Running Head: Hanford_OMDE610_9020
1
Analysis of Competing Hypotheses
The lesson that will be presented is based on the most common Intelligence Analysis
method used by analysts in the US Intelligence Community, the Analysis of Competing
Hypotheses (ACH). The selection of this activity is based on a need for this training for analysts
within the Intelligence Community as a foundation for other, more in-depth methods (Heuer &
Pherson, 2011). Using ACH as a structured method of analysis can help eliminate bias in
assessments and serve as documentation (proof) of evidence for prediction of potential
outcomes.
The ACH Lesson, Audience, and Key Objectives
The ACH lesson will ask students to identify an intelligence issue that requires a
prediction of potential outcomes. The student will then apply the eight steps of ACH to the
question in order to determine the most likely and least likely outcomes. The lesson is not
indented to accurately predict the future outcome, but is instead, designed to demonstrate the
student’s ability to correctly perform the process. The audience of this activity is any student,
analyst, or decision maker that has a need to forecast a potential outcome for a specific issue.
For example, current analysts and decision makers would be interested in the outcome of the
Sunni-based Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) actions in Iraq. The key objectives of
this activity are to:
1. Understand the purpose and role of ACH in analytical processes
2. Properly identify an Intelligence Issue (question) that can be solved by ACH
3. Properly demonstrate the use of all eight steps of ACH
4. Provide sound assessment and conclusion on the most likely and least likely outcome to
the Intelligence issue
Running Head: Hanford_OMDE610_9020
2
5. Demonstrate proper research in order to find relevant evidence to support or disprove
hypotheses
Outline of the ACH Lesson
This assignment will review student understanding of the ACH method. Students will
have four weeks to develop an Intelligence question, create and review multiple hypotheses, and
apply the eight step ACH process. The primary readings will be from the method’s creator
Richards J. Heuer Jr (Heuer, 2008) and Chapter 7, of Structured Analytical Techniques For
Intelligence Analysts (Heuer & Pherson, 2011). The lesson will be presented in nine modules
based on the steps presented in the readings (Heuer, 2008):
1. Introduction to ACH. Topics include why ACH was developed and what purpose it
serves in analysis. Also covered is when to use the method.
2. ACH Step 1: Identify possible hypotheses to be considered. This module will cover why
proper hypothesis development is necessary to finding the correct outcome and how to
conduct hypothesis development.
3. ACH Step 2: Make a list of significant evidence for and against each hypothesis. This
module will be research dependent as the student gathers relevant evidence for their
hypotheses from reliable sources. A minimum of twenty pieces of evidence is required.
4. ACH Step 3: Prepare a Hypothesis Matrix. This module instructs students on how to
create a matrix needed to apply the evidence found in their research against all
hypotheses.
5. ACH Step 4: Refine the Hypothesis Matrix. This module instructs the students to see
where additional research is needed as well as refining the Hypothesis Matrix through the
deletion of irrelevant evidence.
Running Head: Hanford_OMDE610_9020
3
6. ACH Step 5: Draw conclusions. Students will learn to review the refined Hypothesis
matrix in order to determine how each piece of evidence relates to the likelihood of each
hypothesis.
7. ACH Step 6: Analyze conclusions. This module will alert students to the sensitivity of
their evidence. Students must review their evidence based on its significance. The
outcome of the hypothesis cannot be determined solely on a mathematical “pro versus
cons” method. Instead, some evidence must be weighed based on its diagnostic value
and significance.
8. ACH Step 7: Report Conclusions. This module will require students to present their
conclusions on the most likely and least likely hypothesis to answer their Intelligence
question.
9. ACH Step 8: Milestones. This module will cover the possibly of new evidence or future
events that could change the reported conclusions in Step 7.
The conclusion of each model will require a written product from the student that is based on the
material covered. At the end of the nine modules, all module papers will be combined into one
ACH product for grading.
Facilitation by Technology
The lesson will be augmented by the use of the learning management system and online
resources. Within the learning management system, weekly discussions on the module readings
and outcomes will be required. Also, the learning management system will contain lectures,
links to readings, and assignment links to submit the ACH product. Two other online resources
will also be used. A YouTube video will be used to demonstrate the overview of ACH
Running Head: Hanford_OMDE610_9020
4
(Youtube, 2011). An optional online ACH tool download will be suggested for students to
practice the method (Pala Alto Research Center, 2006).
Theory and the ACH Lesson
The ACH lesson will be presented to students with a specific desired outcome of a
properly completed ACH analysis. The Behaviorist pedagogy aims to promote and modify
observable behavior in [students] and the instructor can judge the learning directly (Harasim,
2012). Students in the ACH lesson could benefit from the “Reward and Punishment” method of
the Behaviorist theory. Both positive and negative reinforcement of concepts and steps in each
module may produce the desired outcome. This could prove to be beneficial to present the ACH
lesson in a structured method since the actual material is an eight-step structure for analysis. The
only disadvantages may arise from students that hope to do well enough in one module to make
up for misunderstanding or failing another. Especially, if the overall grade is based on an
analytical rubric that combines the sum of all the modules. Perhaps the use of the “Schema”
method from the Cognitivist theory could aid in any fallacies of only using the Behaviorist
model. The Schema method compares the new material to existing knowledge (Harasim, 2012).
Generalizing the ACH subject matter through examples of how humans make forecasts of likely
outcomes in their personal life could add to cognitive memory skills. Highlighting what is
familiar to the student could increase their potential to grasp the structure of ACH and why each
step is important and why they must be performed in order without skipping a step.
Running Head: Hanford_OMDE610_9020
5
Grading Rubric
Beginning
Purpose and Role of
ACH
(10%)
Identify Intel
Question and Create
Hypothesis
(10%)
Research Evidence
(20%)
Role and Purpose not
identified
Intel Question and/or
Hypotheses not
identified
Less than ten relevant
pieces of evidence
provided
Application of ACH
Steps
(20%)
Properly apply less
than five steps to
ACH product
Present Most / Least
Likely Hypotheses
(20%)
No identification of
the Most / Least
Likely Hypotheses
Format
(10%)
ACH product steps
are not all conducted,
out of order, or not in
APA format
Significant
grammatical errors
Grammar
(10%)
Developing
Exemplary
Role and Purpose
Role and Purpose are
discussed, but not
clearly explained
clearly
Intel Question
Intel Question and at
identified / less than least three Hypotheses
three Hypotheses
identified
identified
More than ten, but
At least twenty pieces
less than twenty
of evidence provided
pieces of evidence
provided
Properly apply more
Properly apply all
than five, but less than
eight steps to ACH
eight steps to ACH
product
product
Identification of either Identification of both
the Most Likely or
the Most Likely and
Least Likely
Least Likely
Hypotheses
Hypotheses
ACH product steps
All ACH product
are mostly conducted,
steps are conducted,
in order, and are in
in order, and in APA
APA format
format
Minor issues with
Free of grammatical
grammatical errors
errors
Running Head: Hanford_OMDE610_9020
6
References
Harasim, L. (2012). Learning theory and online technologies. New York: Routledge.
Heuer, R. (2008). Psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington DC: CSI Publications.
Heuer, R. & Pherson R. (2011). Structured analytical techniques for intelligence analysts.
Washington DC: CQ Press.
Palo Alto Research Center. Analysis of competing hypotheses. Retrieved from
http://www2.parc.com/istl/projects/ach/ach.html
YouTube (2011). Intelligence analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk5kekun87A&list=PL4C1B259ABE016140