ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80M00636A000100010003-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 21, 2005
• Sequence Number: 3
• Publication Date: January 22, 1976
• Content Type: MF

Approved For ReleaseO~t/(11(C7=fOM00636A000100010003-7
22 January 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR.: Chairman ICS K.IEP Review Group"
SUBJECT Essential Elements for Community Performance
Evaluation
1. The central, unchanging objective of the DCI's
KIQ(s) performance evaluation process (KEP) has been to
relate outcome and performance to priorities and resource
allocation. After a two year maturation period this process
now includes Key Intelligence Questions, collection and
production plans to fulfill the questions (lIQ Strategies),
and a process to evaluate IC performance both in an absolute
sense and in relation to the task and undertakings set
forth in the strategies.
2. Although the KJQs ha-ve been, and are, the D1C'I' s
creation, the Community, understanding their purpose and
the me' hod by; which they arc formtulated, has commie to ; c.cept
them as a "I, iven . "
3. Similarly, the Community has accepted. the de-
sirability and potential utility of an optimized IC collection
and production plan 'or each KIQ--a KIQ Strategy--as a
"given."
4 The Community also accepts as a "given," the DCI's
need. to evaluate IC performance on a significant portion. of
its primary endeavor,--addressing, and. hopefully answering,
each year's KIQs.
S. There is a fundamental disagreement however
concerning the scope and detail. of such an evaluation. One
school contends that evaluation. should be limited to an
assessment of the performance of individual agencies, and
the Community, on individual KIQs. The other school believes,
with. equal conviction, that to achieve the DCI's. objectives
the efforts and achievement of each agency and program must
* tJSIB was asked to review and comment on them, but
not to approve them---the latter function being reserved to
the NSCIC.
Q 2 P : [ ? P I 00010003-7
 Approved For Release
d OM00636A000100010003-7
be aggregated and analyzed in program and NFIP terms. These
differences were crystalized.. and compromised, in a series
of ICS--NIO meetings in February and March. of last year.*
Since the underlying issues are still unsettled, it.may be
informative to review the attached excerpts from a
5 March 1975 MPRRD memo on the subject.
6. Decisions stemming from these deliberations; the
direction. and consensus of the 11 November 1975 IRAC. n eetin.g
and the 1:)CI's consistent desire credibly to link outcome and.
perforr.:. ~.~ce to priorities and resource allocations pe.rsuades
us that another. "given" is that KIQ tasks, commitments,
achievements and associated resource expenditures will be
aggregated and analyzed at the program and. NFIP level.
25X1
AC/MPRRD/IC
AC/'MPRRD/R#;AB
M RR
Distribution:
Orig.--Addressee
1--MPRRD Chrono
1--Official Corres. File
-Subject File
Chrono
1-- Chrono
1- Chrono
1--IC Registry
* (Jointly approved FY-75 KIQ Guidance and Performance
Reporting Instructions were issued on 9 June.)
Approved For Release 2005/08/02 CIA-RDP80M00636A00010001.0003-7
25X1
25
 Approved For Release 2005/08/02: CIA-RDP80M00636AO00100010003-7
MEMO ANDUM FOR: D/DCI/IC
1. Pursuant to the arrangements you made with. George Carver,
(Asst. NIO/LA) met with 25X1
members of MPRRD on 26 February to explore heretofore un-
r.econcilable differences on performance evaluation. At that
~ndicated that the NIOs agreed that
there would. be a KEP in one form or another. -that KEP's
2. We have carefully explored both approaches to
"identify areas of agreement and disagreement" and have
reached the conclusion that:
? We agree that the evaluation process involves
two separate, but closely related functions
which need to be standardized in outline and
use a.c:onimon lexicon of evaluative terms.
Approved For Release 2:005/08/02 : CIA-RDP8OMO0636A000100010003-7
 Approved For Release 2005/08/02 : CIA=RDP80M0O636A000100010003-7
(1) Evaluation of IC performance in
accordance with the plan, and commitments,
set forth in the strategies.
(2) Linking resources expended in pursuit
of the strategy to the degree of KI) fulfi:l.lmen.t..
We agree that the first function is a NIO
responsibility. We also agree that the
second, being a resources problem is an ICS
responsibility and that ICS should structure
1
and manage the data call.
We agree that both functions, being part
of the same process have to be brought
together, but seem to disagree on how and by
whom.
We do not agree on the level of detail re-
quired for a credible process, or the need
for numerical quantification.
- While both the ICS and NIOs_ agreed that
some of the strategies already contain
2
Approved For Release 2005/08/02 : CIA-RDP80M00636A000100010003-7
 Approved For. Release 2005/08/02 : CIA-RDP80M00636A000100010003-7
what. they id.en.tify as "specifi.c collection/
production tasks/objectives". which we have
have
termed "key needs", we disagree on how
these should be handled-in the performance
repot .
/establishing the link between substance
resources.
l lV IJ\?11 t. 1'l,J i?.l1Gi. 1. 1l' k+ L 1..1. V A lit a l J. L. kJ G. IAU
costs should. be treated at the "key need"
or "specific coll.ectic i/pr.oduct_~.on tasks/
objectives" level, and. be quantified
numerically to maxi ire our chances of
The NIOs believe that IC performance
should be evaluated in narrative form
against "specific collection/production
tasks" only_ where the adequacy of performance
differs substantially from overall adequacy
of community performance against. the
whole KIQ (i.e., on an exception basis.)
- We are. uncomfortable with the notion
that each NIO must decide for himself
Approved For Release 2005/08/02 : CIA-RDP80M00636A000100010003-7
 Approved For Release 2005/08/02: CIA-RDP80M0.0636A000100010003-7
what' "Substantial" means;. it does not
permit us, in performing aggregate analysis
to identify a "significant" sit?Lrati.oin
characterized perhaps by a large number
of small deviations (e.g. , ten dimes
add to a dollar unless you're only
counting halves) .
The NIOs contend that credible numerical
quantification is not possible and. con-
sequently is neither desirable nor useful.
in the process. They further believe that
the ICS methodology is excessively
elaborate for the validity of obtainable
data.
We do not. agree on the need for specific
/satisfaction.
The ICS believes that this is a vital
element of the evaluation process- -one
that should_(if possible.) be.carr.ied. out.
by the NSCIC Working Group to preserve
process objectivity.
Approved For Release 2005/08/02 4CIA-RDP80M00636A000100010003-7
 Approved For Release 2005/08/02: CIA-RDP80M00636A00010001.0003-7
The NIOs s-believe that the reaction of
major consumers should be discussed where
this reaction is at variance -with. NIO
=-E-1 t. i on s
Given PRD's decision to exclude itself from.
all KEP activities, we do not agree On the
need for the NIOs' underta.kin the additional
task of evaluating the Relative Production
contribution of major IC elements.
The ICS believes KIQ fulfillment judgments
require only that N .Os have a clear perception
of the Community's total information gain
vis-a-vis KIQ particulars. The task as
stated by the NIOs would require a detailed
review of a minimum of 250-300 individual
agency products and all current intelligence
which, while making NIOs intimately
familiar with the total. spectra. of KIQ-
related IC production, is neither. essential
to the evaluation process. nor. desirable
in that it would unnecessarily duplicate
Approved For Release 2005/08/02 : CIA-RDP80M.00636A000100010003-7
 Approved For Release 2005/08/02 : CIA-RDP80M00636A000100.010003-7
PRD's RONI *and. other ongoing product
NIO rationale for including this step in
their assessment methodology is unclear
since individually ma-,Ay NIOs have con
sistently rejected the thesis that they
should be involved in any way in evaluating
individual agency production..
We have one fur. th.er apparent d.isagree.:le:i1t. one
which turns on the purpose of the entire
The ICS believes the purpose of the KEP
is to evaluate the performance of the
Community on all the KIQs, drawing there-
from information which will be useful in
the resources allocation processes. Com
paring and contrasting agency/prog?ar,,.
performance on individual KIQs (and
NIO areas) and aggregate analysis
of Community performance on all KIQs are
fundamental to this purpose.
6
Approved For Release 2005/08/02 : CIA-RDP80M00636A000100010003-7
 Approved For Release 2005/08/02: CIA-RDP80M00636A000.100010003-7
The NIOs do iiot appear to appreciate the.
need or perceive the associated analytical.
requirements, noting 'although. iwle cani-tot
agree than an elaborate'summary of each
narrative evaluatiorn ~":ould be useful at
this time, tae unde-.cst.nnd your need. to
be able to abstract these reports" and.
hence "hope the proposed standard
narrative outline and lexicon will satisfy
this need."
4. In. ela.bbrating the NIO approach, Bob suggested yet
another meeting of NIO/ICS principals to discuss such problems
as we may have with his prepared Performance Assessment
methodology.
As you can see from the for.egoiri.g, the res ideal
"problems" are of a fundamental nature; further staff
meetings can only prolong what has already been an unconscionably
long delay in deciding the nature of the FY-75 KEP. Accord-
ingly, I think'we should seek an early audience with Bill to
get this. show on the road in whatever form, and with what-
ever advertising he decides.
Approved For Release 2005/08/02 CIA-RDP80M00636A000100010003-7
7