Notes on Eighth Meeting, NSCIC Working Group, 9 May 1973, 1430 Hours, DCI Conference Room

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00506R000100020009-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: T
• Document Page Count: 11
• Document Creation Date: November 17, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 10, 2000
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: May 9, 1973
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 200.Q1091
9 May 1973
MEMORANDUM FOR:THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Notes on Eighth Meeting, NSCIC Working Group, 0 May 1973,
1430 Hours, DCI Conference Room
1.. Present were:
Members:
Chairman
NSC Staff
State Department
Defense Department
Executive Secretary
Observers:
NSC Staff
State Department
Defense Department
JCS
25X1A9a
PDCI/IC
Pr Andrew Marshall
Mr. Seymour Weiss
84B00506R0001100002 ~ 09-4
Copy / of 3 copies
Mr. George Denny
(representing Dr. Cline)
Dr. Albert Hall, ASD(I)
Maj. Gen. H. P. Smith, DIA
(representing Vice Adm. de Poix)
Rear Adm. S. D. Cramer, Jr., J-5
(representing Lt. Gen. Seith)
Dr. Edward Proctor, DDI
Mr.-John Huizenga, D/NE
Mr. Donald H. Steininger, A/DDS&T
25X1A9a
Capt. George Pickett
Mr. Richard Curl
Mr. Patrick J. Parker
Capt. Gerald W. Dyer, J-5
(The Justice Department was not represented)
2. In opening the meeting, the Chairman said that Item c. of
the agenda (Involvement of the Working Group in the NIE process) would
not be discussed in detail since the DCI wishes to discuss the matter
further before it is considered by the Working Group. The Chairman
asked members to give the subject thought since it would be a topic at
a later meeting.
3. Minutes of the 4 Apri11 meeti
Two changes proposed by Dr. Cline for Agenda Items 4 and 7,
as set forth in a handout, were approved without change.
Mr. Marshall requested deletion in Item 3 of the phrase
"who is Deputy Chairman of the NSCIC," since the DCI has not
formally been so appointed as yet. The group agreed.
*NSC Declassification/Release Instructions on File*
Approved For Release 2000/09/03: CIA-RDP84B00506R000100020009-4
E(2) IMP DET CL BY 246821
 Approved For Release 2000/09/ I y M0506R000100020009-4
F %n,- VR%T1r1?a 1,
Reference Item 6 on Yugoslavia, Mr. Marshall said it would be
optimistic to expect completion by June since contributors are
missing deadlines. He said a first draft had not been completed and
his experience was that two or three drafts would be needed. Mr.
Huizenga asked What the study was about, pointing out that the DCI
was interested in Yugoslavia. as the likely locale of a contingency
problem and had requested an ONE study . Mr. Marshall explained that
the protect involved examination of intelligence production on
Yugoslavia for two periods --1966 and the past 12-18 months with
emphasis on political coverage. Panelists from both in and out of
the government are making critical reviews of the product quality.
Mr. Huizenga said such a report would be of value to those
preparing the study on Yugoslavia desired by the DCI, and if the
Working Group paper could be available early, it would help. "This is
what product review should be about," said Mr. Huizenga.
Mr. Marshall said a first draft would be ready by early
June and Mr. Huizenga pointed out that rough drafts would help. Dr.
Hall asked if "we could push this up" and in response to a question
from the chairman, Mr. Huizenga said his deadline was "about June" but
timing was indefinite, shifting as reports came in concerning whether
Tito was ailing or improving.
25X1A5a Mr. Weiss said State had done some work on this subject with
Mr. Huizenga asked if this was the Ross Johnson work, and Mr.
Weiss agreed it was. Mr. Marshall said Johnson was one of the panelists
being used on the Working Group study.
The chairman asked Mr. Marshall to check what was holding up
the study and what could be done to speed it along, and Mr. Huizenga
added that anything bearing on Yugoslavia would be useful to ONE.
The group decided to reflect this discussion in today's minutes
and not amend the 4 April minutes which had noted "completion is
expected by June."
3. Case studies of political/military crisis situations
Dr. Proctor opened the discussion by citing proposed editorial
changes to several paragraphs and a substitute Paragraph 14, all of which
were accepted. Re Paragraph 18 he proposed deletion of everything after
"or" in the sentence, "To prepare this product the DCI could constitute
a task force or request other agencies to provide inputs to his CIA
staff."
Approved For Release 2000/0OT
84600506 R000100020009-4
 Approved For Release 2Q90/09/0
B00506R0W 00020009-4
Mr. Weiss objected, noting it was very difficult in crisis
situations to assemble people to "fit words together." If the situa-
tion is moving slowly and there is time to assemble a group, he admitted
the product would be better but "the time push may make this difficult."
He said he would much prefer to get a DCI view that is timely and get
it in a hurry to the policy group rather than to wait for a task force
to assemble to scrub over words. He noted that getting people together
can prove difficult, to which Dr. Proctor replied: "Then it's not much
of a crisis."
The Chairman pointed out that the paper describes possibilities
without "gluing us to a procedure" and that the IC staff actually would
be seized with the problem.
Mr. Denny favored leaving the paragraph as it is, suggesting
that whatever the actual process turned out to be he hoped it would be
something like the daily CIB review and clearance action. "When an
agency doesn't like a paragraph, it can footnote." To which Dr. Proctor
commented that in a crisis situation "a footnote is not enough."
Mr. Huizenga said that in a prolonged crisis it is normal to
constitute a task force but he found the phrase "inputs to CIA staffs"
anomalous. Mr. Denny said he read "inputs" as persons. Mr. Weiss
considered the next sentence indicated that what was meant was "paper."
To Mr. Huizena, "inputs" sounded like contributions but not real partici-
pation. Admiral Cramer questioned whether the DCI shouldn't be the one
to come up with the format of what he wanted. Mr. Denny-"felt the present
wording was "ambiguous enough" as it is. The Chairman asked Dr. Proctor
if he would "withdraw" and Dr. Proctor so agreed.
Dr. Hall raised a question as to the management approach
described in Page 6. He saw the paper as calling for two DCI repre-
sentatives, one seeing that the substantive intelligence was put
together, and the other looking to the basic support for the process.
He wondered whether the same man should not do both.
Mr. Marshall said the group which drafted the paper thought
there should be two men, one for a liaison with the NSC staff, to keep
tab on what was needed, and a separate person working for the DCI,
making sure things move. "Minding the store," Dr. Proctor added.
Dr. Proctor thought that in a leisurely process one man could handle
both tasks.
Approved For Release 2000/09/03,; U ?BABOO506ROO01
 Approved For Release 200WO9.4 . 4BOO506ROOQ J0020009-4
Dr. Hall said there were other ways of handling this. He
noted that confusion is natural in a crisis, and he saw problems in
having two senior men with divided responsibility. He thought one
man should be responsible and the other should work for him, although
both would need to be intimately involved in the action.
Dr. Proctor said that on "hot items," with several meetings
being held per day, one man couldn't handle it.
Mr. Weiss said that Dr. Hall was not suggesting use of only
one man, but a liaison man and a manager, with the liaison representa-
tive being responsible to the manager. Mr. Weiss said he was "indifferent."
The Chairman said both men would be "out of the same box in the
organization."
Dr. Hall said he had merely made a suggestion, but Mr. Marshall
felt that something should be inserted to clarify the wording of the
paper. Mr. Denny and the Chairman each suggested some phraseology,
and the Chairman said that-in a crisis he would want both men to be
fully familiar with the particular area involved. Mr. Marshall said
the liaison officer should be someone familiar with the area, but the
other man need not be "substantive." Both Dr. Proctor and Mr. Huizenga
thought it "more likely he would be substantive."
Dr. Hall said he would leave it to Mr. Marshall to work out
the necessary word changes. The Chairman agreed, but asked that the
words "not be too restrictive." Mr. Marshall said that this paper
"is advice to the DCI, and some variance will occur in actual practice."
The group agreed to send the amended paper forward to the
NSCIC Chairman.
(A reworded Paragraph 16 was provided by Mr. Marshall's
office, after coordination with Dr. Hall, on 10 May.)
4. Questions to be answered on Soviet ICBMs
The Chairman referred to the paper which had been disseminated
for comment, noting that his staff had identified products published on
Soviet ICBMs and attempted an evaluation. He emphasized that this was
"not the end of the line" and a member of his staff was contacting users
of intelligence on Soviet ICBMs to get answers to a series of questions.
The Chairman cited a number of the questions being asked and said he
hoped to have a compilation by the next meeting.
Mr. Weiss asked: "When the process is completed, what is the
end objective? What will be done with the information?"
Approved For Release 2000/
P84B00506 R000100020009-4
 Approved For Release 2040/09f 4B00506R00100020009-4
The Chairman said that part of the motive was "selfish"--
"to take the product evaluation through the IC apparatus, identify
the products which are most useful, identify where products are not
meeting the needs of the user." He conceded that the effort may be
more useful to the IC staff than to the Working Group.
Dr. Proctor said there were at least two more dimensions to
the rating system. The first was "quality and how is it measured."
He felt expert consensus should be reached for judgments on such
aspects as the method of presentation, clarity, does the analysis
support the conclusions, is the estimate really needed. The second
factor had to do with "redundancy." He noted that some of the pro-
ducts marked as redundant are of a different classification. He
said that a sketch might be useless to policy levels, but would be
invaluable to contractors. In dealing with foreigners, he said there
is need for something which can be said on a sanitized basis. Opera-
tional uses also have different levels.
Dr. Proctor criticized the definition of Topic D, "Policy
and Strategy" since he felt inclusion of the phrase "of the need for
multiple purpose missiles" was not proper. He thought that most of
the ratings on Topic D were based on this phrase, and that without it
in the definition there would be far fewer publications considered
to be "policy and strategy oriented."
Dr. Hall said he "hardly read anything" dealing with ICBM 25X1 DOa
policy and strategy, yet some products got high marks
25X1 DOa and he wondered why. He noted the
r policy and strategy" and he wondered "How could this be
included?" He said that whoever had made the evaluation "must have
had a tentative idea as to how it would come out, and I would like
to hear it."
The Chairman said the criteria were applied uniformly, "right
or wrong." He noted the evaluation had found there was considerable
redundancy on "weaponry," but that consideration of the compartmentali-
zation factor might cause a change in this. He also said that coverage
on "policy and strategy" was more deficient than that on any other
25X~9&'
Approved For Release 200~..~rn DP84B00506R000100020009-4
 Approved For Release 2044/09/ ~~ 00506ROOQIJ00020009-4
25X1 DOa
He said that if redundancy was being scored on the basis of
the content of the reports, that was fine, but if the redundancy was
merely on the basis of "topics" then he felt "we have a problem." He
noted that two reports on the same topic, one in January and another
in July need not be redundant because "we may know more in July."
The Chairman said the ratings were based on the reading of
the documents (not merely an examination of titles).
Mr. Weiss said he shared Dr. Hall's concern, since he felt
"policy and strategy" is actually covered very lightly. He noted
that "Key Soviet statements on SALT' was given high scores, but what
is needed is an evaluation as to whether these statements tell some-
thing relevant, or need to be critically evaluated.
Dr. Proctor said these statements are compilations. "They
shouldn't be listed because they are tools and references."
Mr. Weiss said he questioned whether they are good sources
for policymakers.
Mr. Huizenga said the statements did not represent "an
analytical paper," but Dr. Proctor added that "many people dealing
in SALT matters want this sort of thing for their own analysis."
Mr. Weiss said he had no objection to that, but such compila-
tions "are not finished intelligence on Soviet ICBMs."
Mr. Proctor said he thought a grade of "4,1" was suitable to
the document as a compendium.
The Chairman said that "one thing percolating to the top" is
the question as to who the writers of some products "were talking to,
except for some other intPliii(Tanra nffircr." He mentioned the report:
paper?"
He said that for the first
Mr. Denny asked if the Chairman was satisfied with exclusion
of papers which "were not strictly intelligence but which were produced
for the Verification Panel?" The Chairman said he was not, but that
"it was a matter of access until today."
Mr. Huizenga noted the ratings did not indicate the intent of
the publication.
Approved For Release 2000 o DP84BOO506R000100020009-4
 Approved For Release 20QQ/09/0 B00506R00Q,00020009-4
Dr. Proctor agreed, but added that the question,"Did it
meet the needs?" could be handled in the interview process.
The Chairman said he was wrestling with how to go about
asking a person how a particular product met his needs. He favored
a "simple-minded way," and was thinking of starting with the distri-
bution list, and asking recipients: "Have you seen this?"
Mr. Huizenga said that "could be discouraging."
The Chairman said that a check with SAC indicated that the
"consumer" of national intelligence documents there was a captain,
who was responsible for presenting briefings and answering questions.
To which Mr. Huizenga added: "And we still have to hope that he says
the right things in the briefings."
Admiral Cramer said he would "bet that captain wouldn't
want to give up anything," because that had been his experience with
some surveys which had been made on naval vessels.
Mr. Denny said those interviewed might be asked "if they
read to page 10."
Mr. STeininger said that "what we are not producing is the
key question. Most of these documents are produced for other analysts.
We must do this, though, to keep ourselves ready to answer the key
questions, to keep our hands in."
Dr. Proctor said there was "more to it than that," and Mr.
Steininger commented that there was a need for mechanisms by which
supervisors can keep track of what their analysts are doing.
Dr. Proctor said there is an important problem of communi-
cating ideas laterally as well as upward, "and the best way to do
this is to make your ideas explicit in a paper," and thereby be
required to identify the basis for the ideas you are developing.
Dr. Proctor offered "another warning,"--"this should not be
a numbers game." As he saw it, whether there were 5 or 20 consumers
didn't mean anything. "If the one most important customer is happy,
that is the key."
The Chairman said "we need to identify when we are deluding
ourselves about consumer interest, and be careful about writing for
each other on problems that could be handled by conversation."
Approved For Release 2000/
84B00506 R000100020009-4
 Approved For Release 2000/09 s " BO0506R000100020009-4 "Rib
Mr. Huizenga felt that analysts "must exercise to be in a
condition of readiness--they are not working at all times for the
consumer."
Mr. Denny asked if it was intended that consumers be divided:
policymakers, etc. The Chairman replied that the first question would
be to determine whether the respondent was or was not an intelligence
officer.
Dr. Hall said that experience of his office with questionnaires
had not been good, and Dr. Proctor agreed.
Dr. Proctor reported that what worked as a rule for the DDI is
to advise that the distribution list was being revised, "and if you
want to stay on the list, check the box and return."
Mr. Huizenga added: "Or justify your requirement."
The Chairman commented that paid subscriptions might be re-
quested, and Dr. Proctor said that FBIS had done this on its "white
book." It advised recipients that what had been a free distribution
hereafter would cost $100 a year, which was the mailing cost. "Many
did not think it worth it," Dr. Proctor said, "but a lot did."
Dr. Hall said "there is something here we can do better.
There are many cases of duplication, in many cases the reports are
too voluminous. Recommendations as to how to improve the process
would be beneficial."
The Chairman said "we need to come up with a set of guide-
lines which expresses what we need to put out to answer the mail,
and what consumers don't need to have."
Admiral Cramer asked if the end product of the study would
redirect priorities, such as those for DIA. The Chairman said he
doubted such would be the case. "This group couldn't redirect
priorities," he said, "but the producers might" on the basis of the
study.
Mr. Denny said that analysis was needed--not a Gallup poll
technique. The producers might be asked what they consider might be
eliminated, or to indicate what needs to be done.
Irnn.
Approved For Release 200 F'DP84B00506R0001 00020009-4
 TaI
40 '90W
Approved For Release 200/0 84B00506R00f;00020009-4
The chairman returned to the priorities question and
commented that "the NSCIC could do this".
Mr. Huizenga said that the "topical matter" is very difficult
to grapple with. "Hardware is relatively easy," he thought, "but
policy and strategy is difficult."
To which Mr. Weiss replied that "if you focus on what is easy
you may neglect the more difficult."
Admiral Cramer said that "in our panel (which he did not
identify - presumably the Verification Panel for SALT) we would like to
know more about how technology is supporting Soviet policy and strategy."
Dr. Steininger fell; it would be valuable for producers to know
more about what other producers are doing. We might ask: "Who do you
interchange with on a quarterly basis as on what you plan to produce?"
He said this is done within DDS&T, and there is still some duplication
but each of the offices knows what the others are working on.
Dr. Proctor said this leads to joint production efforts. He
thought it might be worthwhile to ask FMSAC and FTD how often they
exchanged production sbhedules. He wasafraid9 polls of the type under
consideration "could develop ambiguous information and data of limited
use." Dr. Proctor said that committees such as GMAIC make possible
the kind of exchange to which Dr. Steininger referred.
The chairman wondered what the reaction would be if producers
were asked to indicate which products were meant for other intelligence
officers and which for consumers. Mr. Huizenga said he saw no harm
in such a question but we know "there is publication for publication's
sake."
The chairman said that "we need to assure our masters that we
are doing what we can with what we've got," and Mr. Huizenga said that
it must be recognized that producers produce for "different customers."
Dr. Hall asked how many intelligence agencies have publication
review boards such as those used by professional magazines. Dr.
Proctor said there was no board for CIA as a whole, but individual
offices had them. The chairman said that in DIA DE and DT had such
boards.
Mr. Denny considered that "resources may be the key," since
publications can be scheddled, but then other things come up and upset
what had been planned.
Approved For Release 200
DP84B00506R000100020009-4
 Approved For Release
RDP84B00506PW00100020009-4
Mr. Huizenga considered that use of "bibliographic tools"
would enable identification of publications, but the chairman said
this would only apply to what has been already published, not to what
was being planned. He said that the list of the publications surveyed
had come out of the CIA computer base.
Dr. Steininger said that "every office has a plan for the
next quarter" but Dr. Proctor noted this doesn't indicate what is
done for special customers.
Mr. Denny said the present survey did not include three
products published by Mr. Perez' office in INR/State.
Mr. Marshall asked how the statistics in the survey paper
should be read. He wondered whether it would be possible to take
any sub-part of the material and "surface what is behind the duplication."
He also thought one would want to look at the costs involved. "The
duplication may not be costly, other than the cost of flooding
communications channels," he said. He asked whether it might not be a
manageable task to make a detailed examination of some portion of the
materi&1s covered by the survey.
Dr. Hall said that more than duplication was involved; the
quality of analysis also is important.
Dr. Steininger commented that there is no mechanism in the
community to measure quality, but a review of the detailed content for
quality would be helpful.
Dr. Hall thought this would be more illuminating than any
survey.
The chairman said that limiting the survey to Soviet ICBMs was
meant to be a narrow cut at the problem, "but you can see how complex
even the ICBM topic is."
Mr. Parker said that the survey might "be laid out in time
phasing" to examine what "the information was" and "how a more efficient
set of publications could better respond to the needs." Then,he
added, experts could comment on the quality of the material. He felt
there was need to do more than examine redundancy since the need is to
get something more useful.
Dr. Steininger said that "redundancy to whom" is a key problem
and "we must be sure in our own minds as to what we mean by redundancy."
The chairman said that one aspect is to determine what is
redundant because of the need for sanitized materials. He felt the
survey should examine what is gained by use of codeword materials
that couldn't be available at a lesser classification.
Approved For Release 2000/0
84B00506 R000100020009-4
 Approved For Release 20QO/09 B00506R0000020009-4
Dr. Proctor noted that some users want to know what the
evidence is and how good it is.. SALT offers an example. You can't
answer questions as to "how good is your coverage" without codeword
materials. In some cases, he felt the evidence requires use of codeword
materials.
The chairman conceded this but said he considered that the
actual need is "smaller than those we now address in the codeword
arena." He felt that some subjects do not require codeword treatment.
Dr. Hall asked which reports in the survey were codeword and
which were not, and the chairman said he didn't know. He conceded, however,
that there is a tendency among some consumers to believe they are not
getting the whole story unless it is marked with codewords.
Dr. Hall said he supported Mr. Marshall's proposal "to take
a fine cut at some segment of this study."
5. Future work pro ram of the Working Group
The chairman asked if any member had proposals to submit
concerning the possible future program of the group. There were
no comments.
6. The chairman adjourned the meeting at 1600 hours and reported
the date for the next meeting had not been set.
25X1A9a
Executive Secretary
Distribu 1A9a
orig - then file NSCIC WG-2
1-
1 - PRG chrono
Approved For Release 200000M - P84B00506R000100020009-4
I