| This research thesis compared two intelligence organizations in the state of Indiana through quantitative analysis, examining a possible alternative model to fusion center organization. The first, the Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center, is examined as a central model organization, where the sum of its parts is located geographically in a centralized location. The second, the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Indiana, is examined as a distributed model, whereby its regional agencies throughout the state act as distributed parts in the system. Key personnel from each organization were interviewed allowing for the comparison of their responses. This research hypothesized that a distributed system is more effective at information sharing proving to be an alternative form to implementing a fusion center. Results showed that there were strengths and weaknesses of both designs. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's distributed model was more inept at gathering raw information at the source and distributing feedback to local sources in a more relevant manner. The Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center's central model was able to provide an entire picture of state intelligence to local sources through its intelligence products while garnering personal relationships on an institutional level. These institutional relationships put more emphasis on the organization's processes and history rather than its personnel. Ultimately, data results showed that a lack of cooperation exists between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center "on-the-ground" and regardless of the fusion center's model, in order for state intelligence collection to be effective, the two organizations will need to work together. |
