49 lines
1.7 KiB
JSON
49 lines
1.7 KiB
JSON
|
{
|
||
|
|
"namespace": "event-assessment",
|
||
|
|
"expanded": "Event Assessment",
|
||
|
|
"refs": [
|
||
|
|
"http://www.foo.be/docs/intelligence/Tversky_Kahneman_1974.pdf",
|
||
|
|
"http://www.foo.be/docs/intelligence/PsychofIntelNew.pdf"
|
||
|
|
],
|
||
|
|
"description": "A series of assessment predicates describing the event assessment performed to make judgement(s) under a certain level of uncertainty.",
|
||
|
|
"version": 1,
|
||
|
|
"predicates": [
|
||
|
|
{
|
||
|
|
"value": "alternative-points-of-view-process",
|
||
|
|
"expanded": "Alternative points of view process",
|
||
|
|
"description": "A list of procedures or practices which describe alternative points of view to validate or rate an analysis. The list describes techniques or methods which could reinforce the estimative language in a human analysis and/or challenge the assumptions to reduce the potential bias of the analysis introduced by the analyst(s)."
|
||
|
|
}
|
||
|
|
],
|
||
|
|
"values": [
|
||
|
|
{
|
||
|
|
"predicate": "alternative-points-of-view-process",
|
||
|
|
"entry": [
|
||
|
|
{
|
||
|
|
"value": "analytic-debates-within-the-organisation",
|
||
|
|
"expanded": "analytic debates within the organisation"
|
||
|
|
},
|
||
|
|
{
|
||
|
|
"value": "devils-advocates-methodology",
|
||
|
|
"expanded": "Devil's advocates methodlogy"
|
||
|
|
},
|
||
|
|
{
|
||
|
|
"value": "competitive-analysis",
|
||
|
|
"expanded": "competitive analysis"
|
||
|
|
},
|
||
|
|
{
|
||
|
|
"value": "interdisciplinary-brainstorming",
|
||
|
|
"expanded": "interdisciplinary brainstorming"
|
||
|
|
},
|
||
|
|
{
|
||
|
|
"value": "intra-office-peer-review",
|
||
|
|
"expanded": "intra-office peer review"
|
||
|
|
},
|
||
|
|
{
|
||
|
|
"value": "outside-expertise-review",
|
||
|
|
"expanded": "Outside expertise review"
|
||
|
|
}
|
||
|
|
]
|
||
|
|
}
|
||
|
|
]
|
||
|
|
}
|