MEETING WITH DCI'S SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ADVISORY PANEL (STAP) ON 1 APRIL 1980

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84-00933R000500120020-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 26, 2001
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: April 2, 1980
• Content Type: MFR

Al proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000500120020-4
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Attached is a copy of the draft options
paper by the Director's STAP on their
ideas about how we should manage SAFE.
I alluded to this in my Memo for the
Record on our 1 April meeting with the
STAP. I have several people reviewing
the paper and hope to respond to the
STAP's request for comments by COB 4 April.
You will receive a copy of our comments.
As you can see, the options paper is
nothing less than a fundamental assault
on almost everything we have done to date
to build the SAFE system. As such, it
is going to be difficult to deal with.
Bruce T. Johnson
3 April 1980
5-75 l0l EUSE DITIONS
Al proved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000500120020-4
 V
Approved For Releas 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP84-00933R0005QO120020-4
ODP 0-406
2 April 1980
FROM: Bruce T. Johnson
Director of Data Processing
SUBJECT: Meeting With DCI's Science and Technology Advisory
Panel (STAP) on 1 April 1980
1. On 1 April Clare Rice, and I met STATINTL
STATINTL with two members of the DCI's Science and. Technology Advisory
Panel (STAP),
STATINTL - Also present were a x-employee who
STATINTL serves as Secretary to the STAP, ho, as Chair-STATINTL
man of the Director's Science and Technology Intel
Committee, provides staff support to the STAP, and ATINTL
of OCR. Bruce Clarke was also present to open the meeting
but had to leave almost immediately to attend a meeting with
the DCI.
STATINTL 2. opening comments included assurances
that the STAP's desire is to be helpful to NFAC and ODP in
bringing an effective SAFE system into being. He said they
had gotten involved about a year ago at John Hicks' request
and he mentioned their recent reviews of Interim SAFE and
their discussions with the users of that system. They
have also discussed SAFE and its Community implications with
representatives of fMS.
3. At Clare Rice's urging, the discussion dwelt
initially on the implications in STAP's comments to the
Director that an inadequate job had been done of collecting
and validating user requirements for SAFE services. It
became apparent that the Panel members were not being critical
of the work that has been done but rather wish to focus on
the fact that the system, once initiated, will inevitably
change and the requirements to be met by the system will
also change. They seem convinced that it is both necessary
and possible by systematic investigation at this stage to
CIA ;L ~ AL USE ONLY
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000500120020-4
 Approved For Releas 2001/07f?2': ClA-RDP84=00933R0005Q(120020-4
anticipate what those changes might be. They were highly
critical of the prime contractor for failing to estab-
lish some form of human factors test facilities which would
experiment not only with the human factors of computer terminal
usage but, more importantly, investigate the ways in which
the SAFE services may (they would say will) change the very
nature of the analytical process.
4. This led in turn to a discussion of what I believe
to be the main thrust of the STAP concern. They are not con-
vinced that the TRW design is flexible enough to insure
adaptability in the future. As we talked it became apparent
that they were really challenging the nature of the approach
CIA has taken, that is, they were objecting to the establishment
of a large system architecture to be designed from the ground
up and delivered for our use. They strongly urged the develop-
ment of a. pilot system of perhaps ten to thirty terminals
before making a major investment in the development of an
IOC system serving 600 terminals. I could not and did not
resist the temptation to point, out that the incremental
approach which they were suggesting had been originally pro-
posed by NFAC and ODP, but rejected by Agency management in
favor of a design competition leading to the architectural
approach being followed by TRW. They were aware of this
early history, but as we talked it was apparent that partic-
STATINTL ularly Mr. was of the opinion that the best thing
we could do at this time was to abandon the contractual work
done to date, return to Interim SAFE, invest about $1 million
in adapting it so that it becomes a model of the desired, system,
and modify the contract with TRW so as to make it merely a
services contract in which they provide the supporting and
programming services needed as we progress with the project.
(How we could meet our obligations to DIA under such a pro-
STATINTL cedure was not addressed.) at one point, in response
to a comment about the delay t a tlis would entail, asserted
flatly that in his estimation TRW would miss delivery of the
IOC system by at least 18 months, implying that we would be
better advised to use that 18 month period to redirect the
project as he was suggesting.
5. Among other things discussed were the desirability
of looking closely at the largest computer network currently
in existence, the IBM net, and at the "6 or 7" large scale
electronic mail systems currently in existence, in order to
see what models they might provide for SAFE.
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000500120020-4
 Approved For Relea?&2001/07/12: CIA-RDP84-00933R0005,J 120020-4
6. On a number of other points having to do with the
nature of the requirement, documentation and the written
specifications for the system, we were able to clear up a
number of misunderstandings and indeed there was considerable
agreement on a number of peripheral points which need not be
discussed here. There was also agreement, as already noted,
that our requirements investigation efforts and terminal
operational laboratory experiments had been excellent as far
as they had gone, but the STAP.would have us take them several
steps further. All of the agreement, however, did nothing
to eliminate the fundamental differences represented by the
STAP conclusion that we are going about the project in the
wrong way.
7. Some of their opinions are apparently outlined in
an option paper which they have drafted for the Director.
They want very much to have that option paper reviewed by
those concerned before it is put in the final form. To this
end copies of the paper are to be delivered to Clare Rice
and me on Thursday, 3 April. We have committed ourselves
to react to the paper prior to the scheduled meeting with the
Director on 10 April. In turn, members of the STAP will
provide us with comments on the paper recently submitted
to the Director in which we provide answers to the questions
raised by the STAP in their memorandum of 18 March 1980.
8. I will defer comment on the organizational and
contractual ramifications of the STAP position until S have
had time to review their option paper.
STATINTL
Bru?FP. Johnson
cc: DDA
D/OCR
C/SPS/ODP
CIA 111 a k_t\{V 'i~ USE Uk"
Approved For Release 2001/07/12 : CIA-RDP84-00933R000500120020-4