theunpromisedone3

STRATFOR E-Mail #20: [alpha] RESENDING - MUST READ Fwd: sou

Feb 27th, 2012
218
0
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 6.69 KB | None | 0 0
  1.  
  2. [alpha] RESENDING - MUST READ Fwd: source evaluations - must read
  3. Email-ID 5070598
  4. Date 2011-08-10 21:05:56
  5. It has come to my attention that if something is sent at night it is not
  6. seen as valuable as if it were sent during 8a-5p so I'm resending this.
  7. This needs to change. We operate 24/7. This is mandatory for everyone to
  8. read and process.
  9.  
  10. I also resent the insight lists this morning with the correct
  11. spreadsheet. That is also mandatory reading. If you need me to resend
  12. that as well, let me know.
  13.  
  14. If there are any questions, please ask. I will send an email later today
  15. or tomorrow on the intel meeting next week as mentioned in another email
  16. also sent last night.
  17.  
  18. Jen
  19.  
  20. -------- Original Message --------
  21.  
  22. Subject: [alpha] source evaluations - must read
  23. Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:51:43 -0500
  24. From: Jennifer Richmond
  25. Reply-To: Alpha List
  26. To: Alpha List , [email protected]
  27.  
  28. This is the first in several emails on our sourcing and insight
  29. collections. To begin with, we will be meeting with everyone who has
  30. sources to evaluate them on the criteria and scoring below. I will be in
  31. touch with everyone who has a source list within the next few weeks. If
  32. you have sources but no source list, then you need to create one. I will
  33. give details on this in a separate email.
  34.  
  35. All of those who need to update or create their list need to do so by
  36. Monday and send them to both myself and Anya. If you need a source code
  37. number range, email me and I will get this set up for you so you can start
  38. the process. For analysts with compiled lists with uncoded sources,
  39. please code these ASAP unless they are genuinely a one-off and then give
  40. an explanation.
  41.  
  42. In the meantime, it would be best if everyone with sources start to
  43. evaluate each source by looking at least the past five insights and start
  44. to score them based on the criteria and scoring below so you are not
  45. scrambling when we are ready to set up an evaluation with you. Also, from
  46. here on out, start to think about sources with these criteria and scoring
  47. in mind. This will be the first of many periodic insight evaluations so
  48. its best for everyone to get acquainted with this method.
  49.  
  50. For Watch Officers, please also start to think along these lines when you
  51. are reading insight. In the future we will also look to you as objective
  52. source evaluators. Also, please start to read the insight carefully and
  53. comment on it the same as you would a piece from OS. As Reva said in our
  54. meeting today, we are starting to refocus on intel and insight. As Watch
  55. Officers, you are well placed to comment on any anomalies presented in
  56. insights and compare it with what is being said in the media.
  57.  
  58. If there are any questions or concerns, please ask.
  59.  
  60. Jen
  61.  
  62. Sourcing Criteria
  63.  
  64. The following are the proposed criteria for analyzing both sources and
  65. insight.
  66.  
  67.  
  68.  
  69. 1. Source Timeliness
  70.  
  71. 2. Source Accessibility/Position
  72.  
  73. 3. Source Availability
  74.  
  75. 4. Insight Credibility
  76.  
  77. 5. Insight Uniqueness
  78.  
  79.  
  80.  
  81.  
  82.  
  83. Source Timeliness: This is the average grade on how long this particular
  84. source turns around tasks and replies to inquiries. It may change but is
  85. more of a static indicator.
  86.  
  87.  
  88.  
  89. Source Accessibility: Accessibility weighs the source's position to have
  90. certain knowledge in a particular field. So, for example, if we are
  91. looking for energy insight and the source is an official in an energy
  92. agency, his or her Accessibility would be ranked higher than if s/he was a
  93. banker giving insight on energy. While we would welcome a banker giving
  94. his/her insight, a good source may not have a high accessibility ranking
  95. if they aren't in a position to offer reliable insight on a certain topic.
  96. The source's access to decision makers, specific training or education in
  97. the desired topic area, specific knowledge of events/situations/incidents
  98. can also be considered.
  99.  
  100.  
  101.  
  102. Source Availability: How often can we go to this source? Are they
  103. someone we can tap daily, weekly, monthly, yearly?
  104.  
  105.  
  106.  
  107. Insight Credibility: This is our assessment of the veracity of the
  108. insight offered. Here we need to consider whether or not this is
  109. disinformation, speculation, correct data or knowledgeable interpretation.
  110. Any bias that the source is displaying or any specific viewpoints or
  111. personal background the source is using in the assessment provided should
  112. also be considered.
  113.  
  114.  
  115.  
  116. Insight Uniqueness: Is this insight something that could be found in OS?
  117. If it is but the analysis of the information is unique, it would still
  118. have a high uniqueness ranking. Or, if it is concrete data, but is
  119. something that is only offered to industry insiders, i.e. stats that
  120. aren't published but that aren't secret, it would still have a high
  121. uniqueness score.
  122.  
  123.  
  124.  
  125.  
  126.  
  127. Scoring
  128.  
  129. All of the above factors will be scored on an A-F scale, with A being
  130. exemplary and F being useless.
  131.  
  132.  
  133.  
  134. Source Timeliness:
  135.  
  136. A = turnaround within 24 hours
  137.  
  138. B = turnaround within 48 hours
  139.  
  140. C = turnaround within a week
  141.  
  142. D = turnaround within a month
  143.  
  144. F = lucky to receive a reply at all
  145.  
  146.  
  147.  
  148. Source Accessibility:
  149.  
  150. A = Someone with intimate knowledge of the particular insight
  151.  
  152. B = Someone within the industry but whose knowledge of the topic is not
  153. exact (e.g. if we were asking someone in the oil industry about natural
  154. gas)
  155.  
  156. C = Someone working close to the industry who doesn't have intimate
  157. knowledge of a particular topic but can speak to it intelligently (e.g. a
  158. financial consultant asked to gauge the movement of the stock market)
  159.  
  160. D = Someone who may know a country but doesn't have any concrete insight
  161. into a particular topic but can offer rumors and discussions heard on the
  162. topic
  163.  
  164. F = Someone who has no knowledge of a particular industry at all
  165.  
  166.  
  167.  
  168. Source Availability:
  169.  
  170. A = Available pretty much whenever
  171.  
  172. B = Can tap around once a week
  173.  
  174. C = Can tap about once a month
  175.  
  176. D = Can tap only several times a year
  177.  
  178. F = Very limited availability
  179.  
  180.  
  181.  
  182. Insight Credibility:
  183.  
  184. A = We can take this information to the bank
  185.  
  186. B = Good insight but maybe not entirely precise
  187.  
  188. C = Insight is only partially true
  189.  
  190. D = There may be some interest in the insight, but it is mostly false or
  191. just pure speculation.
  192.  
  193. F = Likely to be disinformation
  194.  
  195.  
  196.  
  197. Insight Uniqueness:
  198.  
  199. A = Can't be found anywhere else
  200.  
  201. B = Can only be found in limited circles
  202.  
  203. C = Insight can be found in OS, but the source has an interesting
  204. take/analysis
  205.  
  206. D = Insight can be found in OS, but still may not be common knowledge
  207.  
  208. F = Insight is accessible in numerous locations
  209.  
  210.  
  211.  
  212. --
  213. Jennifer Richmond
  214. STRATFOR
  215. China Director
  216. Director of International Projects
  217. (512) 422-9335
  218. www.stratfor.com
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment