Is Intellipedia the Answer to U.S. Intelligence Challenges?
People who read this also read:
Some of the more ardent advocates of Enterprise 2.0, such as Don Tapscott and Andy McAfee, have suggested that Intellipedia—a wiki-based environment for sharing human intelligence across U.S. intelligence agencies—is the key to solving the considerable intelligence problems of the Estados Unidos. I will grant that it is one key, but it is NOT A GOOD IDEA to think that Intellipedia, by itself, will lead to widespread and effective information and knowledge sharing.
First, a little background. It is widely acknowledged that one of the problems that led to 9/11 and other intelligence failures is that our various intelligence agencies (FBI, CIA, DIA, ONI, BBC [just monitoring your alertness], etc.) did not share knowledge of terrorism threats with each other. As one response to this problem, Congress created the Department of Homeland Security, and as another it created the Director of National Intelligence in 2005. Intellipedia was created in 2006 as a means of sharing information and knowledge across 16 intelligence agencies; some related blogs on a network called Intelink also serve this purpose.
Intellipedia is a good idea. However, it’s a bad idea to think that by itself it’s going to solve our information sharing problems. Fortunately the Office of the Director of National Intelligence hasn’t made that mistake. In their “U.S. Intelligence Community Information Sharing Strategy,” they note that, “Information sharing is a wide-ranging, multi-layered issue that spans governance, policy, technology, culture, and economic facets.” The document doesn’t even mention Intellipedia—and it shouldn’t, because it’s just one tool. The report focuses primarily on cultural and behavioral change—and it should, because that’s the hard part.
Garrett Hardin, perhaps the best-known ecologist in this world, has argued that ecology is based on the guiding principle, "We can never do merely one thing." If you want to encourage more information sharing in any organizational environment, you need to do a lot.
There are even some signs that Intellipedia is only somewhat successful as a single tool. At the recent Enterprise 2.0 conference in Boston, some intelligence people who are working with Intellipedia said that only 10% of the eligible user population is actually using it, and that middle management isn’t comfortable with it. Of course, they probably need to get comfortable with tools like Intellipedia, but the mere existence of the tool isn’t going to make that happen.
Sign up for the Harvard Business Publishing Weekly Hotlist, a new weekly email roundup featuring the top highlights from HarvardBusiness.org.
- Comments (6)
- Join the Discussion
- Email/Share
Tom Davenport holds the President’s Chair in Information Technology and Management at Babson College, where he also leads the 
Comments
Thanks for raising this issue. The Intel community, and DOD are attempting to change from classification and a "need to know" to a credential based authentication and a "need to share" and an Intellipedia is a good start.
Unfortunately, information sharing and specifically "content discovery" is just a buzzword being used by consultants and contractors; a technology that will fix the problem.
The problem isn't a lack of technology, but a lack of fundamental appreciation of the power of sharing information. The intelligence communities are so used to protecting information, all information that the concept is foreign to them. On an appropriately secure, an open source Wiki software package could build an Intellipedia in a day. But who would be allowed to post to it, or to "trust" contributed information to it? Who would allow references to remain when they conflict with political determinations or contradict budgetary defenses? Who referees when the CIA HUMINT disagrees with NSA SIGINT?
Buying a content discovery or information sharing tool or worse yet, a "system" isn't the answer. Learning to find the value in shared information is. But the bureaucracy must change to support it; budgets, staffing, and political interference must be accounted for in the real world, and the user community is not large or empowered enough to change it. Yet. Unfortunately (again) the intel community is rejecting a whole new generation who is better prepared than any other to use this emerging model; by refusing to clear anyone who has ever downloaded an illegal mp3, the intel community is constraining itself to those who likely don't possess the skills or mindset to meet the emergent need for sharing national security information.
- Posted by Mike
June 16, 2008 9:11 PM
Who is actually making this argument? We need examples, or else you're tipping at windmills (even though your argument is "correct").
Most companies have tragically failed at "knowledge management" and the only impact is to the bottom line of the business. Magnify the impacts by about a factor of 1 billion and we can all start to comprehend the impacts of data/information/intelligence (all three are different) within the Intelligence Community (IC).
The "need to share" point above is also excellent. There are literally hundreds of rules and regulations with the sole purpose of preventing data/information/intelligence from being shared because of how it was improperly used in the past. The need for oversight in a "need to share" environment is that much more important.
- Posted by Chris
June 16, 2008 10:04 PM
I was initially vague about the names because I was tired of disagreeing with Tapscott and McAfee. I just changed the post to reveal their true identities!
- Posted by Tom Davenport
June 17, 2008 2:41 PM
I think of the U.S. intelligence challenges as being more about sharing data than sharing knowledge as free form text. It's helpful to have a unique ID or key for each subject on which data is being tracked and shared. I don't see a wiki as particularly strong at analyzing and presenting structured data.
- Posted by Tom Haney
June 18, 2008 4:43 PM
Internal Centre for Intelligence Co-ordination? mm I see I see!
- Posted by peter leach
June 27, 2008 9:06 AM
Tom, is there anything in the world that is THE single answer to something? All such dogmatic claims usually get the skepticism they deserve. So why bother filling space stating the obvious?
- Posted by amar irani
July 18, 2008 5:37 AM