I would like you to reflect on the problem of “insider threat,” and compose a strategic analysis of two or more alternative solutions. You will present that analysis in the form of a “policy memo.” The memo is a brief analytic product, variations of which are commonly used in business, government, and elsewhere. Don’t get preoccupied with never having written a policy memo before. Just follow the instructions.
Defining the problem should be the first step in any strategic analysis, and it is the step where many analyses stumble. If you have not clearly defined your problem, your analysis will be weak (at best) and your product will not be helpful to your customer.
For this assignment, I will ask that you start with the following general definitions established by the National Insider Threat Task Force (NITTF).
Insider: Any person with authorized access to any government or contract resource to include personnel, facilities, information, equipment, networks, or systems. This can include employees, former employees, consultants, and anyone with access.
The National Insider Threat Task Force (NITTF) defines an “insider threat” as:
The threat that an insider will use his or her authorized access wittingly or unwittingly, to do harm to the security of the United States. This threat can include damage through espionage, terrorism, unauthorized disclosure of national security information, or through the loss or degradation of department resources or capabilities.
That is a very broad definition that can include everything from forgetting to lock your computer when you go to the restroom, to selling state secrets to a foreign government, to shooting and killing employees at the worksite. Your job is to wrangle this unwieldy definition into a workable problem.
In the corporate or intelligence world, you are unlikely ever to get a tasking from senior management that begins with them having already carefully parsed the problem for you. Insider Threat is a great example because it is a common issue, often high priority, but is fraught with definition challenges. Because the causes and prevention strategies will vary for different kinds of Insider Threats, you will need to decide where you think the organization should start and to justify that decision. That’s the foundation, but that’s just the beginning.
If you would like a brief introduction to Insider Threat, you can access the NITTF’s basic training module HERE (Links to an external site.).
A couple of strategic tips:
Different solutions may fit with different facets of a problem. For example, the solution to prevent workplace violence may be very different than the solution to reduce the frequency with which employees stay logged into their computers when they step away from their workstations. Both behaviors are included in various definitions of “Insider Threat,” but they are clearly different problems, with potentially different solutions. You need to be clear about the facet or facets you intend to address. If not, your strategic analysis may be doomed before it starts.
You should have a clear (and measurable) idea of how you will gauge “success.” What criteria would you use to demonstrate that your proposed solution accomplished its intended objectives.
You should have an evidence-based rationale for why you think your proposed solution will work. Has it been tried and evaluated elsewhere? To argue that it is “obvious” or “common sense” that your solution will “work” undermines the strength of your analysis and potentially insults your decision maker. If the solution is obvious to anyone with half a brain, then why did the CEO ask you, as an analyst, to do a deep dive on the problem and seek your recommendations? Do not simply recommend, as a solution, delivering a general Insider Threat “training” to all employees unless you can present compelling empirical evidence that the specific training program you intend to deliver will change the specific behavioral outcomes of interest. That would be like going to your doctor to treat your hypertension and having the physician give you an educational pamphlet, and sending your home.
If you are going to propose a solution, then you should build in some way to determine whether your solution “worked.” To say “Trust me. It will work.” or afterwards, “See, I told you it would work because <insert anecdote here> happened” is simply bad analytic practice.
So, to give a concrete example, let’s say you are thinking about a conclusion something like this: “I recommend implementing a mandatory training of all employees to address the problem of Insider Threat in the organization.” What are the problems there?
The analyst has failed to specify the target behaviors or specific aspect(s) of Insider Threat that her analysis is addressing.
It is unclear how “success” would be defined.
No evidence is offered to support the recommendation that (or even how) “employee training” would change the target behaviors.
No plan is offered to follow-up and assess whether the proposed solution–if implemented–worked.
That is a recipe for a weak, and fundamentally useless, strategic analysis. I’m sure you can do better.
Here are the headings to use in your memo:
BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front) – If you are not familiar with this term, it is a sentence or two, written at the beginning of a memo (rather than the end) that summarizes the issue and recommendation.
Background
Here is where you define your problem, describe the facet of the Insider Threat problem that you intend to address, and justify why you have chosen that particular facet.
Analysis of Options
Here, you should choose at least two possible solutions. Both should be reasonable and viable. Do not simply compare something to nothing (or to something inappropriate) just to make your preferred option look better. That’s not how analysis is supposed to work.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Here is where you make your case for the option you think the organization should pursue. The rationale should be clear and cogently argued, based on the available evidence. You are not required to offer a “conditional” recommendation, but if you do, then you should state those conditions clearly (e.g., If the organization is prepared to prepared to spend at least $500,000 in Year 1, then X options would be the first order recommendation because….. If, however, the organization needs to spend less than $500,000 in Year 1, then …..)
Just to give some uniformity, I ask that you use 12 pt. Times New Roman font, single spaced, with 1” margins on all sides of the page. Please submit, via Turnitin, either in Microsoft Word or or as a PDF file.
Communicate your analysis clearly and concisely. In no case, should the memo exceed two (2) single spaced pages.
Use this as an opportunity to apply what you have learned through this course about how to think and solve problems and apply apply those lessons to an important issue. I want you to be able see the big picture of how you apply strategic principles across multiple contexts.
In our intelligence programs, we try to emphasize intelligence as a function, not just as a government activity. The same is true with strategy. The purpose of the exercise is to help you see how the principles apply across different types of decisions.
I am interested in your ability to clearly define and state a problem; to generate possible courses of action; to specify criteria for assessing the effectiveness of a solution to your proposed problem (costs and benefits); and to weigh those in a strategic analysis (remember strategy is the balancing of ends, ways, and means) to select or inform the best course of action.
For example, if Starbucks has a customer relations problem, the costs/risks of not addressing the problem include “reputational risk,” which can be hard to quantify. But I want to know that you have considered it. Moreover, if an analyst proposes that the solution is to give all 250,000+ Starbucks employees an 8 hour training on something, I want to be sure that analyst does not just include the cost of the training, but also the cost of paying 250k employees for 8 hours of time to attend. And that they (a) have specified the outcomes that define whether the training “worked”; (b) have evidence that the training is likely to achieve those outcomes; and (c) have a plan to assess whether the training achieved its intended result.
That is more of the “strategic” part that is of interest for this assignment.
Your goal here is NOT just to make a one-sided argument or an impassioned plea (or worse yet, an imperative) for what you think the decision maker should do.
Start with a well-defined problem. Then, generate and assess different options and courses of action. Don’t just start with a solution and then make up arguments to support it.
By starting with a well-defined problem, you have a better view for assessing possible solutions, including who benefits (those paying and providing the service/solution and those using/receiving it), how does each party benefit (what do they get out of it), what are the opportunity costs (unintended consequences or what we “give up” by investing in this now).
Your aim here is less persuasive and more analytic. What’s the problem? Why is it a problem? What happens if things stay the way they are? What options exist for change? What would positive change look like? How should we define a positive outcome? What courses of action are most likely to lead to those outcomes? What is my basis for knowing that?
If you think you have the “answer” to the policy problem, I want you to be thinking about why and how things could be different, why it’s not already different, what specific difference would make things better and better for whom — all balancing ends, ways, and means.
General Writing Style
Selections and Adaptations from “The Policy Analysis Exercise: The Writing Guide” The KSG Communications Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Whenever possible, make the first or second sentence of each paragraph the topic sentence. Do not “build up” to the point. State your point, then use subsequent sentences in the paragraph to support, expand upon, amplify, or otherwise develop it.
Keep each sentence of the paragraph focused upon the topic; when the focus changes, start a new paragraph. One of the most effective ways of doing this is to use demonstrative adjectives and pronouns with clear antecedents to forge links between your sentences.
“While most executives do not appear to devote much attention to the planning system, those who do seem to be able to shorten its gestation period significantly. If they use goals, objectives, and economic forecasts early in the life of the system, they can make it develop faster. Their personalities and work histories also are important. If they have had earlier experience with formal planning systems, held top-level positions, and earned the respect of other people, they can develop the system more rapidly.”
Use transitional language to show the logical relationships between sentences and paragraphs. Nothing clarifies your writing more than being explicit about the logical relationships between your ideas. The following list, also taken from Writing for Results, categorizes such transitional words and phrases according to their function:
Purpose: for this purpose, with this objective, to this end
Cause and effect: consequently, thus, therefore, accordingly, as a result, so, because, hence, since
Comparison and contrast: similarly, likewise, by, but, however, yet, nevertheless, on the other hand, whereas, in other words, although
Addition and elaboration: in addition, moreover, furthermore, besides, again, that is, of course, after all, and, first, second, third, …finally
Emphasis: in fact, most important, indeed, above all
Exemplification: for example, for instance, in this case
Time: meanwhile, in the meantime, at the same time, immediately, subsequently, next, then, at length, formerly
Place: here, near, opposite to, adjacent to, to the left (right)
Conclusion: to conclude, in conclusion, to sum up, last, finally, at last
Use parallel constructions in lists and to express parallel aspects of your ideas. When you have numbered or bulleted lists of items, choose an appropriate part of speech that will cover all of them and use it consistently. If your first item is a noun, then the rest should be nouns; if the first is a verb, they should all be verbs. If your first item is a complete sentence, so, too, should be the rest. Note that there are three distinct types of bulleted lists:
In the first type, each bulleted item consists of separate sentences, and should be punctuated accordingly. This list is an example of the first type.
In the second type, each bulleted item is a parallel part of a single sentence, and a grammatical extension of the sentence that introduces the list before the colon. These items should be punctuated just as any normal sentence would be, without the bullet points.
In the third type, the items, though they are the same part of speech, are not syntactically linked to one another or to the sentence that introduces them. These items should not be punctuated at all.
In developing your sentences, whether in lists or not, be sure to express parallel parts of your ideas in the same part of speech:
Incorrect:
Three ways of raising capital are stocks, bonds, and accessing the credit markets.
Correct:
Three ways of raising capital are to issue stock, to sell bonds, and to borrow cash.
Use appropriate punctuation to distinguish between coordinate and subordinate thoughts. To indicate that two ideas are equally important, put them in either two separate sentences or different clauses in the same sentence, separated by a coordinating conjunction or a semicolon. But if one of them should be subordinated to the other, put the dependent idea in a dependent clause, participle, or modifying phrase.
Try to fight ambiguity and abstraction; instead, write concretely. To use a particularly Harvard expression: Eschew obfuscation. This sentence is a good example of what you want to avoid: “The data base will grow as an information source through the expansion of the selective dissemination concept of knowledge exchange.”
Try to keep sentences to a reasonable length. That is, while some sentences are naturally longer than others, as a consequence of the structure of the ideas they convey, clarity and simplicity usually go hand-in-hand. Perhaps the major cause of grossly inflated sentences is letting the subject and verb be separated too much by intervening amplifications and qualifications.
When using pronouns, be sure that their referents, or antecedents, are unambiguous.
Try to keep modifiers as close as possible to the words they modify. This is an old chestnut from Strunk and White’s Elements of Style, and it is one worth repeating.
Use the active voice. “Active writing is more concise, more positive,” says Meyer. “If you begin with ‘It would appear…’ or ‘There seems to be…,’ you’ll find yourself in a passive trap.”
Use strong action verbs. Action verbs bring movement to your writing. Things are happening. Activity is taking place. The more action in your writing, the more readers will be caught up in what you are saying and will forget time, which is an asset when you are giving them a long report.
Use concrete nouns. Concrete nouns ground writing. Readers can visualize what you are saying and the more they can see what you are describing to them, the more easily they will follow your line of reasoning. Naturally, you will have to use abstract nouns for some of the theoretical discussions of your report, but concrete nouns give writing substance.
Avoid clichés and bureaucratese. The reason to avoid clichés is as “plain as the nose on your face.” In other words, “It’s all been said before.”
Bureaucratic language distances the reader. “Use” is better than “utilize,” “end” is more direct than “terminate,” and “affect” is more precise than “impact.” Every profession and organization has buzzwords in its vocabulary and, by using those buzzwords, members feel part of the club. But using those buzzwords outside of the club can make non-members feel alienated, and the last thing you want to do in your reports is alienate your audience.
Use inclusive language. Inclusive language is not just politically correct, it is morally persuasive. In your writing, be mindful of any words that would be offensive to others because of their gender, age, race, ethnic group, religion, or sexual orientation. When you are hesitant about a particular word, ask someone else if the word sounds objective. If it doesn’t, find a more neutral word.
Be positive. Avoid negative language. Think instead how you can turn negative statements around and make them positive. When you are dealing with the problems of clients, you will often have to talk about failure, but what are the opportunities inherent in those failures?
Analytic Style
Selections and Adaptations from “The Policy Analysis Exercise: The Writing Guide” The KSG Communications Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
Be explicit in your assumptions. Nothing is more frustrating to a client than to discover in the middle of a report that the analysis, and thus the conclusions and recommendations, depend upon a set of operating assumptions that weren’t clear from the beginning. If your analysis depends upon a set of limiting assumptions, state them in your Introduction. Even better, work them out with your client before you begin writing, and include them in your Introduction as well.
Try to verify your findings with more than one source. This is the principle of triangulation, which in navigation is the process of determining your exact location by taking bearings on two different objects whose exact coordinates are known. In their Watergate articles, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein would publish no information that was not verified by at least two additional independent sources. Triangulating helps to counteract bias, axe-grinding, subjectivity, and dependence upon compelling, but atypical, anecdotes as evidence.
Avoid including interesting, but ultimately irrelevant, incidentals in your analysis. It is tempting to include such material to be diverting and to “liven up” your analysis, but in reality it serves only to distract your readers and to confuse them about what the essential point is. If you maintain a consistent focus on the matter at hand, the clarity of your line of argument will compel your reader’s attention more than any juicy tidbits might.
Be sure to support each of your points with sufficient evidence—don’t shortchange some and be lavish with others. If your development of an idea starts to grow way out of proportion to that of coordinate ideas, either you haven’t developed the others sufficiently or this giant idea is more important than you originally thought. In the latter case, don’t hesitate to give this idea more prominence, break it up into subordinated sections, and adjust your outline and Table of Contents accordingly.
Avoid leaps in reasoning or analysis that would stump anyone but an expert. Remember that you are writing for decision-makers, not for other analysts. A good principle to follow is: Never overestimate your reader’s knowledge, or underestimate his or her intelligence.
Be consistent in your expression of terminology, concepts, definitions, categories, and so forth. This is an extension of the prior principle; an expert might be expected to recognize shifts in terminology as a choice among synonyms, but your common intelligent reader might not.
Analytic Standards
If you want some guidelines or a checklist for what a good analytic product should look like, here are the US Intelligence Community’s Analytic Standards (from ICD 203).
Analytic Tradecraft Standards (ICD 203):
(1) Describe quality and credibility of underlying sources, data and methodologies
o Factors may include: accuracy and completeness, possible denial and deception, age and continued currency of information, technical elements of collection as well as source access, validation, motivation, possible bias or expertise.
o Source summary statements (per ICD 206) describing strengths and weaknesses in the source base and explaining which sources were weighed most heavily in key analytic judgments.
(2) Express and explain uncertainties associated with major analytic judgments
o Note basis for uncertainties – likelihood of a development and confidence in basis for that judgment. Confidence may be affected by evidentiary base (quality and quantity of source material) and by analyst’s understanding of the topic.
o Note causes of uncertainty (e.g., type, currency, amount of information, knowledge gaps, nature of the issue) and explain how uncertainties affect analysis (e.g., to what degree and how a judgment depends on assumptions).
o Identify–as appropriate–indicators that would alter levels of uncertainty
o Consistency in using terms of likelihood/probability and uncertainty
o Use one or more of the following sets of terms (do not mix terms from different rows)
Estimative Probability Terms ICD 203.png
o Distinguish level of “confidence” from likelihood of a development.
(3) Distinguish between underlying intelligence information and analysts’ assumptions and judgments.
o Assumptions are suppositions used to frame or support an argument.
o Judgments are conclusions base don underlying intelligence information, analysis and assumptions.
o State key assumptions explicitly and explain implications if assumptions are incorrect.
o Identify–as appropriate–indicators that would alter judgments
(4) Incorporates analysis of alternatives.
o Systematic evaluation of differing hypotheses to explain events or phenomena, explore near-term outcomes, and image possible futures to mitigate surprise and risk.
o Alternative include analysis of assumptions, likelihood, and implications for US interests.
o Especially important when low probability events could have high impact results.
o Identify–as appropriate–indicators that would affect likelihood of identified alternatives
(5) Demonstrates customer relevance and addresses implications.
o Add value by addressing prospects, contexts, threats, or factors affecting opportunities for action.
(6) Uses clear and logical argumentation
o Clear, main analytic message up front.
o If offering multiple judgments, identify main analytic message that draws collectively from all of them.
o Judgments supported by evidence and coherent reasoning.
o Language and syntax should convey meaning unambiguously.
o Internally consistent and acknowledge supporting and contrary information.
(7) Explain changes to or consistency of analytic judgments.
o Explain how new information or different reasoning led to different judgments
o Recurrent products note changes in judgments
o Significant differences in analytic judgments—such as between two IC elements—should be considered and brought to customers’ attention.
(8) Makes accurate judgments and assessments
o Apply expertise and logic based on information available and known information gaps.
o Do not avoid difficult judgments.
o Message received should correspond to what analyst intended .
o Reduce ambiguity by addressing likelihood, timing, and nature of the outcome or development.
(9) Incorporates effective visual information where appropriate.
o To clarify an analytic message and complement or enhance presentation of data/analysis
o Use when information or concepts (e.g., spatial or temporal relationships) can be conveyed better in graphic form (e.g., tables, flow charts, images) than in written text.
o May range from plain presentation for information to interactive displays
o Visual information should be clear and pertinent to subject
The grading rubric for this assignment is as follows:
Professional Organization & Appearance:
10 Possible Points
· All instructions and guidelines are followed
· Analysis is well organized.
· All required headings are included.
· Memo is free from errors in style, punctuation, spelling or grammar.
Score: 9-10
· One or two minor lapses in following instructions and guidelines
· OR one or two minor errors in style, punctuation, spelling or grammar
· OR one or two heading nor used or issues not properly addressed.
Score: 6-8
· Any significant lapse (or more than two minor ones) in following instructions and guidelines
· OR failure to apply a systematic method for analysis
· OR any significant (or more than one minor instance of) error in style, punctuation, spelling or grammar
· OR more than two topics missing.
Score: 1-5
Quality:
15 Possible Points
· Memo is NOT simply a one-sided argument or an impassioned plea for something the author wants.
· OR problem is clearly defined and clearly stated.
· OR possible courses of action (COA) are clearly stated.
· OR criteria for the effectiveness of a solution (costs and benefits) are clearly defined and stated.
· OR all pertinent and important factors are explicitly considered and analyzed.
· OR criteria are appropriately weighted and applied to assess each course of action, as a balance of ends, ways, and means.
· OR evidence provided that the recommended COA is likely (and more likely than the others) to lead to the defined positive outcomes.
· OR clearly stated plan to assess and measure the success of any recommended solution.
· OR all ICD 203 Analytic Tradecraft Standards are fully met.
Score: 13-15
· Problem is not clearly defined and clearly stated.
· OR possible courses of action (COA) are not clearly stated.
· OR criteria for the effectiveness of a solution (costs and benefits) are not clearly defined and stated.
· OR all pertinent and important factors are not explicitly considered and analyzed.
· OR criteria are not appropriately weighted and applied to assess each course of action, as a balance of ends, ways, and means.
· OR evidence is weak or not explicitly provided to show how the recommended COA is likely (and more likely than the others) to lead to the defined positive outcomes.
· OR poorly stated plan not provided to assess and measure the success of any recommended solution.
· OR one or two ICD 203 Analytic Tradecraft Standards are not fully met.
Score: 9-12
· Problem statement is absent or is poorly defined and stated.
· OR possible courses of action (COA) are absent or not clearly stated.
· OR criteria for the effectiveness of a solution (costs and benefits) are absent or are poorly defined and stated.
· OR pertinent and important factors are not explicitly considered or are poorly analyzed.
· OR criteria are not appropriately weighted and applied to assess each course of action, as a balance of ends, ways, and means.
· OR evidence not provided that the recommended COA is likely (and more likely than the others) to lead to the defined positive outcomes.
· OR no clearly stated plan provided to assess and measure the success of any recommended solution.
· OR any critical ICD 203 Analytic Tradecraft Standard—or more than two minor ones– is not fully met.
Score: 1-11
Possible Combined Total = 25
