In the Summer 2006 I was part of the Institute for Collaborative Innovation (ICI), which expanded upon the findings of the 2005 CPoD summer institute. As in 2005, researchers from multiple disciplines confronted the challenges of intelligence analysis. My team addressed collaboration issues by using an alternative presentation approach — based on conversational dialog as an effective model of information transfer — to facilitate communication between analysts about intelligence products.

Research Team

Daniel Kidwell

Robert Stephens

Richard Teynor

Daniel J. Zelik



Research Support

Emily S. Patterson

David D. Woods

Cedric Sze

The Participatory Exchange Model as a Re-envisioning of Analysis Briefings

There is little debate that communication about analysis — whether referred to more generally as Dissemination, Integration, or some other term — is a crucial phase in the intelligence cycle. The class of communications of particular relevance to our group’s focus were those person-to-person interactions that traditionally occur with the primary intent of information transfer — a class of interactions that we refer to as “Briefing Interactions” in the sense that one party as being “briefed” about the analysis produced by another party.


In the Traditional Model of analysis communication, the focus of all interactions is on ensuring the successful transfer of a central message. However, this approach largely ignores the significant role that feedback plays as an input to re-tasking, the counterpart of the analytical product. By framing Briefing Interactions as Participatory Exchanges, this critical linkage recognizes that Briefing Events have the potential to be part of a larger Exchange Cycle.

Participatory Exchange Model of Briefing Interactions Slides (PDF)



It is also this nuance that highlights how the Participatory Exchange Model is fundamentally different from Traditional Model of Briefing Interactions. While the Traditional Model frames Briefing Interactions as centrally about information transfer, the Participatory Exchange provides a descriptive model that reframes these interactions as collaborative and interactive exchanges of perspectives among participants. As a result, successful Briefing Interactions are defined by the convergence of perspectives among stakeholders.


Considering the evidence our team identified that supports the Participatory Exchange as a promising success model for re-envisioning Traditional Briefing Interactions, the next questions we addressed were “What does it mean to setup a Participatory Exchange?” and “How do you go about constructing one?” While there is yet no clear definition of what is, or is not, a Participatory Exchange there are three areas of note that begin to define what it means to have one: Roles of the Participants, Phases of the exchange, and Goals of the interaction. See below for a link to a poster-size .pdf that expands upon the facets of these concepts.

Supporting a Participatory Exchange through the Participatory Process View

There are two ways that the Participatory Exchange might be supported within our model: support the participants, Briefing Analyst or Audience Participants, or support the interaction between them. Although benefit might be realized in supporting participants, the most critical approach to supporting a Participatory Exchange — and where our group focused our development energies — was by supporting the interaction between participants.


Supporting the interactions among the participants in a Participatory Exchange is all about building an effective map to the data space. Our model for mapping this data space, is the Participatory Process View (PPV). Our group demonstrated the PPV interface for the ICI in the context of a scenario case involving unexpected and surprising events by rebel faction leaders located in Angola.

Angola Crisis Scenario PPV Interface Animock (SWF)



The Participatory Process View serves as a map to the resource set of data describing the process that led to the creation of an analysis product. In the Participatory Process View framework, to build a map of an analysis process is to build an interactive space that instantiates the three dependent characteristics of having: Process, View (or Perspective), and Participation. This Hierarchy identifies the key building blocks for developing an interface to successfully support a Participatory Exchange—and possibly to develop a tool with applicability beyond the Briefing Interaction.

Institute for Collaborative Innovation Final Show

At the Final Show, ICI teams presented how they advanced the state-of-the-art in addressing the challenges in inferential analysis exacerbated by data overload conditions. The primary objective of the event was to elicit from representatives of the OSU community, leading human factors researchers in Ohio, and intelligence analysis communities as to how well the leverage points captured the challenges in conducting intelligence analysis under data overload.

ICI Final Show Announcement Flyer (PDF)



Attendees first were introduced to the general theme for the summer institute: Improving and rendering observable the rigor of a process behind an analytic conclusion. The attendees then started the “ride” with a multimedia presentation of the uniting near-future setting: Angola in 2011, which includes a number of compelling security and intelligence concerns. This was followed by a dynamic presentation of the specific themes explored by each of the teams. The event concluded with an interactive discussion that occurred in a breakout session following the presentations.

Main.html