16 JANUARY 1980 EXCOM FY-82 RD&E PROGRAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP86B00963R000200050018-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 16, 2002
• Sequence Number: 18
• Publication Date: January 16, 1980
• Content Type: MF

25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Relea~'0~/06 : CIA-RDP86B00963R000200050018-1
6~ 7
I haven't had the time to research and present `this "subject t
25X1A
~f ~ .
you fully as would probably be appropriate, but did want to give you
can no doubt
comments to you are based on two factors:
-- My association with the subject while assigned with the
Comptroller; and
-- My experiences as the DDA RF;D Coordinator. (U)
2. FY 1980 will be an extremely painful year for DDS~T RED offices
because their funding will be so thin. FY 1981 will be abetter year but
still, in the view of Agency RED managers, an Lmderfunded one. Based on
the loss of a significant funding base, Les Dirks and his managers
consciously decided to raise the awareness level of senior Agency managers
(read EXCOP/I) to the blight being wrought on CIA RED funding. Today's
meeting is one of the results--very successful in my opinion--of Dirk's
plan to both improve his RFD planning process (a laudible initiative) and
to restore fiscal health to the Agency's RED program. Today s meeting
concerns the Agency's FY 1982 R$D Program. Decisions ou make toda will.
of ~~the__rankin of the 1982 Program that hasn't yet een constructed.
Be careful. (C)
.----
3. My most serious concern about the CIA RED Program is that I have
never seen us as an Agency try to evaluate the worth of our RFD expendi-
tures. Many Agency users of the DDS~T RFD program will say that they are
benefitting from it, and in a sideways sort of sense they are. In too
many cases we feel we, as individual offices, are benefitting--because it
som thoughts on the subject before your meetssr.g.
give you some even more relevant insights from his own experiences. My
p~FtIVATi~/E CL 0'~' 235960
^ D~CL ~ FiE1iV4/ ON ~ Jan 2000
i~~:r~i~i=~i F~Of~I 3d3
~~~~
Approved For Release 2002/02/06: CIA-RDP86B00963R000200050018-1
~ $ JAN IyBU
Deputy Director for Administration
ie anageme taff, DDA
J~
16 January 1980 EXCOM ~
~ V4
FY-82 RDF~E Program n _
 ~~~
_ ~ ..(~~p e o R~lease 2~~~~ :CIA-RDP86B00963R000200050018-1
QC ~.'~'~~'~'
is a free service. No user of CIA RFD has to pay for it out of his/her
own budget. Because our budget philosphy requires that the provider of
the service, rather than the user, budget for R~,D, all of us users try to
get ORD, OTS, or whomever to fund our RFD requirements. We are inclined
to speak kindly of the RFD system so that our own water, so to speak,
doesn't get cut off. T seriously question how strongly each. of your
Office Directors would fight for the level of RFD funding in their own
budgets that they are asking DDS~T to fund. (C)
4. I'm rambling; my points here are:
-- non-DDS~T Agency managers are, everytning else being equal,
inclined to be more supportive of CIA's R$D Program because
it is a free resource to them;
-- Because users of the DDS~T RED Program are not required to
budget for their R~iD support, I suspect that they are rmzch
less discriminating in the RED requirements that they sub-
mit to DDS~T than would be the case if they had to fund
such requirements from within their own budgets;
I suggest that the RED requirements you will
-- As a result
,
hear about today have not in fact been as rigorously scrubbed~L~
as they could be. Said another way, the funding require-
ments will be larger, because the substantive requirements
will be softer than they might necessarily be.
-- I am not convinced that the Agency's R~iD budget should
increase because I have never seen a rigorous, independent
evaluation of the worth of the results of our RED expendi-
tures. I'm talking about both macro and micro evaluations,
and whi e I'm sure there have been micro evaluations per-
fo ~ I just haven't seen them. I'm not sure, for
example, that Bob Gambino would have been willing to spend
the many millions of dollars that it took to develop the
25X1 C
5. I caution you to carefully evaluate--or hold off until we or the
Co troller can evaluate some of the fiscal environmental assumptions that,
according to the outline provided in the EXCOM reading package for today's
meeting, will be used.
years it took ORD to i e a een required to fund
the requirement out of his own budget. I'm not sure that
Security has ever done or been asked to do a soul-searching
review of that or similar RED requirements. can,
I lmow, cite you some less-than-acceptable experiences that
the Office of Corrm~tunications has had with the RFD products
delivered to it by various Agency RED offices. (S)
a~~~R~~`
25X1A
Approved For Release 2002/02/06: CIA-RDP86B00963R000200050018-1
 Approved For Releas~~~0~/06 : CIA-RDP86B00963R000200050018-1
4s~
Looking at the briefing package page entitled OBSERVATIONS/ASSUMPTIONS,
their first point about nondeferrable growth areas w~.t in t e may
well be true, but then again it may be only true from the S~iT viewpoint.
I caution you not to agree to a decision today that might adversely
impact your resource requests next May during the 1982 Program ranking
and decision process.
The third point--RD~E limited to inflation plus 5 percent real growth--
may or may not be okay. I have difficulty looking at one issue out of
context. If the DDCI said he was going to limit DDA resource growth
to inflation plus 5 percent real growth, I would be ecstatic. Fiv per-
cent real growth is a whole bunch in these difficult resource times.
This concern notwithstanding, my most elemental concern is: "What does ~-~'
5 percent, plus the base, really buy us?" (S)
6. Turning to the page entitled RD~E ISSUES, the second question~~
. should we consolidate the program ighest priority .,
'who determines the priority of R&D requirements? I ask the question
because we, the DDA RED Panel, had extreme difficulty ranking our 1982
requirements because of the prioritization rules that the DDS~,T irrq~osed
on us. The DDS~,T wanted us to rioritize e ualit proposed
R&D solution (provided by_ DDS ~at