Advertisement

Supporting Intelligence Analysis Through Visual Thinking

  • Steve Strang
  • Anthony J. Masys
Chapter
Part of the Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications book series (ASTSA)

Abstract

Today’s threat landscape is characterized by uncertainty and complexity stemming from the interconnectivity and interdependence of the hyper-connected world (Masys et al. in Procedia Econ Finance 18:772–779, 2014). Threats stemming from terrorism and transnational crime are more diverse and interconnected thereby calling upon an expansion of the analytic envelope and vocabulary of intelligence. This complex problem space is value-laden, open-ended, multidimensional, ambiguous and unstable and can be labeled as ‘wicked and messy’. Events such as 9/11 highlight “surprising events” that reflect an organizations inability to recognize evidence of new vulnerabilities or the existence of ineffective countermeasures (Woods in Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts, 2006). This necessitates the requirement to readjust to their existence and thereby the need to consider the extremes (Taleb in The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable, 2007), to challenge dominant mindsets and explore the space of possibilities. In Limits of Intelligence Analysis, Heuer (Orbis 49(1):75–94, 2005) argues how limitations in perception, perspective, and resistance to change, as well as understanding and communicating uncertainty all contribute the complexity of intelligence analysis. To support this, Richards (The art and science of intelligence analysis, 2010) argues that key components that support intelligence analysis include: critical thinking, creativity, powers of judgment, and communication. Addressing the unique challenges associated with transnational threats as terrorism and organized crime requires creative and collaborative efforts among key intelligence and security stakeholders that facilitate questioning judgments and underlying assumptions, and employing critical and creative thinking in order to explore the possibility space. This chapter explores the application of ‘visual thinking’ to support the complexity and challenges associated with intelligence analysis.

Keywords

Visual thinking Intelligence analysis Systems Uncertainty Complexity Visual communication Sensemaking 

References

  1. Ahlberg M (2004) Varieties of concept mapping. Concept maps: theory, methodology, technology. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on concept mapping, Universidad Pública de Navarra, Pamplona, SpainGoogle Scholar
  2. Cairo A (2013) The functional art: an introduction to information graphics and visualization. New Riders, BerkleyGoogle Scholar
  3. Canas AJ, Carff R, Hill G, Carvalho M, Arguedas M, Eskridge TC, Lott J, Carvajal R (2005) Concept maps: integrating knowledge and information visualization. In: Tergan S-O, Keller T (eds) Knowledge and information visualization. Springer, Berlin, pp 205–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. Checkland P (1999) Systems thinking, systems practice: includes a 30-year retrospective. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  6. Checkland P, Poulter J (2010) Soft systems methodology. In: Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. The Open University, Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Eppler MJ (2006) A comparison between concept maps, mind maps, conceptual diagrams, and visual metaphors as complementary tools for knowledge construction and sharing. Inf Vis 5:202–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eppler M, Burkhard RA (2007) Visual representations in knowledge management: framework and cases. J Knowl Manage 11(4):112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modelling in operational research. Eur J Oper Res 205(2010):489–500zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Harrell M (2008) No computer program required: even pencil-and-paper argument mapping improves critical thinking skills. Teach Philos 31:351–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heuer RJ (1999) Psychology of intelligence analysis. Central Intelligence AgencyGoogle Scholar
  13. Heuer RJ, Pherson RH (2011) Structured analytic techniques for intelligence analysis. CQ Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Jackson MC (2003) Systems thinking: creative holism for managers. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  15. Kang Y, Stasko J (2014) Characterizing the intelligence analysis process: informing visual analytics design through a longitudinal field study. Inf Visual 13(2):134–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein G, Moon B, Hoffman RR (2006) Making sense of sensemaking 2: a macrocognitive model. IEEE Intell Syst 21(5):88–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liao Q, Shi L, Wang C (2013) Visual analysis of large-scale network anomalies. IBM J Res Dev 57(3), Paper 13. International Business Machines IncorporatedGoogle Scholar
  18. Masys AJ (2010) Fratricide in air operations: opening the black box- revealing the social. PhD Dissertation, University of Leicester, UK, June 2010Google Scholar
  19. Masys AJ, Vallerand A (2014) Major event security planning: secure by design—through the strategic use of integrated modeling and simulation. M&S JGoogle Scholar
  20. Masys AJ, Ray-Bennett N, Shiroshita H, Jackson P (2014) High impact/low frequency extreme events: enabling reflection and resilience in a hyper-connected world. 4th international conference on building resilience, 8–11 Sept 2014, Salford Quays, UK. Procedia Econ Finance 18:772–779Google Scholar
  21. Moore DT, Hoffman RR (2011) Data-frame theory of sensemaking as a best model for intelligence. Am Intell J 29(2):145–158Google Scholar
  22. Muller-Wille S, Scharf S (2009) Indexing Nature: Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778) and his fact-gathering strategies. Working papers on the nature of evidence No. 36/08. London School of Economics, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Novak JD, Canas AJ (2008) The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical report IHMC Cmap Tools 2006-01 Rev 01-2008. Florida Institute for Human and Machine CognitionGoogle Scholar
  24. Polanyi M (1958) Personal Knowledge. Towards a Post-critical Philosophy, Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Richards J (2010) The art and science of intelligence analysis. Oxford Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Ritchie T (2006) Modelling complex socio-technical systems using morphological analysis. Swedish Morphological Society. www.swemorph.com. Accessed 15 Feb 2015
  27. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roam D (2008) The back of the napkin: solving problems and selling ideas with pictures. Penguin Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) A new paradigm of analysis. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, West SussexGoogle Scholar
  30. Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday Currency, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. St Clair RN, Jia YX (2006) Visual metaphors, Visual Communication and the Organization of Cognitive Space. Intercultural Commun Stud 15(1):157–167Google Scholar
  32. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill Publishing, BostonGoogle Scholar
  33. Taleb NN (2007) The Black Swan: the impact of the highly improbable. Penguin Books Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Tergan S-O (2005) Digital concept maps for managing knowledge and information. In: Tergan S-O, Keller T (eds) Knowledge and information visualization. Springer, Berlin, pp 185–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Toulmin S (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Tufte E (2001) The visual display of quantitative information, 2nd edn. Graphics Press, Cheshire, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  37. Twardy CR (2004) Argument maps improve critical thinking. Teach Philos 27:95–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Gelder T (2009) What is hypothesis mapping? 20 Jan 2009. http://www.timvangelder.com. Accessed 10 Mar 2015
  39. Van der Merwe L, (2008), Scenario-based strategy in practice: A framework. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 10(2):216–239Google Scholar
  40. Walny J, Carpendale S, Riche NH, Venolia G, Fawcett P (2011) Visual thinking in action: visualizations as used on whiteboards. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Graph 17(12):2508–2517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Woods DD (2006) Essential characteristics of resilience. In: Hollnagel E, Woods DD, Leveson N (eds) Resilience engineering: concepts and precepts. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Hampshire, UKGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilkinson A., Eidinow E (2008) Evolving practices in environmental scenarios: a new scenario typology, Environmental Research Letters, 3:1–11Google Scholar
  43. Yi JS, Kang Y, Stasko JT, Jacko JA (2008) Understanding and characterizing insights: how do people gain insights using information visualization? Association for Computing Machinery CHI Conference, ItalyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Royal Canadian Mounted PoliceOttawaCanada
  2. 2.University of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations