The Intelligence Community (IC) has more data, more advanced technology and more ways to understand the world than at any previous point in its history. The challenge now is making sure all of that capability actually helps someone make a better decision, faster.
That was the central message from Greg Ryckman, Special Advisor to the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, during the opening keynote and fireside chat at the 2026 Intelligence and National Security Summit in Bethesda, MD.
The annual summit, hosted by AFCEA International and the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA), brings together government, industry and academic leaders for unclassified discussions on national security challenges. This year’s agenda includes artificial intelligence, open-source intelligence, emerging technology, space acquisition and great power competition.
But Ryckman’s message cut across nearly all of those topics: Technology is changing intelligence at remarkable speed, while the processes, culture and workforce surrounding it have to change with it.
Intelligence Has to Keep Up With the Decision
For Ryckman, one of the most persistent challenges is turning intelligence collection and analysis into something useful for operations.
Today’s decision-making environment makes that harder. Policymakers and warfighters have access to more information, while the amount of time intelligence professionals have to inform their decisions continues to shrink.
“We have to be fast enough to be relevant,” Ryckman said, while stressing that intelligence still has to maintain accuracy and fidelity.
That balance matters as threats become increasingly global and interconnected. During a fireside chat with Broadcom Federal Chief Technology Officer Lewis Shepherd, Ryckman discussed how future adversary activity may not begin with an obvious military action. Warning signs could emerge through economic, diplomatic, information or other domains, forcing intelligence professionals to recognize patterns that do not fit traditional models.
It means the IC needs to be prepared not only to answer known questions faster, but also to recognize when the question itself has changed.
Don’t Confuse the Tools With the Mission
AI, automation and new data capabilities offer an enormous opportunity to close that gap. Ryckman said the IC has “never been in a better place” to develop a greater understanding of the operating environment.
But more technology does not automatically produce better intelligence.
One of Ryckman’s strongest themes was the need to avoid treating data and tools as the end goal. The objective is better understanding for the operator or decision-maker.
That distinction becomes especially important as agencies adopt more tools and ingest more sources. Different systems asking questions differently can create conflicting answers rather than clarity. Instead of helping a decision-maker understand the environment, technology can add another layer of confusion.
The technology itself also may not be the biggest obstacle.
Ryckman argued that many of today’s sticking points come from business processes and organizational culture that have not kept pace with technological capabilities. Rather than preserving a process simply because “we have to do it this way,” organizations should go back to why the rules and processes were created in the first place, determine what still matters and rethink how those objectives can be achieved with today’s capabilities.
AI Should Make Analysts Better, Not Replace Their Judgment
That same tension is playing out with AI and the intelligence workforce.
Ryckman made clear that analysts will need to incorporate AI into how they work. Avoiding it altogether risks making both the analyst and the intelligence they produce less relevant as the technology becomes increasingly embedded across the profession.
But there is another risk: skill erosion.
Ryckman used navigation technology as an analogy. Someone who already knows an area can look at a suggested route and recognize when it does not make sense. Someone who has always depended on the navigation system may not have the experience necessary to challenge it.
The same problem could emerge with intelligence analysts who become too dependent on AI before developing deep analytical expertise.
“You can’t balance what the AI is telling” you without that underlying expertise, Ryckman said.
The goal, then, isn’t choosing between human analysts and AI. It is figuring out where machines can accelerate the work while humans retain the expertise, judgment and critical thinking necessary to question the output.
Ryckman described one model in which technology produces a strong starting point from available information, with analysts able to understand the methodology and sources behind it and then build on that foundation rather than starting every question from scratch.
Government and Industry Have to Solve the Problem Together
None of that transformation will happen inside government alone.
Partnership between government and industry emerged repeatedly throughout the discussion, particularly as relevant information increasingly exists outside traditional government channels. Ryckman noted that people and organizations outside the military may see indicators of change that government needs to understand.
That makes collaboration more than a contracting conversation. It becomes part of the intelligence mission itself.
It also fits the broader purpose of the Intel Summit, which is built around public-private collaboration on intelligence and national security challenges. More than 2,000 professionals from government, industry and academia are expected at this year’s two-day event.
Ryckman’s message to that community was ultimately one of urgency. Adversaries are adapting. Technology is advancing. The amount of available information is exploding. The IC cannot afford to be complacent while the environment around it changes.
The opportunity is significant. Intelligence professionals have capabilities that would have been difficult to imagine earlier in Ryckman’s career. The question now is whether the community can adapt its processes, partnerships and workforce quickly enough to take full advantage of them.
The technology is here. The harder part may be changing how we use it.
