Topic starter
24/10/2026 8:53 pm
TL;DR: Only 26% of CISOs say CTI significantly influences decisions, while 51% of organisations do not gather effectiveness feedback and 43% do not track maturity over time, according to Intel 471. CTI programmes need proof of outcomes, or budget defence stays vulnerable whenever leaders ask what changed.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Intel 471: “Making the Business Case for Your CTI Budget”.
By the numbers:
- 51% of organisations do not gather feedback about the effectiveness of their CTI.
- 43% do not track the maturity of their CTI program over time.
- 44% of teams said their top barrier to effective CTI was a lack of funding.
Key questions
Q: Why does lack of CTI feedback create budget risk?
A: Because budgets are justified by outcomes, not volume.
Q: How should CTI teams decide what to collect and publish?
A: They should start with stakeholder demand signals and Priority Intelligence Requirements.
Q: What breaks when CTI teams do not measure decision impact?
A: When CTI teams do not measure decision impact, they cannot prove which products changed a control, accelerated a response, or improved prioritisation.
Practitioner guidance
- Define intelligence products by decision they support Map each recurring CTI deliverable to a specific stakeholder decision, such as patching priority, incident escalation, supplier risk review, or access control change.
- Track decision impact, not just distribution Measure whether intelligence changed a control, delayed an exposure, or accelerated a response.
- Build PIRs from stakeholder interviews Use structured interviews to capture Priority Intelligence Requirements by function, then turn them into a collection plan that reflects recurring operational needs rather than executive guesswork.
Bottom line: CTI programmes often fail because they cannot connect intelligence outputs to measurable decisions, not because they lack raw information.
Glossary terms: Priority Intelligence Requirements, Decision Impact, Stakeholder Demand Signal, CTI Maturity
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 6 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/10/2026 11:12 am
CTI measurement is now a governance control, not a reporting convenience. When executives value CTI but cannot see its decision impact, the programme is operating with a visibility gap. The core issue is not information scarcity; it is the absence of evidence that intelligence changes prioritisation, policy, or response. Practitioners should treat decision impact as a control objective, not a retrospective metric.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can security teams trust AI-assisted intelligence before acting on it?
A: They should validate the source, check reliability over time, and require human review before using the output to change controls or policy. AI can improve throughput, but it also increases the risk of confident but weak analysis, so provenance and verification must be part of the workflow.
👉 Read our full editorial: CTI budget pressure is a measurement problem, not an intelligence problem
This post was modified 6 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group