Toward Living Intelligence

[TheSmokingArgus]

Regardless of whether the "Intelligence Community" ever develops a working model of "Living Intelligence" it means little when our Republic is no longer the bastion of natural Law, individual Liberty, and the ability to protect ourselves from our own government who increasingly views "We the People" as enemies of the State.

[xPsychoWard86x]

Why are we not funding this

[chitownckb]

I'd like to contribute, but I'm too busy producing a report that will go through 5 editors and take two weeks to disseminate after I submit.

The only thing my performance is based on is production of reports. My management is judged by the number of reports their analysts produce. Sure the value and relevance of the report is taken into account, but not enough to outweigh pure numbers.

Management does not like collaboration...they are afraid of someone stealing their peice of the pie.

[sou2b2]

What if you counted "disseminated facts" - relevant information from your notebook that make it into the living reports.

[emergingsounds]

Glad to see this final version in the public eye. It visualizes where we need to be going as a community.

[ckras]

When most in the intel biz talk about what customers want they often project their style and preferences. Your assertion of no editors has no base. Not only is everything transparent in this system, but agency chop chains are maintained for further certification but without locking down the wiki. If your review process is top notch and youre an expert why dont you step up out of the opaque review and into a transparent system?

[thelem74]

Great idea except that all agencies and intel are not "equal" on all subjects. What you're suggesting is analogous to several newspapers reporters contributing articles to a common paper without an editor. Yes the system is bloated, but customers judge the content of the intelligence NOT ONLY based on the intelligence but also on the source of both the intelligence and the analysis (ie, I know the Washington Post is better at covering issue X so I read that instead of the New York Times)

[sou2b2]

So WaPo gets politics right and WSJ gets econ, but economic crisis is a little of both. Instead of both doing part well, and part lousy, what if they worked together on 1 good article. WSJ handles the econ content, WaPo handles the beltway stuff. The number of topics where one producer has all the answers on a whole topic is vanishingly small. The expertise is in the community, why not use it, instead of producing competitively out of hubris and lack of trust?

[edstoffel]

Excellent idea!

[mjnotio]

Would that this sensibility could be brought to bear on the complex issues our government and intelligence agencies face. Great job pitching the concept.