| Topic Name: |
Choosing btw DO vs. DI??? |
| Message Name: |
OTO specs |
| Date Posted: |
02/13/2006 |
| In Reply To: |
Apart from what is on the website and in the PR material, do you know more about this position? Thanks. |
| Message: |
jstrummer -
As I mentioned in a previous post, I applied for both an OTO job and a DI position but was picked up for the DI position first.
When I was first considering the OTO job, it was kind of described to me like this. A DI analyst usually spends most of their time reading reports and then producing written analytical products that try to answer the big questions of (1) what happened/is happening, (2) why did it happen/is it happening, and/or (3) what's going to happen next? (The best analytic products answer all three of these questions.) The target audience for their analysis is gov't policymakers, CIA management, and decisionmakers/analysts at other agencies.
As for the OTO, I was told the ideal candidate would have a strong analytical bent. The OTO position was also described to me as an "operational analyst" or "field analyst." I wass told that unlike DI analysts, OTOs' primary customers are the DO officers. An OTO sifts through much of the same data as a DI analyst but with a focus on driving DO efforts ... who should they target for recruitment? Who has access to the person they want to recruit? Etc. As part of this effort they apparently go to the field a lot more than a typical DI analyst.
I was also told the OTO position was specifically created because a handful of both DI and DO types were performing this kind of tactical-level analysis, but it was hurting them professionally because it falls outside the standard DO/DI career field.
Hope this helps ... keep in mind this is all second hand from those who work there, and since the position is still so new a lot of this could change.
|
|
