ODNI Plan Seeks to Foster Intelligence Community Integration
The U.S. intelligence community can and should form a more integrated whole without its member agencies sacrificing their individual character, according to a Five Year Strategic Human Capital Plan (pdf) from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI).
“A truly integrated IC is the only answer to the myriad threats that we face,” the newly disclosed June 2006 Plan states.
But “a national intelligence ‘service’ does not depend on or require a monolithic, homogeneous institutional culture, or a one-size-fits-all set of personnel rules and procedures (although some uniformity will undoubtedly be necessary).”
“I absolutely respect the cultures and traditions of the individual agencies,” Ron Sanders, the ODNI Chief Human Capital Officer told Secrecy News. “But this is one team, one fight. We have to come together in an integrated way.”
The 47 page Human Capital Plan accordingly outlines an approach to achieving what it calls “unity without uniformity.”
The term “human capital” (now used in place of “human resources”) encompasses all aspects of personnel management, from recruitment, hiring, salary and benefits, to training, promotion and termination. While it is not an intelligence function per se, it cuts to the core of the U.S. intelligence bureaucracy.
The Plan also provides new insight into a host of challenging intelligence community personnel matters, including workforce diversity, competition with the commercial sector, “generation gaps” within the intelligence community and security clearance policy.
A copy was released today in response to a request from Secrecy News.
See “The US Intelligence Community’s Five Year Strategic Human Capital Plan,” June 22, 2006 (released October 18, 2006).
Americans are paying too much for almost everything, because the United States has long treated its trucking industry as an artifact to be preserved rather than as an opportunity for innovation.
These ideas aim to advance the detailed policy solutions needed to foster public trust and implement fairness in the adoption of AI across diverse domains, from healthcare and government benefits to rural access, education, and worker protections.
The evidence is clear: algorithmic pay-setting is established in app-based work, and payroll/timekeeping failures show how software can produce systemic wage harm at scale
While a few states have taken steps to implement decision-making mechanisms for certain AI systems, too many leaders are simply accepting narratives about AI’s purported public benefit at face value – jumping to the “how” of AI implementation before thoroughly vetting potential systems and deciding whether they are appropriate to use at all.