A MÉRICA
II. TESTIGOS DEL RESUCITADO
Q
uadrant Crunching is an application of Morphological Analysis methodology, a systematicprocedure for identifying all the potentially feasible combinations between several sets of variables.
Quadrant Crunching helps analysts avoid surprise by examining multiple possible combinations of selected key variables. It also helps analysts to identify and systematically challenge assumptions, explore the implications of contrary assumptions, and discover “unknown unknowns.” By generating multiple possible outcomes for any situation, Quadrant Crunching reduces the chance that events could play out in a way that has not previously been at least imagined and considered. Training and practice are required before an analyst should use this technique, and an experienced facilitator is recommended.
When to Use It
Quadrant Crunching is most useful for dealing with highly ambiguous situations for which few data are available and the chances for surprise are great. It was developed by Pherson Associates, LLC, in 2006, to help counterterrorism analysts and decision makers identify the many different ways radical extremists might mount a terrorist attack. But analysts can apply it more broadly to generate a wide range of potential outcomes of any type—many of which have not previously been contemplated. The technique forces analysts to rethink an issue from many perspectives and systematically question assumptions that underlie their lead hypothesis. As a result, analysts can be more confident that they have considered a broad range of possible permutations for a particularly complex and ambiguous situation. In so doing, analysts are more likely to anticipate most of the ways a situation can develop (or terrorists might launch an attack) and to spot indicators that signal a specific scenario is starting to develop.
Value Added
Quadrant Crunching combines the methodology of a Key Assumptions Check (chapter 8) with Multiple Scenarios Generation (chapter 6). It reduces the potential for surprise by providing a
structured framework with which the analyst can generate an array of alternative scenarios or stories.
The technique requires analysts to identify and systematically challenge all their key assumptions about how a terrorist attack might be launched or any other specific situation might evolve. By critically examining each assumption and how a contrary assumption might play out, analysts can better assess their level of confidence in their predictions, the strength of their lead hypothesis, and the likelihood of their lead scenario.
The process is a useful platform for developing indicator lists and for generating collection requirements. It also helps decision makers focus on what actions need to be undertaken today to best prepare for events that could transpire in the future. By reviewing an extensive list of potential
scenarios, decision makers are in a better position to select those that seem most credible or that most deserve attention. They can then take the necessary actions to avoid or mitigate the impact of bad scenarios and help foster more desirable ones. The technique also can be used to sensitize decision makers to potential “wild cards” (low probability/high impact developments) or “nightmare
scenarios,” both of which could have significant policy or resource implications.
The Method
Quadrant Crunching is sometimes described as a Key Assumptions Check on steroids. It is most useful when there is a well-established lead hypothesis that can be articulated clearly. Quadrant Crunching calls on the analyst to break down the lead hypothesis into its component parts, identifying the key assumptions that underlie the lead hypothesis, or dimensions that focus on Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How. Once the key dimensions of the lead hypothesis are articulated, the analyst generates at least two examples of contrary dimensions. For example, two contrary dimensions for a single attack would be simultaneous attacks and cascading attacks. The various contrary dimensions are then arrayed in sets of 2 × 2 matrices. If four dimensions are identified for a particular topic, the technique would generate six different 2 × 2 combinations of these four dimensions (AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, and CD). Each of these pairs would be presented as a 2 × 2 matrix with four quadrants.
Different scenarios would be generated for each quadrant in each matrix. If two stories are imagined for each quadrant in each of these 2 × 2 matrices, a total of 48 different ways the situation could
evolve will have been generated. Similarly, if six drivers are identified, the technique will generate as many as 120 different stories to consider (see Figure 5.7a).
“The best way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas.”
Louis Pasteur
Once a rich array of potential scenarios has been generated, the analyst’s task is to identify which of the various scenarios are the most deserving of attention.
Figure 5.7a Quadrant Crunching: Creating a Set of Stories
Source: 2009 Pherson Associates, LLC.
The last step in the process is to develop lists of indicators for each scenario in order to track whether a particular scenario is beginning to emerge.
The Quadrant Crunching technique can be illustrated by exploring the question “How might terrorists attack our domestic water system?”
State the conventional wisdom for the most likely way this terrorist attack might be launched.
For example, “Al-Qaeda or its affiliates will contaminate the domestic water supply causing mass casualties.”
Break down this statement into its component parts or key assumptions. For example, the statement makes four key assumptions: (a) a single attack, (b) involving drinking water, (c) conducted by an outside attacker, (d) that causes large numbers of casualties.
Posit a contrary assumption for each key assumption. For example, what if there are multiple attacks instead of a single attack?
Identify at least two dimensions of that contrary assumption. For example, what are different ways a multiple attack could be launched? Two possibilities would be simultaneous attacks (as in the September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) or cascading attacks (as in the sniper killings in the Washington, D.C., area in October 2002).
Repeat this process for each of the key dimensions. Try to develop two contrary dimensions for
each contrary assumption. (See Figure 5.7b.)
Figure 5.7b Terrorist Attacks on Water Systems: Flipping Assumptions
Source: 2009 Pherson Associates, LLC.
Array pairs of contrary dimensions into sets of 2 × 2 matrices. In this case, ten different 2 × 2 matrices would be created. Two of the ten matrices are shown in Figure 5.7c.
For each cell in each matrix generate one to three examples of how terrorists might launch an attack. In some cases, such a scenario might already have been imagined. In other quadrants there may be no credible scenario. But several of the quadrants will usually stretch the analysts’
thinking, pushing them to think about the dynamic in new and different ways.
Figure 5.7c Terrorist Attacks on Water Systems: Sample Matrices
Source: 2009 Pherson Associates, LLC.
Review all the scenarios generated; using a pre-established set of criteria, select those most deserving of attention. In this example, possible criteria might be those scenarios that are most likely to:
Cause the most damage; have the most impact.
Be the hardest to detect or prevent.
Pose the greatest challenge for consequence management.
This process is illustrated in Figure 5.7d. In this case, three stories were selected as the most likely scenarios. Story 1 became Scenario A, Stories 4 and 7 were combined to form Scenario B, and Story 16 became Scenario C. It may also be desirable to select one or two additional scenarios that might be described as “wild cards” or “nightmare scenarios.” These are scenarios that have a low probability of occurring but are worthy of attention because their impact would be so great if they did occur. The figure shows Story 11 as a nightmare scenario.
Figure 5.7d Selecting Scenarios
* Consider what decision makers might do to prevent bad scenarios from happening, mitigate their impact, and deal with their consequences.
* Generate a list of key indicators to help assess which, if any, of these scenarios is beginning to emerge.
Relationship to Other Techniques
Quadrant Crunching is a specific application of a generic method called Morphological Analysis (described in this chapter). It draws on the results of the Key Assumptions Check and can contribute to Multiple Scenarios Generation. It can also be used to identify Indicators.
Origins of This Technique
The Quadrant Crunching technique was developed by Randy Pherson and Alan Schwartz to meet a
specific analytic need. It was first published in Randy Pherson, Handbook of Analytic Tools and Techniques (Reston, Va.: Pherson Associates, LLC, 2008).