ATP 2-33.4, page 117

Emerging Analytic Techniques 18 August 2014 ATP 2-33.4 A-13 Note. Remember that as indicators are developed to aid in scenario tracking, the analysts may see synergy between certain drivers that may be indicative of extreme cases of interaction between drivers of an issue. The Multiple Scenarios Generation technique proves extremely useful when used in conjunction with the counterfactual reasoning method. A-76. Morphological Analysis is a method for structuring and examining all the possible relationships within an unproven, dynamic, and potentially complex environment. Using Morphological Analysis in combination with Multiple Scenarios Generation aids in reducing unforeseen potential and identifying extreme cases of interaction between an issue’s drivers. Generating multiple scenarios in this format gives the analyst the advantage of revisiting a given scenario via quick screen snapshots, minimizing the potential to labor over each individually looking for more detailed analysis. This technique is extremely useful in concert with other analytic techniques, particularly counterfactual reasoning. STRUCTURED ANALYTIC TECHNIQUES A-77. The following techniques have been used by intelligence personnel at strategic levels for some time and are being employed to some degree at operational and tactical levels. Each of the techniques may provide additional insight into an intelligence problem. Analysts may find it useful to combine these techniques with others discussed in this publication. Although some of these techniques discussed below do not have a specific methodology, each has its own merits:  Analysis of competing hypotheses.  Applying theory.  Delphi technique.  Futures wheel.  Knowledge planning.  Rules for verification. ANALYSIS OF COMPETING HYPOTHESES A-78. The Central Intelligence Agency developed ACH in the 1970s as an intelligence methodology to evaluate multiple competing hypotheses and to foster unbiased conclusions. It is currently still in use by national-level intelligence analysts in various fields who are required to make judgments on areas where there is a high risk of error when drawing conclusions. ACH is emerging as a tool that may be effective at the operational and tactical levels in aiding Army commanders and staffs in analyzing complex problems such as those found in stability operations. A-79. The goal of ACH is to produce the best possible conclusion when analyzing uncertain data. As an emerging intelligence methodology relative to the operational and tactical Army, there is conflicting data available on how well it can be integrated into Army operations. (For more information on ACH, see Richard Heuer’s Psychology of Intelligence Analysis. This resource can be accessed on the Central Intelligence Agency Web site on Nonsecure Internet Protocol Router Network [also called NIPRNET].) Facts A-80. ACH is an eight-step procedure grounded in basic insights from cognitive psychology, decision analysis, and the scientific method. The steps are discussed in paragraph A-83. It is a surprisingly effective, proven process that helps an analyst to avoid common analytic pitfalls. Because of its thoroughness, it is particularly appropriate for controversial issues when analysts want to leave an audit trail to show what they considered and how they arrived at their judgment. When working on difficult intelligence issues, analysts are, in effect, choosing among several alternative hypotheses:  Which of several possible explanations is the correct one?  Which of several possible outcomes is the most likely one? A-81. This publication uses the term “hypothesis” in its broadest sense as a potential explanation or conclusion that is to be tested by collecting and presenting evidence. ACH requires an analyst to explicitly