Advertisement
LegionNET

[alpha] RESENDING - MUST READ Fwd: source evaluations - must

Feb 27th, 2012
145
0
Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 6.68 KB | None | 0 0
  1. [alpha] RESENDING - MUST READ Fwd: source evaluations - must read
  2. Email-ID 5070598
  3. Date 2011-08-10 21:05:56
  4. From richmond@stratfor.com
  5. To alpha@stratfor.com
  6. List-Name alpha@stratfor.com
  7. It has come to my attention that if something is sent at night it is not
  8. seen as valuable as if it were sent during 8a-5p so I'm resending this.
  9. This needs to change. We operate 24/7. This is mandatory for everyone to
  10. read and process.
  11.  
  12. I also resent the insight lists this morning with the correct
  13. spreadsheet. That is also mandatory reading. If you need me to resend
  14. that as well, let me know.
  15.  
  16. If there are any questions, please ask. I will send an email later today
  17. or tomorrow on the intel meeting next week as mentioned in another email
  18. also sent last night.
  19.  
  20. Jen
  21.  
  22. -------- Original Message --------
  23.  
  24. Subject: [alpha] source evaluations - must read
  25. Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:51:43 -0500
  26. From: Jennifer Richmond
  27. Reply-To: Alpha List
  28. To: Alpha List , watchofficer@stratfor.com
  29.  
  30. This is the first in several emails on our sourcing and insight
  31. collections. To begin with, we will be meeting with everyone who has
  32. sources to evaluate them on the criteria and scoring below. I will be in
  33. touch with everyone who has a source list within the next few weeks. If
  34. you have sources but no source list, then you need to create one. I will
  35. give details on this in a separate email.
  36.  
  37. All of those who need to update or create their list need to do so by
  38. Monday and send them to both myself and Anya. If you need a source code
  39. number range, email me and I will get this set up for you so you can start
  40. the process. For analysts with compiled lists with uncoded sources,
  41. please code these ASAP unless they are genuinely a one-off and then give
  42. an explanation.
  43.  
  44. In the meantime, it would be best if everyone with sources start to
  45. evaluate each source by looking at least the past five insights and start
  46. to score them based on the criteria and scoring below so you are not
  47. scrambling when we are ready to set up an evaluation with you. Also, from
  48. here on out, start to think about sources with these criteria and scoring
  49. in mind. This will be the first of many periodic insight evaluations so
  50. its best for everyone to get acquainted with this method.
  51.  
  52. For Watch Officers, please also start to think along these lines when you
  53. are reading insight. In the future we will also look to you as objective
  54. source evaluators. Also, please start to read the insight carefully and
  55. comment on it the same as you would a piece from OS. As Reva said in our
  56. meeting today, we are starting to refocus on intel and insight. As Watch
  57. Officers, you are well placed to comment on any anomalies presented in
  58. insights and compare it with what is being said in the media.
  59.  
  60. If there are any questions or concerns, please ask.
  61.  
  62. Jen
  63.  
  64. Sourcing Criteria
  65.  
  66. The following are the proposed criteria for analyzing both sources and
  67. insight.
  68.  
  69.  
  70.  
  71. 1. Source Timeliness
  72.  
  73. 2. Source Accessibility/Position
  74.  
  75. 3. Source Availability
  76.  
  77. 4. Insight Credibility
  78.  
  79. 5. Insight Uniqueness
  80.  
  81.  
  82.  
  83.  
  84.  
  85. Source Timeliness: This is the average grade on how long this particular
  86. source turns around tasks and replies to inquiries. It may change but is
  87. more of a static indicator.
  88.  
  89.  
  90.  
  91. Source Accessibility: Accessibility weighs the source's position to have
  92. certain knowledge in a particular field. So, for example, if we are
  93. looking for energy insight and the source is an official in an energy
  94. agency, his or her Accessibility would be ranked higher than if s/he was a
  95. banker giving insight on energy. While we would welcome a banker giving
  96. his/her insight, a good source may not have a high accessibility ranking
  97. if they aren't in a position to offer reliable insight on a certain topic.
  98. The source's access to decision makers, specific training or education in
  99. the desired topic area, specific knowledge of events/situations/incidents
  100. can also be considered.
  101.  
  102.  
  103.  
  104. Source Availability: How often can we go to this source? Are they
  105. someone we can tap daily, weekly, monthly, yearly?
  106.  
  107.  
  108.  
  109. Insight Credibility: This is our assessment of the veracity of the
  110. insight offered. Here we need to consider whether or not this is
  111. disinformation, speculation, correct data or knowledgeable interpretation.
  112. Any bias that the source is displaying or any specific viewpoints or
  113. personal background the source is using in the assessment provided should
  114. also be considered.
  115.  
  116.  
  117.  
  118. Insight Uniqueness: Is this insight something that could be found in OS?
  119. If it is but the analysis of the information is unique, it would still
  120. have a high uniqueness ranking. Or, if it is concrete data, but is
  121. something that is only offered to industry insiders, i.e. stats that
  122. aren't published but that aren't secret, it would still have a high
  123. uniqueness score.
  124.  
  125.  
  126.  
  127.  
  128.  
  129. Scoring
  130.  
  131. All of the above factors will be scored on an A-F scale, with A being
  132. exemplary and F being useless.
  133.  
  134.  
  135.  
  136. Source Timeliness:
  137.  
  138. A = turnaround within 24 hours
  139.  
  140. B = turnaround within 48 hours
  141.  
  142. C = turnaround within a week
  143.  
  144. D = turnaround within a month
  145.  
  146. F = lucky to receive a reply at all
  147.  
  148.  
  149.  
  150. Source Accessibility:
  151.  
  152. A = Someone with intimate knowledge of the particular insight
  153.  
  154. B = Someone within the industry but whose knowledge of the topic is not
  155. exact (e.g. if we were asking someone in the oil industry about natural
  156. gas)
  157.  
  158. C = Someone working close to the industry who doesn't have intimate
  159. knowledge of a particular topic but can speak to it intelligently (e.g. a
  160. financial consultant asked to gauge the movement of the stock market)
  161.  
  162. D = Someone who may know a country but doesn't have any concrete insight
  163. into a particular topic but can offer rumors and discussions heard on the
  164. topic
  165.  
  166. F = Someone who has no knowledge of a particular industry at all
  167.  
  168.  
  169.  
  170. Source Availability:
  171.  
  172. A = Available pretty much whenever
  173.  
  174. B = Can tap around once a week
  175.  
  176. C = Can tap about once a month
  177.  
  178. D = Can tap only several times a year
  179.  
  180. F = Very limited availability
  181.  
  182.  
  183.  
  184. Insight Credibility:
  185.  
  186. A = We can take this information to the bank
  187.  
  188. B = Good insight but maybe not entirely precise
  189.  
  190. C = Insight is only partially true
  191.  
  192. D = There may be some interest in the insight, but it is mostly false or
  193. just pure speculation.
  194.  
  195. F = Likely to be disinformation
  196.  
  197.  
  198.  
  199. Insight Uniqueness:
  200.  
  201. A = Can't be found anywhere else
  202.  
  203. B = Can only be found in limited circles
  204.  
  205. C = Insight can be found in OS, but the source has an interesting
  206. take/analysis
  207.  
  208. D = Insight can be found in OS, but still may not be common knowledge
  209.  
  210. F = Insight is accessible in numerous locations
  211.  
  212.  
  213.  
  214. --
  215. Jennifer Richmond
  216. STRATFOR
  217. China Director
  218. Director of International Projects
  219. (512) 422-9335
  220. richmond@stratfor.com
  221. www.stratfor.com
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement