Advertisement
LegionNET

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

Feb 27th, 2012
196
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. It has come to my attention that if something is sent at night it is not
  5. seen as valuable as if it were sent during 8a-5p so I'm resending this.
  6. This needs to change. We operate 24/7. This is mandatory for everyone to
  7. read and process.
  8.  
  9. I also resent the insight lists this morning with the correct
  10. spreadsheet. That is also mandatory reading. If you need me to resend
  11. that as well, let me know.
  12.  
  13. If there are any questions, please ask. I will send an email later today
  14. or tomorrow on the intel meeting next week as mentioned in another email
  15. also sent last night.
  16.  
  17. Jen
  18.  
  19. -------- Original Message --------
  20.  
  21. Subject: [alpha] source evaluations - must read
  22. Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2011 21:51:43 -0500
  23. From: Jennifer Richmond
  24. Reply-To: Alpha List
  25. To: Alpha List , [email protected]
  26.  
  27. This is the first in several emails on our sourcing and insight
  28. collections. To begin with, we will be meeting with everyone who has
  29. sources to evaluate them on the criteria and scoring below. I will be in
  30. touch with everyone who has a source list within the next few weeks. If
  31. you have sources but no source list, then you need to create one. I will
  32. give details on this in a separate email.
  33.  
  34. All of those who need to update or create their list need to do so by
  35. Monday and send them to both myself and Anya. If you need a source code
  36. number range, email me and I will get this set up for you so you can start
  37. the process. For analysts with compiled lists with uncoded sources,
  38. please code these ASAP unless they are genuinely a one-off and then give
  39. an explanation.
  40.  
  41. In the meantime, it would be best if everyone with sources start to
  42. evaluate each source by looking at least the past five insights and start
  43. to score them based on the criteria and scoring below so you are not
  44. scrambling when we are ready to set up an evaluation with you. Also, from
  45. here on out, start to think about sources with these criteria and scoring
  46. in mind. This will be the first of many periodic insight evaluations so
  47. its best for everyone to get acquainted with this method.
  48.  
  49. For Watch Officers, please also start to think along these lines when you
  50. are reading insight. In the future we will also look to you as objective
  51. source evaluators. Also, please start to read the insight carefully and
  52. comment on it the same as you would a piece from OS. As Reva said in our
  53. meeting today, we are starting to refocus on intel and insight. As Watch
  54. Officers, you are well placed to comment on any anomalies presented in
  55. insights and compare it with what is being said in the media.
  56.  
  57. If there are any questions or concerns, please ask.
  58.  
  59. Jen
  60.  
  61. Sourcing Criteria
  62.  
  63. The following are the proposed criteria for analyzing both sources and
  64. insight.
  65.  
  66.  
  67.  
  68. 1. Source Timeliness
  69.  
  70. 2. Source Accessibility/Position
  71.  
  72. 3. Source Availability
  73.  
  74. 4. Insight Credibility
  75.  
  76. 5. Insight Uniqueness
  77.  
  78.  
  79.  
  80.  
  81.  
  82. Source Timeliness: This is the average grade on how long this particular
  83. source turns around tasks and replies to inquiries. It may change but is
  84. more of a static indicator.
  85.  
  86.  
  87.  
  88. Source Accessibility: Accessibility weighs the source's position to have
  89. certain knowledge in a particular field. So, for example, if we are
  90. looking for energy insight and the source is an official in an energy
  91. agency, his or her Accessibility would be ranked higher than if s/he was a
  92. banker giving insight on energy. While we would welcome a banker giving
  93. his/her insight, a good source may not have a high accessibility ranking
  94. if they aren't in a position to offer reliable insight on a certain topic.
  95. The source's access to decision makers, specific training or education in
  96. the desired topic area, specific knowledge of events/situations/incidents
  97. can also be considered.
  98.  
  99.  
  100.  
  101. Source Availability: How often can we go to this source? Are they
  102. someone we can tap daily, weekly, monthly, yearly?
  103.  
  104.  
  105.  
  106. Insight Credibility: This is our assessment of the veracity of the
  107. insight offered. Here we need to consider whether or not this is
  108. disinformation, speculation, correct data or knowledgeable interpretation.
  109. Any bias that the source is displaying or any specific viewpoints or
  110. personal background the source is using in the assessment provided should
  111. also be considered.
  112.  
  113.  
  114.  
  115. Insight Uniqueness: Is this insight something that could be found in OS?
  116. If it is but the analysis of the information is unique, it would still
  117. have a high uniqueness ranking. Or, if it is concrete data, but is
  118. something that is only offered to industry insiders, i.e. stats that
  119. aren't published but that aren't secret, it would still have a high
  120. uniqueness score.
  121.  
  122.  
  123.  
  124.  
  125.  
  126. Scoring
  127.  
  128. All of the above factors will be scored on an A-F scale, with A being
  129. exemplary and F being useless.
  130.  
  131.  
  132.  
  133. Source Timeliness:
  134.  
  135. A = turnaround within 24 hours
  136.  
  137. B = turnaround within 48 hours
  138.  
  139. C = turnaround within a week
  140.  
  141. D = turnaround within a month
  142.  
  143. F = lucky to receive a reply at all
  144.  
  145.  
  146.  
  147. Source Accessibility:
  148.  
  149. A = Someone with intimate knowledge of the particular insight
  150.  
  151. B = Someone within the industry but whose knowledge of the topic is not
  152. exact (e.g. if we were asking someone in the oil industry about natural
  153. gas)
  154.  
  155. C = Someone working close to the industry who doesn't have intimate
  156. knowledge of a particular topic but can speak to it intelligently (e.g. a
  157. financial consultant asked to gauge the movement of the stock market)
  158.  
  159. D = Someone who may know a country but doesn't have any concrete insight
  160. into a particular topic but can offer rumors and discussions heard on the
  161. topic
  162.  
  163. F = Someone who has no knowledge of a particular industry at all
  164.  
  165.  
  166.  
  167. Source Availability:
  168.  
  169. A = Available pretty much whenever
  170.  
  171. B = Can tap around once a week
  172.  
  173. C = Can tap about once a month
  174.  
  175. D = Can tap only several times a year
  176.  
  177. F = Very limited availability
  178.  
  179.  
  180.  
  181. Insight Credibility:
  182.  
  183. A = We can take this information to the bank
  184.  
  185. B = Good insight but maybe not entirely precise
  186.  
  187. C = Insight is only partially true
  188.  
  189. D = There may be some interest in the insight, but it is mostly false or
  190. just pure speculation.
  191.  
  192. F = Likely to be disinformation
  193.  
  194.  
  195.  
  196. Insight Uniqueness:
  197.  
  198. A = Can't be found anywhere else
  199.  
  200. B = Can only be found in limited circles
  201.  
  202. C = Insight can be found in OS, but the source has an interesting
  203. take/analysis
  204.  
  205. D = Insight can be found in OS, but still may not be common knowledge
  206.  
  207. F = Insight is accessible in numerous locations
  208.  
  209.  
  210.  
  211. --
  212. Jennifer Richmond
  213. STRATFOR
  214. China Director
  215. Director of International Projects
  216. (512) 422-9335
  217. www.stratfor.com
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement