(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 9
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 16, 2006
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: September 9, 1999
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-004528000100060031-5
I. Background
A. EAG has "endorsed in principle" centralized ex-
ploratory research in the Agency.
B. The "merits" of an exploratory research center can
be delineated.
1. Risk taking organization.
2. Place. to pursue programs at the technology
level without time dominant objections.
3. Focal point for research for entire Agency.
4. Place to investigate interdisciplinary approaches
to intelligence problems.
C. People trained and psychologically suited to ex-
ploratory research are not always the same as people
trained and suited to engineering on advanced development.
1. Arguments can be made for segregating these
people types organizationally leading to a "pure"
research center.
2. Many government and industrial organizations
are organized in this way, e.g., USAF/Office of
Scientific Research.
D. "Mixing" of exploratory research efforts and
engineering on advanced development efforts in one
organization usually subsumes the research efforts.
1. Emphasis normally shifts to pressing problems.
2.' "Research" people tend to look like under
achievers vis a vis their engineering counterparts
in terms of output.
3. Presents immediate managerial conflict for
resources within the organization such as:
a. Dollars
b. People
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
twwo~
d. Fringe Benefits
E. If ORD is to be the exploratory research
ment of the Agency, is it suited to the task
1. Organizationally?
2. Fiscally?
3. Personnel-wise?
4. Programmatically?
5. Managerially?
II. Organizational Considerations
A. Directorate Level
1. Clearly ORD does not belong in DDO or DDI.
2. Some argument can be made for ORD in DDA.
a. Represents "service" function.
b. Represents areas of common concern.fo.r
other Directorates.
c. However, does not fit at all with balance
of DDA.
3. ORD could be part of DCI Staff.
4. ORD really best fits where it is in DDS&T.
B. Office Level
1. Divisional structure has been the rule
throughout history of ORD.
a. Originally divided by disciplines.
b. Presently arranged by function or
"business area" served.
2. Divisions in ORD tend to exist as "enclaves"
unto themselves. Division Chiefs treat people
and "business areas" as their own fiefdoms.
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
C. Space
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
a. Interdivisional cooperation is small.
(1) Competition for slots
(2) Competition for dollars
(3) Competition for visibility of
DDS&T level.
b. Broad technology programs suffer.
(1) "Team participation" always includes
manuvering to capture the funds and
responsbilities within a division.
3. Major thrusts in ORD are (or should be)
approached by interdisciplinary groups. Examples
include:
a. Presentational Means
b. Imagery Enhancement
c. Bulk Document Copying
d. Futures Research
e. Etc.
4. Present organization antagonistic to inter-
disciplinary approaches. Therefore, alterations
in organization should be considered:
a. Program Manager Structure
(1) Organize $ and people around
major programs.
(2) Maintain flexible reassignment
policies for personnel management.
(3) Reduce number of projects by
aggregation into cohesive programs.
b. Organize new Divisions by stage of re-
search activity, i.e., radially on the
functional diagram of present ORD structures.
(1) Problem/Program Definition Division
(2) Technical Feasibility Division
(3) Application/Technology Transfer
Division
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
III. Fiscal Consiations w
A. ORD presently captures approximately 30% of the
DDS&T external contracting dollars.
1. Some of these dollars go toward exploratory
research activities.
2. Some of these dollars go toward development,
engineering and procurement activities (See V
below).
B. There exists some optimal fraction of resources
for DDS&T to expend on exploratory research endeavors.
1. Since approximately 1/3 of ORD's $ are not
exploratory research, we presently devote about
20% of DDS&T external $ to exploratory research.
2. Industry and government installations at
cursory glance appear to devote 12%-25% of
resources to exploratory research.
3. Therefore, a commitment of the Agency to
spend 20% of its resources solely in exploratory
research is reasonable and should be formalized.
C. Based on the above, it may be that the ORD budget
should be changed.
1. Non-exploratory research activities should
be transferred to other components along with
the $.and people involved.
2. The remaining $ and people and activities
should be the basis of the future ORD.
IV. Personnel Considerations
A. Personnel in ORD presently represent a high
degree of academic training and/or professional ex-
pertise in several areas.
1.- Some are very "research-oriented" but without
a high level of practicality or understanding of
the intelligence business.,
2. Some are very pragmatic problem solvers but
cannot conceive or formulate challenging long-
range research programs.
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
3. Some are "research-oriented" and pragmatic at
the same time.
4. We need to attract and retain more of type
(3) above.
B. There is a preponderence of "hard science" per-
sonnel in ORD.
1. Specifically, there is a large fraction of
electrical engineers.
2. There are very few "experts" in the human and
social sciences.
C. The research support areas in which ORD should be
active require more emphasis on human/social/behavioral
sciences.
D. Consideration must be given to:
1. Transferring "non-research personnel" to
other offices.
2. Broadening ORD's expertise base.
a. Lowering the fraction of pure electrical
engineers.
b. Building up the "soft sciences".
co Adding more "basic science" expertise,
e.g.,
(1) Physics
(2) Biology
(3) Mathematics
E. If programs are aggregated and only exploratory
research endeavors undertaken, it is likely that the
T.O. for ORD will drop by 25-40%.
F. Such a drop should not be viewed as a bureaucratic
loss of face or power; rather it may represent the forma-
tion of a lean and dedicated cadre of exploratory
researchers.
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
INW Now
V. Programmatic Considerations
A. ORD projects are only nebulously arranged into
broad, meaningful programs.
B. Customer involvement in programs is spotty.
1. It often occurs only once a year.
2. Many customers acquiesce to ORD programs
rather then endorsing enthusiastically.
3. Some programs are done in spite of customers.
C. Programs are clearly not viewed by customers as
universally vital to their needs because:
1. They do not willingly and enthusiastically
support all programs.
2. Getting customer commitment of resources (in
terms of people's time) is like pulling teeth.
D. Some ORD programs have continued for so long that
the program momentum is the major justification for
continuing.
E. ORD should "take inventory" of its programs in a
cold and detached fashion.
1. What is the intelligence need?
2. Is.the "need" perceived by ORD and the cus-
tomer truly worthy of resource expenditure?
3. What would happen to the Agency if it were
terminated tomorrow?
4. How can ORD address important future issues
and needs in brand new programs?
5. What people resources will be needed for
meeting new program demands?
6. How can ORD programs service top priority
Agency needs and still demonstrate meaningful pro-
gress on a yearly basis?
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
i%001 Nftoe
VI. Managerial Considerations
A. Office Level
1. Recent Office level-management has been too
"engineering" oriented in training and psychology.
2. Some representation at the Office level of
management for "soft" sciences is needed.
3. Office level management must understand and
provide impetus for assuming risks associates with
exploratory research activities.
4. Continuity is an important factor in Office
level management.
a. It takes several years to realize the
fruits of decisions on exploratory research
matters.
b. It is cost-ineffective to change con-
stantly the course of exploratory research
since initial costs often produce minimal
useful results.
5. Office level mangement must comprehend the
service nature of exploratory research.
a. There should be no predatory instincts
to garner activities outside exploratory
research.
b. Office management must possess some
"gambling" instinct to allow high risk/high
payoff efforts to be undertaken.
B. Division Level
1. Division Chiefs must view efforts from an
Office or even an Agency perspective.
a. "Baronial" instincts and actions must be
exorcised.
b. Inter-divisional cooperation must be de-
manded by Office and Directorate management.
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
2. Divion level managers should`rovide
leadership to people.
a. Leadership does not mean intimate involve-
ment in every project.
be Leadership does not mean "editing" and
commenting on format of all upward communication
from the working level.
c. Leadership means instilling esprit de corps
within the Office.
d. Leadership means recognizing the context of
efforts from an Agency perspective and com-
municating this recognition to the working levels.
3. Division level managers must take the major
responsibility for insuring the continuing vitality
of the ORD workforce.
a. Division Chiefs must be have responsibility
for identifying and removing people not
qualified to do exploratory research.
b. Division Chiefs should be active in the
pursuit of new personnel for ORD.
4. Division level mangement should view their role
in the division as an offensive lineman in football.
a. They do not score touchdowns and get
headlines.
b. They do knock down obstacles (mainly
bureaucratic) so that the workers can do
what they get paid for.
5. In general, the cast of Division Chiefs in
ORD should have a half-life of 2-3 years.
a. Every 2-3 years there should be half
"new faces" at Division Chiefs meetings.
b. Management stability should be at office
level.
c. Division Chiefs should use up their new
ideas and wear out their welcome in 2-3 years.
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
 Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8
VII. An Individual View of a "Blue-Print" for a New ORD
A. The mission is exploratory research at the
problem/component/technology level.
B. The annual budget is smaller than present (probably
professional project officers).
The professional T.O. is slightly smaller-(probably
1. Overhead in ORD should not be considered.
a. R&D is itself an overhead expense.
b. Only total Agency overhead is a meaning-
ful number if indeed that is meaningful.
2. If we do less engineering activities, we
will probably need less "support".
D. Divisional Organization is loose
1. Matrix mangement techniaues to allow inter-
divisional participation in programs are necessary.
2. Program managers are instituted with authority/
responsibility for broad business areas.
E. The D/ORD establishes a special modus vivendi
with DDS&T.
1. QR's are held at program level only.
2. Office level coordination is at program level.
3. Customers of ORD are mandated by DDS&T to
participate in high payoff programs.
Approved For Release 2007/10/23: CIA-RDP91-00452R000100060031-8