Werzit

Intel - Intelligence
Analytic Methods

"In God we trust.
All others we monitor."
 

Economics | Radio| Regions| Television | Weapons | 

  
    

Problem Restatement
  • Introduction
  • Pitfalls in Problem Redefinition
  • Techniques for Problem Restatement
  • The Importance of Grammar
  • Simplicity Pays Off
  • Positive is Preferable
  • Active Voice Facilitates
  • I recommend an indirect approach, which is to restate the problem in as many different ways as we can think of. We simply shift our mental gears into a divergent mode (more easily said than done, I realize) and start pumping out restatements without evaluating them.
  • The key here, as in all divergent thinking, is letting the ideas flow freely, without attempting to justify them.
  • Sometimes restating the problem is difficult because the original statement was poorly articulated. All the more reason, then, to more clearly define it.
  • One can generally gain most of the benefits of restating a problem in five or ten minutes. However, those minutes are quality time where analysis is concerned.
  • Sometimes restating a problem points to a solution, though usually it shows there is more than one problem and helps identity them.
  • Most important of all, restatements should, whenever possible be put into writing so we - and our consumer, if the problem is owned by someone else - can study them. A record copy of the agreed-upon problem statement should be retained for reference as our analysis proceeds. Retaining it not only enables us to check from time to time to see if our analysis is on target.

Pros-Cons-and-Fixes
  • Introduction
  •  
  •  

Divergent Thinking
  • Introduction
  •  
  •  

Sorting, Chronologies, and Time Lines
  • Introduction
  •  
  •  

Causal Flow Diagramming
  • Introduction
  •  
  •  

The Matrix
  • Introduction
  •  
  •  

The Decision/Event Tree
  • Introduction
  •  
  •  

Weighted Ranking
  • Introduction
  •  
  •  

Hypothesis Testing
  • Introduction
  • Generate Hypothesis
  • Construct a Matrix
  • List "significant" evidence down the left-hand margin, including "absent" evidence
  • Working across the matrix, test the evidence for consistency with each hypothesis, one item of evidence at a time
  • Refine the Matrix
    a) Add or reword the hypothesis
    b) Add "significant" evidence relevant to any new or reworded hypothesis and test it against all hypotheses
    c) Delete, but keep a record of, evidence that is consistent with all of the hypotheses. It has no diagnostic value.
  • Working downward, evaluate each hypothesis
  • Rank the remaining hypotheses by the weakness of inconsistent evidence. The hypothesis with the weakest inconsistent evidence is the most likely
  • Perform a sanity check

Devil's Advocacy
  • Introduction
  •  
  •  

The Probability Tree
  • Introduction
  •  
  •  

The Utility Tree
  • Introduction
  •  
  •  

The Utility Matrix
  • Introduction
  •  
  •  

Advanced Utility/Analysis
  • Introduction
  •  
  •