COMPUTER TERMINAL INSTALLATION PROBLEMS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP95-00972R000100160004-0
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 27, 2012
• Sequence Number: 4
• Publication Date: January 27, 1982
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/27: CIA-RDP95-00972R000100160004-0
STAT
STAT
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director for Operations
FROM: Harry E. Fitzwater
Deputy Director for Administration
SUBJECT: Computer Terminal Installation Problems
REFERENCE: Your Memorandum dated 11 January 1982, Same
Subject (DD/O 82-0067)
27 JAN 1992
P02
1. Your memorandum on computer terminals reflects a concern
which is not only legitimate but which is widely shared. CIA has
not found an effective answer to the problem of funding the
acquisition of the terminals it requires to take full advantage .
of the power of our computer installations. Funds were recently
reprogrammed to permit us to use contractors to enhance our
capabilities to install terminals, but now we face the prospect
of having too few terminals for these new contractors to install.
2. Your memorandum addresses the present and the future,
but I believe it is appropriate to call to your attention that
past actions have demonstrated a willingness to go to extra
lengths to meet the needs of the Directorate of Operations (DO)
for terminals, within the limits of the resources available. The
basic problem has been in the methods used to obtain those
resources.
3. Each program year, the Office of Data Processing (ODP)
requests each Directorate to identify terminal needs and to cite
the budget level at which the supporting component's program
resides. ODP then programs accordingly for terminals in the ODP
budget. In the 1981 and 1982 budget years, ODP did not receive
the packages which supported component current and enhanced level
terminal requirements. Since DO requirements in FY 81 were at
the enhanced level and in FY 82 were at the current level, ODP
did not receive fundn in support of DO terminal requirements in
either year. ODP has not lanoreA nn
rocmirommant.a
ot which are still awaiting installation. This was done by
drawing down existing stocks of previously funded Delta Data
7260's.
4. In FY 82, ODP received funds for terminals--all
of which were justified at levels below the current level by the
other three Directorates. Those Directorates, and the DO as
well, were made aware of this situation in late 1979 as the FY 82
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/27: CIA-RDP95-00972R000100160004-0
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/27: CIA-RDP95-00972R000100160004-0
budget was being developed and reviewed. Thus, the commitment
STAT for the distribution of the terminals was made some time
ago as a function of the CIA budget process,
5. The resource situation in TY 82, unlike ry $l, will not
permit ODP to give the DO such relief. There are no remaining
funds to use for terminal requests which az" in excess of the ry
82 allocation. ODP has funded three terminals for the DO thus
far in TY 82, but this is the first year in which we are forced
to turn back critical terninal requests, from any and all
components, because of budget inadequacies.
STAT 6. Reallocation of the terminals funded in 1982 does not
seem to me to tke the answer. change In these coanitments new'
would undoubtedly cause significant difficulties i offices'
STAT planning for their use, and indeed all but have
already been committed to specific installs eons. A rger pi*
is needed, not smaller slices of the existing inadequate pie.
7. On the subjeot of installations, I have nose other data
which you may find of interest. You cite a backlog of 200
requests, some more than a year old. Nowise:1r/ 103 of thee*
requests were su ted in November and December 1981. Those
STAT requests are for new terninals and ASV printers, plus five
relocations of ex ing devices. Again/Abe new terminals and
printers are not fended. ODP does not process an installation
request until they are able to identify and cammIt a device to
the request?in other words, until the request is funded.
8. Of 85 outstanding requests in process for the DDO, the
breatdown is as follows:
STAT
9. A more complete report on these installation requests
would have included the fact that ODP recently arranged for the
rental of 24 IBM terminals tO be used until such time as the
Delta Date terminal is capab1e of emulating an INN terninal.
This is a special requirement related to your AMSTAR system,
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/27: CIA-RDP95-00972R000100160004-0
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/27: CIA-RDP95-00972R000100160004-0
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
STAT
and the older requests in the table above are related to this
same requirement. With the cooperation of the Office of
Communications, ODP recently processed priority installation
requests in order for these devices to be available during the
week of 11 January $2.
. 10. Peturning to the question of funding fox terminals, it
is distressing to compare the total Directorate-Identified
requirements with the amounts provided in the ODP budgets OVOT
the past several years. The numbers include other kinds of
terminals, but the majority are in the category that is the
v
subject ofrv%
ur message. xn 19e0, the need for as
erminals
expressed, for the DO. ODP was given funds o f which
20 were al, oca ed to the DO (angmented byr-1 as not a v.). Zr,
1981, the requirement was onlYr---iere funded. Tn 1962, ODP
was asked for of them Delta Detas. In
requested by its
1963 OOP will have funds for
customers. Clearly we need to wort together to change these
ratios so your legitimate needs and those of the other
Directorates con be met. How ye cop* with the problem in FY 62
given the paucity of reprogrammable dollars Is not easy to
determine. In 1913, end certainly in our 19$4 program, whether
in ODP's subsission or those of customer offices, we need to
provide for more terminals. I suggest we table this as an issue
to be discussed at an early dete with the Executive Director.
D/ODP
Distribution:
Original ?
Marry lg. Fitmeater
kf:lt (19 January 82)
Addressee
2 ? DDA
1 ? ED/ODP
2 ? O/D/ODP
? ODP Registry
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/27: CIA-RDP95-00972R000100160004-0