[Skip to content](https://academy.innguma.com/en/designing-a-monitoring-system/roles-governance-and-dissemination/#contenido) Lesson 2.4 · Learning path 02 # Roles, governance and dissemination Who does what when a signal appears that could change a decision? **You take away** a one-page operating agreement for dissemination. ≈ 25 min · Intermediate [Do the practice](https://academy.innguma.com/en/designing-a-monitoring-system/roles-governance-and-dissemination/#hazlo-tu-acuerdo-operativo-de-una-pagina-15-minu)[Exercise](https://academy.innguma.com/en/designing-a-monitoring-system/roles-governance-and-dissemination/#compruebalo)[Read the lesson](https://academy.innguma.com/en/designing-a-monitoring-system/roles-governance-and-dissemination/#un-sistema-no-existe-solo-porque-alguien-revise-) In 1 minute a role map and a dissemination protocol. ## A system does not exist just because someone reviews alerts Monitoring becomes an organisational capability when a team knows who asks the questions, who captures, who validates, who interprets, who receives the conclusions and who decides. The original training presentations stress that the structure of monitoring depends on the needs of the organisation and on the people who make decisions. This is worth preserving: there is no universal organisation chart. Distinguish six responsibilities, which may fall to fewer than six people: a **sponsor** who sets priorities; a **system owner** who ensures continuity; a **source manager** who maintains coverage; an **analyst** who interprets; a **domain expert** who validates technical matters; and a **recipient/decision-maker** who decides and reports back on how useful the product was. In small teams one person fills several roles, but the responsibility must be explicit. Dissemination does not mean sending everything to everyone. An engineer needs a technical document and evidence; management needs implications, options and limits; the sales area needs positioning signals, with a date and a degree of certainty. The *audience* determines the form, depth, frequency and channel of the product. Interactive · Match ### Six responsibilities, six tasks Assign each task to the responsibility it belongs to. Activity: match tasks to the system's six responsibilities. ## Escalation criteria before urgency Define in advance when a signal moves from ordinary monitoring to priority review: publication of a final rule, a commercial launch in a relevant region, a confirmed price change, a verifiable announcement of an alliance or evidence of material risk. Escalation must include **what is known, what is not known, the source, why it matters, who validates and the reaction deadline**. Avoid deciding solely on the alarming tone of a headline. A feedback loop is also essential. If recipients never say what was useful or what changed, the team keeps producing intelligence without learning. Recording «discussed in committee; two additional checks requested» usually adds more than only measuring how many newsletters went out. Interactive · Simulation ### An alarming headline lands in your inbox Simulation: escalating a headline that confuses a consultation with an obligation. Company A case · simulation Fictional case ## Company A case · From a regulatory change to a responsible decision The fictional signal S06 comes in through the monitoring of regulatory sources. The source manager logs the finding; the analyst checks the status of *consultation* and drafts conditional implications; a technical expert reviews whether it would affect Company A products; management decides whether to observe or investigate. When S15 appears, the owner updates the log and reports that the timetable is no longer the one initially expected. The previous version is kept so that it is clear why the conclusion changed. The poor alternative would be to send S06 straight to all executives as a «new obligation». The problem is not only the wording: there was no assignment of roles and no mechanism for checking the status of the fact. Educational simulation: fictional information and organisations. Do it yourself ## Do it yourself · One-page operating agreement (15 minutes) For one CWF, select owners for: question, capture, validation, interpretation, sending, decision and periodic review. Design two routes: routine report and critical alert. Define internal timings **as adjustable proposals**, not as a regulatory standard: e.g., weekly source review; a critical signal is communicated after checking its origin and relevance. Add the deputy and the procedure for when the owner is absent. **Quality test.** A new team member should know what to do with an alert without calling five people. **Takeaway:** a role map and a dissemination protocol. R15 · Governance ### Governance, responsibilities and versions Document who decides, who can publish and how knowledge changes. [See the template →](https://academy.innguma.com/en/library/governance-responsibilities-and-versions/) R06 · Evidence ### Log of signals and evidence Distinguish observation, source and interpretation. [See the template →](https://academy.innguma.com/en/library/log-of-signals-and-evidence/) Check it · self-assessment ## Check your operating agreement This part needs professional judgement: there is no automatic marking. Complete your work in the practice, rate it with the lesson's rubric and compare it with the indicative solution. What your answer should include - You separate facts from interpretation. - Every step has an owner and a deputy. - There are two routes: routine report and critical alert. - You cover how an erroneous communication is corrected. Self-assessment rubric (0–2 per criterion) Purely pedagogical interpretation. It does not amount to a UNE audit. Linked decision CWF and observable events Coverage and blind spots Tested and versioned rules Roles, escalation and deputies Product, recipient and review **Indicative solution** Model answer to the headline «obligation in force» when the source is a public consultation: «We have found an official public consultation, not an obligation in force. The person in charge will verify the stage, scope and next milestones and will report the result; management should not yet treat it as an approved requirement». Illustrative solution for a fictional case: reasoned alternatives are valid. ## Common mistakes Making everything depend on a single analyst; confusing dissemination with impact; not agreeing on what is urgent; publishing interpretations without expert review; measuring activity instead of usefulness. Documentation should make work easier, not turn into bureaucracy. **Optional extension Going deeper · An alert has an owner, a review and a recipient** Operations fail when one person must capture, interpret, approve and send everything with no replacement and no one able to challenge them. Four separate posts are not always needed; explicit functions are. Distinguish **capture**, **analysis**, **specialist validation**, **dissemination authorisation** and **decision**. The approver should not discover at the critical moment that they do not know the provenance or the level of uncertainty. An operating agreement specifies two speeds: ordinary dissemination (a scheduled newsletter or briefing) and extraordinary escalation (an event with possible impact and a short window). Escalating does not mean declaring a fact to be true: it means responsibly warning about a piece of evidence and about what is still pending verification. The dates of the event, publication, detection, cross-checking and dissemination may all differ; keeping them makes it possible to locate delays. ### Company A · Chain of responsibilities when a correction is issued | Simulated situation | Analyst | Specialist | Dissemination owner | Management | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Public consultation just published | Locates and logs the document | Distinguishes a consultation from a requirement in force | Sends a summary with a degree of certainty | Decides whether to request an impact analysis | | The authority corrects a date | Links the correction to the earlier sheet | Re-evaluates the interpretation | Updates the note and communicates the correction | Reconsiders whether the timetable changes | | The person in charge is absent | Applies the versioned procedure | Validation remains accessible | The identified deputy activates the circuit | Receives the communication without depending on a single person | Decision authority remains with the business owner. The analyst provides evidence and alternatives; they do not order investments on behalf of management. Confidentiality and permission policies must be reviewed according to the organisation, without publishing sensitive details in an open template. ### Exercise · Escalating an ambiguous signal Imagine that a news outlet publishes «the new regulation requires installing thermal storage from next month», but it only links to a public consultation. Write two messages: (a) an initial note of 60 words for the team, stating **what we know, what we do not and who is reviewing**; (b) a correction if the official gazette confirms that the process is still open. Add a simple table with owner, deputy, indicative deadline, channel and a later check that the message was received. **Acceptance criterion:** neither message confuses a proposal with an obligation; the original document appears; someone takes on the review; there is an owner for corrections and the person who makes the decision is known. **Connection:** R15 «Governance, responsibilities and versions», R06 «Log of signals and evidence» and the operating method in 2.5. Lab L02 helps build the plan. Governance of the system in the normative sense is covered in 4.2–4.4. ## References and limits - Innguma · internal training material. *Definición de un sistema de vigilancia (presentación, 2021-12-01)* (2021). Methodological basis of the watch cycle and of the critical watch factors. Innguma training material, not public. - Innguma · internal training material. *Construyendo un sistema de vigilancia (presentación, 2022-04-28)* (2022). Sources, filtering, management and dissemination. Innguma training material, not public. - Company A is a fictional case: its data, companies and figures do not describe real markets or organisations. - The timings, frequencies and lists in the plan are adjustable teaching proposals, not mandatory procedures of a standard. Intelligence Lab · L02 ## Monitoring plan builder Ready to apply it? Open the Monitoring plan builder in the Lab and build an editable plan you can download. Output: editable monitoring plan. Works in the browser, no server, no account and no connected AI. The result may need reviewing and adapting to your case. - [Open the tool](https://academy.innguma.com/en/lab/monitoring-plan-builder/) - [Back to the learning path](https://academy.innguma.com/en/designing-a-monitoring-system/) **Download** - [R15 · Governance, responsibilities and versions](https://academy.innguma.com/en/library/governance-responsibilities-and-versions/) - [R06 · Log of signals and evidence](https://academy.innguma.com/en/library/log-of-signals-and-evidence/) Open reading, no registration.