{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01444043321299639, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007220216606498195, 'mean_word_length': 5.680722891566265, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Institutional influence on assessments: the institutional analysis and development framework applied to military intelligence

ABSTRACT How can we understand intelligence assessments and intelligence work? The intelligence literature offers several plausible causes of failures and the consequences of such failures. However, there is a direct lack of theories or frameworks that connect these variables, that is, there is an incomplete understanding of both how those variables interact and their underlying mechanisms. Failures as such do only give one part of the picture. Why intelligence succeed is equally if not more important to understand. The military intelligence service from an institutional perspective may help to give this understanding. This study connects these variables with Ostrom’s Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, which yields a model to understand the mechanisms of institutional on the assessment and lays a foundation for a common terminology. The study uses the Swedish military intelligence institution active in Afghanistan between 2008 and 2012 as a case.