CRITIQUE OF PAPER GIVING NPIC POSITION ON REQUIREMENT HANDLING AND REQUIREMENTS FOR AN EXPLOITATION COMMITTEE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP81T00990R000100120013-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 14, 2002
• Sequence Number: 13
• Publication Date: October 5, 1965
• Content Type: MF

10
Approved For ase 2002/06/14: CIA-RDP81 T0099 00100120013-6
IAD - 94/65
5 October 1965
M :F?IORJUIDUP"! FOR: Assistant for Operations, NPIC
FROM: Deputy Chief, Imagery Analysis Division, CIA
iUi3.TECT: Critique of Paper Giving ZiPIC Position on Requirement
Handling and Requirements for an Exploitation Committee
I would recommend that those subject areas not spelled out within the
stated problem be eliminated from the paper under review. I would generally
subscribe to the role of COM4EX as set forth. Suggested modifications or
areas of outright disagreement in regard to the total paper are set forth
and/or discussed below:
1. Under the responsibilities set forth on page 9, I believe
that 3 should be eliminated as I believe it is unworkable. At most
a committee such as CODEX could function as a clearing house or
place to exchange information among the various imagery exploitation
facilities. History has shown a failure on the part of DOI) itself
to effectively coordinate among the exisiting facilities. Paragraph
5, page 9, is not clear as to intent or meaning.
c!. I must strongly disagree with the premise set forth in
Paragraph E on page 10. Ten years of experience in I(PIC indicates
that the most effective processing of requirements is accomplished
by the production component involved. Centralized requirements staffs,
as with other staffs tend to become divorced from the daily operations
and thus become a layering-in element with often stulifying results.
Equally if not more important than the placement of requirement
processing is the concept of requirements themselves. As previously
noted in my discussions with you I feel that prior to determining a
system for requirements handling we trust define the perimeters of
requirements themselves. As previously stated to you I do not believe
requirements of an ad hoc nature should normally be accepted by the
Center. Insofar as is practicable the Center should have a fairly
fi
re production schedule which would encompass the broad standing
i
equ
rements of the USIB-level community. As a general rule all
Approved For Release 200 -1 'CIA-RDP81 T00990R00010012 -_6 .
 Approved For tease 2002/0;6/14: CIA-RDP81 T0099ve00100120013-6
at some predictable level of exploitation can the National Center
hope to cope with its manpower and production problems. Therefore,
I would recommend that we encompass within this paper a definition
of the types of requirements acceptable to the National Center, the
terms upon which they will be accepted and then recommended that they
be handled by the production components involved. Thus eliminating
any administrative involvement within the production cycle.
3. The comments . set forth in Paragraph F. page 11,
germane to the problem as set forth by the Assistant for
I would recommend that the reorganisation of NPIC be the
separate paper.
are not
Administration*
subject of a
4. Under recommendations, Paragraph B. item 1, page 12, strike
the words "or departmental". To be effective a committee such Si the
one outlined cannot dketate departmental responsibilities. If it
ascertains the national interests it has achieved its goal.
Under recommemations, page 13, I would recommend that we
delete recommendations D, E, and F.
25X1
Approved For Release 2002/0f/14' c-RDP81 T00990R000100120013-6