and one chart. While no final conclusions have been drawn, apparent trends may be noted. FIGURE NO. 1 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS QUESTIONNAIRE I. Indicate whether a systems capability exists within your staff (in-house) or whether you rely on outside consultants (out-of-house): NOTE.-In_answering questions II and V below, please use the numbers found in question I which denote specific management activities or program areas; for example, #18 is for pollution control. A maximum of 5 such areas may be indicated for each part of questions II and V. II. In which types of activities (as listed above) does your in-house capability have sufficient size and experience to: A. Conceptualize systems require- E. Evaluate innovative projects F. Initiate corrective action as needed. 76-510-67-24 List Nos. from Question I. III. How has your in-house capability been organized? A. Special advisor for systems analysis or operations research_. D. Computer programming group E. Automatic data processing facility. F. Other..-. IV. How much money has been spent during 1966 for systems analysis and design? $0-100,000 $100,000-250,000 $250,000-500,000 $500,000-1,000,000 $1,000,000-2,500,000 Over $2,500,000 A. In-house B. Out-of-house V. Referring to the list of activities contained in I. (above) how useful have the systems approach innovations proven to be? A. Measurable benefit__. B. Marginal benefit.... C. Too early to assess.. D. Negative value__ E. Unknown__ VI. Federal legislation should provide your government establishment with support through: Chart No. 1, "Indications of Systems Analysis Capability by Function," depicts State and local groups engaged in systems analysis activity and distinguishes between those activities that are served by in-house capability, out-of-house (e.g., contractor personnel), or both. The level of activity of each respondent and program category is indicated. (NOTE.-Only respondents that indicated activity on the Systems Analysis Questionnaire are included.) CHART No. 1.-Indications of systems analysis capability by function [X-In-house capability; Y-out-of-house and in-house capability; Z-out-of-house capability] See footnotes at end of table, p. 366. CHART NO. 1.-Indications of systems analysis capability by function-Continued [X-In-house capability; Y-out-of-house and in-house capability; Z-out-of-house capability] 5 Veterans only. 6 Building code enforcement. 7 Green Bay Industrial Authority activity included. • Health only. Table No. 1, "Percentage of Active Respondents Employing the Systems Approach by Function," condenses the data displayed in Chart No. 1. The 24 programs are grouped into 5 broad functions. They are arranged in descending order of involvement. (The percentage figures here are based on the number of respondents engaged in a specific program as compared to the total number of active respondents.) The systems approach is used most frequently in management and related activities (77 percent) while legal and regulatory functions apparently are areas of least activity (40 percent.) Table No. 2, "The Level of Activity of States and Cities Engaged in Systems analysis," groups the states and cities according to the numbers of functions in which the systems approach is used. It shows a contrast between the two types of governing bodies. The states are concentrated either at a high or moderately high level of activity or they are concentrated at a low level of activity. The opposite is true for the cities where clustering is around the moderate level of activity. Table No. 3, "Funds Expended on Systems Analysis," displays the reported expenditures to each state, city and regional development group for their systems activities. The states are separated from the cities and regional groups. TABLE No. 1.—Percentage of active respondents employing the systems approach by function. (46 active respondents) I. Management and related activities-overall percentage- Planning and policies. Financial. Equipment selection. Personnel management. Procurement activity. Interagency activity. Management standards and control. Overall percentage. II. Services and transportation-overall percentage_ Transportation. Utilities and enterprises. Overall percentage. III. Social and economic development-overall percentage_ Crime and correction. Education. Welfare and anti-poverty. Health and hospitals. Urban renewal and growth. Pollution control. Social security and veterans affairs. Overall percentage. IV. Utilization of resources-overall percentage__ Parks and recreation. Labor and manpower services. Natural resources. Science and research promotion. Overall percentage. V. Legal and regulatory-overall percentage.. Legislatures. 77 Regulation of commerce. Courts. Overall percentage. |