The Art and Science of Intelligence and Investigations: Why Both Matter for Litigation Support in Complex Investigations

Categorizing an endeavor as an art or a science creates a false dichotomy. This is true for many things across a spectrum we superficially may recognize as either an art or a science. For example, as Walter Isaacson eloquently describes in his 2017 Atlantic article, The Science Behind Mona Lisa’s Smile:

“The Mona Lisa’s smile did not come from some divine intervention. Instead, it was the product of years of painstaking and studied human effort involving applied science as well as artistic skill.” 

Conversely, even activities that we collectively recognize to be highly scientific and structured, such as medicine, require the “timeless art” of compassion and caring to improve efficacy and patient outcomes. Engineering, another highly scientific profession, is likewise not immune to the requirement for art in their science – a fact Richard W. Hamming impresses upon us in his aptly titled book, The Art of Doing Science and Engineering. 

In the world of intelligence and investigations, it is easy to portray one of two distinct archetypes – the seasoned investigator who works primarily retrospectively, relies on experience-based hunches, and loose analytic structures; and then there’s the intelligence analyst, who works primarily prospectively, uses intuition to generate hypotheses, but whose hypothetical foundation is based on techniques that reduce biases. Based on the above, it would be fair to assume that the first example is more artistic than the second, and the second is more scientific than the first – this is a complete misunderstanding.

In the interrelated worlds of intelligence and investigations, curiosity, creativity, imagination, intuition, patience, discipline, technical acumen, technical analysis, and above all well-sourced evidence combine to make those activities, like the Mona Lisa, patient outcomes, and bridge building, both an art and a science.

For attorneys, it is essential that critical evidence is not missed in complex litigation – a demand that requires both intuition and modeling based on logic and different types of evidence.

• Robust investigative partnerships.
• Competent and highly trained investigators.
• Structured analytic techniques and methodologies.
• Advanced intelligence collection and analysis tools.
• Objective, timely, accurate, and relevant information.

The Science That Supports Investigative Excellence

Structured Analytic Techniques: An Evidence-Based Foundation for Litigation Support in Intelligence Analysis

The intelligence community has long recognized that structured analytic techniques (SATs) form the backbone of reliable analysis. According to the CIA’s Tradecraft Primer on Structured Analytic Techniques, these methodologies are designed to “challenge judgments, identify mental mindsets, stimulate creativity, and manage uncertainty.”

The primer identifies three core categories of techniques:

Diagnostic Techniques:

• Key Assumptions Check – Explicitly identifying working assumptions that underlie analysis. 
• Quality of Information Check – Evaluating completeness and soundness of sources. 
• Indicators or Signposts of Change – Tracking observable events to monitor developments. 
• Analysis of Competing Hypotheses – Systematically evaluating alternative explanations. 

Contrarian Techniques:

• Devil’s Advocacy – Building the strongest case possible for alternative hypotheses. 
• Team A/Team B Analysis – Using separate teams to contrast competing hypotheses. 
• High-Impact/Low-Probability Analysis – Examining unlikely but consequential scenarios. 

Imaginative Thinking Techniques:

• Brainstorming – Generating creative solutions and hypotheses.
• Outside-In Thinking – Approaching problems from external perspectives.
• Red Team Analysis – Challenging assumptions through imaginative thinking.

Richards Heuer’s seminal work, The Psychology of Intelligence Analysis, demonstrates that these structured approaches are essential because “expertise itself is no protection from the common analytic pitfalls that are endemic to the human thought process.” Heuer’s research reveals that even highly experienced analysts fall victim to cognitive biases, and that the confidence that attaches to expertise can actually aggravate these effects.

The Cognitive Science of Mitigating Bias in Complex Investigations

The academic literature consistently shows that systematic processes outperform intuition alone in complex analytical tasks. However, it is also true that a “failure of imagination” can lead to missing critical evidence, or even massive intelligence failures. Understanding this illuminates the false dichotomy between analytical rigor and creative insight.

Intelligence analysts and investigators must contend with numerous cognitive biases that can lead to missed evidence. Some of these impediments to critical thinking include confirmation bias and recency bias. Others include:

Perceptual Biases:

• Expectation Bias – We perceive what we expect to perceive. 
• Resistance to Change – Perceptions resist alteration even with new evidence. 
• Ambiguity Effects – Initial exposure to unclear stimuli interferes with accurate perception. 

Evaluation Biases:

• Consistency Preference – Small amounts of consistent data can engender more confidence than larger amounts of inconsistent data. 
• Missing Information Bias – Difficulty judging the impact of unknown evidence. 
• Discrediting Evidence Persistence – Perceptions may not change even when supporting evidence is disproved.

The Art of Investigating and Analyzing Information of Intelligence Value

Pattern Recognition and Creative Hypothesis Generation

While structured techniques provide essential rigor, the artistic elements of investigation remain irreplaceable. Research by the Department of Justice on creativity in police investigations found that “more productive investigative thinking styles were linked with higher levels of creativity” – specifically, the ability to envision and use innovative methods for collecting and interpreting evidence.

The study identified two critical investigative styles that depend on creative thinking:

• Skill Style – Applied when detectives keep an open mind during investigations, even when certain information suggests a specific suspect or course of action. This requires an artistic judgment to know when standard procedures may not be sufficient.
• Risk Style – Applied when detectives maintain openness and explore various angles to find evidence. This involves the creative courage to pursue unconventional investigative paths that might yield breakthrough insights.

The Role of Experience and Intuition

Intelligence must be timely, relevant, accurate, and objective – but achieving these qualities often requires the intuitive judgment that comes from experience. 

This experiential knowledge manifests in several ways:

• Situational Awareness – The ability to recognize anomalies and patterns that don’t conform to established models.
• Contextual Understanding – Deep knowledge of how different actors, environments, and circumstances interact.
• Hypothesis Intuition – The creative spark that generates novel explanations for ambiguous evidence. 

Source Assessment – The nuanced judgment required to evaluate human intelligence and open-source information.

Creative Problem-Solving in Complex Investigations

The intersection of creative thinking and analytical rigor becomes most critical in complex investigations where standard approaches prove insufficient. As research by Gehl and Plecas on criminal investigations demonstrates, “If it can be said that there is a creative art anywhere in the processes of investigation, the strategic investigative response is where that creative art takes place.”

Creative investigative approaches include:

• Re-interviewing witnesses with fresh perspectives.
• Utilizing surveillance and open-source intelligence in novel ways.
• Conducting thorough background checks and link analysis that reveal previously missed connections.
• Employing forensic re-examination with new technologies or methodologies

Preventing Critical Evidence Loss Through the Convergence of Art and Science

The most significant investigative failures occur when either scientific rigor or artistic insight is neglected. We are all human, and we are all subject to biases and shortcuts that may affect our investigations and analytic judgements.

Common Failure Patterns Include:

• Premature closure on explanations that seem “good enough.”
• Failure to generate comprehensive alternative hypotheses.
• Over-reliance on evidence that supports preferred theories while ignoring contradictory data.
• Insufficient challenge of key assumptions underlying the analytical judgments.

The solution lies in systematic integration of structured techniques with creative analysis. In our blog that explores open-source intelligence, effective OSINT requires five key components that blend science and art: source identification, data collection, processing, analysis, and reporting. Each stage demands both methodological rigor and creative insight, and successfully integrating creative and structured approaches to support litigation requires:

• Methodological Diversity – Employing multiple analytical approaches to reduce the risk of systematic errors.
• Humility – Recognition that both intuitive and structured approaches have limitations.
• Collaboration – Teams that combine different analytical strengths and perspectives.
• Learning – Regular assessment and refinement of both structured techniques and intuitive capabilities.
• Quality Assurance – Systematic review processes that evaluate both methodology and creativity.

Leveraging Advanced OSINT Collection and Investigation Tools

Modern investigations benefit from sophisticated technological capabilities, but these tools are most effective when combined with human insight. The integration of artificial intelligence, data analytics, and traditional investigative methods creates new possibilities for evidence discovery while requiring enhanced human judgment to interpret results meaningfully.

Technology-Enhanced Investigations:

• Link and social network analysis to map and contextualize complex relationships.
• Analytics that inform investigative directions.
• Single pane of glass document data repository and document sourcing.
• Media tracking for awareness and investigative deep dives.

Human-Centered Integration:

• Creative hypothesis generation that guides analysis and the use of OSINT tools and physical surveillance.
• Intuitive assessment of algorithmic outputs for investigative relevance.
• Contextual interpretation that technological systems cannot provide.
• Ethical and legal judgment in evidence collection and analysis

Embracing the Integrated Approach in Complex Litigation

The most effective intelligence and investigative organizations recognize that both analytical rigor and creative insight must be systematically developed and integrated. This requires moving beyond the false choice between “art” and “science” toward comprehensive capability development.

Core Requirements for Integrated Investigative Practices:

• Robust Investigative Partnerships – Collaboration between analysts with different strengths, backgrounds, and analytical approaches ensures that both structured techniques and creative insights are fully utilized.
• Competent and Highly Trained Investigators – Training programs must develop both methodological competence and creative problem-solving capabilities, recognizing that these skills are complementary rather than competing.
• Structured Analytic Techniques and Methodologies – Systematic application of proven analytical frameworks provides the foundation for reliable analysis while creating space for creative hypothesis generation.
• Advanced Intelligence Collection and Analysis Tools – Technology platforms that enhance rather than replace human analytical capabilities, providing investigators with powerful tools while preserving the essential role of human judgment.
• Objective, Timely, Accurate, and Relevant Information – Information systems and processes that get what decisionmakers need, when they need it, and do so professionally.

The question is not whether intelligence and investigations are art or science – they are demonstrably both. Like da Vinci’s masterpiece, the most successful investigative outcomes result from the integration of scientific rigor and artistic insight, applied systematically and with deep expertise.

For attorneys and their investigative partners, this integration is essential for ensuring that critical evidence is not missed in complex litigation. The path forward requires organizational commitment to developing both dimensions of investigative practices: the structured analytical techniques that provide rigor and reliability, and the creative insights that enable breakthrough discoveries. Neither is sufficient alone; both are essential together.For legal teams seeking to implement integrated investigative practices in complex litigation, at Convoy Group, we strive to exemplify this balanced approach through comprehensive intelligence and investigative services that seamlessly blend structured analytical methodologies with creative problem-solving capabilities. Drawing on a team of experienced analysts and investigators – including former Special Forces operators, intelligence analysts, and investigative specialists – we understand that successful outcomes in high-stakes litigation require both the scientific rigor of systematic evidence collection and analysis, as well as the artistic insight that comes from years of experience in complex investigations. By partnering with an organization with the internal capability to provide services like link and social network analysis, open-source intelligence investigations, and advanced surveillance techniques, attorneys can ensure they have access to information that supports their case and desired legal outcomes.