|
|
|
|
|
Managing Change in Corporate Intelligence Centers by Alan J Simpson
The question often asked about a Corporate Intelligence Center is "Where shall we put it and what equipment and software do we need?" As more and more corporations, organizations and local government departments develop their own facilities there are few published guidelines, or pointers to how, and why the center is laid out, and what constitutes an efficient, and cost effective operation model. The management of information, communications and input has to be carefully managed, with an eye on alternative feeds and expert verification for analysts. The iJet Intelligence Center above is typical of a military or government intelligence community model for how an intelligence center could be constructed. It is expensive and centralized. Another model uses distributive processing technology, even remote employees around the country, or the world. There are advantages to both, and both models give a number of unique headaches. Over thirty years ago I was working from a highly secret intelligence center, and asked why it was laid out as it was in the 1940's and did not take advantage of the new technologies of the day. The answer was unexpected, and quite revealing, "To impress visiting VIP's". True when senior officers, especially from other branches, and politicians were given a packaged, sanitized tour, they would marvel at the scale and impact of the displays and banks of filing cabinets. In reality it was a massive inefficient waste of space. Today companies like to emulate government facilities, especially as most intelligence advisors come directly from the military, CIA or FBI and have never had to think about the most efficient, or cost effective way of doing anything. They follow the mantras they have had drilled into them through years of bureaucratic indoctrination. Not so our Asian competitors for they have developed corporate and competitive espionage into both an art form and well studied science. They don't waste tens of billions on unsupervised, unregulated military intelligence as the United States, for they take a long term view and understand it is the economic engine that drives a country, not the military-industrial machine. Before any plans can be made the true purpose, and end product of the intelligence center has to be clarified. Is it to work efficiently on a 24 hour basis, drawing from information sources around the world, or for data mining from internal, or public data for long term planning purposes. Each has a different design criteria, and utilization of technology. The software salesmen would have you believe that the answer to all your problems lies in buying their suite of programs first and customizing them to meet your requirements. Not so! The software is a tool and should be chosen once the workshop has been planned. A carpenter does not buy a very expensive computer driven milling machine to cut pieces of wood for framing houses. True there is an old saying that a "True Engineer can cut with a file, and file with a saw" but that skill doesn't lead to efficiencies, or scaleability of the project, and the results are usually useless. The scale of the project too needs to be taken into consideration, for moving complex computer networks, and data storage facilities can be a nightmare. Make the physical space, or virtual space big enough to expand to meet the needs of the enterprise in the foreseeable future. I mention virtual space for your Intelligence Center may not have much physical footprint at all, especially if it is a global information network using remote nodes. Over the past five years I have pulled together more and more information sources, and reduced our office requirements to virtually nothing. I have 100 servers remotely located doing all the work. The problem there is that now we are expanding the training aspect of intelligence and communications we have the problem of what to show workshop participants. Looking at an internet connection in the nearby wall does not cut it. This brings the visual aspect of the intelligence center into the equation, how many people need to view, or hear the product and process at the same time, and how is it to be packaged for distribution? Is this distribution real time, time sensitive, or just background. The Intelligence Briefing is often the last item on the planning chart, and in many organizations the most important. The briefing manager has to be a good salesman, or the fruits of information gathering, and analysis will be wasted. Management has to buy into the process, and act on the conclusions. If you are invading the Beaches of Normandy as in WWII D-Day then a large team needs to see the process and priorities at the same time, to enable them to discuss, add input and clearly be seen to be on the same page. Each player must understand his place, both in space and time. This is in effect a theatrical production. (Some would say often a Comedy of Errors!) If you are circulating a report comparing the number of automobiles on the streets of London, New York and Beijing during the last ten years then the briefing can be sent round to recipients as a copied binder. The problem comes when the management expects to see a Normandy Invasion briefing, and allocates enough funds for printing that automobile report at Kinko's. You can expect from your intelligence operation the results it was created, and funded to provide. Don't expect the corporate intelligence department to be able to brief everyone in times of crisis unless it has the training, experience, and resources. Good intelligence comes into it's own in the event of a disaster, attack or challenge from competitors or global events. The choice of location can have unforeseen consequences in the event of a disaster, as was seen in New York during 9/11. I was criticized for advising New York against putting New York's Emergency Center way up in the World Trade Center. History proved my concerns well founded in the worst way. Look at the location of the intelligence center, especially if it serves as an operations center as well, and ask "What if .....?" I have worked with Intelligence Centers that were part of the Head Office, some which were in anonymous buildings, hidden from prying eyes, some in shopping centers and downtown business areas, and some that exist in laptops on kitchen and home offices around the world. It all depends on the purpose, and more important the output. "Two minutes ago in Tokyo" requires a different plan to "Our Man in Havana reported last month that ..." Often a hybrid of these extremes is chosen, and that drives the choice of technology for collection, analysis and display. How do you get that information from source to analysts? Do you have someone in place, use a local media source, have a third party vendor, or data mine the media? searching the established media is the choice of many, and software is available to scan the mainstream media on the Internet for required information. The problem with having a central computer center searching established media is that they no longer lead the news process, or have comprehensive, and in depth coverage as they did a generation ago. Most news media has degenerated to the point of being entertainment, driven by sensationalism to provide mass market ratings for advertisers. They are closing their news bureaus around the world and relying on news releases, and local affiliates when the news becomes sensational enough to attract viewers. The next problem with a centralized software-driven collection process is languages. How many languages do you need for your operational area? Do you have real time translation resources, or do you have contract translation services handle information of interest? The computer infrastructure needed to search, locate, mix and match and display can be simple, or so complex it needs an army of technicians and software experts to maintain. In house processing gives you control, but the question of cost has to be measured against benefit and secrecy. The obsession with secrecy can be counter productive, and is often used to mask illegal, corrupt or incompetent activities. The military and government are classic examples of using secrecy to hide bad decisions, incompetent leadership and failed objectives. Unfortunately the cost of the intelligence process has become so high that eventually the whole House of Cards will collapse. It is essential that a corporation does not make the same mistakes. The very best intelligence is when everyone in the organization contributes, and uses the results to further the goals of their enterprise. Which brings us back to the often asked question, where to put it and what software and hardware to buy. Instead of the first question this should be one of the last, and the answer will have already been found as you work through the planning process. What do you require from an Intelligence center, how near real time is the required information, and can it better be distributed to remote, yet expert employees with local knowledge and information sources. |
