OFF-SITE COMPUTER CENTER PLANNING

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP88G00186R000901090005-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 10, 2010
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: February 25, 1985
• Content Type: MEMO

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R000901090005-2
DDA Registry
85-0122/8
2 5 FEB 1985
Harry E. Fitzwater
Deputy Director for Administration
Off-Site Computer Center Planning
A. Note for DDA fm EXDIR, dtd 7 Jan 85
B. Attachment to above note, dtd 2 Jan 85,
Same Subject
I have attached a memorandum from Danny May which addresses the
referenced Creative Problem-Solving Item on Off-Site Computer Center
Planning. Danny's briefing on Tuesday, 26 February 1985 should
further enlighten us on this subject.
STAT
DDA/MS
0r i 4g'_ Adse
1 - DDA Chrono
DDA Subject
- DDA/MS Subject
1 - DDA/MS Chrono
13Feb85)
Harry E. zwater
Q-2
STAT
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R000901090005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R000901090005-2
DDA Registry
85-0122/7
MEMORANDUM FOR: Harry E. Fitzwater
Deputy Director for Administration.
FROM: C. Danny May, Chairman
CIA Computer Study Panel
SUBJECT: Off-Site Computer Center Planning
REFERENCE: A. Note for DDA fm EXDIR, dtd 7 Jan 85
B. Attachment to above note, dtd 2 Jan 85,
Same Subject
1. In response to the Executive Director's note (Reference A), I
have examined the proposal contained in Reference B in the light of the
discussions, findings, and recommendations of the Study Panel which I
chair.
2. Before commenting on Reference B, I would like to briefly
summarize some of the highlights of the Panel's report, which is now
completed. The Panel examined a number of space options for preventing
displacement of people in the Headquarters by computers. All of those
options involved establishment of a separate computer facility whereby
computers would not be competing with people for space. The options
studied included moving all ODP computers to a separate computer center
located at any one of four remote sites or at a site on the Langley
compound (as proposed in Reference B). Other options involved dividing
ODP operations with some services provided by a computer center located
in the new Headquarters addition and other services provided by a
separate center located at any one of the five sites mentioned above.
After studying these options, the Panel recommended dividing ODP
operations between two centers. One would be a 100,000 sq.ft. center in
the new Headquarters addition, and the other a 50,000 sq.ft. center,
plus support space, located in the nearby Virginia/Maryland area. The
100,000 sq.ft. center in the new Headquarters addition would provide
communications-intensive services to its user population and would not
be permitted to grow beyond this fixed ceiling. The remote 50,000
sq.ft. center would provide services that are less communications
intensive (such as Community and Development), provide a spillover file
storage capability for the Headquarters center, and be designed for
expandability for future growth.
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R000901090005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R000901090005-2
3. The Panel rejected the idea of relocating all ODP services
to a new center located on the Langley canpcund (as proposed in
Reference B). While the Langley location offers many
advantages--particularly low cost, reliable communications, and a good
inplace security infrastructure--the Panel felt that the following
considerations overrode those advantages.
a. Local canmunity apposition to additional construction
at Langley might indefinitely delay construction of the
separate ccmputer building on the Langley site. With a
pressing need to obtain additional space by 1992, this
presented an unacceptable uncertainty.
b. A single-site operation (Langley) would not provide
many of the important and much needed survivability and
reliability benefits of a divided operation (sane canputer
services at Langley and some at a remote site).
c. The failure to use the TEMPEST canputer-grade
space in the new addition for the purpose intended,
could not be justified fran a cost/effectiveness point
of view.
4. If, in the judgement of Agency management, these concerns
are not as important as the Panel views them, the proposal made in
Reference B should be adapted. It is reasonable and would overcane
sane of the risks associated with other options.
5. The author of this problem-solving idea is to be canmended for
his concern and his thoughtful comments.
STAT
C. Danny
Chairman
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88G00186R000901090005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88GO0186R000901090005-2
Central Intelligence Agency
f `Z
7 January 1985
their consideration.
Solving Campaign to the May Panel for
contribution to the Creative Problem
Please pass the attached
REG
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88GO0186R000901090005-2
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88GO0186R000901090005-2
Iq
Next 1 Page(s) In Document Denied
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/11/10: CIA-RDP88GO0186R000901090005-2