Intelligence Community (IC) is the biggest and most multifaceted institution of its kind, consisting of sixteen semi-independent agencies with dissimilar, sometimes corresponding, spheres of accountability. Generally, it has demonstrated problematic to institute integrated direction over the IC. Ensuing major terrorist attacks like that of September 11, 2001, comprehensive intelligence restructurings were sanctioned, including legislature to authorize chief leadership by founding a Director of National Intelligence. Notwithstanding these modifications, opposition to central management still affects the IC to this day. The disaster in structural reform is poorly comprehended, as the literature does not intellectualize intelligence agencies predominantly as organizations.
The methodology recommended herein examines the progressive paths of agencies, which irradiates the organizational factors moving reform. Employing the structure of Historical Institutionalism in the new setting of intelligence agencies aids in explaining the difficulties seen in reform, posed by established interests and governmental cultures, damaging the realistic likelihood of centralized control over incongruent intelligence finances, personnel, and urgencies. Several articles will help in highlighting the possible ways to reduce such challenges and how to effectively centralize leadership.
Organizations differ in how they handle situations. However, there are valuable lessons or information that can be picked up from other organizations in order to reach a solution. The formation of the NMIC is part of the Navy's answer to an Intelligence Community...
"That directive had been a response to recommendations from the 2005 Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction Report, which recommended that IC analysts broaden their information horizons by collaborating with expertise wherever it resides…"[footnoteRef:1] [1: Kenneth L. Caswell Jr., 'Establishment Of The National Maritime Intelligence Center: Understanding The Foundations Of Trust To Support A Collaborative Environment In Homeland Security' (2010).]
What this means as a means of a solution for effective centralized leadership and collaboration is, look for outside sources for assistance. Practicing collaboration with other groups can lead to better collaboration internally. More often than not there are communication hurdles when it comes to relaying information because people within other agencies are not used to talking to external groups, external peoples. Practicing collaboration would help generate improvement in overall communication.
One article discusses how agencies can practice collaborative learning through emergency readiness. "There is a great opportunity for collaborative learning when agencies conduct emergency preparedness exercises together. If different members of the community contribute to…
