The (underestimated) value of current intelligence

Yes. I know. As an intelligence practitioner, I always tried to avoid the "tyranny of current intelligence". And when I became an intelligence scholar, I read numerous books and articles admiring "estimative intelligence" or "strategic intelligence" and looking down on current intelligence. "Current" sounded like "simple", "tactical", or "flat". Something more similar to new reporting to true and deep intelligence analysis.

But as always, I try to adopt the Middle Road philosophy of Aristotle. There is still high value, I believe, in current intelligence.

Here are some of my own experiences, based on working with Defense and Intelligence vendors in the private sector. In a different post I will discuss the more traditional national security perspective.

Defense and Intelligence vendors must understand current geopolitical developments. CEOs, products teams, marketing teams, and sales teams must discuss specific and current challenges. Not generic ones. Business relevance, therefore, relies on current intelligence. Think, for instance, about current events in Europe. Or in the Middle East. Such current private sector intelligence is imperative. And I don't just mean risks to the business. I also mean opportunities to increase business relevance. A CEO who engages with partners and clients, and who speaks in conferences, must be provided with such intelligence.

In national security, the organizations producing such current intelligence are often well-structured. Although sometimes under-estimated. But what happens in the private sector? Who is in charge of supporting the CEO and management with current intelligence?