ABSTRACT
This chapter presents some reflections on how iteration should be conducted in the light of criticism of the traditional intelligence cycle. It considers some of the options available to analysts once an initial search has yielded some results, including making comparisons between competing hypotheses and testing the validity of conclusions by dropping or reversing the assumptions underlying them. Competing hypothesis analysis provides more compelling analytical judgements as it not only sets out the evidence and logic underpinning them, but also takes other possibilities into account and shows why they are less plausible. Linchpin analysis is an attempt to counter such dangerous complacency by removing or reversing one of the key assumptions linchpins' underlying the existing analysis. Competitive intelligence (CI) research is both iterative and interactive. Its direction changes as new evidence is collected and responses elicited from intelligence users. The chapter ends by offering some guidelines for deciding to abandon inconclusive research.
