Q&A: Why Intelligence Organizations Need More Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration — i2 Group - June 17, 2026
i2 Group's Nadia Tuominen discusses networked threats, information overload, workforce pressures, and the growing role of practitioner communities
As criminal enterprises, cyber adversaries, fraud networks, and other threat actors become more interconnected, intelligence organizations are finding that traditional approaches to analysis and information sharing are no longer sufficient.
Threat actors routinely collaborate across borders, jurisdictions, and technologies. They share expertise, leverage common infrastructure, and increasingly operate as flexible networks rather than isolated groups. Research from organizations such as the World Economic Forum and Europol has documented how cybercrime and organized crime ecosystems have become more specialized, interconnected, and collaborative.
At the same time, intelligence professionals face mounting challenges of their own. Analysts and investigators are expected to process growing volumes of information, adopt new technologies, and respond to increasingly complex threats, often while operating with limited resources and smaller teams.
During a recent BizTechReports executive vidcast, Nadia Tuominen, Community Champion at i2 Group, discussed why intelligence organizations are placing greater emphasis on collaboration, knowledge sharing, and practitioner communities as a way to address these challenges.
The following are edited excerpts from that conversation.
Q: Why is collaboration becoming such an important topic within the intelligence community?
Tuominen: If adversarial criminal actors can collaborate with each other for their greater success, then absolutely we should be doing the same for the greater good.
What we're seeing today is that threats are becoming increasingly interconnected. Criminal organizations, cybercriminal groups, fraud networks—they don't operate according to the structures that we use inside our organizations. They don't recognize organizational charts, departmental boundaries, or distinctions between public and private sectors.
As intelligence professionals, we need to be able to bring together expertise from different disciplines and different organizations if we're going to understand those threats effectively and respond appropriately.
No single role has a complete view of the threat landscape. Investigators may have one set of insights, analysts another, and technology specialists yet another. When those perspectives remain isolated, organizations risk missing important connections. Collaboration helps create a more complete picture and enables faster, more informed decision-making.
Q: What challenges are intelligence professionals facing as they try to keep pace with these evolving threats?
Tuominen: One of the biggest challenges is the sheer volume of information available today.
Organizations have access to open-source intelligence, social media data, digital records, financial information,
and increasingly sophisticated AI-enabled tools. In theory, having more information should help us make better decisions.
In reality, it can create new problems.
Without a structured approach to data collection, information bias can lead to either overconfidence in conclusions. . or to analysis paralysis.
When people are confronted with enormous amounts of data, it becomes more difficult to determine what matters most and how to prioritize effectively.
The challenge isn't simply collecting information anymore. It's identifying the signals that matter and separating them from the noise. That requires analytical discipline, strong processes, and often collaboration with colleagues who can provide additional context or expertise.
Q: How is artificial intelligence affecting intelligence work?
Tuominen: AI offers tremendous opportunities, but it also introduces new considerations.
One concern is the potential for cognitive offloading, where people begin relying too heavily on technology to perform tasks that still require human judgment and critical thinking.
Technology can help us process information more efficiently, but intelligence work ultimately depends on human reasoning, context, and experience. We need to ensure that technology enhances analytical thinking rather than replacing it.
AI can help identify patterns, summarize information, and accelerate certain workflows. Those capabilities can be extremely valuable when analysts are dealing with large volumes of data. However, organizations still need people who can challenge assumptions, evaluate credibility, understand context, and make informed judgments.
The most effective approach is likely to be one where technology and human expertise complement each other rather than compete with one another.
Q: Beyond information overload, what workforce challenges are organizations dealing with?
Tuominen: The workload is increasing. The number of people available to do it is decreasing.
At the same time, many organizations have adopted hybrid or remote work models. While those approaches offer benefits, they've also reduced some of the informal opportunities people once had to exchange ideas, ask questions, and learn from one another.
Opportunities to talk about how to address these issues in impromptu scenarios have diminished.
That can affect not only productivity and analytical quality but also professional development and workforce resilience.
Many organizations are also facing challenges related to recruiting and retaining experienced personnel. Intelligence work requires specialized skills that often take years to develop. When experienced professionals leave, organizations can lose valuable institutional knowledge that is difficult to replace quickly.
Q: How does the loss of informal interaction affect intelligence teams?
Tuominen: Informal interactions often play a bigger role than people realize.
Some of the most valuable learning experiences happen through casual conversations, quick questions, or discussions about how someone approached a particular problem. Those moments help transfer knowledge and build professional relationships.
When people work remotely or in highly distributed environments, those opportunities don't occur as naturally. Organizations need to be more intentional about creating spaces where people can connect, exchange ideas, and learn from one another.
Maintaining those connections is important not only for knowledge sharing but also for fostering a sense of community and professional support.
Q: How can practitioner communities help address some of these challenges?
Tuominen: Communities create opportunities for people to connect with peers who may be facing similar challenges but approaching them from different perspectives.
One of the goals behind i2 Amplify is to bring together analysts, investigators, technology professionals, intelligence leaders, and other members of the intelligence ecosystem so they can exchange ideas, share experiences, and discuss emerging issues.
The focus isn't necessarily on sharing operational information. It's about sharing methodologies, lessons learned, best practices, and approaches that can help practitioners improve how they do their jobs.
Communities can also help people discover solutions that have already been tested elsewhere. Instead of every organization trying to solve the same problem independently, practitioners can learn from one another's experiences and adapt successful approaches to their own environments.
Q: What value do organizations gain when professionals engage with broader communities?
Tuominen: Communities expose people to perspectives they may not encounter within their own organizations.
Analysts gain a better understanding of operational priorities. Technology teams gain insight into user requirements. Leaders gain a clearer understanding of the challenges facing frontline practitioners.
Those interactions help create a more informed and connected intelligence ecosystem.
They can also accelerate learning. Formal training remains important, but threats and technologies often evolve faster than traditional educational programs can adapt. Communities provide a way for professionals to learn from one another in near real time.
Organizations benefit because employees return with new ideas, broader perspectives, and a better understanding of how others are addressing similar challenges. That can improve innovation, strengthen collaboration, and support more effective decision-making.
Q: What should intelligence leaders take away from this discussion?
Tuominen: Collaboration is no longer simply about operational efficiency.
As threats become more connected, information becomes more abundant, and expertise becomes harder to cultivate, the ability to connect people across disciplines may become a strategic capability in its own right.
The organizations that will be best positioned for the future are those that recognize knowledge sharing, professional development, and community engagement as essential components of modern intelligence operations.
Leaders should think about how they can create environments that encourage collaboration, support continuous learning, and make it easier for people to share expertise across organizational boundaries. Those investments can strengthen both individual performance and organizational resilience over the long term.
###