ATP 2-33.4, page 114

Appendix A A-10 ATP 2-33.4 18 August 2014  Draft a set of analytic papers in which the leader or group makes specific decisions, proposes recommendations, or lays out COAs. The more these papers reflect the cultural and personal norms of the target, the more they can offer a different perspective on the analytic problem.  Red team analysis avoids the use of qualifying statements and assumes the recipient understands the paper is aimed more at provoking thought or challenging the conventional understanding of how a threat thinks. A-60. For more detailed information on Red Teaming, see the Red Team Handbook, published by the University of Foreign Military and Cultural Studies in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Analysts may also consider attending one of the Red Team courses offered there. Red Hat Analysis Versus Red Team Analysis Red Hat analysis differs from Red Team analysis in that Red Hat analysis can be conducted or organized by any analyst who needs to understand or forecast foreign behavior and who has or can gain access to the required cultural experience. Red Team analysis is usually conducted by a permanent organizational unit or a temporary group staffed by those well qualified to think like or play the role of a threat. The goal of Red Hat analysis is to exploit the available resources to develop the best possible analysis of a threat’s intent. The goal of Red Team analysis is usually to challenge organizational biases and provide alternative threat COAs. ALTERNATIVE FUTURE ANALYSIS A-61. Alternative Futures Analysis (often referred to as scenarios) is most useful when a situation is viewed as too complex or the outcomes as too uncertain to trust a single-outcome assessment. For example:  Analysts must recognize there is high uncertainty on the topic in question.  Analysts, and often their customers, recognize that they need to consider a wide range of factors that might bear on the question.  Analysts are prepared to explore a range of outcomes and are not wedded to any preconceived result. A-62. Depending on how elaborate the futures project, the effort can amount to considerable investment in time, analytic resources, and money. A team of analysts can spend several hours or days organizing, brainstorming, and developing multiple futures; alternatively, a larger-scale effort can require preparing a multi-day workshop that brings together participants (including outside experts). Such an undertaking often demands the special skills of trained scenario-development facilitators and conferencing facilities. Facts A-63. This technique is a sharp contrast to contrarian techniques, which try to challenge the analysts’ high confidence and relative certainty about an event or trend. Instead, multiple futures development is a divergent thinking technique that tries to use the complexity and uncertainty of a situation to describe multiple outcomes or futures that the analyst and policymaker should consider, rather than to predict one outcome. A-64. Alternative Future Analysis is extremely useful in highly ambiguous situations, when analysts confront not only a lot of known unknowns but also unknown unknowns. What this means is that analysts recognize there are factors, forces, and dynamics among key leaders that are difficult to identify without the use of some structured technique that can model how they would interact or behave. As the outcomes are not known prior to the futures exercise, analysts must be prepared for the unexpected and be willing to engage in a more freewheeling exchange of views than typically occurs in order to imagine the future. Given the time and resources involved, scenario analysis is best reserved for situations that could potentially pose grave threats or otherwise have significant consequences. A-65. From experience, analysts have found that involving decisionmakers in the alternative futures exercise is the most effective way to communicate the results of this exploration of alternative outcomes