Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
What is Warning?
The Dictionary definition: • An alert prior to a threatening act,
event, or behavior
2
In practical terms, that means: • Productive, continuing interaction with decision-makers …
actionable foresight … enabling better decisions, broader options, increased resiliency
— Shape outcomes to achieve objectives — Prepare for outcomes that cannot be fully shaped — Mitigate impacts of outcomes that cannot be fully
prepared for — Avoid Complete Surprise (the enemy is at the gate)
! ! Strategic
Tactical
Common Causes of Surprise • Deliberate hostile actions • System shocks • Under-estimating or mis-
estimating trend implications • Confusing assumptions and
uncertainties • Not recognizing complex
linkages • Technological/operational
changes • Natural events
Enduring Challenges • A tough business, even under the best circumstances
– complex issues, set in the future, significant uncertainties, high stakes
• Defining your mission • Maintaining the mindset • Training, time, resources • Product/output
4
• Finding the right place to ‘plug in’
• Success metrics • ‘3 Bears’ expectations • Not wanting to be wrong
Temptation to Warn of Everything …
5
… Or Report Anything
Common Pitfalls • Consensus cultures (don’t rock the boat) • Functional specialization (experts rule) • Integration (old/new, regional/functional, etc.) • Imagination (that hasn’t happened before) • Mirror imaging (they’ll do what we would do) • Perception biases/pattern matching (seeing what we
expect to see)
6
• Inappropriate analogies (true before, so true again)
• Depending too much on the information we have
• Ego (You can’t fool me) • Negativity bias … remembering
the bad more than the good • Holding on to entrenched beliefs
Not Possible to Completely Eliminate Surprise
7
But We Can Improve the Odds • Conscious, deliberate, systematic efforts … not just
the by-product of daily activity • 3-dimensional capabilities
– Rapid detection for rapid response – Persistent surveillance of known threats – Strategic reconnaissance of emerging issues
8
• Extensive collaboration and engagement … well beyond ‘your team’
• Energizing and focusing the entire enterprise • Specific training and tradecraft • Senior leader endorsement (‘partnership’ with analytic
organizations)
Warning System Essentials • Understanding and articulating
‘normal’ – Patterns, developments,
conditions, behaviors, actions, etc. that define the ‘steady state’
• Being able to recognize important deviations – Sources, metrics, analytic
criteria, etc. that help you detect significant change
• Knowing when (and when not) to warn – Reporting thresholds … how far
away from ‘normal’ before you tell somebody 9
Normal
Elevated
Significant Concern
Critical
Elements of a Systematic Process • Continuous effort to identify
existing and anticipate emerging threats
• Conscious evaluation of likelihood, impact, capacity to leverage/influence key factors
10
• Consistent monitoring of critical factors impacting the warning/risk/opportunity event
• Regular communication with leadership and other stakeholders
• Generate, evaluate mitigation options?
Evaluating Risks • Should include:
– Clear articulation of the risk/warning event
– Examination of how it could ‘plausibly’ materialize
– Likelihood that it will occur within specified timeframe (with confidence statement)
• Problematic, but maybe most important – Potential impact should it materialize
• Not strictly an analyst function • Nature of the threat/risk and our
exposure/vulnerability • Local, regional, enterprise implications
– Potential points of leverage/influence – Follow-on actions – Critical uncertainties; emerging topics – Potential for additional warning
11
Probability Assessment • Beware of the usual pitfalls
– Availability … Anchoring … Overconfidence • Many approaches, none fool-proof
– Quantitative Methods – probability theory, descriptive and inferential statistics, statistical modeling … when you have the data
– Expert Judgment – individual experts or groups of experts assess likelihood based on available information and their experience
12
– Timeline/Indicator – probability is assessed according to the gap between detected/expected threat/risk activity levels
– Alternative Analyses (ACH) – specifically examining alternative scenarios/ hypotheses; matching those to existing evidence
– Drivers-Constraints – probability is assessed according to the relative number, strength, and weight of individual factors that would make the risk more or less likely to occur
– Decision Games – probabilities assessed using iterative models of stakeholder decision-making
Impact Assessment
• Expert analysis of potential impact on strategic interests should risk materialize
– How does the event itself affect our interests?
– How is (are) the issue, place, region, world, our interests different in the aftermath?
• Combines threat characteristics and institutional vulnerability/exposure
• Can be relatively simple and subjective … – High, Medium, Low
13
• … Or more complex and quantitative – Weighted values, algorithms, models, numeric scoring
• Requires clear, understandable ranking values
Assessing Analytic Confidence
• Complexity • Information • Analytic Expertise • Plausible
Alternatives • Time
14
The Ideal Analytic Output • Timely
– Detects the earliest signs – Within customer timelines and processes
• Credible – Uncertainties, gaps, assumptions and confidence are transparent – Considers and examines plausible alternatives – Convincingly delivered (sound, concise, tailored)
• Actionable – Evaluates impact (the event) and implications (aftermath) – Addresses context, direction, speed, completeness – Anticipates (posits) next steps … and potential triggers? – Identifies potential points of leverage/influence – Assesses potential for additional warning
15
Many Different Methodologies Evidence-Based
• Timeline-Indicators • Trend Analysis • Modeling • Simulations • Drivers-Constraints
• Backcasting • Scenarios • Visioning • Structured Games and Workshops • Brainstorming
Possibilities-Based
• Analysis of Competing Hypotheses • Deception Assessment • Devil’s Advocacy • ‘What If’ Assessments • Team A/Team B
16
Others
• Challenging Assumptions • Horizon Scanning • Red Teams • Delphi • Wild Card Assessments • Expert Surveys
Matching Methodologies to Problems • Where is the issue on the analytic continuum (known? …
knowable? … complex? … chaotic?) • What information would you like to have to address your
issue with high confidence? How does that compare with the information you have or are likely to get?
• Who is your primary intended consumer? What is his/her decision ‘space’ … time horizon … risk tolerance?
17
• How much time do you have? • How do you plan to deal
(explicitly) with uncertainty? • What is the best (or most likely)
method of conveyance? • What methodologies are most
appropriate to your issue?
5 Useful Things to Have in Place • Structured analytic approaches tailored to
the problem
18
• Comprehensive information strategies
• Communities of interest effectively linking stakeholders
• Regular dialogue with customers
• Designated analytic leads
Challenging Expert Thinking • What is the likelihood of XX … in XX
timeframe?
• Why do you think that? (assumptions, evidence, rationale, uncertainties)
• How confident are you in your assessment?
• Does anyone disagree with you? … What is their argument?
19
• How recent is your most critical information?
• Has your assessment changed over time?
• What is the ‘newest’ big thing you have had to factor in?
• What evidence or developments would change your assessment?
• What would you most like to know that you don’t?
• How are you most likely to be wrong?
• What are the implications of your being wrong?
• When was the last time you were wrong?
Communicating Warning • Detailed, iterative
interactions with leadership
20
• Risk assessments, not predictions
• Partnership throughout the process
• Use any surrogate access • Trust trumps most everything else • What you (and they) know, don’t know, think • Work hard to make this a productive relationship
Not So Easy to Get Right Assuming you see it coming … • The audience is pre-occupied … they might not be receptive • They have biases too … and other sources of information • You’re asking them to embrace a major discontinuity … potential
harm … that may never materialize … a very tough sell • Your case may rest more on rational possibilities than evidence • You hope to leave them worried (thanks!) … they may just be
complacent … or angry • They expect you to get it ‘just right’ … not too early or too late
21
• Other experts disagree … they may try to push you toward consensus
• An ounce of prevention is hard to measure • Nobody, especially you, wants to be wrong • ‘Crying Sheep’
So …
22
You will need to be: • Thoughtful • Deliberate • Calculating • Persistent • Tough-minded • Persuasive • Creative
What Does Your Decision-Maker Need? • What would you most like to know if you could
know anything? • What is your definition (strategic vision) of
success? • What are the top several things you most want
to accomplish? … most need to avoid? • What are your biggest concerns/fears?
23
• What are the dangers of not achieving your vision? • What needs to change in order for you to be successful? • What developments (successes and failures) over the recent past
are most instructive? • What must be done now/next (the top priority first step)? • What one thing would you do if you could do anything?
Deciding When to Warn? • Likelihood and Impact • Are we approaching a
threshold? • Do other analysts share
my concern? • Is the policy community
aware?
24
• How long has it been since we last engaged? • Are other narratives overly optimistic? • Has the risk narrative been fragmented?
Questions to Consider • What is the critical information
I must convey … in initial and subsequent interactions?
• What factors are causing me concern … how do I track and measure them?
• Who is my audience?
25
• What are the principal obstacles to my effectively communicating this warning?
• What if I am not successful? • What opportunities/advantages do I have? • What is my most likely/effective means of conveyance? • What questions can I anticipate? • What are the main counter arguments?
A Useful Writing Style
26
•Chapeau paragraph provides ‘bottom line’ assessments
•Bulleted sub-paragraphs provide supporting evidence
•Examples can be found at: http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/national-intelligence-council-nic-publications
Stop Light Charts
27
Indicator Status
Normal Elevated Significant Concern
Critical
C2 Garrison Status Two Strategic CPs Deployed
3-4 Strategic CPs Deployed
More Than 4 Strategic CPs Deployed
Logistics Stocks in Depots Local Depots Out-Loaded
Regional Depots Out-Loaded
National Depots Out-Loaded
Maneuver Forces
Garrison Status 20-25% Out of Garrison
25-50% Out of Garrison
More than 50% Out of Garrison
Strategic Forces
Deterrent Status 25% in Ready Status
More than 25% in Ready Status
Fully Mobilized and Dispersed
Civil Defense Peacetime Status Reserve-Ready Status
Reserve Call-up Underway
Full Mobilization
National Reserves
Peacetime Status Single Sector Mobilization
Multiple Sector Mobilization
Full Mobilization
• Nuanced perspective on a dynamic, evolving situation • ‘Proof’ that something larger is not yet taking shape • Inspires confidence
Indicator Charts
28
Indicator Status
15 Aug 12 Status
15 Sep 12
Direction
Alawi Cohesion (Overall Assessment)
Additional attacks on senior leadership Key security elements unwilling to act Desertions/defections among Alawi leadership or rank and file Redeployment to Alawi heartland Non-elite Alawi opposition to Assad Evidence of palace coup/attempt (arrests, purges, etc.)
Military/ Security Service/Key Leader Loyalty (Overall Assessment)
Desertion/defections Recruitment (conscription numbers) Casualties Unwillingness to act Coup/attempt (arrests of officers)
Military/Security Service Effectiveness (Overall Assessment)
Declining effectiveness of key units Shortages (numbers, arms, equipment) Logistics shortfalls impacting operations Capacity to seize/hold territory Capacity to project forces anywhere Dependence on militias
Opposition Effectiveness (Overall Assessment)
Numbers (recruits, arms, operations, etc.) Reducing capabilities gap in relationship to regime forces Clear structure/command and control Capacity to repel regime offensive operations Improved coordination Geographic scope of ops Intelligence capacity Capacity to establish safe-havens
Assad’s Perspective/Outlook (Overall Assessment)
Public profile Visible signs of strain/isolation Family posture
Integrated Risk Plots
IMPACT
Lower L I K E L I H O O D Higher
Iran Nuclear Surprise
WMD Terror Attack
Israel-Iran
Reversal in Afghanistan
Sudan Violence
Major Cyber Attack
NK Minor Provocation
NK Instability
Escalating Mexican Drug
Violence
US-PRC military event
I-P Conflict
Pakistan Instability
Lebanon Crisis
Reversal In Iraq
Russia-Georgia
Saudi Instability
Egypt Instability
Yemen Collapse
Haiti Instability
911-like Terror Attack
China- Taiwan
Major Mil – Tech Surprise
Mexico Instability
Double-Dip Recession
Higher
Nigeria Instability
2-Axis Scenario Output (How Country X Evolves)
31
Looks Like Revolution
Blood, Sweat and Tears
Amplified Authoritarianism
The Long Twilight Struggle
Dashboard Charts
Direction:
Current Status
Velocity: Medium High Low
Helping with Mitigation • Do we have the capacity to affect risk
likelihood and/or impact? How? • Do we have the option of doing nothing? … or
of ‘getting out of the business’ altogether? • Can we share or deflect the risk?
33
• Do we have a warning system in place for this risk?
• Do we have contingency plans? • Can we adapt? … or hedge
against it?
And Still They Don’t Listen …
34
36
Questions?
