How Information Becomes Actionable Intelligence – Part 2
As promised, in this article we are going to create a framework for transforming information into actionable intelligence. As you may know, most intelligence work begins with a question, a requirement, or a general direction which guides the information collection process through appropriate channels and for specific purposes. Here, however, we will not focus on how information is or will be collected; rather, we will concentrate on the process of consuming raw information for the sole purpose of generating intelligence or insight.
Intent and Relevance
Whilst we are not going to discuss the Direction part of the intelligence cycle, it is still important to have a clear understanding of why we are processing a piece of information. This could be because we are specifically tasked to do so—for example, when undertaking investigative journalism work—or because we are monitoring a topic—for instance, if we are creating so-called Country Reports for a business entity. In either case, we should assess whether a piece of information is now—or could in the future be—useful to our intelligence analysis, in order to decide whether we should dig further into the matter or not.
A useful technique for deciding whether a piece of information aligns with our intent and direction is to first understand if any claims are being made about that information. For example, are we given an article where the headline suggests relevance to our work, or was that piece of information mentioned elsewhere, where the related item had already proven useful?
Once we have analysed the information for any direct or referred claims, we should start collecting the following elements mentioned within it: names, events, and locations.
It does not matter if we are familiar with these or not—at this point, we simply need to collect them. Names could refer to anything, from individuals to companies, organisations, products, services, or otherwise. Locations could be either physical or virtual—for instance, a village name, a website, or a specific chat room in a messaging application. Events are also broadly defined. Once we have collected all of these—say, in a spreadsheet—we can review the list to see if anything seems familiar or potentially relevant to our research.
We can also take this a step further by researching each item in the list for affiliations. This is especially useful when we are not familiar with the matter but have already determined that the likelihood of the information being relevant to our work is high. By searching for affiliations, we may find, for example, whether a person, event, or location is in any way related to the topic we are interested in.
Source Breakdown
At this point, we have already determined that we want to continue with this source. The next step is to break down the source into smaller pieces, each containing a single bit of information. We may be dealing with a social media post, an article, an email, a text message, an audio file, or an image. Regardless of the medium, we must extract individual bits of relevant information so they can be further examined at later stages.
In some cases, we could simply highlight the text in the original source; in others, we may need to copy each bit into another page or medium—for example, converting audio to text—and sometimes we may need to summarise the information as well. For instance, if we have copied a long paragraph from the original source, it may be useful to create a bullet-point list underneath, explaining the paragraph in shorter or simpler sentences.
However, be mindful that we are not forming any hypotheses at this stage. We are merely breaking down a larger piece into smaller, more digestible chunks.
Source Mapping
When it comes to intelligence work, tunnel vision can be a fatal mistake. One of the easiest ways to fall into that trap is by relying on a single source for our analysis. Most information is often circulated across various places and environments, and analysing these additional sources alongside the original piece could prove invaluable.
In this step, what we need to do is simply search for and identify where else the same or similar information has surfaced. Once identified, we should treat these sources as we would the original, and repeat the same steps. Of course, we must ensure the information is not mixed or confused—but rather allow them to coexist within our research work.
Collection Environment
Once we have isolated a piece of information, we must understand the real-world environment or digital landscape where it originates from. For instance, does this bit of information come from a Dark Web forum filled with individuals potentially having a criminal history and a bias towards spreading such information, or was it generated through an interview with a villager—politically disassociated from the rest of the country and struggling with poverty and access to basic needs?
Our goal here is to identify patterns, biases, or inaccuracies that may arise directly from the environment. Members of a Dark Web forum are, for instance, less likely to have a positive view towards the status quo or law enforcement—and although recognising this is itself a form of bias on our part, it remains useful to look for patterns that could explain why such information was surfaced in that environment in the first place.
The following questions could serve as a good starting point:
- Why this information and not something else?
- Why to this extent—not more detailed or less detailed?
- Why now—or then, whenever the information surfaced?
- Why here and not elsewhere?
- What did the world look like when this information was released? Consider social, political, economic, and environmental factors.
The Collectors
Now it is time to turn our attention toward the collector or group of collectors who picked up the piece of information. Just be aware that we ourselves could be the collector—or one of them—but it is important to look at the collectors—even yourself—as a separate entity, prone to introducing many errors and inaccuracies.
Consider starting with the following questions:
- How was this information brought to their attention?
- Why did they deem this information useful?
- Who could benefit from spreading this information, and to what extent?
- Is this going to cause a problem for someone else? If so, to what extent?
- Is the collector a direct beneficiary of spreading the information, or are they directly or indirectly related to the beneficiaries?
- Who are the collectors? What are their credentials or history? And how could that be verified?
- Is this the first time they have collected information like this? What were the other instances?
- Was this part of paid work or not? Was it requested by another entity?
- Is this part of a larger work or campaign? If yes, what are the details of those?
The list of useful questions is almost endless; do not limit yourself to these examples—rather, use them as a point of departure, adapting them to each individual case.
Analysis
Anyone who has ever painted a wall, a piece of furniture, or an object knows that preparing the surface before applying any paint is both the most important and the most time-consuming part of the process. In intelligence analysis as well, the steps taken before the actual analysis of information are both more time-consuming and critical. If the earlier steps fail to create a solid foundation, the analysis built atop it will inevitably suffer.
If the foundation is good and no unnecessary corners were cut in the earlier stages, sound analysis can be achieved. That is true, of course, only if we either have the required expertise or access to experts who can help us reach reasonable conclusions. This is where hypotheses are formed and disputed, further information is gathered, new evidence is added, removed, or examined, and so on—requiring us to constantly revisit previous steps as the case develops and we learn more.
Although any serious analyst needs access to in-depth knowledge of the subject matter—which will vary greatly from case to case—some general recommendations can help beginner analysts avoid preventable mistakes. Here is my list of suggestions, though many other useful tips can be found elsewhere.
First, if possible, and without revealing our own hypothesis or analysis, we should ask other subject matter experts or experienced analysts to weigh in on the information and evidence we have at hand. We must remain aware of their biases, but should not dismiss the value of a second opinion—especially if the case is stuck or progress is slow.
Second, we must send our own analysis to other subject matter experts for peer review. It is not uncommon for an expert’s opinion to be misunderstood by the analyst, or for obvious points to be overlooked simply because the analyst is too deeply focused on the more complex aspects of the case.
Third, once we have made reasonable progress, we need to assess whether—and at what point—it would be useful to review similar cases and analyses done by others. Doing so prematurely can inject biases into our work, whilst not doing it at all could be a missed opportunity, given that our knowledge and experience are always limited and we can often benefit from additional input.
Prematurely studying similar cases is dangerous because, although we may gain new and potentially useful ideas, unless we are intimately familiar with those particular cases and their details, we risk drawing similar conclusions on the wrong basis. However, once we have completed our own groundwork, we will be in a better position to reason whether conclusions from other analyses truly apply.
Dissemination Channels
Different forms of sharing an analysis often require producing different reports. Without careful attention, these varying formats based on the same analysis could appear contradictory or confusing to the consumer. Being mindful of this helps ensure that each report remains clear, digestible, and valuable to its intended end user.
Dissemination Environment
In addition to the channel through which an analysis is distributed—for example, social media or a PhD thesis—the environment in which the report will be seen, heard, or read is equally important. Some aspects of the report may require more detail for certain portions of the audience, depending on where and how it is accessed—for instance, a specific website, news channel, or geographical region. Creating a bespoke report for each environment is probably impractical—if not impossible—but we should remain mindful of this point and, where possible, tailor our reports accordingly.
The Consumer
If the direction and requirements we began our analysis with were clear and precise, we should already have a good idea of what questions our analysis and report need to answer in order to be deemed useful by the consumers. In line with the previous two points, we must remain mindful of who the end-user is, what their biases might be, and so on. We should not only anticipate the objections they might raise—so that we can address them within the report—but also consider what incorrect conclusions they might be prone to, allowing us to clarify as necessary.
But perhaps the most important point is that our reports should never advocate for any position. An intelligence analysis must remain completely neutral, free from siding with any actor or cause. Our job is to produce truthful reports that are worth reading and can be confidently included in other works. Although we must do our best to ensure our analyses are understood correctly, we must never attempt to influence anyone’s decisions through our work. Doing so would be the quickest way to be described as biased.
The Report
Once we have worked through all of these steps as deeply as the task requires, we can finally sit down and write the report—or reports—that bring our analysis together. But the work does not end there. After passing our findings to the intended audience, it becomes important to look for feedback—whether explicit or implicit—and to treat each report and interaction as a learning opportunity. Every case offers a chance to better understand the subject at hand, to sharpen our methods, and ultimately to improve our ability to deliver useful, truthful, and unbiased reports.
Recap
There are many frameworks and workflows out there for conducting different types of intelligence work. What we have gone through here is simply one approach—but one that can be used in a wide range of situations, even without knowing all the ins and outs of formal intelligence analysis. It offers a practical path for anyone needing to turn raw information into something clearer, more usable. Below is a quick summary of the main steps we discussed.
Intent and Relevance
Always begin by clarifying why the information matters and whether it aligns with your broader objectives.
Source Breakdown
Deconstruct larger pieces of information into smaller, digestible units without forming hypotheses prematurely.
Source Mapping
Identify where else similar information has surfaced, ensuring breadth and reducing the risk of tunnel vision.
Collection Environment
Examine the context from which the information emerged, recognising potential biases, pressures, and distortions.
The Collectors
Understand who collected the information, their motives, affiliations, and any risks of error or manipulation.
Analysis
Build sound hypotheses based on a solid foundation, constantly cross-verifying assumptions through expert input and peer review.
Dissemination Channels
Understand how different channels affect the reception and clarity of your analysis, and adjust the format where necessary.
Dissemination Environment
Understand the broader environment in which your work will be consumed, considering geographical, cultural, and political contexts.
The Consumer
Understand who the consumer is, their possible biases, and how to ensure the analysis remains neutral and properly interpreted.
The Report
Write and deliver the report, seek feedback, and treat each case as an opportunity to refine methods and deepen understanding.
Final Note
Once our reports are completed and distributed, they eventually become part of the common knowledge base. They may be picked up as facts or bits of information by others—as input into another intelligence cycle—or they may influence others to see the world differently, thus producing information with a different tone and colour. It is therefore part of our duty of care to avoid unintentionally contributing to future misinformation or disinformation campaigns.
Also, the framework presented here is not—and will never be—complete. As we gain experience, we will better understand what works best for us, our environment, and our type of work, and how to structure our research and analysis methodology accordingly. For example, over time we may realise that whenever information is picked up and rewritten—transformed by an actor—it must be noted and analysed for new biases and inaccuracies. This can complicate matters considerably, especially when dealing with historical data or events, but for some projects it becomes a non-negotiable step.
The framework explained here should serve as a good starting point for most types of work encountered by newcomers, but it should certainly not be considered an ultimate workflow or a rigid framework that cannot be adapted and improved over time.
