Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs): Difference between revisions
initial without pictures yet |
m Sac moved page Structured Analytic Techniques to Structured Analytic Techniques (SATs) |
||
(15 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
== Eight Rules for Successful Brainstorming == | == Eight Rules for Successful Brainstorming == | ||
[[File: | [[File:EIGHT-RULES-FOR-SUCCESSFUL-BRAINSTORMING.png|500px|]] | ||
== Technique Level 1 == | == Technique Level 1 == | ||
=== Technique 1: Chronologies and Timelines === | === Technique 1: Chronologies and Timelines === | ||
[[File: | [[File:Figure-7.2-Timeline_Estimate.png]] (Pherson and Heuer, 2021, p. 211) | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Identify all key events and arrange them chronologically in a table with one column for the date and one column for the event. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 159) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Select relevant information from the event narrative and organize it along the timeline. Can the data be categorized? (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 160) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Review the timeline by asking questions: | ||
''' Are assumptions about evidence considered? | |||
''' Does the duration and sequence of events make sense? | |||
''' Are there gaps in the data? | |||
'''Source''': (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 160) | |||
=== Technique 1: Getting Started Checklist === | === Technique 1: Getting Started Checklist === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': What prompted the analysis? Is it a report, development, or customer request? (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 110) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': What is the key question that needs to be answered? (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 110) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Why is the issue important, and how will analysis make a difference? (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 110) | ||
* | * '''STEP 4''': Has the question been answered before? What has changed? (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 110-111) | ||
* | * '''STEP 5''': Who are the primary customers? Are their needs clear? (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 111) | ||
* | * '''STEP 6''': Are there other stakeholders with differing perspectives? (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 111) | ||
=== Technique 1: Starbursting === | === Technique 1: Starbursting === | ||
Find the template from [MindTools-Starbursting](https://www.mindtools.com/ab1w9zu/starbursting) or [download here] | Find the template from [MindTools-Starbursting](https://www.mindtools.com/ab1w9zu/starbursting) or [[File:Starbursting.pdf|download here]]. | ||
[[File: | [[File:Figure-6.5-Starbursting-Example.png|500px]] | ||
(Pherson and Heuer, 2021, p. 167) | |||
--- | {| style="text-align:center; border-collapse: collapse; margin: 0 auto;" | ||
|- | |||
| colspan="3" | '''What?''' | |||
|- | |||
| '''Why?''' || '''Central Problem/Question''' || '''Who?''' | |||
|- | |||
| colspan="3" | '''How?''' | |||
|- | |||
| colspan="3" | '''When?''' | |||
|- | |||
| colspan="3" | '''Where?''' | |||
|} | |||
=== Technique 1: Force Field Analysis === | === Technique 1: Force Field Analysis === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Define the problem or goal clearly. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 133) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Brainstorm the main factors influencing the issue. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 133) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Create two lists—one for supporting arguments and one for opposing ones. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 133) | ||
* | * '''STEP 4''': Assign values to the arguments to determine their strength. Calculate the total score to determine the dominant side. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 133) | ||
[[File: | [[File:table-4.2.png]] (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 133) | ||
=== Technique 1: Key Assumptions Check === | === Technique 1: Key Assumptions Check === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Gather a group, including outsiders, to brainstorm assumptions. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 185) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': List assumptions on a whiteboard and critique them. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 185) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Categorize assumptions as supported, uncertain, or unsupported. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 186) | ||
* | * '''STEP 4''': Refine the list and update based on group feedback. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 186) | ||
[[File: | [[File:table-6.4.png]] (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 186) | ||
=== Technique 1: Red Hat Analysis and Structured Brainstorming === | === Technique 1: Red Hat Analysis and Structured Brainstorming === | ||
Line 68: | Line 72: | ||
*Avoid mirror imaging—assuming others think like you. Red Hat Analysis helps to view problems as others might, particularly adversaries.* | *Avoid mirror imaging—assuming others think like you. Red Hat Analysis helps to view problems as others might, particularly adversaries.* | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Gather analysts with knowledge of the target, environment, or decision-makers. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 323) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Use sticky notes to brainstorm without discussion. Focus on what the adversary would consider when acting. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 323) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Group and analyze ideas for common themes. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 323) | ||
=== Technique 1: Structured Brainstorming === | === Technique 1: Structured Brainstorming === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Gather a team of analysts. Use sticky notes for brainstorming, focusing on possible causes or factors. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 250) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Post sticky notes on a wall and rearrange them into groups based on similarities. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 251) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Analyze themes and draw conclusions for further investigation. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 251) | ||
== Technique Level 2 == | == Technique Level 2 == | ||
Line 88: | Line 88: | ||
=== Technique 2: Deception Detection === | === Technique 2: Deception Detection === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Use deception detection checklists to assess the situation. Consider the motives, past practices, and the source’s credibility. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 161) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Analyze deception potential using checklists such as MOM (Motive, Opportunity, Means) and POP (Past Opposition Practices). (Pherson and Heuer, 2021, p. 256) | ||
[[File:media/table-4.3.png]] | [[File:media/table-4.3.png]] | ||
=== AI Content Detection === | === AI Content Detection === | ||
'''How to detect synthetic content:''' | |||
* | * '''Pay attention to details like hands, faces, lighting, textures, and patterns.''' | ||
* | * '''Use tools like [Wasitai Detector](https://wasitai.com) and [Scribbr AI Detector](https://www.scribbr.com/ai-detector/).''' | ||
=== Technique 2: Decision Matrix === | === Technique 2: Decision Matrix === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Identify the decision or question. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 454) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': List criteria and options. Consolidate items to remove overlap. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 454) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Assign weights and score options. Calculate the total score and choose the best option. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 456) | ||
--- | {| class="wikitable" | ||
! colspan="5" | '''Decision Matrix: <Decision/Question>''' | |||
|- | |||
! Criteria | |||
! Weight | |||
! Option 1 | |||
! Option 2 | |||
! Option 3 | |||
|- | |||
| '''Criterion 1:''' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| '''Criterion 2:''' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| '''Criterion 3:''' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| '''Criterion 4:''' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| '''Criterion 5:''' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
! '''Total Weighted Score:''' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
! colspan="5" | '''Best Option:''' | |||
|- | |||
| colspan="5" | | |||
* Selected Option: (e.g., Option 1 based on the highest score) | |||
|} | |||
=== Technique 2: Devil’s Advocacy === | === Technique 2: Devil’s Advocacy === | ||
Line 117: | Line 162: | ||
*Devil’s Advocacy helps critique decisions or plans by exploring what could go wrong.* | *Devil’s Advocacy helps critique decisions or plans by exploring what could go wrong.* | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Start with the project’s goals, assumptions, and gaps. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 187) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Build a logical case against the proposed decision by focusing on potential pitfalls. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 187) | ||
=== Technique 2: Mind Maps === | === Technique 2: Mind Maps === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Write the focal question at the center of the page. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 233) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Brainstorm possible explanations and group ideas into categories. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 233) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Expand the mind map by drawing connections between ideas. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 234) | ||
=== Technique 2: Morphological Analysis === | === Technique 2: Morphological Analysis === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Define the problem’s dimensions (group, activity, method, impact). (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 404) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Combine dimensions to generate alternative scenarios and refine them. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 404) | ||
=== Technique 2: Multiple Hypothesis Generation—Simple Hypotheses === | === Technique 2: Multiple Hypothesis Generation—Simple Hypotheses === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Brainstorm hypotheses. Write them down and consolidate similar ideas. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 207) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Clarify each hypothesis using Who, What, When, Where, and Why. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 207) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Select the most promising hypotheses for further analysis. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 207) | ||
--- | {| class="wikitable" | ||
! colspan="6" | '''Multiple Hypothesis Generation Table: <Objective/Problem>''' | |||
|- | |||
! Hypothesis | |||
! Who | |||
! What | |||
! When | |||
! Where | |||
! Why | |||
|- | |||
| '''Hypothesis 1:''' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| '''Hypothesis 2:''' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| '''Hypothesis 3:''' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| '''Hypothesis 4:''' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
| '''Hypothesis 5:''' | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
| | |||
|- | |||
! colspan="6" | '''Selected Promising Hypotheses for Further Analysis''' | |||
|- | |||
| colspan="6" | | |||
* Selected Hypothesis 1: (e.g., Hypothesis 1 based on evidence and plausibility) | |||
* Selected Hypothesis 2: (e.g., Hypothesis 3 with strong indicators) | |||
|} | |||
=== Technique 2: Pros-Cons-Faults-and-Fixes === | === Technique 2: Pros-Cons-Faults-and-Fixes === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Define the decision clearly. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 277) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': List pros and cons, and develop fixes for the cons. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 277) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Compare the pros and cons, and assess the risk associated with each. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 278) | ||
=== Technique 2: What If? Analysis === | === Technique 2: What If? Analysis === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Assume the event has occurred and develop a chain of reasoning for how it happened. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 350) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Rank scenarios based on severity and probability. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 351) | ||
== Technique Level 3 == | == Technique Level 3 == | ||
Line 170: | Line 255: | ||
=== Technique 3: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) === | === Technique 3: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': List hypotheses to be considered. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 209) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Assess information for consistency with each hypothesis. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 209) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Refine hypotheses and conclusions based on inconsistencies. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 210) | ||
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center; width:100%;" | |||
|+ '''Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) Table''' | |||
! rowspan="2" | Evidence/Arguments | |||
! colspan="5" | Hypotheses To Be Compared | |||
|- | |||
! Hypothesis 1 | |||
! Hypothesis 2 | |||
! Hypothesis 3 | |||
! Hypothesis 4 | |||
! Hypothesis 5 | |||
|- | |||
! Evidence/Argument 1 | |||
| {{Yes}} Consistent | |||
| {{No}} Inconsistent | |||
| {{Neutral}} Neutral | |||
| {{Yes}} Consistent | |||
| {{No}} Inconsistent | |||
|- | |||
! Evidence/Argument 2 | |||
| {{Neutral}} Neutral | |||
| {{Yes}} Consistent | |||
| {{No}} Inconsistent | |||
| {{No}} Inconsistent | |||
| {{Yes}} Consistent | |||
|- | |||
! Evidence/Argument 3 | |||
| {{No}} Inconsistent | |||
| {{Neutral}} Neutral | |||
| {{Yes}} Consistent | |||
| {{Yes}} Consistent | |||
| {{No}} Inconsistent | |||
|- | |||
! Evidence/Argument 4 | |||
| {{Yes}} Consistent | |||
| {{Yes}} Consistent | |||
| {{Neutral}} Neutral | |||
| {{No}} Inconsistent | |||
| {{Neutral}} Neutral | |||
|- | |||
! Evidence/Argument 5 | |||
| {{No}} Inconsistent | |||
| {{Neutral}} Neutral | |||
| {{Yes}} Consistent | |||
| {{No}} Inconsistent | |||
| {{Yes}} Consistent | |||
|- | |||
! colspan="1" | '''Total Inconsistencies''' | |||
| '''X''' | |||
| '''Y''' | |||
| '''Z''' | |||
| '''A''' | |||
| '''B''' | |||
|- | |||
! colspan="1" | '''Tentative Conclusion''' | |||
| colspan="5" | The hypothesis with the fewest inconsistencies is the most likely. | |||
|} | |||
[[File:media/Figure%207.6A%20Creating%20an%20ACH%20Matrix.png]] (Pherson and Heuer, 2021, p. 245) | [[File:media/Figure%207.6A%20Creating%20an%20ACH%20Matrix.png]] (Pherson and Heuer, 2021, p. 245) | ||
=== Technique 3: Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) === | === Technique 3: Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Define the objective clearly. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 188) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': List strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 188) | ||
* | * '''STEP 3''': Identify strategies for exploiting strengths and opportunities, and mitigating weaknesses and threats. | ||
[[File:media/figure-10.4-swot-analysis.png]] (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 188) | [[File:media/figure-10.4-swot-analysis.png]] (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 188) | ||
--- | {| class="wikitable" | ||
! colspan="2" | SWOT Analysis: '''<Objective>''' | |||
|- | |||
! Strengths | |||
! Weaknesses | |||
|- | |||
| | |||
* Strength 1 | |||
* Strength 2 | |||
* Strength 3 | |||
| | |||
* Weakness 1 | |||
* Weakness 2 | |||
* Weakness 3 | |||
|- | |||
! Opportunities | |||
! Threats | |||
|- | |||
| | |||
* Opportunity 1 | |||
* Opportunity 2 | |||
* Opportunity 3 | |||
| | |||
* Threat 1 | |||
* Threat 2 | |||
* Threat 3 | |||
|- | |||
! colspan="2" | '''Strategies for Action''' | |||
|- | |||
| colspan="2" | | |||
'''Exploiting Strengths & Opportunities:''' | |||
* Strategy 1: (e.g., Use Strength 1 to maximize Opportunity 1) | |||
* Strategy 2: (e.g., Leverage Strength 2 to counter Threat 2) | |||
* Strategy 3: (e.g., Use Opportunity 3 to reduce Weakness 3) | |||
'''Mitigating Weaknesses & Threats:''' | |||
* Strategy 4: (e.g., Address Weakness 2 to avoid Threat 1) | |||
* Strategy 5: (e.g., Minimize Weakness 1 through Opportunity 2) | |||
|} | |||
=== Technique 3: Foresight Quadrant Crunching === | === Technique 3: Foresight Quadrant Crunching === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Break the lead hypothesis into component parts and identify critical dimensions. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 354) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Use 2x2 matrices to generate alternative scenarios. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 354) | ||
[[File:media/table-13.3.png]] (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 354) | [[File:media/table-13.3.png]] (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 354) | ||
=== Technique 3: Indicators === | === Technique 3: Indicators === | ||
'''Step-by-Step Guide:''' | |||
* | * '''STEP 1''': Brainstorm indicators for each scenario. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 328) | ||
* | * '''STEP 2''': Refine the indicators, ensuring they are observable, valid, reliable, and stable. (Beebe and Pherson, 2015, p. 328) | ||
== Technique Level 4 == | == Technique Level 4 == | ||
Line 224: | Line 399: | ||
[[Category:Analysis Methods]] | [[Category:Analysis Methods]] | ||
[[Category:Guides]] | [[Category:Guides]] | ||
[[Category:Frameworks]] |