REVISING THE DCID 1/2 PROCESS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84M00395R000600170043-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 27, 2007
• Sequence Number: 43
• Publication Date: February 2, 1982
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2007/04/27 :9 DP84M00395R000600170043-1 Ty' .E
The Director of Central Intelligence
Washington, D.C. 20505
Intelligence Community Staff
DCI/ICS 82-3103
2 February 1982
MEMORANDUM FOR: Members, DCID 1/2 Committee
FROM: Chairman, DCID 1/2 Committee
SUBJECT: Revising the DCID 1/2 Process
1. Over the past several months, we have been considering potential
improvements in-the DCID 1/2 process. In the same context, I believe we must
also address the more fundamental question as to whether the current process
remains entirely appropriate to the DCID 1/2 mission. In short, in addition to
considering the need for procedural adjustment, we should also determine
whether there is a requirement for more basic change.
2. On the latter score, I find two major aspects of our current modus
operandi troubling. First, I believe much of the priority guidance we are
generating is too detailed and finely tuned to be of use to Community planners
and managers. Even with respect to the DCID-NSRL relationship, our most direct
and clear cut, my understanding is that a single level priority change
generally is not translatable into meaningful action in the real world of NSA
operations. Yet, such changes constitute the vast majority of our actions.
3. I am concerned even more by what I think is insufficient emphasis on
the "relativity" of priority assignments, i.e., the requirement that the
priority assigned reflect not only the absolute importance of a requirement,
but also where it stands relative to other requirements, should resources be
insufficient to do everything. Intrinsically, the prime function of a
priorities system is to establish relative importance. Yet, ours contains no
built-in features to further that aim. It is true that a Priority 2 topic is
relatively more important than a Priority 3 topic. However, the definitions of
those priorities are stated in absolute rather than relative terms and, in my
observation, are generally assigned on that basis. To the extent relative
importance signifies, it is generally introduced on an ad hoc basis at the
initiative of Committee members during our voting sessions. I think we need a
more systematic reflection of this basic consideration, and believe its lack is
a major contributant to our chronic difficulty in controlling priority
escalation.
SECRET
25X1
Approved For Release 2007/04/27_:_CIA RDE84M00395RQ0QC0.Q17004 -,1
 Approved For Release 2007/04/27: CIA-RDP84M00395R000600170043-1
5. The basic guidance outputs of a refocused DCID 1/2 process would be
(a) the relative importance of one country to another as regards users'
intelligence needs, and (b) the relative importance of the various intelligence
topics as they pertain to each country. While this output is significantly
narrower and less sophisticated than what the current system is capable of
providing, I would suggest that it represents the effective limit of what
Community planners and managers would find operationally useful
6. I request your comment and advice on the foregoing, which is intended
as much to crystallize our continuing discussion of change as it is to put
forward specific proposals. In particular, I would like you to address: (a)
the extent to which you share a perception that we need to make significant
changes in the current DCID 1/2 process; (h) the specific changes outlined
above; and (c) any variations, alternatives, and/or additions to these
proposals that you think might better serve. In addition, the appropriate
Committee members should assess the impact that implementation of the changes
in question would have on functions, publications, etc., that make derivative
use of current DCID 1/2 procedures or outputs.
7. Please provide your responses to me by COB 23 February.
 Approved For Release 2007/04/27: CIA-RDP84M00395R000600170043-1
Distribution:
1 - Ms Kuser (State)
(NSA)
DIA)
3. i son D0E)
T--G-
K. Steins (Treasury)
M. Kenney (Army)
LCDR Cyboron (Navy)
Maj Pelletier (USAF)
DDCI
Ch DCID 1/2
ExSec DCID 1/.2
ICS Registry
Approved For Release 2007/04/27: CIA-R DP84M00395R000600.170043-1