UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Methodologies for Sorting Through the Chaff

Presentation to: DHS/IAIP27 January 2005

Pherson Associates, LLC • Email: furson@aol.com

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Five Approaches

Recognizing the Good Stuff:• Using What If? Analysis and Outside-In Thinking

to generate generic Indicators or Signposts• Empirically-derived Checklists

Eliminating the Bad Stuff:• Deception Detection• Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Recognizing

the Good Stuff

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

What If? Analysis

Definition: Taking as a given that an event has occurred and then explaining how it came about.

Example:• Three years ago, terrorists just tried to crash a plane

into the Eiffel tower. What if we had asked ourselves then: “Would they do something similar in the United States? How would they pull this off?”

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

What If? Analysis

Value Added:

• Focuses attention on all the things that must fall into place for a low probability--but high impact--event to actually occur.

• Alerts you to potentially useful reporting that you might have ignored or would have regarded as noise.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

What If? Analysis

The Method:Assume that what might be the case, is the case.• Develop a chain of argumentation based on both evidence

and logic explaining how this outcome actually could have come about. This is called “thinking backwards.”

• Generate a list of signposts or “observables” that would indicate that this outcome is coming about.

• Monitor the traffic for any evidence that relates to the signposts or indicators.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Outside-In Thinking

Definition: A technique for identifying the full range of forces, factors, and trends that would indirectly shape an issue.

Examples:• In brainstorming how al-Qaeda elements are

communicating with each other, are there any technological trends or new technologies that we need to consider (eg., use of “unsent” email messages, MP3, or IPods)?

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Inside-Out versus Outside-In Thinking

T h e I n d u s t r yT h e I n d u s t r y

• S o c ia l• T e c h n o lo g ic a l• E c o n o m i c• E n v i r o n m e n t a l• P o l i t i c a l

•• S o c ia lS o c ia l•• T e c h n o lo g ic a lT e c h n o lo g ic a l•• E c o n o m icE c o n o m ic•• E n v i r o n m e n t a lE n v i r o n m e n t a l•• P o l i t i c a lP o l i t i c a l

K e y F a c t o r s :K e y F a c t o r s :S o m e I n fl u e n c eS o m e I n fl u e n c e

T h e W o r ldT h e W o r ld

K e y F o r c e s :K e y F o r c e s :L i t t l e o r N o I n fl u e n c eL i t t l e o r N o I n fl u e n c e

• M a r k e t s i z e , g r o w t h , a n d v o la t i l i t y

• C u s t o m e r s• C o m p e t i t o r s• S u p p l i e r s• O w n e r s• C o m m u n i t ie s• P a r t n e r s

•• M a r k e t s i z e , M a r k e t s i z e , g r o w t h , a n d g r o w t h , a n d v o la t i l i t yv o la t i l i t y

•• C u s t o m e r sC u s t o m e r s•• C o m p e t i t o r sC o m p e t i t o r s•• S u p p l i e r sS u p p l i e r s•• O w n e r sO w n e r s•• C o m m u n it i e sC o m m u n it i e s•• P a r t n e r sP a r t n e r s

O u rO u rO r g a n i z a t io nO r g a n i z a t io n

H i g hH i g hI n fl u e n c eI n fl u e n c e

H o w W e W o r k :H o w W e W o r k :O u t s id eO u t s id e -- I n T h in k in gI n T h in k in g

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Competing Approaches

Question: How do we assess a terrorist threat?

Inside-Out Approach:• Monitor reporting for tipoffs/lead information.• Extrapolate patterns from reporting trends.

Outside-In Approach:• Identify relevant global trends.• Assess how they might affect when, where, and how

a terrorist might launch an attack.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Outside-In ThinkingThe Method:• Generate a generic description of the problem at hand.• List all the factors (social, technological, economic) that could

have an impact (the subject usually has little influence over these factors but can exploit them).

• Next list the factors over which the subject can exert some influence (choice of partners, methods of communication, capability to acquire feedback, etc.).

• Assess how each of these factors could have an impact.• Look for data that suggests they actually have an impact.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Empirically-derived ChecklistsThe Method:• Establish categories of data (walk-ins, detainee reports, émigré

reporting, human sources, etc.)• Review the reporting within each category and establish criteria for

what turned out to be useful or not.• Develop a rough scale. For example, reporting that turned out to

be useful usually met these criteria; bad reporting often fell into these boxes, etc.

• Use these lists to rate the utility of incoming reporting. • Rate the new reporting based on these lists and revise/refine the

lists over time.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Eliminating

the Bad Stuff

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Detecting Deception

Look for deception when:

• Accepting new information would require you to change your mind, alter a key assumption, or divert significant resources (protect all apartment buildings or shopping centers).

• Your analysis hinges on a single or key piece of data.• The terrorists have a great deal to gain, or lose, if you

take a specific action (discount a key source).• You know they have an effective feedback channel.

(they are likely to learn of your reaction in the press).

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Tactical Indicators of Deception

• Is the source reliable?• Does the source have access?• Is the source vulnerable to control or

manipulation by the terrorists?• Have the terrorists tried to deceive us in this way

in the past?

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Tactical Indicators of Deception

• How accurate is the source’s reporting?– Examine the whole chain of evidence, including translations!

• Does the critical evidence check out?– The subsource can be more critical than the source.

• Does evidence from one source (HUMINT) conflict with another source (OSINT)?

• Do other sources of information provide corroborating evidence?

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

How to Avoid Deception

• Be suspicious if forced to rely on sources who have not been seen or directly interviewed.

• Try not to rely exclusively on non-material evidence (verbal intelligence).

• Check all instances in which a source’s reports that initially appeared correct later turned out to be wrong-- and yet the source always seemed to offer a good explanation for the discrepancy.

• Heed the opinions of those closest to the reporting. • Know the enemy’s limitations as well as his capabilities.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

Definition:

The identification of a complete set of alternative hypotheses, the systematic evaluation of data that is consistent and inconsistent with each hypothesis, and the rejection of hypotheses that contain too much inconsistent data.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

The Value of ACH

ACH helps you overcome three fundamental analytic traps:

• Selective perception (or coming to closure too quickly) that usually results from focusing on a single hypothesis.

• A failure to generate—at the outset—a complete set of alternative hypotheses.

• Focusing on the evidence that tends to confirm rather than to disconfirm the hypothesis.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

Advantages: • Ensures that all the information and argumentation

is evaluated.• Helps avoid premature closure.• Highlights the evidence that is most “discriminating”

in making the case.• Removes the relatively unimportant data from

the equation.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

ACH: The Eight Step Process

1) Identify the possible hypotheses to be considered. (use brainstorming techniques)

2) List significant evidence and arguments for and against each hypothesis.

(include the absence of evidence)

3) Prepare a matrix to analyze the “diagnosticity”

of the evidence.

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

ACH: The Eight Step Process4) Delete evidence and arguments that have no diagnostic value. (that support all hypotheses)5) Assess the relative likelihood of each hypothesis. (try to refute each hypothesis rather than confirm it)6) Determine how sensitive the conclusion is to just a few critical pieces of evidence. (would the judgment still stand if the evidence were wrong?)

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

ACH: The Eight Step Process

7) Report conclusions; establish the relative likelihood of all hypotheses.

8) Identify milestones for further observation. (to validate that the most likely hypothesis is correct or to show that events are taking a different direction than anticipated)