IG SURVEY OF OER

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01495R000600190001-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 7, 2005
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: March 26, 1973
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2005/0 RDP80B01495R000'000190001-8
2 6 MMMAR 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR: Executive Secretary
CIA Management Committee
SUBJECT IG Survey of OER
1. I have reviewed the IG Survey of OER and am, quite
naturally, very pleased by such a favorable report. The Survey
team did a very thorough job in reviewing OER's operations.
Their report is lucid, well written and shows a good understanding
of what OER is all about and how it operates.--The Survey's
recommendations--both formal and informal--are well taken
and focus on issues about which both the Director, OER, and
I are aware and are taking corrective action. Before commenting
on the Survey's formal recommendations, I would like to make
some general comments on points raised by the IG team.
2. The IG Survey quite rightly made a strong point of
the poor physical working conditions in OER. The crowding of
analysts and the paucity of working space are regrettable and
have a perverse effect on morale and the efficiency of operations.
As you well know, this regrettable condition is not unique to
OER and the space problem remains a constant irritant among
our employees. In my initial sessions with Mr. Schlesinger,
I identified the space situation as one of our principal problems.
As soon as the IG Survey on space is completed, I would hope
that it will become a top priority matter for the Management
Committee to consider and to take effective action upon.
3. The review process in OER was also a problem on
which the IG Survey team focused. I agree that the review
process had been overly encumbered by unnecessary review
layers and, as such, a subject of legitimate complaint by the
25X1
Approved For Release 2005/03 RDP80I
 Approved For Release 2005/06/0 DP80B01495R000600190001-8
11J'U M14 P
analysts. I do not believe that the review process has had a
double standard. The high priority project obviously passes
through the system much more quickly. This is not only
because of externally imposed deadlines, but also because the
analysts assigned to such projects are our most responsive,
substantively skilled and able writers. Given the rapid pace
of OER daily activities, I cannot subscribe to the view that
routine papers are being over-edited or over-reviewed simply
because the reviewer has time on his hands. I would suspect
that the amount of review and editing required for a given report
is proportionate to the extent to which the draft is deficient in
research or analysis.
4. In any event I believe that recent measures will
eliminate most of the analysts' complaints about the review
process. OER's recent reorganization has reduced the number
of organizational levels through which a draft must pass. In
addition, the Director, OER, has recently initiated a new system
of monthly and quarterly planning of OER production designed to
ensure, among other things, that both analyst and supervisor
understand and agree on the purpose and scope of each project.
These procedures have already reduced markedly the number
of projects that have to be substantially redone during the later
stages of the review process.
5. Furthermore, in response to the DCI's instruction
to reduce the number of publications, I have recently formulated
new guidelines for the production of finished intelligence in the
Intelligence Directorate. These guidelines will mean that a
substantial part of OER production will be produced in typescript
form and disseminated upon request only. Such projects obviously
will require far less editing and review than those projects which
must meet the higher standards required for official Agency
publications. By carefully delineating the types of projects that
will not be published and by tailoring our product to specific
audiences and consumers, it is clear to me that it would not be
practical to adopt a basic and uniform review standard, as
suggested in the Survey.
-2-
Approved For Release 200549 /09 - CIA-RDP80B01495R000600190001-8
 Approved For Release 2005/0010,-.,
-RDP80B01495R000600190001-8
6. I have the following comments. on the two recommen-
dations made by the IG Survey team:
Recommendation No. 1
"That the Director, Office of Economic Research
give further study to the policy of assignment of analysts
to less active accounts, not only in terms of the numbers
so assigned but in the assignment of research projects
outside the area of their primary responsibility, in order
to keep them gainfully employed. "
Comment
This recommendation has merit and is, in fact, one that
the Director, OER, has tried to implement wherever he could.
Analysts in low-priority areas obviously have fewer opportunities
to get into the mainstream of current intelligence and IM produc-
tion. Under my new guidelines, these opportunities will, perforce,
be even more limited. Nevertheless, there are still considerable
opportunities for the innovative analyst to produce self-initiated
research that is useful at the policy making levels of Government.
Even though this work will not always be published, our new
production guidelines still provide outlets for unpublished finished
intelligence. The new guidelines will also bring about part of the
IG recommendation by reducing the number of analysts assigned
to lower priority topics or countries. This will enable us to
assign more analysts to higher priority assignments. I also
expect the Director, OER, to ensure that analysts will not be
assigned to lower priority areas on a permanent basis, but will
be allowed to move into other areas. The Director, OER, will
also continue his practice of giving analysts on lower priority
areas the opportunity to work on projects involving broad questions
of economic development.
Recommendation No. 2
"That the Director, Office of Economic Research,
develop a trial program for eliciting reactions and
evaluations of selected consumers of selected papers,
Approved For Release 2005/06/99 : CIA-RDP80B01495R000600190001-8
 Approved For Release 2005IO IO : CIA-RDP80B01495R000600190001-8
in order to determine the degree to which they are.
satisfied with present approaches to preparation of
reports, as a basis for modifying present practice
if so indicated.
Comment
This recommendation touches on a problem which is
pertinent to the entire array of DDI production. It is an integral
part of the Agency's approach to "management by objective" and
the means by which we can measure the achievement of our
objectives. We are in the process of trying to devise a meaning-
ful method of evaluating our product. Such evaluation is particularly
difficult in an area where quantitative measurements are desired
for output that must be measured essentially in qualitative terms.
Informal systems of feedback from our customers have
so far not been reliable means of evaluating OER's, or any other
office's product. Customer responses become largely pro forma
or the customer is reluctant to give a negative response for fear
that the tap will be turned off. OER has tried to cope with this
situation by mounting a major effort to determine our customers'
needs and, in concert with the customer, to decide on the best
production vehicle to meet these needs. Our new production
guidelines have chosen the Intelligence Brief, a highly personalized
and tailored document, as a means of being most responsive to the
policy makers' needs.
OER has also set up a wide network of contacts with staff
officers in the NSC, Treasury, the CIEP and the entire economic
community. Key OER personnel have been designated as the
principal contact points for specified policy level customers and
their immediate staff officers. I am hopeful that as these contacts
become more frequent that we will have considerable success in
eliciting informed reactions to and evaluations of the OER product.
25X1
EDWARD W. PROCTOR
Deputy Director for. Intelligence
cc: Inspector General
ADDI/PVWalsh/tb (26 Mar 73)
Distribution:
Orig & 1 - Addressee (1, - DDI (
File: IG Survey of OER)
(
Approvgd_F/Fse 200R~A-RN5901495R000600190001-8
/ - 1) ' II