STRATFOR E-Mail #18: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight

Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
Email-ID 	2606228
Date 	2011-07-29 22:08:01
From 	stewart@stratfor.com
To 	alpha@stratfor.com
List-Name 	alpha@stratfor.com
I think you should make responsiveness a separate category. Like we do
with our red, orange, yellow classifications during source list reviews.
That is responsiveness/accessibility, and it is distinct from
reliability.
From: Jennifer Richmond
Reply-To: Alpha List
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:05:28 -0500
To:
Subject: Re: [alpha] sourcing insight
As Stick said earlier, you can have a reliable source that is highly
responsive that sometimes sends crap. Item credibility is the place where
you assess the information, and this changes from insight to insight.
Reliability is more about source responsiveness. That said, and as Stick
notes, reliability also speaks to the overall source's access to
information as well as dependability. In part some of this should also be
addressed in the source description.

We'll be fleshing these out a bit more in the next few weeks, and all
suggestions are welcomed.

On 7/29/11 2:51 PM, Kamran Bokhari wrote:

My understanding of source reliability has always been the contact's
personal reliability as a person who can provide accurate information.
On 7/29/11 2:54 PM, Jennifer Richmond wrote:

Sending to the list since these are good questions. My responses in
red.

On 7/29/11 1:48 PM, Allison Fedirka wrote:

I have 2 questions on this item.
SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F, A being the best and F being the worst.
this
grades the turnaround time of this source in responding to requests

1) If this is based solely on turn around time, do we have company
standards for the letters. Like A = a couple of hours, D = a couple
of weeks, etc? We do need to better identify what each letter
means. In the meantime, in my book A=within 24 hours, B=48 hours,
C=a couple of days, D=over a week, F=lucky if we get a response
2) Also I previously thought this item reflected both reliability in
turn around time and also reliability to give good information. So
like if someone was obviously anti-chavez or exaggerates a lot, I
would bump them down a bit since the insight should be taken with a
grain of salt. How do you want us to inform others of potential
bias or questionable material? In the description section? It is
mainly addresses their reliability to respond. ITEM CREDIBILITY is
the place where we code the information. In most cases this changes
from insight to insight whereas SOURCE RELIABILITY is a little more
static. Some sources know nothing about politics but give excellent
info on econ. So, credibilty changes frequently even with the same
source and one of the reasons why we need to keep up with the entire
ID tags when sending in insight. As to the last question, I usually
make a note of their bias for a particular insight in the
credibility section. In the description section you can write out
their personal biases - e.g. the dude only hangs with the wealthy so
this insight is likely to be skewed towards elite perceptions, or
something like that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Jennifer Richmond"
To: "Alpha List"
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2011 1:41:39 PM
Subject: [alpha] sourcing insight

We've gotten lazy on insight source IDs again. Not only do you need
to
put the source code in the subject line, but all of these categories
need to be filled out for every single insight sent to the list.

SOURCE: code
ATTRIBUTION: this is what we should say if we use this info in a
publication, e.g. STRATFOR source/source in the medical
industry/source
on the ground, etc
SOURCE DESCRIPTION: this is where we put the more concrete details
of
the source for our internal consumption so we can better understand
the
source's background and ability to make the assessments in the
insight
PUBLICATION: Yes or no. If you put yes it doesn't mean that we will
publish it, but only that we can publish it.
SOURCE RELIABILITY: A-F, A being the best and F being the worst.
this
grades the turnaround time of this source in responding to requests
ITEM CREDIBILITY: 1-10, 1 being the best and 10 being the worst (we
may
change the range here in the future). this changes a lot based on
the
info provided. 1 is "you can take this to the bank" and 10 would be
an
example of maybe - "this is a totally ridiculous rumor but something
that is spreading on the ground"
SPECIAL HANDLING: often this is "none" but it may be something like,
"if
you use this we need to be sure not to mention the part about XXX in
the
publication" or any other special notes
SOURCE HANDLER: the person who can take follow-up questions and
communicate with the source

If you have any questions, concerns or suggestions, let me know.
I'll
be back in the office next Tues so if you want to discuss this
process
in person we can do so soon. In the meantime, remember that every
piece
of insight needs this ENTIRE ID unless it is just something that you
picked up off the ground from a source that you will likely not hear
from again. Even then, you should fill out the entire ID and in the
SOURCE field simply say - n/a with a description on why we are not
coding them.

Jen
PS: Also remember that is something is highly sensitive to send
directly
- not thru a WO - to the "secure" list. Secure list insights still
need
the above ID tags.

--
Jennifer Richmond
STRATFOR
China Director
Director of International Projects
(512) 422-9335
richmond@stratfor.com
www.stratfor.com

--
Jennifer Richmond
STRATFOR
China Director
Director of International Projects
(512) 422-9335
richmond@stratfor.comwww.stratfor.com

--
Jennifer Richmond
STRATFOR
China Director
Director of International Projects
(512) 422-9335
richmond@stratfor.comwww.stratfor.com