SchumD. A. (1987). Evidence and inference for the intelligence analyst (Vol. I). Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America.
23.
Vicente (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward a safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24.
WoodsD. D. (1998). Designs are hypotheses about how artifacts shape cognition and collaboration. Ergonomics, 41(2), 168–173.
25.
WoodsD. D.PattersonE. S.RothE. M. (2002). Can we ever escape from data overload? A cognitive systems diagnosis. Cognition, Technology, and Work, 4(1), 22–36.
26.
ZaffB. S.McNeeseM. D.SnyderD. E. (1993). Capturing multiple perspectives: A user-centered approach to knowledge and design acquisition. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(1), 79–116.
