A New Definition of Intelligence
A New Definition of Intelligence
A New Definition of Intelligence
Alan Breakspear
To cite this article: Alan Breakspear (2013) A New Definition of Intelligence, Intelligence and
National Security, 28:5, 678-693, DOI: 10.1080/02684527.2012.699285
ARTICLE
ALAN BREAKSPEAR*
Introduction
This article addresses the question of what intelligence is, and, more
specifically, what its purpose is; what are the expected and intended effects
of intelligence activities? The need to attempt to answer this question arises
from the general acknowledgement among scholars that it might be
impossible to arrive at a single acceptable answer. This unsatisfactory
non-answer is found in the study of intelligence, both as psychological
phenomenon (brainpower, the ability to think and learn, etc.) and as
organizational decision support (rooted in international power struggles and
increasingly practised not only by government agencies but also in
competitive business and other fields of endeavour). While the two have
seemed to diverge, especially in the last century, the fact that the same word,
intelligence, is used to signify both domains is no accident.
Discussion
Governance is concerned to help human society adapt to change. Whatever
the form and expression of governance adopted by a nation state, a
Email: [email protected]
© 2012 Taylor & Francis
A New Definition of Intelligence 679
. the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills: an eminent man
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 08:24 14 September 2017
of great intelligence
. a person or being with the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and
skills: extraterrestrial intelligences
. the collection of information of military or political value: the chief of
military intelligence
. people employed in the collection of military or political information:
British intelligence has secured numerous local informers
. military or political information: the gathering of intelligence
. archaic information in general; news.
The point, of course, is that intelligence is widely seen not only as an ability
to think and learn but also to apply the learning.
A commonplace in English-language intelligence training manuals, and in
many books and articles about intelligence, is a representation of the
process by which intelligence is prepared and produced as an iterative cycle,
involving some five or six main stages: Requirements (or Priorities),
Collection (sometimes divided in two, as Collection Plan and Collection
Activity), Processing (or Collation), Analysis and Dissemination. This
representation is, out of necessity, simplistic, ignoring or omitting the
pragmatic necessity to move back and forth amongst these stages as a
project unfolds.
The problems of the intelligence cycle were cogently presented by Arthur
Hulnick in his 2006 article, ‘What’s Wrong with the Intelligence Cycle?’ He
offers the following summary comments:
3
5http://www.vetta.org/definitions-of-intelligence/4 (accessed 30 July 2011). This site has
since been discontinued. Legg’s thesis, Machine Super Intelligence, apparently contains the
definitions cited here, and is available through 5http://www.vetta.org/2008/07/machine-
super-intelligence/4 (accessed 25 June 2012).
A New Definition of Intelligence 681
Finally, the idea that decision makers wait for the delivery of
intelligence before making policy decisions is equally incorrect [. . .]
Taken as a whole, the cycle concept is a flawed model, but nevertheless
continues to be taught in the US and around the world.4
and governance, people, process, product and organization – but Cox sees
two others also at play. One is the concept of advantageous action or
activity derived from the notion of decision advantage described by
Jennifer Sims in the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence
(ODNI) Vision 2015 document. Advantageous action calls on yet
another fundamental conceptual component of intelligence that
heretofore has been largely ignored, in Cox’s view: continuous review
and evaluation for efficacy. These are further described in Cox’s PhD
thesis,5 in which he discusses the problem of defining intelligence. Cox
comes closest to a proposed definition of intelligence when he cites a
‘draft CF joint intelligence doctrine, which states that, in informing
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 08:24 14 September 2017
5
Brigadier-General (Retired) James Cox, Lighting the Shadows: An Evaluation of Theory and
Practice in Canadian Defence Intelligence, PhD thesis (Royal Military College of Canada
2011).
6
Johnson, Treverton, Gill et al., cited in references 1, 2 and 3.
7
Brigadier-General Walter J. Dabros, Director General Intelligence and Security, 1977–1978,
in conversation with the author.
A New Definition of Intelligence 683
8
Personal correspondence with the author.
9
Prime examples are Jan Herring, who was recruited from CIA to set up Motorola’s
competitive intelligence function, and Ben Gilad, who was introduced to intelligence in the
Israeli military. Herring and Gilad are today among the leaders of Competitive Intelligence.
10
5http://www.aurorawdc.com/whatisci.htm4 (accessed 5 August 2011).
684 Intelligence and National Security
11
5http://www.fuld.com/Tools/RefCenter.html4 (accessed 5 August 2011).
12
5http://www.scip.org/4 (accessed 5 August 2011).
13
Cox is drawing here from Philip Davies, ‘Ideas of Intelligence: Divergent National Concepts
and Institutions’ in C. Andrew, R.J. Aldrich, and W.K. Wark (eds.) Secret Intelligence: A
Reader (London/New York: Routledge 2009) ch.2.
A New Definition of Intelligence 685
One aspect of US intelligence practice and policy has been pervasive and
has long influenced public and media assumptions about intelligence in
much of the English-speaking world. That is, the inclusion of covert action
and counter-intelligence within the meaning of ‘intelligence’. The author of
one of the few books that come close to being a comprehensive and
accessible standard text for teaching intelligence studies at the secondary and
post-secondary level, Mark Lowenthal, states plainly that: ‘Intelligence can
be divided into four broad activities: collection, analysis, covert action and
counterintelligence’.14
This unnecessary and confusing approach to the definition of intelligence
is discussed elsewhere in this article, but it cannot be ignored here. It
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 08:24 14 September 2017
14
Mark M. Lowenthal, Intelligence from Secrets to Policy, 3rd ed. (Washington DC: CQ
Press 2006).
15
Michael Warner, ‘Wanted: A Definition of ‘‘Intelligence’’’, Studies in Intelligence 46 (2002)
pp.15–22.
16
Warner has provided further valuable discussion of the nature of intelligence in his
chapter, Michael Warner, ‘Intelligence as Risk Shifting’ in P. Gill, S. Marrin, and M.
Phythian (eds.) Intelligence Theory; Key Questions and Debates (Oxford: Routledge 2009)
pp.16–32.
686 Intelligence and National Security
17
Michael Herman, Intelligence Services in the Information Age (Oxford/New York: Frank
Cass Publishers 2001); Michael Herman, Intelligence Power in Peace and War (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press 1996).
18
Michael Herman, ‘Why Does Military Intelligence Matter?’, Changing Character of War
Seminar, Oxford, 27 November 2007 5http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/OIG2/herman%20
paper%202007.pdf4 (accessed 1 August 2011).
A New Definition of Intelligence 687
Proposal
This article argues for the understanding of intelligence in modern
governance as decision support. It goes further, to suggest that the decision
support nature of intelligence will be better understood if a standard
definition of intelligence were widely adopted. In its analysis thus far, the
article has assembled a sequence of increasingly focused possible definitions
of intelligence, which might be represented at this point as:
19
Natalia Derbentseva, Lianne McLellan, and David R. Mandel, of Defence R&D Canada,
Issues in Intelligence Production, Summary of interviews with Canadian managers of
intelligence analysts. Technical Report, DRDC Toronto TR 2010-144, December 2010.
688 Intelligence and National Security
These definitions remain less than satisfactory in their failure to generalize the
kinds of ‘actions’ or ‘situations or circumstances’ that might be anticipated. The
Joint Chiefs’ document, moreover, talks of ‘prediction’, a slippery concept that
risks derision rather than respect. Forecasting is more honest and pragmatic; it
reflects an attempt to point at probability and to identify signs which can be
watched for that might give closer warning of the change at hand.
The proposed definition must provide for universality. As shown
elsewhere in this article, intelligence is not only an activity which might be
practised without secrecy, it can also be undertaken by organizations in a
wide range of sectors; at all levels of government, in business, in not-for-
profit activities of all kinds. Any organization whose interests might be
affected by external developments, arguably, should attempt to anticipate
and forecast such developments, and have plans ready to deal with them.
That is, they should all conduct intelligence.
The following new definition is proposed:
Benefits
If (when) this proposal is widely adopted, even if only as one element in an
organization’s definition of intelligence, it will permit clearer communication
among intelligence practitioners, more effective audit and evaluation of
intelligence functions in business and government, and better understanding of
20
‘Joint Intelligence’, Joint Publication 2-0, 22 June 2007, p.ix 5http://www.fas.org/irp/
doddir/dod/jp2_0.pdf 4 (accessed 13 August 2011).
A New Definition of Intelligence 689
Problems
Any attempt to introduce a standardized approach, such as the new
‘standard’ definition proposed herein, risks a narrowing of intelligence
690 Intelligence and National Security
practice to be less intuitive, more procedural. This in turn might have the
effect of encouraging the certification approach, based on the idea that there
is ‘one right way’ for the conduct of intelligence analysis, for example.
Movement to adopt certification is already visible in competitive intelligence
and in law enforcement intelligence analysis. The definition proposed here is
expressed in general terms, partly to discourage or avoid such tendency.
Michael Warner has commented that the definition proposed herein
conflates intelligence with analysis, as widely practised in many organiza-
tions under various ‘strategic’ functional headings.21 Such confusion might
perhaps be possible, if the definition is considered in isolation from the
discussion throughout this article of all functional aspects of intelligence,
Downloaded by [University of Glasgow] at 08:24 14 September 2017
In the United States, the ILP discussion is not without differing points
of view. For example, in some quarters, the terms data-driven or
information-led are preferred. Others primarily view ILP as a terror
prevention initiative and while ILP means different things to different
people, there appears to be some basic agreement regarding its place in
the evolution of American policing. ILP does not replace the concepts
of problem-solving policing of Goldstein, or the community involve-
ment and neighborhood maintenance theories of Kelling and Wilson,
21
Informal debate during a panel on Intelligence Theory, featuring Warner, Cox and
Breakspear, at the 2011 Annual International Conference of the Canadian Association for
Security and Intelligence Studies (CASIS), held in Ottawa on 9–10 November 2011.
A New Definition of Intelligence 691
Detective work and intelligence collection may resemble each other, but
they are really completely different. Detectives aim at meeting a specific
legal standard – ‘probable cause,’ for example, or ‘beyond a reasonable
doubt’ or ‘preponderance of evidence.’ It depends on whether you want
to start an investigation, put a suspect in jail or win a civil suit.
Intelligence, on the other hand, rarely tries to prove anything; its main
purpose is to inform officials and military commanders.
22
Justice Issues, an article of the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), a component of the Office
of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice 5http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/topics/
ilp.html4 (accessed 6 August 2011).
23
5http://www.icjcanada.org/en/documents/doc_2011-03-03.pdf4 (accessed 18 December
2011).
692 Intelligence and National Security
The clock runs differently for detectives and intelligence analysts, too.
Intelligence analysts – one hopes – go to work before a crisis; detectives
usually go to work after a crime. Law enforcement agencies take their
time and doggedly pursue as many leads as they can. Intelligence analysts
usually operate against the clock. There is a critical point in time where
officials have to ‘go with what they’ve got,’ ambiguous or not.24
Summary
The adoption of a new definition of intelligence would help to improve the
conduct of intelligence through better mutual understanding between the client
decision-makers, whose needs determine intelligence requirements, and the
collectors and analysts, who strive to meet those needs. It would provide a
clearer common basis for the study and management of intelligence by scholars
and practitioners in the increasingly wide range of sectors and organizations
which conduct intelligence, and for the public and media understanding of
intelligence. Possibly most importantly, it would facilitate effective, ongoing
audit and evaluation of intelligence, an outcome sadly lacking to this point.
The following new definition is proposed:
The benefits of the widespread adoption of this definition, even as only one
element of the definition of intelligence used by any particular organization,
would also be increased and reinforced if accompanied by efforts to ensure
understanding of the intelligence process as requiring an effective dialogue
between decision-maker clients on one hand and intelligence collectors and
analysts on the other.
Acknowledgements
I drew particular strength for this project from three publications concerning
intelligence theory. All three serve to illuminate the domain within which
any new proposal for a standard definition must be tested.
24
Bruce Berkowitz, ‘Commentary: The Big Difference between Intelligence and Evidence’,
Washington Post, 2 February 2003 5http://rand.org/commentary/020203WP.html4 (ac-
cessed 13 August 2011).
A New Definition of Intelligence 693
Notes on Contributor
Alan Breakspear’s career in Canada’s Public Service included service in the
Communications Security Establishment (CSE) as linguist/analyst; in the
Privy Council Office (PCO) as policy analyst, strategic intelligence analyst,
assessment coordinator and intelligence advisor to the Prime Minister’s
Office (PMO); and in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) as
senior manager. He later worked as a consultant and trainer in Competitive
Intelligence, Knowledge Management and Strategic Early Warning, and
taught Intelligence and Public Policy at the University of British Columbia
and the University of Victoria. He is currently a company director and board
chair, and President of the Canadian Association for Security and
Intelligence Studies (CASIS).
25
Loch Johnson, ‘Bricks and Mortar for a Theory of Intelligence’, Comparative Strategy 22
(2003) pp.1–28.
26
5http://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/2006/RAND_CF219.pdf4 (accessed 13
August 2011).
27
P. Gill, S. Marrin, and M. Phythian (eds.), Intelligence Theory; Key Questions and Debates
(Oxford: Routledge 2009).