PRD - PRODUCT REVIEW

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83M00171R000300270057-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 31, 2005
• Sequence Number: 57
• Publication Date: September 17, 1974
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Rele~e 2005/06/09: ~ 0 1 OQ~00270057-4
REFERENCE: Your Request for a Talking Paper for
MEMORANDUM FOR: C/PRD
SUBJECT: PRD =Product Review
1. I believe the main business of the Product Review Division
should be the review of finished intelligence production. I do not
think we have been attending to that business properly and systematically
except for the post mortems on the Mi ddle East and the Indi an nuclear
- test.
2. I ~cogni ze that many subjects of Community-wide concern al-nost
by definition do not fit into neat compartments within the Staff but.
rather suit individual talents, e.g., the training and voice conferencing
projects. -Some tasks , because of short deadli nes, have to be assigned
arbitrarily--e. g., to whichever division can spare the manpower. Some
tasks which mi ght easily fall.. under the general rubri c of product
review are assigned by higher authori ty to elements outside the Staff--
e.g., in the case of the NID review. And some PRD initiated attempts at
product review have not made much impact because their prupose was not
clear to anyone outside PRD. It is this last circumstance which can
and should be changed.
3. My suggestion is to tie product review to the KIQs beginning
wi th, those. for FY 1975. In the course of the performance period, PRD
might compile a series of work sheets summarizing the specific information
gains provi ded by items of finished intelligence toward each speci fi c
KIQ. Seri a7 and non-serial production would be monitored. A formal
status report (The Intelligence Community Product Review?) might be
issued on a quarterly or perhaps monthly basis. dvance drafts might
be provi ded to the NI Os for coirnnent. Perhaps initially the dissemination
of the finished reports mi ght be limi ted to the NIOs.
4. Further, in the course of compiling such reports PRD might want
to investi gate problems that seemed to be developing. Let us say that
X report from Y agency or offi ce seemed to fa71 noticeably short of the
mark in contributing an information gain expected by either the NIO or
the consumers. It might turn out after further spadework that the problem
in this case arose from an unanti ci pated col lection prcbl~m (e.g. , the
unwi 11ingness of the col lectors to cooperate--I have an example of this
in mind) or from some other circumstance not readily apparent. It just
might happen- that the NIOs could f-ix the problem if they were informed
in time,
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 :CIA-RDP83M00171 R00030
 Approved For Rele~e 2005/06/0 P ~1VI'b 1 '~`I~0(~,(~,300270057-4
5. ~~oreover, I suspect that some of the NIOs mi ght want to shift
part of the responsibility of sampling consumer reaction to someone
else. I am not referring to ad hoc requests from a consumer to the NIO,
in which third party intervention would be at best superfluous, but to
normally scheduled producti on, i .e. , i n response to KIQs. The NIO spends
a certain capital every time he tells a producer that the product is
unsatisfactory, and risks non cooperation over ti me. but i f the PRD has
more ar lens independently determined the consumer's view, .much of the
NTOs capital can be preserved.
6. I am sure some NI Os may resist the more active product re vi ew
function I advocate .far PRD; some producers and collectors as well.
But we are learning. from the FY 1974 KIQ performance reporting that the
NIOs simply do not have the time to tabulate specific information gains
from specific serial and non-serial products. Yet unless this is done
by someone, the collectors and producers of the untabuiated products
probably will not be gi ven a fai r shake when the KIQ lessons are drawn,
and perhaps the KIQs themselves wi 11 become much less meaningful than
the DCI clearly intends.
7. These are preiiminar;/ ideas. I have discussed them wi th
only one or two others in the Staff, and I cannot claim that anyone
has seconded the motion. I would appreciate comments from the Division
and Staff. Depending on your reaction, and that of the others at
I suggest we then ought to sound out the NIOs.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 :CIA-RDP83M00171 8000300270057-4
~ ~ ~: ~~~~
 Approved For Release 2005/06/09 :CIA-RDP83M00171 8000300270057-4
TRANSMITTAL SLIP I DATE
18 September 1974
TO: -_ ~-
..
tEMARKS:
i FEB 55 24 1 REPLACES FORM g8-6
WHICH MAY SF. USED.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 :CIA-RDP83M00171 8000300270057-4