The Intelligence Cycle presents intelligence production as a sequence of distinct stages: a requirement is established, information is collected and processed, analysts produce an assessment, and the finished intelligence is distributed to the customer.
This simplicity means it is great for explaining the main functions involved, earning it a prominent place on almost every intelligence course on the planet and, therefore, its position as the most well-known concept of the intelligence process.
However, several intelligence practitioners and academics have argued that it provides a poor account of how those functions interact in practice.
In his book “Intelligence Analysis: A Target-Centric Approach”, Robert M. Clark described the cycle as:
“…an antisocial series of steps. It separates collectors from processors from analysts and too often results in “throwing information over the wall” to become the next person’s task”.
Former CIA officer Arthur Hulnick reached a similar conclusion:
“It is really not a very good description of the ways in which the intelligence process works.”
Mark Lowenthal also warned that the concept “misrepresents some aspects and misses many others.”
These criticisms concentrate on three connected weaknesses: the cycle presents intelligence work as linear, separates teams that need to collaborate, and fails to take into consideration of how often requirements and assessments change.
Intelligence Does Not Develop in a Straight Line
In a literal interpretation of the intelligence cycle, each individual stage does not begin until the previous one has been completed. Collection appears to follow direction, processing follows collection, and dissemination follows processing.
