RESPONSE TO COORDINATION OF DD/S&T RD&E PROGRAM (DD/A 76-0823, ATTACHED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79-00498A000100050031-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 28, 2001
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: March 9, 1976
• Content Type: MF

ase.2901 0/9/04: CIA-RDP7 -00498A000100050031-1
Approved For -x*
r r~ ~ F... -
A ugly
STATINTL MEMO FOR: Mr. -
Mr. McMahon
SUBJECT : Responses to Coordination of DD/S?T
RDF,E Program (DD/A 76-0823 attached)
The following is a summary of the DD/A responses to
Sayre Stevens' memo of 20 February. The memoranda are
attached.
Office of Logistics - S&T memo coincides with OL study
to determine where we stand with regard to the state of the
STATINTL art in OL suggests that this be considered
as a possibility for discussion with Stevens.
Office of Medical Services - ORD has received OMS' formal
requirements an as coordinated and incorporated them into
their program.
Office of Joint Computer Support - Most of the procedures
described in Stevens' memo have been in effect for the past
two years and have contributed to improved RDEE coordination.
At the working level, ORD and OJCS have effective coordination
on RD?E projects related to ADP and computer activities.
Office of Security - No suggestions concerning DD/S&T
RDEjE coordination process. Working level exchanges and
Working Group meetings provide OS and ORD with an effective
communications mechanism. Security has not enjoyed the same
degree of exchange with OTS which has proposed that they
become the single conduit through which OS would send its
RDF,E requirements to DD/S&T. Given past problems OS has
experienced, they suggest that Mr. McMahon explore the focal
point issue with the A-DD/S?T to determine if this is the
most efficient way of communicating requirements or whether
a more formal conduit such as the Chief, R&D Staff/DDS$T,
would be preferable.
Office of Communications - Commo acknowledges that their
response may be defensive and "nitpicking" in nature, but
feels that there is a basis for such feelings. They hope for
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP79-00498A000100050031-1
 Approved F - tl f rV0,909f109/0
Dpl79-0p4g8A000100050031-1
.0 WHEY
a clarification of procedures leading to better products, and
will do everything they can to maintain good relationships.
They call for each Directorate to perform its responsibilities
without usurping those belonging to the others. They call for
formal paperwork summarizing the results of informal meetings,
clarification of the impact of OC comments and suggestions on
adjustments to be made to programs and advice by S$T on azL
-
reprogramming which affects any DD/A program. OC is rewriting
a memo of agreement between and ODE to reflect an organi-
zational transfer of responsibility for Covert Communications
RDjE to OTS.
ISAS - The review milestones associated with the modified
budget cycle are an addition to review procedures developed.
earlier in the 70's. Two items that ISAS feels are worthwhile
RD&E efforts are: a computerized system of file records con-
trol, and Computer Input Microfilm (CIM - as opposed to the
already developed Computer Output Microfilm - COM). A study
should be undertaken to examine carefully the potential of
the technology against broad Agency requirements and to
consider the cost of adapting state-of-the-art equipment to
service these needs.
Attachments (8)
~~ge ? aY Use Only
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP79-00498A000100050031-1
 Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP79-00498A000100050031-1
MEMO FOR: Mr.--
Mr. McMahon
SUBJECT : Responses tSoordination of DD/SET
RDFE Program (DD/A 76-0823, attached)
Sayre Stevens' memp of 20 February. The memoranda are ~: .
The following is a summary of the DD/A responses to
Office of LogisAics - S&T memo coincides with OL study
STATINTL art in OL suggests that this-be-considered
as a posse 1 1 y tor . scussion with Stevens.
Office of Medical services - ORD has received OMS' formal
requirements and has cook inated and incorporated them into
their program.
Office of Joint Computer Support - Most of the procedures
described in Stevens' memo bave been in effect for the past
two years and have contributed to improved RDjE coordination.
At the working level, ORD andOJCS have effective coordination
on RD&E projects related to ADP and computer activities.
Office of Security - No suggestions concerning DD/S&T
RDFE coordination process. Working level exchanges and Working
Group meetings provide OS and ORD`?\,with an effective communica-
tions mechanism. Security has not',;enjoyed the same degree of
exchange with OTS which has proposed that they become the
single conduit through which OS would send its RD&E require-
ments to DD/SF~T. Given past problems'', OS has experienced,
they suggest that Mr. McMahon explore 'the focal point issue
with the A-DD/SB,T to determine if this is the most efficient
way of communicating requirements or whether a more formal
conduit such as the Chief, RFD Staff/DDS&T, would be prefer-
able.
Office of Communications - Commo acknowledges that their
response may be defensive and "nitpicking" in nature, but
feels that there is a basis for such feelings. They hope for
a clarification of procedures leading to better products, and
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP79-00498A000100050031-1
 Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP79-00498A000100050031-1
will do everything they can to maintain good relationships.
They call for each Directorate to perform its responsibilities
without usurping those belonging to the others. They call for
formal paperwork summarizing the results of informal meetings,
clarification of the impact of OC comments and suggestions on
adjustments to be made to programs and advice by SFT on any
reprogramming which affects any DD/A program. OC is rewriting
a memo of agreement between Oand ODE1E to reflect an organi-
zational transfer of responsibility for Covert Communications
RD&E to OTS.
Att: DD/A 76-0823
STATINTL
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP79-00498A000100050031-1
 Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP79-00498A000100050031-1
REPLY REQUESTED
DATE
25 February 1976
SPEED LETT
ER
LETTER NO.
YES
NO
TO : JAS
FROM: HAV
ATTN:
Jim -
Re Program Review: It appears wk will get the proposal for DDA blessing
in April. I think we will want to have in hand a from our offices
on each of the items as the basis for concurrence with theproposa1 an pr
pr`io iti-iit7 on. {-"W certainly would want to know, for example, the impact on
DDA resources of follow-on action. Will it require more or fewer people? Will
it require more funds or will a savings result? Thus it appears ww should set
up a complementary procedure for "coordination of RD&E Program" within DDA.
Reprogrammin: Throughout the sections on Program Review and Budget Review
he ralmm states We will apprise you . . . any other pertinent reprogramming
actions" or words to this effect. It is not until he discusses the current year
(para c.) that he alludes to "consultation" with respect to reprogramming. I
believe OC's gripe, and justly so, is that reprogramming action is being taken
without consultation of the interested people. I suggest that the proposed
procedure be revised to recognize the need for consultation at all stages of
reprogramming.
SIGNATURE
REPLY
DATE
I'm not sure just how the first few sections of para 2.a, relate with para. 3.
There seems to be a disconnect here.
1
Helen
SIGNATURE
RETURN TO ORIGINATOR
5-67 1831 USEDI1IUNSUS
Approved For Release 2001/09/04: CIA-RDP79-00498A000100050031-1