DYNAMIC PAGE -- HIGHEST POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION IS
TOP SECRET // SI / TK // REL TO USA AUS CAN GBR NZL
(U//FOUO) Letters to the Editor : About 'Roadblocks to Change'
FROM: the editor
Unknown
Run Date: 01/18/2006
(U) The recent article Study Points Out 'Roadblocks to Change'
prompted a lot of feedback! Here are some reader opinions:
(U) This is an excellent article, but it overlooks a critical point and
one which is endemic to this agency: management responsibility.
The only effective way to overcome such institutionalized
behaviors, as shown in this article, is through good management.
This means setting up processes which are capable of measuring
effectiveness while minimizing personal bias.
(U//FOUO) While NSA certainly needs technical managers who
understand specialized fields well enough to make effective
decisions, those decisions will tend to be biased (or even avoided)
when all we have are managers who come only from within the
analytic ranks, no matter their managerial training. There should
also be true business managers who, when paired with the analytic
managers, are capable of more unbiased decisions using proper
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analyses.
It is a critical checks and balances system which is largely absent
at this agency.
--
(S//SI) Excellent article and the results found by the JHU/APL team
aren't a surprise to any analyst. Count how many contact chaining
tools we have... Mainway, Proton, Banyan, etc. All overlap A LOT in
capabilities, yet all have some unique feature or data feed that
makes them indispensable. Same goes for reporting tools... We
can't seem to figure out how to draft, edit, and publish I-series, Egrams, GRASP, all from one tool... no, we have multiple tools for
even that! Now we have Analyst Cockpit AND Green Dragon AND
Mission Managers Cockpit all seeking very similar functionality.
How about some consolidation and improvement of EXISTING wellused tools?
-- Anonymous
(U//FOUO) Re para 1) " ...JHU/APL was surprised at the number of
analysts who were not only uninterested in improving the tools
they used but were completely opposed to the idea. " Perhaps
JHU/APL did not ask the right questions, since I know no analysts
who feel that way. Analysts welcome new systems which increase
their capabilities. The real reason analysts/voice language analysts
resist new systems is because they often work less efficiently than
existing systems... Of course, old systems have to be replaced, but
whenever beta systems are dumped on the workforce, the natural
reaction is what you call "resistance to change." When senior
management tells us that a 40-50% loss of efficiency is
SERIES:
(U) Roadblocks to
Change
1. Study Points Out
'Roadblocks to
Change'
2. Letters to the Editor
: About 'Roadblocks
to Change'
3. Letter to the Editor :
More on Tool
Development
4. Letter to the Editor :
A Tool Developer's
Perspective on
'Roadblocks to
Change'
5. Letter to the Editor :
Getting Buy-In for
Tool Development
6. Letters to the Editor
: Still More on Tool
Development
acceptable, the reaction will be to create a class of "complainers,
whiners, and resistors to change."
-- Anonymous
(U//FOUO) I'm no expert, but I'm troubled by the notion that
security should not be a "litmus test" for adoption of a new
technology. It's already hard enough to keep important secrets.
Security ought to be non-negotiable. If a technology is needed,
then a secure means of using it must be devised before
deployment.
-- Anonymous
(S//SI) Regarding the article "Roadblocks to Change," I had to give
an ironic laugh at the title of the first roadblock. "Resistance to
Change" is not really accurate - resistance to degradation and
inefficiency would be a better description. What linguist didn't do a
happy dance with the introduction of digital audio, which was a
true upgrade? The resistance is against change for change's sake,
against technology driving operations (shouldn't technology
RESPOND to operations?), and against slower tools which are not
only more complicated, but usually provide LESS of a capability
and less flexibility than the systems they replace. Also, these more
complicated tools require people who are trained as linguists and
analysts to spend more time troubleshooting and maintaining
computer systems; to be computer analysts, which takes away
time better spent sifting through language material.
-- Anonymous
"(U//FOUO) SIDtoday articles may not be republished or reposted outside NSANet
without the consent of S0121 (DL sid_comms)."
DYNAMIC PAGE -- HIGHEST POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION IS
TOP SECRET // SI / TK // REL TO USA AUS CAN GBR NZL
DERIVED FROM: NSA/CSSM 1-52, DATED 08 JAN 2007 DECLASSIFY ON: 20320108