-.. ~Rb APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIF1ED BY: C/IART . ~(.f 

DECI:ASSIFIED bN~ 1 OCTOBER 2012 ' i.,,'.J.~\1. ~ . DEPARTM 

OFFICE OF TH£ ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

..... - 1.-.. -, 

:. -: ...... . a' _~ ........ ' .. , 

; ..... ; . ...,.". ........ . 

2 November 1965 

MEMORA1~UM FOR'BRlGADIE GENE&~L STEWART 

SUBJECT: Comments on T sk Group Report on Alternative 

Management Ar angements for New'Photographic 

Search and Su veillance System 

1. ·The whole thru 

tain organizational ide 

utilize.overall organi~ 

the major problem--the 

new' system. This preoc 

cannot contribute anyth 

development of the new 

t of this .paper emphasizes "maintity.and responsibility ana fully 

tional assets" rather than addressing 

anaging of·the development oftha 

upation with organizationposi,tion 

ng but increased problems 'to the' 

ystem •. 

2. Perhaps one sh uld, beiore commenting on -the various' 

alternatives, examine i some detail the "overall org~ni"":" 

zational assets of both organizations"--I know the assets 

of SAFSP--management ex ~rience ill systems, numerous 'capable 

officers with camera de elopment exp~rience, . numerous contracting officers with &D contracti'ng experience. What' 

resources and exper1enc does ·CIA-OSP have? Will a listing 

of these assets be long or short? Perhaps all of these 

alternatives should be . ubmitted to SAFSP and CIA-OSP as 

RFP's. Let them come .b ck with proposals on people and 

their experience who wi 1 man the offices. 

3. The timely dev 

enough technical proble 

SPD and his office with 

cation of individuals 0 

zational,(institutional 

by the entire program 0 

of the system the progr 

lopme'nt of the system is a big 

to absorb all the energies ot the 

ut adding the unnecessary compliage'ncies "maintaining an organi--

position." Without total dedication .. fice to the successful development 

m wfll fail. ' 

4. An observation -regardless of the management scheme 

selected there will eve tually be one strong man who in re~lity becomes ram director or the program will 

fail • 

.. ~'.~". ::.:: :,' ~~:.~.: ~·:.::~E !;l ; 

" ... ": .... '.~" .. - ,....r ... , ...... ~! E. .::.":: . 

-.. --. _ .. -.. --.---------... 

. ... .:..., 

.... 

I 

-\ 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

·1 

I 

I 

I 

I 

i 

I 

I 

I 
• NRc APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DEC~SSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 1 OCTOBER 2012 . 

_ ····_ .. :········ .... -::01 

5. The key question in judging the various alternati'ves 'h~s to be "who can make and enforce decisions on critical 

matters." From the various alternatives proposed one can 

answer this question for a number of functions which must 

be performed in the SPO •. 

MGT FUNCTIONS 

SYSTEM ENGINEERING 

SYSTEM INTEGRATION 

INTERFACE DEFINITION 

INTERFACE REVISION 

(A CONTINUING TASK) 

SYSTEM SPECIFICATION 

(A CONTINUING TASK) 

BUDG2T 

SCHEDULES 

TECfmlCAL TRADEOFFS 

(DAILY TASKS) 

WT ALLOCATIONS 

TABLE .1 

NRO SPD 

NRO 

NRO 

NRO 

NRO 

·.NRO 

NRO 

NRO 

NRO 

TESTING CONSIDERATIONS 

POWER REQTS & ALLOCATIONS 

ENVIRONMENT spEC 

STABILITY REQT'S • . TELEMETRY ALLOCATIONS & REQT'S. 

CO¥JdAND A&R 

DECISION MAKER 

SPD 

SPD 

SPD 

SPD 

SPD 

SPD 

SPD 

SPD 

COSPD 

DNRO 

DNRQ 

DNRO' 

DNRO 

DNRO 

DNRO 

.DNRO 

DNRO 

SMEAR BUDGET NRO SPD DNRO 

TEST p:::r LOSOPHY NRO SPD DNRO 

SEGREGATED 

-Spo 

DNRO* 

.(SPD) 

'SPD 

DNRO** 

DNRO** 

. DNRO** 

DNRO** 

DNRO** 

DNRO** 

DNRO** 

DNRO*.* 

*Document says SPD will assign to one of the organization 

I 

I 

.L •.• ·•· _ . 

•• .., 0, ,_J 

-," .. "-.. , ~.,' .", " 

**Document says team effort of SPD, :1SPD, and APD but does not 

specify who makes and enforces decisio~s. Further$tatement 

is made n •••• organization not.possessi:lg the SPD becomes 

responsibleb~th to. the DNRO and the other organization," 

. _ ;;~.u::"~::-;';i.\'~E8IT -2~~~~~":1~~~~~U~ ~:r,~;;~ '/ ';:::-... , .. , .. 1 

~~------------------------~~------------~~------~~--------~~--~~~! 
" 

",NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 10CTOBE~ 2012 

Interface definitions are iterative, not static, documents. Th~ SPO 'is engaged daily in interface decisions. These 

decisions must be made promptly based .on complete knowledge 

and thorough understanding of consequences. Penalty for 

indecision--fait ac~ompli by contractors and/or schedule 

slipS. 

5. I will COmDlent in more detail only on the Fully 

Integrated,CO-SPD,and Segregat~d SPO alternatives. 

'a. 'Fully Integrated SPO - The only logical choice 

if one really wants to get this system built. The CIA 

can be assigned responsibility for the camera sensor by the 

SPD. The CIA'people are apart ,of ·the SPO and report to 

the SPD. Similar arrangements are -recognized· in otber 

documents on systems management. ' 

"Representatives of partiCipating organizations, 

as members of the SPO team, are directed by 

the, SPD, even though they are not in the same· 

chain of command. The "team" represe.nts 

organizational capabilities, together' with 

resources, made -ava~lable throughout tne 

functional structure •••• " 

To my mind a refusal or reluctance to -organize in, t:his 

manner indicates that there is a greater interest in 

pursuing organizational aims than in pursuing an FOSS 

development program. Or stated more bluntly "If we can't 

build the camera on our terms then. there ain't gonna be. no . new system." ' 

b. CO-SPD. Once upon a ·time there was a program 

named "ADVENT"--a military communications satellite involving 

the Air Force and the Army. The Air Force wanted to have 

complete control of milcomsat and build the entire system--

satellite, satellite borne comm gear, and grd. stations. So 

did the Army. 

A compromise was developed--Air Force would 

build the satellite, Army would build the satellite payload 

and the grd stations. This killed the program. 

c. The segregated SPO - ,A committee to resolve 

the day to day., problems in the development of the system. 

3 
• . ~Fio APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DE:<:;J-ASSIFIED BY: C/IART . 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 1 OCTOBER 2012 

1--

.... ' ' ... ~-.-

. ~ 

-'------- '. I 

i l 

--~·.J---~i I----·~~-·(A)---t Org.B Hiearchy i I _, 1 

· i .. i . l_~lj!;-~ .. 

t I 'l-I'" ..... ~ .. k----·-..,··--- . .. --'--·--I , . Org B!·i .'. . - -_._-_.;' "J I i Asst.Prog l '1 

I Dir for I ( . J I 

., 1 . Organization A 

Sensor r=· ... ~i----~--.J:J----I'.----~L 

t 1 Booster SIC S.E. Contract 

The SPD has no real authority over the APD since the latter 

works at home in 'the environment of his organizati.on •. 

'The oilly essential difference between. this and. 'the 

CO-'SPD is that the S~D and DNRO are both frustra t.ed . and, get 

ulcers whereas in the CO-SPD it is only the DNRO'~h9 suffers. 

6. Contractors will spend the first ,year jockeying for position (divided government responsibility will cause' 

government agencies to do the same and will exacerbate the . situation exponentially). The'government serves as . refe:t:ee' in·'.interface disputes between the contractors.' Who' 

,referees between the government agencies? 

.'{ . 

...( , 

4 

·BB .~ .. . ~I., ' .. 51.. ... .- i 

.. '.. ..... ..\ 

.~ ............. ----~--...~----II!!!'"-"!~~--~--.-.;.-.,.....,..-_ ................. ~~!"I!'f'IIII---.--~ ;