SUMMARY OF NFIB AGENCY VIEWS ON PROCEDURES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP93T01132R000100040019-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 27, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 23, 2012
• Sequence Number: 19
• Publication Date: June 24, 1987
• Content Type: REPORT

Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/05/25: CIA-RDP93T01132R000100040019-0
24 June 1987
Summary of NFIB Agency Views on Procedures
Comments prepared for your 16 June meeting and for the NFIB session on
"objectivity and integrity" demonstrate a broad consensus within the Com wnity
on seven principal areas:
I. The number of estimates should be reduced and more rigorous
standards for both topics and quality should be adopted.
--The Director of INR urges that NFIB review production plans with the
aim of producing fewer, more relevant and better products. He observes
that "there appears to be considerable question as to whether the
products serve any useful purpose."
--The DDI also contends that "We are clearly doing too many estimates,
and too many of our estimates look more like research papers than
estimates." He recommends that estimates address only critical
intelligence questions on important policy issues and that they be
"analytic and estimative in nature."
--DIA proposes that the number of estimates in the NIC Production Plan
be reduced "to a reasonable number," allowing for ad hoc requests and
a better balance between volume and resources. DIA would exclude
drafts which are "largely background papers containing current/historical
information but little if any estimative judgments geared-to policy-
maker needs."
--Air Force and Navy agree that estimates should meet the test of
"utility to the policy arena" and that their "substantive thrust"
should be estimative, not "factual."
--The Director of NSA points out that "the quality of TORs is not uniformly
high. Yet that is where the issues should be framed, not after someone
has provided a draft and community representatives are left with nbthing
to do but take petty swipes at details."
II. Estimates should be shorter, more concise and more easily grasped by
busy 'readers.
--DIA, Army, Navy and Air Force all agree that "some estimates are too
lengthy" and unwieldy. DIA particularly stresses a need to shorten the
Key Judgments and suggested that Executive Summaries might be prepared
for "those without time to read."
III. More careful attention should be given tdhdefining the purpose and
concept of estimates before drafting begins. Drafts-should hold narratives of
facts and events to a minimum. The main thrust should be analytic and estimative.
--The Director of INR suggests that estimate chairmen should consult
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/05/25: CIA-RDP93T01132R000100040019-0
 I
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/05/25: CIA-RDP93T01132R000100040019-0
NFIB representatives before TORs are drafted. Chairmen should convene
pre-TOR meetings to discuss concepts and definitions of papers.
--DIA, Air Force and Navy agree that most estimates devote excessive space
and attention to reciting facts and recent history, at the expense of
thoughtful and carefully crafted projections of future trends, events,
and alternatives.
IV. The NIOs, acting as estimate chairmen, should perform the role of
manager, coordinator and "honest broker" in pulling together the views of
NFIB agencies. They should not advocate apy particular analytic line, nor
should they coordinate or chair estimates they have drafted.
V. More time should be allowed for review and coordination.
--DIA recammends "Slow down the interagency process to allow more time
for review by experts."
--INR suggests that "NIOs should be held to established coordination
procedures."
--Navy proposes that "specific production timelines" be eliminated.
VI. Changes in a coordinated text either before or after NFIB consideration
should be held to a minimum and should be reviewed and approved by NFIB
representatives.
--INR proposes that if the DCI makes changes in a final draft, the paper
should be remanded to the representatives for review and comment.
VII. NFIB Principals should be involved earlier and more deeply in the
process.
--DIA counsels "Get the Principals involved early, especially on those
estimates that promise to be controversial."
--The DDI expressed the view that NFIB should approve TORs "to ensure
that only important topics are selected for NFIB consideration, and
that the critical issues are being addressed in the estimative process."
--The Dirctor of INR calls for interagency consultations prior to the
drafting of TORs.
--The Dirctor of NSA complains that '"TORs are pulled out of the air. They
arrive too late for me to review them."
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/05/25: CIA-RDP93T01132R000100040019-0