A Study of an Intelligence Analysis Team and their Collaborative Artifacts

We conducted a field study of a team of collaborating professional intelligence analysts engaged in a simulated activity in their workplace. We investigated the collaborative nature of the event and how they used artifacts (flipcharts, paper, posters, post-its, projected images, computer displays and representations) to support collaboration. Using activity theory, we analyzed our notes of their collaborative behaviors, our chats with analysts, and photos of artifacts in their context use. We found the collaborative nature of the analysts’ activity had a distinct pattern; in earlier stages it is stronger, and later on weaker, and more between analysts and developer-analysts than between analysts. We identify issues in the analyst’s current use of artifacts, and identify potential areas where collaboration could be strengthened through technologies that are new to practitioners in the domain, such as large interactive surfaces. Based on our findings we suggest new research directions for the field.

[1]  John T. Stasko,et al.  Characterizing the intelligence analysis process: Informing visual analytics design through a longitudinal field study , 2011, 2011 IEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology (VAST).

[2]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Principles and Tools for Collaborative Entity-Based Intelligence Analysis , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[3]  Michelle X. Zhou,et al.  A Study of Information Gathering and Result Processing in Intelligence Analysis , 2006 .

[4]  Christopher Andrews,et al.  Space to think: large high-resolution displays for sensemaking , 2010, CHI.

[5]  Y. Engeström,et al.  Interactive expertise : studies in distributed working intelligence , 1992 .

[6]  Jonathan Grudin,et al.  Taxonomy and Theory in Computer Supported Cooperative Work , 2012 .

[7]  Yiming Yang,et al.  Introducing the Enron Corpus , 2004, CEAS.

[8]  Morten Fjeld,et al.  Tabletops: Interactive Horizontal Displays for Ubiquitous Computing , 2012, Computer.

[9]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  Strengthening the Case for Pair Programming , 2000, IEEE Softw..

[10]  Talking the Talk , 2014 .

[11]  Christopher Andrews,et al.  Co-located Collaborative Sensemaking on a Large High-Resolution Display with Multiple Input Devices , 2011, INTERACT.

[12]  Laurie A. Williams,et al.  Pair Programming Illuminated , 2002 .

[13]  Robert Biddle,et al.  Surface Computing and Collaborative Analysis Work , 2013, Surface Computing and Collaborative Analysis Work.

[14]  Rjoè,et al.  Activity theory as a framework for analyzing and redesigning work , 2005 .

[15]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  The cost structure of sensemaking , 1993, INTERCHI.

[16]  Morten Fjeld,et al.  Physical and Virtual Tools: Activity Theory Applied to the Design of Groupware , 2002, Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW).

[17]  J. Richard Hackman.  Collaborative Intelligence: Using Teams to Solve Hard Problems , 2011 .

[18]  P. Pirolli,et al.  The Sensemaking Process and Leverage Points for Analyst Technology as Identified Through Cognitive Task Analysis , 2007 .

[19]  Esther Derby,et al.  Agile Retrospectives: Making Good Teams Great , 2006 .

[20]  Richards J. Heuer,et al.  Structured Analytic Techniques for Intelligence Analysis , 2014 .

[21]  Robert Biddle,et al.  Joint implicit alignment work of interaction designers and software developers , 2012, NordiCHI.

[22]  Helmut Krueger,et al.  Activity theory and the practice of design: evaluation of a collaborative tangible user interface , 2004 .

[23]  Steve Berry.  Talking the talk. , 2004, JEMS : a journal of emergency medical services.

[24]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  An exploratory study of visual information analysis , 2008, CHI.