Collaborative Writing in the Intelligence Community: Investigation of Analytic Collaborative Reporting Processes and Writing Strategies

Introduction

Analysts in the intelligence community (IC) gather information from various sources, synthesize the information, and provide their insight through reports. These reports, historically considered standalone work products, cater to diverse audiences (Bruce, 2008). This perception is rooted in the IC’s compartmentalized style of working (Hackman & O’Connor, 2004; Treverton, 2016). As technology continues to evolve alongside the surge of remote work, the processes of report generation in the IC are transitioning towards more collaborative and audience-specific approaches. Changes within the IC post 9/11 have underlined the need for increased collaboration, prompting shifts in various workflows, including report writing.

Founded as a partnership between the National Security Agency and North Carolina State University (NC State), the Laboratory for Analytic Sciences (LAS) has been fostering and studying collaborations between the IC, NC State, and industry partners since 2013 (Jameson & Stacy, 2016; Jameson et al., 2020; Jameson et al., 2019; Tayloe et al., 2016; Vogel et al., 2017). In 2016, LAS leadership identified collaborative reporting, encompassing collaborative writing (CW) and report generation, as a critical area necessitating further investigation.

Collaborative reporting, in this article, is defined as the report writing process that is generated by two or more people in two or more offices, organizations, or agencies. People who contribute to collaborative reporting do not necessarily need to be the author of the final product, or report. However, contributors to a collaborative report should provide a unique perspective and address and include information from varying sources.

Those engaged in CW methods in distinct sectors have made strides in harnessing technology, utilizing shared editing platforms, tracking changes in real-time, and assigning diversified roles to CW (Ahmad, 2020; De Vreede et al., 2009; Wang et al., 2019). Such approaches, however, are challenging within the IC, where security, confidentiality, and information reliability are paramount (Johnston, 2005; Nolan, 2013).

Recognizing these challenges, we conducted two comprehensive studies. In Study 1, we investigated the current report generation and consumption strategies within various communities such as the IC, engineering, law enforcement, legal, and financial sectors. Through semi-structured interviews and online surveys, we sought to understand stakeholders’ perceptions of collaborative reporting, their training status, barriers, tools, and workflows. In Study 2, driven by the IC’s interest in enhancing collaboration, we examined the impact of alternative CW strategies through a workshop-based investigation. Teams of IC analysts collaborated in generating reports to understand the potential of analytic tradecraft to aid collaborative reporting. The three CW strategies that were adopted and explored include single-author writing (SAW), horizontal-division writing (HDW), and reactive writing (RW). These strategies have shown promise in other sectors, offering enhanced efficiency and fostering a balanced coauthoring environment (Lowry et al., 2004; Onrubia & Engel, 2009). Nevertheless, their efficacy in the context of the IC remains unexplored.

The two studies covered in this research were aimed at improving collaborative report generation methods in the IC, potentially enhancing report efficiency, quality, and veracity. By integrating recent collaborative approaches considering the increasing need for collaboration, this research sets the stage for a robust examination of CW within the IC.