INTERIM REPORT OF TASK TEAM VII - ANALYST COMMUNICATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01139A000300060020-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 2, 2002
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: November 12, 1965
• Content Type: MF

Approved For 'lease 2002/01/24: CIA-RDP80B01134W00300060020-3
S-E-C _,R -E-T
CSS/M M,A 66
12 November 1.965
SUB1 ECT: Interim Report of Task Team VII - Analyst
Comnsunication
1, When USIB approved the CODIB recommendations on the SCIPS
report, it directed CODIB to establish an ad hoe group to
"Develop proposals to improve analyst-to-anialyst
communication, including the feasibility of a centralized
Intelligence Community Directory Service."
T.'hus, both CODIB and USIB recognized that improvements were necessary.
2. The decision by CODIB to request USIB approval to establish
such an ad hoc group was an outgrowth essentially of three findings
in the SCIPS report:
a. There is such a tremendous flood of paper in the
intelligence Community that no analyst can be assured ?.f
receiving all information pertinent to his area of
responsibility.
There are so many files (at least 1000) and so
many unit records in them (at least 220 million) that no
analyst can be expected to research the available stores
of information on any intelligence problem.
e. Because of the number, size and organization of
existing files, it may be more expeditious to reacquire
information from the field than to determine whether it
is already available.
Group I
Excluded from automatic
S-E-C-Rm-E-T downgrading and
declassification.
Approved For Release 2002/01/24: CIA-RDP80B01139A000300060020-3
 Approved For lease 2002/01/24: CIA-RDP80B01130300060020-3
S-E-C-R-E-T
3, CODIB, or at least some of the members, felt that one way
to rectify the situation implied by these findings was to provide
analysts at the working level (not middle managers) with a better
mechanism for communicating with each other for the purposes of
sharing intelligence that had been missed or overlooked in the paper
flood and also for exchanging expertise and methodologies, not just
in crisis situations but on a day-to-day basis.
4. One of the main points which the subject report attempts
to make is that working-level analysts probably should not be pro-
vided the means for identifying their counterparts in other agencies
because, among other things, command channels and security compart-
mentation must be maintained. In lieu of providing the means for
analysts to identify and communicate directly with each other, the
Task Team suggests improving existing liaison arrangements and
establishing more points of "approved" contact.
5. This tentative conclusion may prevail in the long run.
We believe, however, that the Task Team should, at the outset, give
careful consideration to all methods of improving the existing
situation, as surfaced only partially in the SCIPS report, with the
aim in view of improving the intelligence product, rather than be
concerned with whether command channels or security will be main-
tained if better facilities are provided for communication between
analysts. Top-level managers can wrestle with these two problems
when they consider whether to approve the proposals for improving
the existing situation.
6. Further, we feel that if the Task Team does eventually
conclude that a centralized Intelligence Directory Service should
not be established, it should give detailed evidence supporting the
reasons why it has so concluded in order to satisfy both CODIB and
USIB that this is the best course to follow., 25X1A
Chief, CODIB Support Staff
Approved For Release 2002/01/24: CIA-RDP80B01139A000300060020-3