SATs Flashcards Preview

Intelligence Training Enhancement Program (ITEP) > SATs > Flashcards

Flashcards in SATs Deck (18):

Define SAT

Each technique is a step by step process of thinking through problems, designed for group brainstorming, which are intends to make intuitive analytic process more explicit and accessible


Explain the value of SAT

Collaboration provides multiple perspectives.!The complexity of today's world and sheer amount of data analysts are confronted with means that analysis requires collaboration between specialized experts. One analyst can't do it alone.


Describe how SAT fit into a problem solving process

1. Begin with Red Hat to gain perspective

2. Next is the Outside In technique which helps to generate a lost of factors affecting the issues.

3. Alternative Futures provides a way to generate hypotheses based on top factors

4. For each hypothesis, Indicators can then be developed and evaluated to guide analysis

5. The hypotheses can be pitted against one another in the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

6. Once a hypothesis is chosen as most likely, a Key Assumption Check helps evaluate any underlying assumptions


Describe the 8 rules of brainstorming

1. Prepare - let all participants prepare

2. Be open minded - keep an open mind, it is vital to collaboration

3. Be independent - the opposite problem of judgement is the herd instinct. you must be independent and come up with your own ideas.

4. One at a time - One person talking at a time, do not dominate

5. Slow down - make enough time, feeling rushed causes stress

6. Write it down - write ideas down and ensure everyone can see them

7. Categorize ideas - Analyze results, group ideas into categories

8. Have a facilitator - someone who enforces the rules and maintains focus. Not in control.


Describe 8 tips for facilitators

1. Open well - create a nonjudgmental atmosphere, establish rules

2. Close well - seek consensus, ensure everyone contributes something

3. Ask provocative questions - facilitate critical thinking, not in a judgmental way

4. Group Ideas into categories - use as tool to spark creativity, get input on where to put them, avoid shaping how ideas are understood.

5. Use empty space - an empty space demands to be filled, silence is uncomfortable.

6. Use randomness - keep group on their toes, avoid fixation

7. Maintain order - not control: Enforce rules, not your opinion

8. Silence judgements - do not let judgement of ideas occur, more judgement = less ideas


Describe mirror imaging bias

We tend to assume that everyone thinks like we do


Describe the method of conducting red hat analysis

Adopt role of adversarial leader; imagine the problems they face; consider how to best solve those problems.


Describe the outside in method

Seeks outside issues that may affect the issue at hand; seeks complex answers to questions; helps shift from reactive to predictive


Identify the categories used in STEEP+2









Describe the method of conducting Alternative Futures

Quick simple way to comprehend possibilities; good for when little is known; reduces uncertainty about situation but does not predict the future


Define indicators

An indicator is simply a sign that points to something else. It's something that signals something


Ascribe potential dangers of conducting indicators analysis

Bad indicators may support flawed assessments; can become outdated; they can be extremely sensitive information


Describe the criteria for indicators

Observable - it can be measured

Accurate - consistent with what it indicates

Specific - not open to interpretation

Stable - useful over time

Unique - Points only to one specific outcome


Describe the method of evaluating indicators

Generate scenarios using Alternative Futures or some other similar method

Create a list of indicators for each scenario using structured brainstorming

Validate indicators using a matrix


Describe confirmation bias

People generally see what they expect to see; tend to favor evidence that confirms our bias; tend to discount evidence that discounts out bias


Describe the method of
conducting analysis of competing hypotheses

Generate hypotheses

List all evidence

Create matrix where evidence is paired with hypotheses

Evaluate each piece of evidence against each hypothesis

Analyze results (hypothesis with least evidence against it is most likely the correct one)


Describe potential dangers associated with analysis of competing hypotheses

ACH /=/ magic formula

Garbage in, garbage out

For these reasons you should...
Report 2-3 likely scenarios, not simply the one you settle on (alternative analysis)
Build a list of indicators that would support or change your analysis


Describe the method of conducting Key Assumptions Check

Identify Assumptions

Critically Assess assumptions (why do we think this is true? What would make us think that this is not true? Is there and evidence to support this?)

Categorize Assumptions (Solid/ reasonable; not solid, but not unreasonable; questionable/unreasonable)