DRAFT 'POLICY CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF REMOTE TERMINAL EQUIPMENT DATED 24 APRIL 1970

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP78-04723A000100060031-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 23, 2002
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: May 28, 1970
• Content Type: MF

SECRET.
Approved For Release 2002/06/28 : CIA-RDP78-04723A000100060031-6 SLY
2.8 MAY 1970
MhMORAIQLT4 FOR: Chief, Information Processing Staff/OPPB
SU J ACT . Draft "Policy Considerations Governing Acquisition
and Installation of Rat;cote Terminal Equipment"
dated 24 April 1970
1. We are beginning to accumulate a substantial number of
memorandums governing information processing activities and equip-
ment. we have the Director's memorandum of 3 September 1969 and two
memorandums from the hxecutive Director Comptroller issued in
October 1969 and April 1970. The draft which is the subject of this
memorandum is one of two more being circulated for coordination. It
seems unlikely that this will be the end of it. I suggest that the
Information Processing Staff develop draft Agency regulations to
incorporate the policies already issued in memorandums and that sub-
sequent issuances be prepared in the same way. The Regulations Control
Branch of the Support Services Staff will be glad to assist in developing
the format and editorial style.
2. The 24 April draft policy statement about remote terminals
should be reconsidered in terms of the memorandum issued by the Executive
Director Comptroller 13 October 1969. 4e should be looking for guide-
lines governing the review of problems and applications before the
solutions have been selected rather than wait until a decision has
been made to install a remote terminal.
3. The following comments are keyed to paragraphs of the
draft paper;
a. para. 1 - The need to plan for the installation
of remote terminals is clear, but the Technical Facilities
Committee is working hard on this problem. It seems to me
the policy should be directed toward "the growing Agency
requirements for interactive services." What kinds of
applications really require interactive service and how do
we make that judgment? With regard to the footnote defining
a remote terminal, I wonder why we are less interested in
terminals inside a computer center than those located outside.
I do not see why location should be substituted for the need
consider and judge the reasonableness of the purposes they
Approved For Release 2002/06/28 :
SECRET
 Approved For Releaz~IL; 1ET28 : CIA-RDP78-04723A000100060031-6
b. para la - What constitutes a "clear requirement"?
Don't we need some criteria to help ensure that the clarity
of the requirement is the same for one application as it is
her?
c. para la(l) - Clocking the use obviously can only be
done after the terminal has been installed. It cannot be
used in judging the need for the acquisition. Clocking the
use ana weighing it against estimated use, la (2) , is worth-
while only if it is intended that some action be taken if use
falls below some standard or norm. These provisions can only
be meaningful if there is a guideline of some sort against which
estimated use can be measured in justifying the acquisition
in the first place. If we don't have a general guideline
each user will develop his own and it will be extremely
difficult to maintain a balance.
ci. para la(3) - We should be concerned with the
"indispensability" of the function before we concern ourselves
with the question of whether or not a terminal represents
the best or only solution to a particular problem. We
should address ourselves to the problems and whether they are
worth solving first and to the method of solution after that.
Then we need some method of testing the validity of the
justification for the solution chosen. What is a "stand-alone"
terminal? Wouldn't "dedicated" or "individual" be a better
term?
a. para la(4) - What is meant by "strictness"? How
strict is strict? Who evaluates strictness? If strictness is
to be evaluated in the Directorate, as I believe it should be,
it seems to sae we will need some way of ensuring that one
Directorate is neither more nor less liberal than another.
With regard to the tentative plans for 600 devices, I believe
everyone acknowledges that this is only a number. The key
question is whether the requirements are valid. Presumably
we would have to plan for 1200 if there were 1200 valid
requirements.
f. para lb M- The term "remote service center" is introduced
in la(3) without any preliminaries and lb does nothing to
clarify the term. In any case, whether there is a require-
ment for a "stand alone" terminal or the need can be met by
co-locating several terminals is a system consideration. A
policy paper of this kind should not place arbitrary constraints
on system design. If there is a real justification for pre-
scribing such system constraints we should have some criteria
to use in judging when a service center is more desirable than
a separate terminal.
inUF t
Approved For Release 21 000100060031-6
ttTRWET4 dectassitieatioo
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2002/06/28 : CIA-RDP78-04723A000100060031-6
g. pare ld - Have we firmly established the requirements
for equippin computer centers with a switching capability?
how extensive is the requir cent? Shouldn't it be subjected
to the same scrutiny this paper would require for remote
terminals? I wonder whether such a prescription is consistent
with the overall intent of a policy paper such as this. If a
study is to be conducted I wonder whether it shouldn't address
the questions raised above rather than start seelcing an
optimum design, assuming there is such a thing given the
differences among. the computer centers. In any case, this
paper shouldn't say a study should be conducted unless it can
also say who is going to do it.
h. pare le - This seems to re-open the SIDES question
which is being dealt with by DD/S and the Technical Facilities
Committee. It doesn't belong here. If something must be said,
I would urge a more general statement such as "Equipment acqui-
sition will conform to such standards for computer and communi-
cations interface as may be adopted."
i. pare 2 - If the principles of the memorandum issued by
the Executive Director last October are applied, the need for
a remote terminal will be well establistied before the decision
is reached to acquire one, and the coordination among all
interested parties will have been accomplished before installation
plans have become final. The role of the Board and the
Technical Facilities Committee is set forth adequately in
the October memorandum.
/s
Chief, Support Services Staff
DDS/SSS/RHWW:skd (28 May 1970)
Distribution.
Orig - Addressee
1 - DD/S
1 - SSS Subject
1 - SSS Chrono
Approved For Release 2002/06/1 xciu aM 04723A000100060031-6
SECRET
25X1A
 25X1 Approved For Release 2002/06/28 : CIA-RDP78-04723A000100060031-6
Next 6 Page(s) In Document Exempt
Approved For Release 2002/06/28 : CIA-RDP78-04723A000100060031-6