Is the National Intelligence Model still fit for purpose?

When the National Intelligence Model (NIM) was introduced in the early 2000s, it transformed UK policing. Designed to embed intelligence-led decision-making, NIM provided a structured business model for assessing threats, prioritising resources, and coordinating operations. For years, it underpinned how law enforcement tackled serious and organised crime, terrorism, and emerging risks.

But two decades later, the threat landscape has changed dramatically. Cybercrime, encrypted communications, globalised criminal networks, and complex data environments have reshaped the way crime operates – and the way intelligence needs to respond.

So, is NIM still delivering what it was designed to do?

That was the question explored at Clue Connect 2025, where Rachel Larsen, Co-Founder of Larsen Consultancy and former Analytical Lead for the National Terrorist Financial Investigation Unit, presented findings from a comprehensive review of NIM’s effectiveness. 

Rachel was joined by Matt Horne (Director of Intelligence & Investigations at Clue Software and former Deputy Director at the NCA) and Nicola Thorn (Senior Intelligence and Investigations Consultant) to discuss what the research revealed – and what our audience thinks needs to change. 

Rachael Larsen presented findings from the NIM review at Clue Connect Live 2025.

The review: strengths and weaknesses

Rachel’s review, based on 38 hours of interviews with senior intelligence leaders, 43 key documents, and a survey of nearly 200 analysts, found that while NIM remains a recognised framework, its implementation has weakened. Key issues include: 

• Governance gaps – unclear ownership of standards and fragmented tasking processes. 
• Processing inefficiencies – poor intelligence sharing, inconsistent threat assessments, and reliance on spreadsheets. 
• Capability shortfalls – diminished intelligence-led culture, skills gaps, and siloed innovation. 

The conclusion? NIM needs modernisation – from governance and training to technology and data-sharing protocols. 

What our audience told us

We asked attendees two questions: 

1. What are the biggest barriers to becoming more intelligence-led?

Responses highlighted five recurring themes: 

• Lack of senior leadership buy-in and cultural resistance. 
• Limited skills, training, and resources. 
• Data-sharing challenges and legal constraints. 
• Poor processes and weak feedback loops. 
• Misunderstanding of what intelligence is and how to use it.

2. If you could change one element of NIM for today’s threats, what would it be?

Top suggestions included: 

• Integrated platforms to replace siloed systems. 
• Clearer frameworks and end-to-end processes. 
• Practical legislation for intelligence sharing. 
• Mandatory feedback loops. 
• Real-time dashboards and AI-assisted analysis. 
• A national data-sharing protocol. 

The big picture

The session reinforced a clear message: intelligence-led policing is at risk of stagnation unless governance, culture, and technology evolve together. Modern threats demand modern tools, streamlined processes, and a renewed commitment to intelligence as the foundation of decision-making.

“The National Intelligence Model was transformative, but today’s environment demands a strategic reset,” said Matt Horne, Director of Intelligence and Investigations at Clue.

“Intelligence must evolve from a static framework to a dynamic capability – driven by governance clarity, advanced technology, and a culture that values data-driven decisions. This isn’t just about law enforcement; it’s about creating an intelligence-led approach that can adapt to global risks and deliver resilience across all domains.”