Print Page | Contact Us | Sign In | Join AIRIP
Blog
Blog Home All Blogs

Member Highlight: Operational Intelligence—Shifting the Mindset of Operations Support

Posted By Rachel Bode, Thursday, April 20, 2017

AIRIP member, Joseph Slattery, is an embedded contractor for a leading technology company where he manages the Executive Security Operations Support program. The program consists of real-time intelligence monitoring and operational support for the executive protection and event risk management teams. Previously, he served 6 years in the United States Navy as an Operational Intelligence Specialist, where his role ranged from Maritime Interdiction and Security Operations to Cyber Intelligence. Further, after his military service, Joseph worked in law enforcement and casino surveillance.

Throughout the Close Protection Community there has been growing interest and discussion in the value of using Intelligence. While the ongoing focus has centered around Strategic and Protective elements of Intelligence, an equally important element is Operational Intel. Operational Intel (OPINTEL) is the continuous monitoring and gathering of information from multiple sources to create intelligence that is directly related and impactful to an ongoing operation occurring in real time. A dedicated OPINTEL team serves as a single entity for real time operations support which bridges the existing gap between a problem and the solution.

When employing OPINTEL it is imperative to shift the mindset of what the Operations Center’s function should involve. Traditionally, the focus has been on access control, dispatching, and acting as a liaison to Law Enforcement. These functions remain an integral part of operations, however, to properly utilize the OPINTEL functions the following responsibilities must be incorporated:

  1. Maintaining Operational and Situational Awareness

  2. Operational Intelligence Monitoring

  3. Reach Back Availability

Maintaining Operational and Situational Awareness is critical for OPINTEL as it serves the function as being the all-knowing team in relation to time and space for assets, events, and details. Operational Intelligence Monitoring should provide real-time monitoring of media reports that occur in the areas of operation. This should entail a continuous, collaborative effort to search for any reporting that may negatively impact an ongoing or future operation. OPINTEL should be a trusted source for all agents acting as a single point-of-contact to directly resolve issues. In the event that an issue needs to be escalated to other groups, OPINTEL ensures follow through, tracking the outcome, and reporting back to necessary parties. Reach Back Availability allows access to all levels of resources, efforts, and solutions in a streamlined and timely manner.

To successfully implement an OPINTEL program, consistent training including OPINTEL Analysts and Agents would be highly recommended. Training would allow for the opportunity to establish trust, have parties become cross-trained for a better understanding of individual roles, and to allow for context and communication.

It is the hope that this piece will be able to serve as a conversation starter, how can OPINTEL serve your team? The goal is for OPINTEL to be the single escalation point for Agents or Analysts to turn to when they need information, answers, and real time reporting.

Tags:  IntelligenceCareers  Risk Intelligence  WhatDoesARiskIntelligenceAnalystDo 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

What does a Risk Intelligence Analyst do in a non-profit organization?

Posted By Rachel Bode, Monday, October 10, 2016

This is a guest post by AIRIP member Shana Tarbell. Ms. Tarbell is the Deputy Director for Risk and Threat Analysis within the Global Security Team at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. She has 18 years of experience in the federal government crafting and overseeing intelligence analysis on a range of issues and countries, and has been in the non-profit sector for a year and a half.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the largest private foundation in the world with roughly 1500 employees and an endowment of over $40 billion. Guided by the belief that all lives have equal value, the Foundation works in developing countries to improve health and give people a chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, we seek to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. To accomplish these goals, we fund about $4 billion in grants and innovative partnerships per year, often taking financial risks that governments and the private sector will not or cannot take. The Foundation’s headquarters are in Seattle, and it has offices in Washington, DC, London, Beijing, Abuja, Addis Ababa, Johannesburg, and New Delhi and Patna, India.

I came to the Foundation last summer after 18 years producing and overseeing intelligence analysis on a range of issues in the federal government, and now serve as the Deputy Director for Risk and Threat Analysis within the Global Security Team. I was drawn to the non-profit sector by the prospect of being able to bring my analytic skills and management experience to bear on a different, but equally compelling mission. There are many similarities between the analytic work in the government and the non-profit sector, to include a need to develop a solid understanding of the needs of your audience, to craft clear intelligence questions, to ensure that analytic judgments are well supported and to write in a clear and concise manner. The team I lead has a brought set of responsibilities and a diverse customer set, ranging from working-level colleagues in the Foundation’s support units to the senior leadership of the programs that are directly engaged in carrying out the Foundation’s mission around the world. 

Our analytic work covers six areas:

Risk to Overseas Travelers and Offices. Foundation personnel travel to and in some cases live in far-flung regions of the world, where they gather information to best target resources, oversee grants, and consult with partners. Often the locations with the greatest need are in countries facing the greatest security challenges. Our job is to produce assessments of the risks to Foundation travelers and local operations, which can trigger additional security protocols, or potentially lead to a decision by Foundation leaders that the risks outweigh the benefits of travel to a particular destination. Our analysts scour open-source information, consult with Foundation personnel in our regional offices, and compare notes with counterparts in other organizations and with other experts.

Political and Security Challenges. In addition to assessment immediate threats to Foundation personnel traveling to or living in an area, our analysts work to identify relevant political and security developments and emerging threats in a country or region that may have an impact on Foundation staff, operations, or grantees working there. For example, we recently produced a piece highlighting the implications for Foundation operations of the leadership split in Boko Haram. Our flagship product is an annual assessment of the anticipated security challenges over the next year in each of the countries in which the Foundation is operating or considering operating. Its publication is timed to support the program offices’ annual strategy development process.

Persons of Interest. Our team assesses the risk from individuals who have demonstrated a potentially threatening interest in or attitude toward the Foundation and its staff. We track and review their correspondence and communication with the Foundation, looking for indicators that the latest research in this field tells us might show signs of escalation toward an imminent violent act. When a potential threat is identified, we work closely with our partners in the Security Team and our legal department, and with local and Federal law enforcement to take appropriate steps to mitigate any threat. We produce a monthly summary of the most important cases to enhance the situational awareness of the Foundation’s Chief Operating Officer and the General Counsel, as well as other members of the legal and Security Team.

Opposing Voices. The Foundation’s humanitarian efforts have earned it widespread respect and support, but some groups oppose various aspects of its work or investments. Most often these views are expressed peacefully, but it is our team’s job to look for signs that a group or members of it might be planning to commit violence or to physically disrupt Foundation offices or operations. When such signs emerge, we alert Foundation leaders and we work with our guard force, other security elements, and law enforcement to ensure that appropriate security measures are put in place.  

Due Diligence. As part of the Foundation’s processes for choosing grantees and making other investments, we look for reputational concerns or violations of US international sanctions and corruption regulations.

New Hires. In collaboration with human resources, we manage the Foundation’s background screening process. We verify that candidates have represented themselves honestly and assess whether an applicant might pose a security, behavioral, or financial risk.

Legal Disclaimer

This material is provided for information purposes only and does not represent professional advice. We make no representation or warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of the material and do not undertake to keep recipients advised of relevant developments. This material should not be relied upon to validate, endorse, or recommend any particular data, product, service, methodology, or organization, whether named or not. Accordingly, we expect you will consult competent professional advisors, as you deem necessary, when evaluating and utilizing this material. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation shall not be held responsible for any claims or losses that may arise from any error or omission herein.

Tags:  Intelligence Outreach  IntelligenceCareers  Risk Intelligence  Risk Intelligence Organization  travel  WhatDoesARiskIntelligenceAnalystDo 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

What does a Risk Intelligence Analyst do?

Posted By Rachel Bode, Tuesday, August 30, 2016

This is the first in a series of blogs exploring the varied careers and positions that a risk intelligence analyst can hold, jobs they can do, and impact they can have on different types of organizations... 

When people ask me what I do, my reply -- “I work in global security intelligence for a major medical device manufacturer” --is often met with a nod and an “OK… what does that mean?” Fair question. In my previous job in national-security intelligence, people usually assumed I was a spy. Or they feigned understanding when I told them that I analyzed political and military developments in South Asia and the Middle East. At the federal level, intelligence analysis typically focuses on a particular geographic, functional, or technical topic. Federal analysts will zero in on a small slice—national governance, security ministries, or orders of battle—of a larger problem set, such as a country or region. In the private sector, the role of the risk intelligence analyst may vary, but the analyst is likely to have broad responsibilities, ranging across all aspects of a corporation’s interests.  In my job at SJM, one day may resemble another but rarely are those days consecutive. In just the last several months I have written products on security and business implications of impeachment proceedings in Brazil; assessed the Brexit; researched potential physical and data/IP implications of Pokemon GO™; crafted due diligence and country risk assessments; consulted with travelers heading to volatile areas; prepared incident notifications to our Crisis Management Team, and, from my dining room table, supported travelers in emergency situations. And these are just a few of the varied tasks that fall to our team.

Small Size, Broad Mandate

 The small intelligence staffs of the private sector account for the broad range of their responsibilities. In government, I was one of several thousand analysts at my agency, in an intelligence community of 18 member agencies. Now, I am one of two with intelligence responsibilities in a global security unit that totals fewer than 20 and supports an organization of over 18,000 employees. At its core, the role of the risk intelligence analyst in the private sector is to enable the conduct of business, through proactive identification, assessment, and mitigation, of risks facing company personnel, facilities, and operations around the globe. Daily duties include supporting travel security and assessing geopolitical and security risks facing the company, as well as tasks from other segments of the business, with a healthy dose of responding to emerging events or terrorist attacks. Questions that don’t have a clear answer wind up on our desks. A major challenge for the private sector analyst is providing solutions that enable business to be conducted. Some risks could be easily eliminated or mitigated by simply declaring an area off-limits, but the requirements of business—or research, or international aid—rarely allow for such a simple solution. Instead, we strive to offer solutions that allows operations to continue without exposing the organization or its people to undue risk.

Sources – Your Network is Invaluable

One constant from government to the private sector is reading and writing. Another is the value of a network of contacts.  Despite what the movies depict, most intelligence analysts are keyboard warriors, spending large chunks of their days researching  and writing assessments and briefs. Risk intelligence analysts largely consume open source information, news media, and vendor curated information. Just as important, they interact with counterparts across industry, government personnel, and, when appropriate, leaders within the business. In my experience,  these relationships are invaluable.  Although vendors or government sources often have excellent information, even richer information will come from people on the ground or from talking through a difficult situation with someone who has faced similar challenges. Distilling this information into a written product that adds value or raises awareness of potential risks—before they become real problems—is a core mission of the risk intelligence analyst. Written products can vary greatly by organization. Some teams may have a regular recurring product line supplemented by special requests while others may purely react to questions from the business. Perhaps the greatest opportunity for a risk intelligence team is to anticipate questions and have a written product available for leaders before they can ask for it.

BLUF is Essential

Like government and military leaders, senior executives do not have time to read 30-page reports on the latest developments in a country or region. Providing the bottom line, up front (BLUF)—why does this matter to me or to the business?—is key. At SJM, our written products have ranged from 12-15 page comprehensive risk assessments on priority countries to short, one-paragraph assessments on a developing incident. Most of our products -- on topics such as Brexit or the security environment following a major attack -- will be two to three pages at most. Incident notifications and post-event assessments will also be posted on our internal travel security pages for use by future travelers. For executive, high-risk, or complicated travel, we prepare tailored travel briefs with safety and security information, specific guidance, and practical travel information. But whatever the format, providing answers to the ‘so what?’ questions the CEO or business units may have allows them to make strategic decisions. Additionally, in crisis events, being able to quickly provide insight and nuanced assessment of impacts to the business can provide leaders with a major advantage as they consider employee and company safety and shape the company’s response to disruptive, dynamic global events.

Sam Talbott is a Global Intelligence Analyst for St. Jude Medical, in St. Paul, Minnesota. Prior to joining St. Jude in May of 2015, he spent nearly four years as a political/military intelligence analyst with the Defense Intelligence Agency at US Central Command. While at CENTCOM he deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and served on the command briefing team, presenting daily intelligence and operational updates to the CENTCOM command staff. Before working in intelligence, Sam traveled widely while working in business development for a major educational assessment organization. He is Vice Chair of the Midwest Regional Analyst Roundtable (MRAR) and an AIRIP member.

 

Tags:  AIRIP  AIRIP News  Information Sharing  IntelligenceCareers  Networking  Risk Intelligence  WhatDoesARiskIntelligenceAnalystDo 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

#TBT :: Board Member and Intelligence Professional Charles Randolph on Things You Need to Tell Your Boss

Posted By Administration, Thursday, August 4, 2016

Charles Randolph, Senior Director of Executive Protection, Event Security and Intelligence at Microsoft, and AIRIP Board Member shared the following on his personal blog in September 2015, but it remains relevant, so we're sharing today for a little #TBT.

A huge thank you to Charles for his insights and for his leadership on our board, and to Microsoft for their partnership and membership in AIRIP!
*****

Intelligence Analyst – Five things your boss is thinking but may not tell you: TWO is surprising and FIVE is vital

1 – I’m also a critical thinker, I just may not use the same vocabulary as you: Hey, I may not use the same language, but I’m also analytical (I may just not realize it). By doing operational analysis, I’m developing courses of action (COAs) and making mission assumptions based on the facts in front of me. When on an operation or in an emergency, I’ll be using what I have gathered and developing COAs based on pre-thought scenarios and trends that are manifesting. Just like you, I’m a critical thinker; please, remind me of that from time-to-time.

2 – I need you to help me, help you, to help me: Your request for information (RFI) process may not be the same one that I am familiar with. I also may not fully understand how to ask for what I need or am unsure of what you can do. Therefore, I need you to take the lead in this dance. Show me what you’ve got and suggest we walk through the operations plan (OPLAN) together. When we do that, listen and ask questions. As an operator, I may not care about the form you need filled out, I do need your insight and keen eye towards pattern analysis to see something I don’t. Honestly, I need you to be my partner and educate to develop me.

3 – Sometimes, I need you to slow down: You can get excited, I get it (and I like that about you). But, if I’m excited and you're excited and we are all excited….well, I need you to be the one to slow down and make sure we are paying attention to detail and managing the little things which always come up in the form of Mr. Murphy – and his damnable law. Offer up some advice, ensure you stuff is double-checked before you hit send and be that calming voice. I’ve got a lot going on and sometimes I may just need to see someone being outwardly steadfast.

4 – You don’t have a crystal ball, I know that… let me know what you think anyway: I get it, you’re not 100%. Guess what, neither am I. I don’t need you to be all knowing (although, secretly I wish you were). I just need you to give me the best understanding you have and say the same. If it doesn’t go down the way you describe, I may get cranky…but I don’t blame you (I’m probably blaming myself). No one expects the black swan’s arrival, but I need you to tell me when you think conditions may be right for impending issues.

Finally, and most important…

5 – I trust you: From the mundane to the insane, you’re my go-to! I may always not say it, but you are.  I have a healthy trust in your abilities. This is why I ask you to brief first, set the tone and put a ‘realistic’ filter on what’s happening. The interwebs opened up a whole new meaning to the concept of ‘breaking news' and I can’t always be sure it affects our situation. I know you have my back, you understand my needs, and will tell me what’s important in the din.  Because you’re intelligent, professional, curious and thoughtful… I trust you.

this is dedicated to all my favorite analysts…

****

Tags:  AIRIP  AIRIP Board  AIRIPMentoring  code of conduct  Information Sharing  Intelligence Outreach  IntelligenceCareers  Networking  Professional Development  Professional Standard  Risk Intelligence  Risk Intelligence Organization 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

AIRIP Welcomes Three New Board Members

Posted By Rachel Bode, Thursday, July 21, 2016

The Association of International Risk Intelligence Professionals (AIRIP) is pleased to welcome Alan Orlob, Charles Randolph and Dawn Scalici to AIRIP’s board. They join our current board members, Paul Florence, Jessica Hern, Linda Millis and Meredith Wilson. As a group, the board oversees AIRIP’s finances, sets strategic direction, consults on new and on-going initiatives, sets organization governance plans, and act as ambassadors for the organization.

 

Serving on a non-profit board is a time commitment, and we are thankful for their support as we move into AIRIP’s second year. These board members, elected by the current AIRIP board, will serve AIRIP at a time of growth and change for the organization. They will attend their first board meeting in August, and we use that time to begin planning the next stages of growth for the organization, as well as check-in on some current initiatives. They will get the opportunity to see these initiatives into fruition as they serve a three-year term.

 

We are excited for the possibilities that leadership growth can bring to AIRIP, including membership growth, increased visibility, online community engagement, event attendance, and more.

 

Full board member bios are available on our new AIRIP Leadership page!

 

AIRIP Board Members:

Paul Florence, Vice President, Concentric Advisors

Jessica Hern, Global Intelligence Manager, St. Jude Medical

Linda Millis, Executive Director, The Daniel Morgan Academy

Alan Orlob, Vice President Global Safety and Security, Marriott International

Charles Randolph, Senior Director Executive Protection, Event  Security and Intelligence, Microsoft

Dawn Scalici, Government Global Business Director, Thomson Reuters

Meredith Wilson, Founder and CEO, Emergent Risk International

Tags:  AIRIP  AIRIP Board  AIRIP News  mission  Risk Intelligence  Risk Intelligence Organization 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

To Share or Not to Share

Posted By Rachel Bode, Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Information Sharing as a Force Multiplier in Risk Intelligence Programs

Intelligence analysts in the private sector often function as a team of one. Information sharing groups have been a tremendous force multiplier for single analysts and small teams in the industry. So while teams of one intelligence analyst are less and less common, the need for information sharing and benchmarking remains. Governments have teams across agencies focusing on issues and sub-sets of issues, or whole countries down to very specific geographic areas. But an analyst in a private sector organization could be expected to produce analysis on macroeconomic impact of the Brexit one day, security conditions affecting facilities in a high threat security environment the next, and the reputation impact of a cyber breach the third.

Arian Avila, Director of Intelligence and Analysis for Bank of America’s Global Security team, and Corey Vitello, Senior Director of Global Safety and Security at Visa, explore Information Sharing in AIRIP’s first white paper.

  • Did you know there are example charters, and multiple group protocols to choose from?
  • What internal stakeholders should sign off on participation? Will you need to clear each information sharing exchange, or does clearance for participation in a group mean that any information can be shared over a period of time?
  • What will happen to information you share with other organizations? Will they protect your information?
  • What does the information sharing process look like?
  • How do you know what you can share outside your organization?
  • How do you, or can you, share with competitors?

Ms. Avila and Mr. Vitello outline these and other potential concerns for you to consider as you look at joining an information sharing group.


To Share or Not to Share      

 

AIRIP’s member portal has great information sharing capabilities, with discussion forums and common interest groups, as well as a knowledge library. There are also many informal information sharing groups within the private sector intelligence space. As a current and alumni member of these organizations, I can vouch for their trust and authenticity, as well as the value they have provided to my intelligence practice. I encourage you to read our white paper, and then consider using AIRIP as your information sharing platform, joining one of the other information sharing networks already in place, or starting your own. 

This White Paper is available to AIRIP Members via our member portal. To view the white paper, we invite you to Join AIRIP!

Tags:  AIRIP  AIRIP News  Information  Information Sharing  mission  Networking  Professional Standard  Risk Intelligence  White Paper 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

An AIRIP Member on Mentoring

Posted By Rachel Bode, Sunday, June 12, 2016

AIRIP launched a mentor program for our members in May 2016 and we are actively seeking mentors and mentees for great mentoring relationships. Learn more about the program, and apply. The following post is from Kristin Lendardson with some thoughts and tips on seeking out mentors and making the most of a mentoring relationship. 

Kristin Lenardson is a Senior Intelligence Analyst with AS Solutions for Nike. She has 15 years of experience in the intelligence field, spanning government and private sector positions. In 2013, she was chosen as a participant in the Intelligence Community/Department of Homeland Security’s Public – Private Sector partnership program to work on a one year project to produce an open source product on Identity Theft. She is an AIRIP member, and has been a primary creator and organizer of AIRIP’s mentor program. She is also a co-founder of The International Protective Security Board, an organization focused on training and career development in the protective security field.

Irish writer Oliver Goldsmith once said, "... people seldom improve when they have no other model but themselves to copy." Having the right mentor can help you see yourself, steer you towards goals (often in spite of yourself), and provide another 'model to copy' for success. They are more than a colleague or a friend - they are a professional confidant who believes in you and gives time to help guide and refine your career and professional life.

Finding the right mentor, however, can be tricky; some mentors can be longer term, and yet others can advise on specific issues. In a perfect world, a long-term mentor is someone in a position or career you aspire to achieve. In the shorter term, this could also be someone with more experience to guide you through a specific professional issue or help with a career transition. 

I had the pleasure of having a very strong mentor who provided me with knowledge and support when I transitioned from the government into the private sector. I learned a lot through my experience, both positive and negative.

After ten years in the government, I left the FBI and moved to the corporate world into the position of Intelligence Analyst with a Fortune 500 company. The transition was slightly more difficult than I originally anticipated. It was a small team with few resources, and I had to build the Intelligence program from the ground up. My first supervisor was a good person, but at times, our professional relationship was uncomfortable for various reasons. A few months into the position, my supervisor suggested I get a mentor within the company’s official mentor program and, subsequently, chose a mentor for me.

It turned out the mentor was the VP of Human Resources. She had been with the company for 20+ years and had worked her way up from an administrative position to an executive. My mentor knew everyone in the company and was very knowledgeable about the business. She taught me the intricacies of the business, which helped me become more comfortable with my transition. She recommended several internal classes offered by the company in business acumen and human resources related issues. While I would not have ordinarily taken these courses, I was glad I did at her suggestion. I was able to learn about what drove the business and what was important to the C-suite. I learned a lot from my mentor and the classes she recommended.

However, due to the close relationship between my mentor and my supervisor I never felt comfortable having candid discussions with her. They often had lunch and had social interactions outside of work. Because of this, I did not feel I could not discuss all my professional issues, and this perhaps held me back from properly using our relationship to the fullest. Although your mentor should not be your professional counselor, they can be a great sounding board regarding corporate politics.

  learned from my mentor. The experience changed how I chose future mentors and how I mentor people now. The four key takeaways from my experience include:

1.      You should choose your mentor. Since I did not choose my mentor, at times it was uncomfortable. As a result, our mentorship suffered. If you get into a mentorship situation, and you do not trust your mentor or mentee, end the relationship quickly and professionally. 

2.     Your mentor does not have to be in a similar profession or level. My mentor was in HR, not security or intelligence. She was also several professional levels up from my position; I was a manager, and she was a VP. I learned quite a bit about the company which ultimately increased my professionalism and business acumen. 

3.     Think about what type of mentor relationship you would like to have. At the time, I did not actively plan what I wanted to get out of the relationship. In the future experiences, I have put more time and thought into my career goals and either look for a mentor who followed a similarly successful career path, or sought someone with a skill set I want to learn. 

4.     Understand your mentor relationship and when there is a natural end. Some mentoring relationships go for years and end up as lifelong colleagues or friends. While friendships are an excellent thing, you should go into a mentoring program (especially an official one) with an understanding of the lifecycle and when the ‘professional’ relationship should be closing.

Ultimately, your mentor relationship should be with someone you respect and trust. With a bit of foresight and planning, you can have a very successful experience in which both people feel their time is beneficial to personal and professional growth. 

Tags:  AIRIP  AIRIPMentoring  IntelligenceCareers  Risk Intelligence  WhatDoesARiskIntelligenceAnalystDo 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Building Resilience in Risk Intelligence

Posted By Rachel Bode, Wednesday, May 11, 2016

Meredith Wilson, Founder of Emergent Risk International , and AIRIP Board Member, with collaborative input from Rachel Bode, Founder of the Association for International Risk and Intelligence Professionals, recently published an article on LinkedIn. The post, Building Resilience in Risk Intelligence, is included here:

Building Resilience in Risk Intelligence 

Intelligence, when done well, should be a valued function that organizations think twice about before cutting head count – especially in a downturn.  This is demonstrated clearly in companies where risk intelligence has become a vital function that grows in spite of downsizing.  But it can go the other way too: functions that fail to demonstrate their strategic relevance are often the first to go (although they can also go for myriad unrelated reasons over which personnel may have no control at all). More than established professional functions with clear missions, risk intelligence professionals still need to consistently demonstrate their mission, value, and why they are a need-to-have, rather than a nice-to-have function. 
 
Here are a few thoughts on how to increase the resilience of your risk intelligence team (even if you are a team of one):
 
Be VERY smart on your business. 
 
Your team needs to know the business they are working in and align with its needs and priorities.  For example, risk intelligence professionals in a heavy commodities trading company need to take the necessary time to understand what that entails and how it affects the company’s risk profile.  If you work for a technology company with 20 different lines of business, over time, the team needs to understand each of those lines of business.  By not doing so, the team risks becoming seen as something that can be outsourced in a downturn.  After all, why pay for an in-house intelligence team if a contractor can provide roughly the same general analysis that doesn’t account for the specificity of the business? 
 
Be smart on what businesses are talking about.
 
In his annual letter to shareholders, Warren Buffet warned of the instability that a successful attack on the U.S. economy could have. He continues on to discuss the inability “for investors and corporations to shed this risk”. 
 
“There is, however, one clear, present and enduring danger to Berkshire against which Charlie and I are powerless. That threat to Berkshire is also the major threat our citizenry faces: a “successful” (as defined by the aggressor) cyber, biological, nuclear or chemical attack on the United States. That is a risk Berkshire shares with all of American business. ... Subsequently, we’ve had a few close calls but avoided catastrophic destruction. We can thank our government – and luck! – for this result.”
 
Analysts can highlight thought leadership of individuals like Warren Buffett in program justification, strategy development and analytical thought. Including references to relevant business leaders shows that you understand your business, its peers and competitors, and the current economy, bringing additional credibility to your work as a business advisor. To use Mr. Buffett’s words: businesses can never fully “shed the risk” of catastrophic events, but as a risk intelligence advisor with business credibility, risk intelligence becomes a key partner in understanding the breadth of risks, planning for strategies for mitigating loss and taking advantage of opportunities afforded by a rapidly changing global business environment. 
 
Take time to build a strategy.
 
Risk intelligence functions are often one-person teams with competing fires to address daily. Prolonged work like this for years, constantly reporting threats and bad news, can feel like progress and added value. Especially for those who like a very fast paced environment, this constant crisis mode activity seems like “what we should be doing.” In reality, colleagues may be wondering what it is we do all day. Many executives especially are well read, with tight leadership across their regions and businesses. They likely know the issue and business impact before an analyst can. Thus, no matter how many fires we put out, we need to do the deep thinking and deep work to add strategic value to our business.  That requires a strategy of your own.  What is the unique perspective and value add that your team brings to the business? How do you leverage that value?  How do you build in time for strategic work? How do you present analysis in a manner that is engaging and drives innovation (especially when we’re used to telling the bad news stories)? Warning executives about travel risks is important, but can easily be outsourced.  Demonstrating the strategic impact of long-term geopolitical issues and highlighting opportunities based on your unique knowledge of the company footprint overlaid with your risk intelligence subject matter expertise cannot be so easily replaced.
 
Drop the jargon.
 
Risk intelligence professionals, like most professionals, tend to have a certain vernacular that we use with our colleagues.  Often it is a combination of words utilized during our government service days, and words we’ve picked up from colleagues who do the same.  Within circles of like-minded professionals, this is fine.  In our writing and communication with our business partners, it is not.  To communicate in this manner risks looking like an outsider in your own company, and/or alienating people with scary sounding communications.  Think about ways to eliminate or greatly reduce the use of words like threat, violence, and other highly negative words in your writing and speech (you can still convey risk without overuse of these types of words).  Study other modes of communication to find a style that will work within your business. Evaluate your writing for too many phrases and hyperbolic words that imply alarmism.  All of these things increase the perception of risk intelligence as a barrier to business, instead of being a vital part of business growth (which it is!).
 
Build the profession.
 

Because it is still a young profession, there is still so much room for creativity and new approaches to our field.  It is also still in a nascent phase of development that requires more standards and structure to truly professionalize it.  Consider taking a committee or supporting role in helping to better develop the profession through organizations like the Association for International Risk and Intelligence Professionals (AIRIP), the Analyst Roundtables, or other organizations working to promote and professionalize the risk intelligence profession.  Write an article for LinkedIn or a professional risk management publication.  The more we build the field and create professional standards around what it means to be a risk intelligence professional, the better business will be able to understand the true power of our profession to build business resilience. 
 
Take a few steps back.
 
As hard as it can be to set aside the immediate; in order to do our jobs well, we sometimes need to take a few steps back and think about whether we are doing the job to the best of our ability.  Are we so busy answering the mail that we are leaving much of our talent and potential value add on the table?  Next time you have a breather, sit down and start working on that strategy.  Set aside two hours on your calendar every week to focus just on this – no emails, no phone calls, no scanning the news. What are your goals for strategic work?  Do they align with your company’s strategic priorities? How can you position your function to assist with this type of work?  How can you show thought leadership within your role?  Build bridges with your internal business partners, build knowledge of their roles, build a strategy for success and you will build resilience for your intelligence function and for your business.
 

    

 

Tags:  AIRIP  AIRIP News  Information  resilience  Risk Intelligence  Risk Intelligence Organization 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

AIRIP Launches Code of Conduct

Posted By Rachel Bode | AIRIP CEO, Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Risk Intelligence Trade Association

Ethics in intelligence is not usually a thought that gets a lot of serious attention, and intelligence tends to have a bad reputation on this topic. Events even in the news during the past few weeks show that governments and other organizations will go to extreme measures to gather intelligence if the conditions allow, and if the value of the intelligence is perceived great enough.

That said, often organizations, including governments, can gather extremely valuable information via ethical, responsible and open means. Growth in the Open Source intelligence collection capabilities and staff within the United States Intelligence Community, and numerous intelligence successes attributed to open source collection, show that the covert and clandestine methods of spy lore are no longer the only way to gather valuable info.

In addition, the scrutiny that the public places on organizations – governments, non-profits, and for-profit entities alike – can be a deterrent to some types of collection that may have been considered status quo in the past. Companies that employ intelligence analysts (and our ranks are growing) should be concerned with the sources and methods used by their analysts. A bad choice by an analyst or intelligence manager can have serious negative consequences on an organization’s reputation, stock price, and safety of personnel.

AIRIP was founded on the principle that there can be ethics in intelligence collection, and that there should be a standard for organizations to use as they develop and mature intelligence programs.

Without a professional standard, analysts could be asked to do unethical things in the name of collection, and the actions of intelligence professionals could seriously harm the reputation of the organizations where they work. Analysts need a professional standard to point to when unscrupulous colleagues ask for information to be collected in ways that could harmful to themselves, their colleagues or their organization. Analysts also need a guide on how to protect themselves when collecting information in the open source world.

For these reasons, AIRIP is proud to introduce the Risk Intelligence Code of Conduct. This was presented to members on October 28, 2015 via webinar with two experts in the field speaking in support of the code of conduct. The webinar was attended by over half of AIRIP’s current membership, and polls at the beginning and end of the webinar showed overwhelming support for the Code of Conduct as written.

We hope that members and non-members will use this Code of Conduct to discuss and enact ethical intelligence collection within their organizations, and form a basis for their own Codes of Conduct.

Tags:  code of conduct  ethics  Risk Intelligence 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 

Guest Post: Leading with Intelligence

Posted By Meredith Wilson, AIRIP Board Member, Wednesday, February 17, 2016

Risk Intelligence Trade Association

This post is a guest post by AIRIP Board Member Meredith Wilson. Meredith is Founder and Principal at Emergent Risk International. The post can also be found on her website

An intelligence-led approach in business, government, and non-government organizations will almost always yield better outcomes than reactive strategies.   In simple logic: better research yields better outcomes. High quality intelligence research and analysis, however, is not as simple as that. And as such, building a professional intelligence capability is also not as simple. Here are some (of many) reasons why:

More information does not equal better information

We have more data at our fingertips than at any time in human history. However, this does not mean we always use it properly.   More than ever we can become a victim of our own bias and that of the people reporting and publishing information. That’s not just special interests groups or politically slanted publications we are talking about.  There are so many angles and reasons (not all of them nefarious) for people, organizations, governments, and businesses to publish information which is slanted in one direction or another that the ability to apply true investigative research, analysis, and critical thinking skills is imperative if we are to utilize all this data to make effective decisions.

Intelligence is only as good as the question asked and the questions we need to ask to answer that question

Intelligence professionals are trained to ask more questions.  Starting with the question that is being asked in the first place.  For example, when a business leader comes to them and asks: “How will ISIS impact the security of our operations in the Middle East?”  Is that even the right question to start with?

Perhaps the question is actually: “Will ISIS impact our operations in the Middle East (or perhaps we should narrow this to a more specific geographical area!)?  If so, how?”  After all, ISIS is but one of myriad players in the Middle East and the impact of their presence on the region goes well beyond security.  Or perhaps in this case, the company isn’t impacted at all by ISIS but is strongly impacted by organized criminals working in other parts of the region.  There are infinite other ways to ask the question (which could be the subject of its own blog post), but the point is, a good intelligence professional will first work to find the best question to yield higher quality information and analysis for better decision-making.

Intelligence professionals also ask questions of their sources: “Is this the whole story?” “What is their source of information?” “Could their source have a particular reason/angle for reporting this information in this manner?” “Is there an important key piece of information/ context missing from this story?” (And there always is.) These types of questions and others must be asked before forming an analytical judgment. Additionally, it’s imperative to seek out sources with opposing points of view. Intelligence professionals are trained to look for secondary and tertiary sources to verify information and  seek out expertise and human sources on the ground that can provide additional context.   Additionally, while being aware of reporting on major media outlets, intelligence leaders understand that these reports alone do not provide the context needed to provide an accurate judgment. More questions must be asked – and they need to be asked of sources with more context than your average AP stringer or cable news commentator.

Trained intelligence professionals are not uncomfortable with having their analytical judgments challenged

A good intelligence analyst understands that their judgment is not infallible no matter how well they know the subject matter.   They know that it is not uncommon for a young analyst – new to the field – to make a more accurate judgment than one who has spent years on the subject. This is because deep experience comes with its own biases. Intelligence professionals drive good decision making by providing analytical judgments that have been “stress tested.” That is, they’ve allowed other people to poke holes in their arguments, ask questions, and play devil’s advocate. When faced with a weak bottom-line judgment, intelligence professionals consider opposing views and adjust their analysis accordingly. To not do so puts their customer – the decision maker – at risk of poor decision-making based on faulty or incomplete information.

Trained intelligence professionals understand that we don’t know as much as we think we do and analysis without context is dangerous…

The information age and the speed of information has led us to believe we know more than we do. It has led us to believe we understand root causes of problems in other countries, and that we have a handle on how these cultures operate. The truth is, most of us don’t and we can’t unless we have walked the ground, smelled the smells, and experienced life in these places. This does not mean we cannot provide good analysis, but it does mean we need to work extra hard to seek out proper sources and context before providing our insights. Local media sources, primary language sources, multiple individuals on the ground, historical information, motives and methods of political actors, and information on cultural and social norms are just some of the inputs we require. We cannot overlay our own assumptions – about the world, about religion, about politics, about survival – on other cultures and come away with a solid analytical judgment. When we do this, what we come away with is flawed analysis that will encourage flawed decision-making.

High quality intelligence requires resisting pressure to provide intelligence and analysis that conforms to the decision maker’s worldview

… and decision-makers who know better…

Recent history has provided a few examples of policy makers who’ve pressured intelligence officials to provide intelligence analysis that conformed to their political or policy goals. While there is more to these stories than meets the eye – from sourcing failures to policy failures – this is an easy trap to fall into. In many organizations (business especially) decision makers have authority over the presence of an intelligence function within their organization. Thus, a professional intelligence function requires analysts with strong confidence in their capabilities and the ability to guard their analysis against the wrong kind of influence.  Just as importantly, it requires ethical decision-makers who understand the power and proper use of a professional intelligence function.

meredith-headshot

Meredith Wilson is the Founder of Emergent Risk International, a Dallas based risk intelligence and advisory firm specializing in strategy consulting, bespoke analysis, and training to address geopolitical opportunity and risk for multi-national companies and multi-lateral organizations. She is also an AIRIP Board Member.

Tags:  Information  Risk Intelligence 

Share |
PermalinkComments (0)
 
Thank you to our Business Partners

Emergent Risk International Logo