# What criteria do you use to collect project data?

We include an `Organization`, `Group`, `Activity`, `Artifact`, or `Individual` in our [data](https://docs.natsec.io/about/elements/data "mention") based on two main criteria:

* **Is it focused on innovation in national security?** 
* **Does it help us understand innovation in national security?**

To give you an even better sense of this (since we expect a lot of people will have many different views on the subject), we go into more detail below.

## Definitions

Our entire project is build on some very widely-debated terms, so let's give you a sense of how we define them first:

### `Innovation`

Our simplified version of this term is "*Something new that adds value for someone*" (see [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovation) or [ISO 56000:2020](https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:56000:ed-1:v1:en)) - this requires three elements: **novelty**, **value**, and a **user**. 

Two out of three doesn't cut it, but we certainly recognize that much of what people call `Innovation` is really just `Technology` (which is `Novelty` and potential `Value` that may be awaiting a `User`) or perhaps the key feature is context, which might be the trigger for meeting the `Novelty` criterion (such as an existing approach reintroduced in new circumstances).

When in doubt, we want to be generous about applying this term, since those three core variables are constantly changing; something that was `Innovation` one day might not be `Innovation` the next day and our [goals](https://docs.natsec.io/about/goals "mention") do not include "being the arbiter of dictionary entries." :wink:

### **`National Security`**

This term is even more contested than `Innovation`, so we punted and defined it by a structural feature that everyone can agree on: [the National Security Council](https://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/). 

Although that entity changes periodically, its members comprise what the government considers to be the core of a national security apparatus. Thus, we consider it to be the foundation for our definition, which looks the most like [what ThoughtCo says](https://www.thoughtco.com/national-security-definition-and-examples-5197450): "*the ability of a country’s government to protect its citizens, economy, and other institutions.*" 

If you want to dip your toe into the political side of this term (*careful!*), check out different perspectives from [The Center for Strategic and International Studies](https://www.csis.org/programs/international-security-program/civics-national-security-imperative), [The Aspen Institute](https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/we-must-expand-the-definition-of-national-security/), and [The Heritage Foundation](https://www.heritage.org/military-strength-essays/2015-essays/what-national-security). Or go straight to [the National Security Act of 1947](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Act_of_1947) and see where it all started (maybe top-up that coffee first, though). :coffee:

## Adding Data

Given that background, here is how we actually apply the [#definitions](#definitions "mention") to the [data](https://docs.natsec.io/about/elements/data "mention"):

### Innovation Entities

To break this angle down further, we again ask a couple of questions:

1. If someone came to us asking about national security innovation, would we direct them towards that `Entity`?
2. Would that `Entity` want individuals asking them about national security innovation?

If both answers are "yes", we consider that entity a part of the national security innovation ecosystem, and we will include it in our dataset with an `Innovation` as one of the [tags](https://docs.natsec.io/about/elements/data/tags "mention") (which makes it easy to sort out those [entities](https://docs.natsec.io/about/elements/data/entities "mention")from among the many others that exist as infrastructure or for context).

### Infrastructure Entities

 We know that there is much more to understanding this ecosystem (one of our [goals](https://docs.natsec.io/about/goals "mention")) than just seeing [entities](https://docs.natsec.io/about/elements/data/entities "mention") that are explicitly tied to `Innovation`, which is why we also have many whose main inclusion is to show [connections](https://docs.natsec.io/about/elements/data/connections "mention") across the government bureaucracy or other such factors that shape how `Innovation` actually occurs in `National Security`.

Such an `Entity` will not have `Innovation` listed in the `Tags`, but we might include an `Entity` that does not pass our [#innovation-entities](#innovation-entities "mention") test under this reasoning.

This also allows us to deal with the crush of people who are very interested in having their `Entity` on the [graph](https://docs.natsec.io/about/elements/graph "mention") and do not care about the project [goals](https://docs.natsec.io/about/goals "mention") because we can just filter them out using different `Views`.