REVIEW OF ELINT STUDY.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01138A000100070046-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 28, 2003
• Sequence Number: 46
• Publication Date: February 17, 1969
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2003/10/02 : CIA-RDP80B01138A00Q00070046-7
17 February 1969
25X1A
ORANDUM FOR:
being dated and no longer relevant or easily rectified b
proper guidance.
I have reviewed the FLINT Study and, while the effort is certainly
a relatively comprehensive one, I feel that there is a serious inbalance
among the topics discussed. Specifically, my comments are as follows:
1. A considerable part of the Study effort is concerned with
a reporting analysis of the three-month period over a
year ago. While this certainly highlights the deficiencies
that were existing at that time (and might still exist now)
the credibility of the analysis could either be criticized as
Review of FLINT Study.
3. To be certain, discussion of the relative effectiveness analysis
undertaken is reviewed in the results section, but it is my
feeling that this analysis is completely overshadowed by the
reporting analysis discussed under (l.) above.
The relevance of the 2x2 or Sx.g analysis of FLINT evaluation
does not, in my mind, present the sophistication of the analysis
that has been undertaken for EQB and CS tasks applying, as
well to Ti tasks. Relegating the methodology developed to
an appendix is an injustice to the analysis undertaken.
The study also has a strong undercurrent running throughout.
It is clearly implied that the DIA study was absolutely
essential in carrying out this analysis. This is an overstate-
ment. While it was indispensable as an input to the reporting
analysis, its importance to the relative effectiveness analysis
is, at least, questionable. It is my judgment that the relative
effectiveness analysis is more important than the reporting
analysis. Hence, the lndiepensibility of the DIA study is
questionable.
Approved For Release 2003/10/02 : CIA-RDP80B01138A000100070046-7
 Approved For Release 2003/10/02 : CIA-RDP80B01138A000.100070046-7
Invert the order of the reporting analysis and the relative
effectiveness analysis. That is, primary emphasis should
be placed on the relative effectiveness analysis, and this
topic in a more fully expanded version, be discussed first,
followed by an abbreviated version of the reporting analysis.
Key the relative effectiveness as a separate volume and cross
reference the materials in that volume.
While the second alternative minimizes the time spent in rewrite. I recom-
mend against it, since I sense that this might be construed as downplaying
the importance of this analysis. Consequently, I recommend the first
ernative. what is implied is the incorporation of the methodology in
the body of the report and discarding the single examples discussed. In
addition, the results of the relative effectiveness analysis would be ex-
panded? possibly including a sample run of the full-scale problem which
in a sense would furnish "proof" that the large scale problem was, indeed,
solved. Finally, the amount of space devoted to the reporting analysis
would be substantially reduced.
I do not believe that these views have been colored by any association
with the relative effectiveness analysis. It is based on my belief that policy
makers are more concerned with how future performance could be improved,
rather than with how deficient the past collection effort has been.
25X1A
a
Approved For Release 2003/10/02 : CIA-RDP80B01138A000100070046-7