Wednesday, 12 December 2007

Intelligence is Not-Intelligence unless it is described effectively?

Brand Killer Robots reveal::
Ok, lets summise that many of the recent terrible astrocities in the world were a failure of the intelligence community. Where "intelligence community" means people within an organisation (Government, Educational, Non-Profit or commercial) responsible for the development of 'qualified intelligence' (from whatever source).

That all those employees and other assets global brands lost were because of failures by the intelligence community. That much of the corruption and lack of confidence in the commercial marketplace was down to failures in the intelligence community.

What then? With all the billions of dollars invested in the intelligence services, why are they failing to live up to our expectations?
If "intelligence is failing to live up to expectations", then one could further summise that "intelligence" is failing because it is "non-intelligence". In other words our collective "intelligence community" are "not-intelligent".

Now far be it for us to call the "intelligence community" stupid, but under such circumstances we feel we must ask them to explain why? Why is the intelligence community "not-intelligent"?

Is it because intelligence units actually are "not-intelligent" - or does it just appear this way?

Our own assessment has given us to reach the conclusion that the problem lies not in the targeting, acquisition and assimilation of intelligence. It does not lie in the specialist intelligence and operations fields designed into both government and commercial intelligence departments.

Rather the problems lies in the lack of effective descriptive analysis and presentation of intelligence.

Where situations are complex and multi-faceted, intelligence data must be summarized - and in a few pages or a few minutes' briefing, convey the essence of the thing in order to represent the collective knowledge and wisdom effectively. (partial quote Kent's imperative).

For "not-intelligence" to become "intelligence" we need to invest more in the field of "integrated, descriptive intelligence analysis and associated presentation styles".

Intelligence is Not-Intelligence unless it is integrated and described effectively?

No comments: