Although anyone can claim the title of “intelligence analyst,” there is no commonly understood, standardized certification available within the Intelligence Community to confirm analytic skill and proficiency. Some may argue that each analytic assessment should be judged on its content and not on the certification or reputation of the author. However, an analytic product can often read well even though its analytic underpinnings are flawed. Additionally, it would be beneficial to have some objective measure of an analyst’s skill before selecting him for a task, rather than to discover afterwards that the analyst was unable to meet the task. Having addressed why certifications are needed and assuming certifications would provide a worthwhile benefit, the discussion then turns to how and in what areas should one attain certification. Through an analysis of the concept of analysis, the author proposes that three basic divisions be created to train and certify one as either a descriptive, explanative, or predictive intelligence analyst.

THE CONCEPT OF ANALYSIS

The concept of “analysis” consists of two basic notions: divergence and convergence. First, one must break a problem down into its component parts and examine each part separately. Then, with a better understanding of each individual component, the analyst must reassemble the separate parts into a coherent whole and examine how the whole functions. There are five basic steps in the analytical process: 1) problem restatement which involves refining and clarifying what the customer wants, 2) data research which includes examining both existing data and gathering new evidence as necessary, 3) hypotheses generation and evaluation, 4) hypothesis selection based on the evidence, and 5) setting milestones to reevaluate and revalidate conclusions.[1]

Steps one and three in the analytical process are divergent. These steps help broaden the analyst’s perspective and consider many aspects before proceeding to step four and converge on a solution. Several different specific divergent and convergent techniques and analytical methodologies are based on these five basic steps. However, no one specific methodology can be applied to every type of analytical problem. The analyst’s task is to select and apply the analytical methodology that best fits the specific intelligence problem he is trying to solve.

DESCRIPTION, EXPLANATION, AND PREDICTION

Basic intelligence establishes the baseline reference for all other intelligence. It answers the basic questions of who, what, where, how, and when. It describes potential adversaries, available resources, and their capabilities. Current intelligence interprets current events. It seeks to explain an adversary’s behavior, answer the question “why,” and establish causal relationships. Estimative intelligence is more forward-looking. It attempts to predict future actions and events.[2]

Intelligence analysis relies on all three types of intelligence: description, explanation, and prediction. Descriptive intelligence is the foundation that all other defense intelligence analysis is built upon. One cannot explain why events occurred, if one does not know what events occurred. Similarly, an intelligence analyst cannot predict future events without understanding the underlying causal relationships. An intelligence analyst must develop a firm foundation based on basic and current intelligence on which his prediction can stand. An understanding of the causal relationships comes from identifying all relevant factors through descriptive intelligence.

CONCLUSION

As a minimum, every intelligence analyst should be proficient in analyzing descriptive intelligence. Thus, each relevant intelligence education and training course should ensure its students graduate with the descriptive intelligence analysis certification. As the analyst gains experience and expertise he adds the ability to explain events and finally predict them and has the opportunity to earn additional certifications through advanced formal courses and on-the-job training. The analyst cannot move into one area of intelligence and ignore another; neither can he start with explanation or prediction without first becoming proficient in descriptive intelligence. Rather, the analyst must progress sequentially from proficiency in descriptive intelligence through explanatory intelligence to predictive intelligence. Training and certifying intelligence analysts sequentially along the descriptive, explanative, and predictive divisions will ensure they are equipped with the appropriate analytic skills to meet the increasing responsibilities as they progress in their careers. Also, the intelligence consumer will be able to better determine whether an analyst is qualified to provide the analysis needed. I propose the course provided via the following link be the standard to train and certify its graduates as Level 1 Intelligence Analysts for descriptive analysis within the Intelligence Community: https://www.udemy.com/level-1-intelligence-analyst-certification/

��

[1]As taught from 1998–99 at the Joint Military Intelligence College course ANA630, “Intelligence Analysis: Continuity and Change,” and derived from Ronald D. Garst, “Chapter 4: Fundamentals of Intelligence Analysis;” reprint in Intelligence Analysis: ANA630 vol. 1 (Washington: Joint Military Intelligence College, nd.), 18–28.

[2]Garst, 8–9.

Robert Folker is an Air Force officer, is a graduate of and former instructor at the United States Air Force Weapons School, and holds a Master of Science in Strategic Intelligence from the National Intelligence University. He is currently an Air Power Strategist with Checkmate on the Air Staff at the Pentagon. The views expressed in this article are the author’s alone, and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Air Force.