need2share

Should we kill the

intelligence cycle?
and why should practitioners care?

Many academia and only a few

practitioners have written and debated about the (in)famous cycle,
most of them agreeing that it
doesnt really reflect 21st century
reality, and as such can not be seen
as a model of the intelligence process or functions in our complex
world. Kris Wheaton of Mercyhurst
University definitely raised the
stakes in the debate last year when
he blogged that we should kill the
intelligence cycle. In this edition we
look at why such murderous
terms have crept into the debate.
The debate
Philip Davis and Kristian
Gustafson1 divide the discussants in
the intelligence cycle debate in 2
groups: the conceptualists (those
that see the intelligence cycle as a
conceptual model of intelligence
activities), while the proceduralists
sees it as an attempt to map the
processes in intelligence.

The first group view the intelligence cycle as a heuristic concept

that describes the interaction between different activities and does
not fret a lot on whether this is a
true reflection of reality, as it never
was meant to be one.
On the other hand, the proceduralists absolutely hates the traditional
cycle that was created in the 1940s
and have designed variants on the
cycle or created new models based
on systems and cybernetics theories: nested cycles, cycles-withincycles, sensemaking loops, feedback loops, crisscrossing diagrams,
web diagrams, models for positive
intelligence, models for counterintelligence, models for law enforcement intelligence, models based on
work study practices the list goes
on..
But is this relevant to practitioners?
I know very few of the practitioners reading this article really cares
about the intelligence cycle and the
debate on whether it is relevant or
not. Because for you it is irrelevant.
Youre too busy catching criminals,
preventing terrorist attacks or outwitting your competitors.
Most probably, the last time you
saw and maybe thought about the
intelligence cycle was during your
intelligence training. You might
dismiss the academic debate as esoteric navel-gazing, far removed
from your reality.
But, you are dead wrong.

Dalene Duvenage
"When it came time to
start writing about intelligence, a practice I
began in my later years
at the CIA, I realized
that there were serious
problems with the intelligence cycle. It is really
not a very good description of the ways in
which the intelligence
process works."
Arthur Hulnick, 2006

What's wrong with the Intelligence Cycle

The debate resonates with practitioners day-to-day frustrations - it
reflects the dissonance you experience with what is supposed to be
and what is - between the outdated intelligence functions, structures and processes and the fast
moving transnational threats and
challenges we have to face and analyse everyday.
Intelligence, like so many other disciplines, is in a precarious position:
very little of what we know and
have institutionalised the last 60 -70
years is still relevant today, or will
be tomorrow. Quite a few classic
tradecraft principles and practices
will stay relevant, no matter in
what age, government system or
intelligence domain we operate.
But most of what we do and why

June 2012 Foreknowledge

need2share
Few intelligence practitioners are aware or interested in the intensified debate among intelligence
scholars on the intelligence cycle. For them, the cycle and the discussion about its future is irrelevant.
But if practitioners are serious about the intelligence profession, they must be aware and become
involved in the debate and recognise that the debate can improve intelligence practice. In this edition,
we try to bridge this gap between academia and practitioners by highlighting some dimensions of this
important debate.
we do it, are, and will be challenged
by our new realities.
We have to relook, revisit, invent,
innovate - and that is the task of
practitioners and academia alike.
The theoretical kill the Intelligence
cycle debate has a practical
grounding, and the outcome of the
debate will in turn have implications in the practitioners reality.
What is the value of the debate?
The debate is important because it
forces us to re-examine what we are
doing and why we are doing it
when we are doing it. Will we ever
find one model that satisfies everyones prescriptions and requirements? Definitely not!
But the debate makes us mindful
and self-aware of what could go

June 2012 Foreknowledge

wrong in the interaction between

planning, tasking, collection, analysis, and distribution.

Can you contribute to the debate

about the intelligence cycle , its usefulness and relevancy?

It helps us to seek for better strategies and processes to make intelligence more effective.

In this, and following editions, we

will introduce key aspects of the
different viewpoints and models,
hopefully challenging you to investigate them and maybe come up
with your own model or opinion.

It helps us to find a common vocabulary and understanding of the

complexities of our cognitive processes and organizational dynamics.
The debate also strengthens the
growth of the intelligence analysis
discipline and its body of knowledge.
Should we kill the intelligence cycle?
This question is as loaded and multi-faceted as the question Should
we have the death penalty? Maybe
the question here should rather be:

The Intelligence Cycle is Dead, Long Live the

Intelligence Cycle: Rethinking an Intelligence
Fundamental for a New Intelligence Doctrine. ISA
Conference paper. April 2012.
1

Will we ever find one model

that satisfies everyones
prescriptions and requirements? Definitely not!