INTERIM KIQ/KEP STATUS REPORT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80M01048A000400100019-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 18, 2006
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: October 11, 1974
• Content Type: REPORT

TOP SECRET
SECRET
CONFIDENTIAL
DATE:
FROM:
TO
OFFICE
NAME
SIGNATURE
DATE
I
ER
2
3
F
4
5
? Approval REMARKS
^ Action
^ Comment
^ Concurrences
^ Information
^ Direct Reply
^ Preparation of Reply
? Recommendation
? Signature
^ Return
Dispatch DIA review(s) completed.
^
^ File ~... ,
CONFIDENTIAL
DATE OF DOCUMENT:
COPY NUMBER (S): 4
NUMBER OF PAGES: DOCUMENT NO:
NUMBER OF ATTACHMENTS:
pnro eii or Release 20w i0 I n AnIndRAnnnnnnlnnnlo 0
CONTROL NUMBER: ___,_
DATE DOCUMENT RECEIVED:
LOGGED BY:
 Approved 0Release 20071013/09 :-ICIA-RDP80M0VA000400100019-9
Copy -I,/ of 15 copies
Interim KIQ/KEP Status Report
I. BACKGROUND
On 12 August FY-75 KIQs were distributed to the Intelligence
Community, and on 23 August USIB and IRAC were enjoined to proceed
with the development of Production and Collection Strategies for each
of them. On 31 August the FY 74 KEP Pilot Program performance period
ended, and the community was requested to begin preparation of data
for the evaluation phase of the pilot program.
Community reaction to these separate, but inextricably related,
events was mixed. The objectives, direction, and methodology for
evaluating community performance on the FY-74 pilot program KIQs
have been consistent. Wide dissemination of detailed guidance and
instructions for the preparation of Performance Reports, and experience
in providing baseline data facilitated an orderly response to requests
for FY-74 performance information. The FY-75 KIQs, accompanied
by only a broadly outlined evaluation methodology, have caused some
confusion. Some agencies, despite the admonition that "information
on how we will proceed to evaluate (FY-75 KIQ) performance and estimate
costs will be provided after we have completed the FY-74 pilot program", 1/
have formed adverse judgments about the direction and potential
efficacy of the KEP, and are responding to the task of developing FY-
75 Collection and Production Strategies on the basis of those premature
perceptions.
1/
DCI memo dated 23 August 1974, "KIQ/KEP Program for FY 1975"
(USIB/IRAC-D-22.1/27)
25X1
Approved For Release 2007/03/09 : CIA-RDP80M01048A000400100019-9
 Approved FfRelease 200 / Q -RDP80M01.A000400100019-9
The following report summarizes community progress in assess-
ing its performance during the FY-74 pilot program, and in developing
Production and Collection Strategies for FY-75 KIQs.
II. FY-74 KIQ/KEP Pilot Program Status
Since the KEP was designed to,be a simple, iterative process to
evaluate community performance with respect to Key Intelligence Questions,
its structure represents an evaluation system with minimal input data
requirements.
As of 8 October, NIOs have completed and forwarded KIQ Performance
Reports on three of the 11 KIQs in the Pilot Program. Among producers,
only DIA has provided Production Performance data--products and
costs. Happily this data covers all 11 KIQs, is complete, concise and
fully responsive to FY-74 KEP Instructions. While Collection Performance
Reports are being compiled by each USIB Collection Committee, only
the SIGINT' Committee has provided a finished draft.
None of three additional "fuzzy" evaluations--performance assessments
made by NIOs without the benefit of a structured and methodical approach--
have been received. (You will recall this effort, by providing an
example of what might be done without a KEP, was to facilitate decisions
on the nature and extent of the FY-75 Evaluation Process.)
Analysis of performance reports on FY-74 pilot program KIQs
received thus far shows that evaluation of community performance
on KIQs is feasible through identifying information gains, determining
the degree of deficiency fulfillment and associating production and
collection costs with KIQ efforts. In brief: The KEP as designed can
work!
Pilot program experience with baseline and performance reporting
processes demonstrate that the KEP is a viable procedure for evaluating
community performance. The community acquired and provided reason-
ably accurate data at nominal cost and without initiating a large, bureau-
cratic exercise.
2
SERE T
Approved For Release 2007/03/09
 Approved FWelease 2007/03/09: CIA-RDP80M01SA000400100019-9
Although only a small amount of performance data is now available,
some tentative indications of community performance can be drawn.
Data for the FY-74 pilot program GDIP production performance
indicates that GDIP production performance against the pilot program
KIQs was good. DIA completed 38 (or 75%) of their 51 baseline production
commitments and produced a large number (47) of "extra" products.
The O&M dollars expended by the GDIP on production against the pilot
program KIQs amounted to f total GDIP O&M expenditures.
for the six-month pilot per ormance perio .
These data, limited as they are, show that THE MATRIX can be
accomplished.
FY 74 PILOT PROGRAM KIQ AND NON-KIQ O&M EXPENDITURES
BY PROGRAM FOR SIX MONTHS
(dollars in millions)
1/
Support costs have been included.
Approved For Releas4
 Approved F elease 2007/6M
It.F1DP80M01SA000400100019-9
III. How the Community Worked the FY-74 Problem
In drafting performance reports on FY-74 pilot program KIQs,
NIOs have taken two quite different tacks. One sets forth explicitly
the information gained with respect to each deficiency and derives
therefrom a conclusion as to the degree the deficiency has been fulfilled.
In the other approach, NIOs simply have noted that there has been
an information gain before recording their judgment as to the degree
of information deficiency fulfillment. Both approaches have provided
useful measures of community progress against identified substantive
and analytical deficiencies with respect to the KIQ.
KIQ performance assessments received from NIOs indicate they
had little difficulty in determining the relative contribution each collection
sensor [technique made to the fulfillment of individual information
deficiencies.
Identification of critical areas of concern within each KIQ--information
deficiencies, or whatever they may be called--is central to the KEP
program to allow production and collection managers to assign tasks,
measure results, and estimate costs; and for NIOs to assess KIQ satisfac-
tion. 1/
Preliminary examination of production data inputs indicate that
the revisions in GUIDANCE AND INSTRUCTIONS for preparation of
performance reports which were issued on the basis of Baseline Report
experience, simplified. the process and successfully resolved earlier
ambiguities. DIA's inputs were clean, had no internal inconsistencies,
did not require extensive explanation, and were submitted on the
date requested.
As mentioned earlier, while collection performance reports are
being compiled by each USIB collection committee, only the SIGINT
Committee has provided a finished draft. Here too, although possessing
relatively few SIGINT reporting entities (COMINT, ELINT, telemetry,
etc.) compared to NSA and CIA, DIA's data inputs were complete and
better organized.
1/ In 11 of the 16 FY-75 KIQ Strategies thus far drafted, NIOs have
isolated a set of specific needs within the KIQ as the vehicle to establish
data needs, and to determine which products should be produced.
Approved For Flelease 2007/03/09 : CIA-RDP80M01048A000400100019-9
 Approved FeRelease 2007/03/09: CIA-RDP80M0l A000400100019-9
The responsiveness and quality of DIA's KEP reporting is due to
(1) top level direction and support of KIQ/KEP objectives; (2) establishment
of a single point of contact for KIQ/KEP matters; (3) promulgation
of a set of internal procedures and instructions for developing all
substantive and management information relating to the KIQ/KEP program.
In NSA, the Office of Production, the Plans and Resources Organiza-
tion, and an individual attached to the Director's Management Information
Center, are providing KIQ products and resources data to the SIGINT
Committee through NSA's Committee representative.
There is no single point of contact for KIQ/KEP matters within
CIA. "acting as the point of contact within CIA for production
of DDI and DDS&T outputs for production data requirements" is acquiring
product data from DDI and DDS&T components, and production resources
data from the CIA Comptroller. With respect to CIAP collection data,
USIB collection committees, following the procedures used for soliciting
and providing baseline collection data, have requested
Division D, and FBIS, to provide human sources and COMINT performance
data; and OEL and NPIC to provide ELINT, telemetry and imagery
information. In each instance, the data is intended to provide information
on the amount of resources devoted to a particular KIQ and each identifi-
able element that attempted to collect against the KIQ. (It is understood
that DDO resources data is to be submitted to the Comptroller for validation
before being released to the Committees.)
Considering that intelligence community programs are developed,
operated, and audited through management systems based on budget/
accounting needs, rather than on substantive or functional requirements,
collectors (particularly CIA's DDO) are having some difficulty in determin-
ing KIQ costs. In the main, Program Managers are addressing these
difficulties in the same manner that they have successfully resolved
similar problems in developing and providing intelligence target data
for CIRIS. Knowing your views on the responsibilities and equities
of the Program Managers, the IC Staff has not attempted to tell them how
to handle this problem.
These difficulties notwithstanding, it is clear now that the FY-
74 KEP is a viable procedure for evaluating community performance
and can provide credible and meaningful data relating KIQs and community
efforts, to products and.costs . Attached, as Annex A, are sample
KIQ Performance Reports completed from inputs received as of 8 October.
Approved For Release 200
 Approved Felease 2007/03/09: CIA-RDP80M0l A000400100019-9
1V. FY-75 KIQ/KEP Program
Broad guidance for the FY-75 KIQ/KEP program was set forth
in two DCI memoranda, dated 3 July and 23 August, which state that
the. NIOs will provide "an initial review leading to a brief report or-
each KIQ." Both memos specify that these brief reports will provide
the NIOs' assessment of the "community's production and collection
strategy for each KIQ, identify the agencies accepting an obligation
to work on the KIQ, and make appropriate recommendations for improvement
in the strategies. "
The requirement to assess community production and collection
strategy necessitates a critical review of the collection and production
plans of intelligence community agencies, and a determination of the
community's knowledge about the KIQ--what are the most important
deficiencies and what are the uncertainties and differences surrounding
it. The review should reveal omissions and shortfalls (or overemphasis.)
in community collection and production plans, thereby allowing the
NIO to identify desirable changes (or new efforts--i.e., produce an
optimum Production and Collection Strategy for .each KIQ).
The approaches being used to develop FY-75 KIQ Strategies are
neither uniform nor commonly structured. NIOs--some working independ-
ently, others working with community representatives, and still others
by delegating the task to community offices/agencies--have drafted
collection and production strategies for 16 of the 70 FY-75 KIQs.
The number and the organizational diversity of action officers seeking
production and collection commitments from individual agency collection
and production components has caused considerable confusion in the
community. FY-74 Pilot Program experience clearly shows that while
community producers, and production schedules are sufficiently flexible
to accommodate almost any reasonable requirement, collectors and
collection programs cannot react to a large number of individually
optimized requirements.
Review of draft FY-75 KIQ strategies shows that while NIOs have
determined main areas of concern for most KIQs, they have not reviewed
in detail the production or collection plans of individual agencies/programs
concerning their areas of responsibility. In such cases, resultant
strategies do not reflect total IC efforts, but rather only the efforts
Approved For Release 20 - -
 Approved F.elease 407/003109: CIA-RDP80M01W 000400100019-9
which the NIOs feel essential to addressing the question. In view of
the requirement for Program Managers to provide assessments of
their total KIQ contribution at the close of the year, a limited approach
to developing strategies would severely constrain a community-wide
performance evaluation at the end of the year.
Whatever the basis, and individual differences in the organization
and detail of data, the draft strategies as presently constituted will
result in 70 individual KIQ "Production Strategies" and 70 individual
"Collection Strategies" which USIB and IRAC must consider as a community
corporate activity.
1. Many KIQs are too broad -to be used as a basis for
determining what really needs to be done, or
collected
2. NIOs do not have a common approach to developing
strategies .
3. Strategies do not have a common structure and level
of detail.
4. Individual NIOs, or their community agents, are
seeking to task individual production shops, or
collection offices, on the basis of individual KIQ
strategies.
5. There is confusion in the community about what is
wanted, who is (or should be) doing it, and how it
should be done.
6. USIB Collection Committees, despite recently assigned
resources responsibility in LOIs, are being circumvented.
7. Program Managers are reluctant to respond to
individually requested KIQ actions.
8. Program Managers, other than the DIR DIA, have not
established a KIQ/KEP focal point to accept action
responsibilities and provide management information
(resources and costs).
Approved For Release - -
 Approved F elease 20 /j3kQ (iIA RDP80M01l000400100019-9
9. Responsibility for aggregation and analysis of
individual strategies has not been assigned.
Regardless of the final decisions on the structure and detail of the
FY-75 KEP, to avoid chaos, the following actions need to be taken:
1. Firmly establish the ICS as the community focal point for
a) aggregating requirements; b) providing such requirements
to USIB Collection Committees for processing and determining
net new tasks; c) designing and managing the evaluation system;
and, d) assessing overall community performance.
2. Request Program Managers to designate a single individual
within each program as a focal point.
3. Inform Program Managers that their organizations are
expected to participate fully in supplying data and meeting
deadlines and reassure the Program Managers, once again, that
you do not intend to tell them how to respond or how to run
their programs.
.The KEP as designed in the Pilot Program can work in FY-75 if
that is desired. -- Results show that the effort involved is minimal
and the answers meaningful. It is not clear yet whether or not a 1975
KIQ/KEP program, as now defined, can be made to provide the link
between substance and resources which you are seeking.
Attachment
Appendix A
25X1
SECRET
Approved For Release 2007/03/09: CIA-RDP80MO1048A000400100019-9
 Approved *Release 2007/03/09 : CIA-RDP80M01OA000400100019-9
IC/MPRRD/R&AB~
Distribution:
Cy 1&2 - DCI
Cy 4 - ER
Cy 5 - C/MPRRD
Cy 6 - IC/REG
Cy 7 - MPRRD
Cy 9 - IC/CPAD
Cy 10 - AD/DCI/IC
Cy 11 - D/DCI/IC
Cys 12, 13, 14, 15 - MPRRD/R&AB
Cy 8 - PRD/IC
Approved For Release 2007/Q3/A~?~ CI - -
e,
 Approved F~elease 2007/03/09 :CIA-RDP80M01~A000400100019-9
Approved For Release 2007/03/09 :CIA-RDP80M01048A000400100019-9
 25X1 gpproved For Release 2007/03/09 :CIA-RDP80M01048A000400100019-9
Next 8 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2007/03/09 :CIA-RDP80M01048A000400100019-9