These planning tools can be effective in streamlining the decision-making processes involved in any type of public program. The decisions, of course, remain the responsibility of the authorized officials, but the facts required to arrive at these decisions can be made more readily available and useful.

Other types of management techniques developed recently are concerned with the control of complex programs during their implementation. These management tools are identified by such acronyms as PERT, PERT/Cost, PAR, and many others. Basically they can be described as near real-time computer-based information systems, such as those being developed in New York State, which provide the feedback information on program activities that is necessary to quickly isolate problem areas for prompt management action. These techniques have been proven in some of our largest weapon system developments such as the Polaris and Minuteman ballistic missile systems. They now need to be studied as they relate to public programs in the nondefense area, where success involves a large human and social element rather than the hardware-oriented output of the defense and space fields.

THE BOLE OF GOVERNMENT

Overriding all of this is the question of an optimum organization—both at the public and private level—to accomplish effective system planning and implementation. This question of organization leads logically to a Commission review of the appropriate relationships between and among several overlapping systems and the demands thus placed on intergovernmental coordination at the Federal, State, and local levels.

Should there be a program manager responsible for all activities in a given problem area and organizationally located in one level of the several State and local jurisdictions which may be involved? Or should the responsibilities be divided among several jurisdictional authorities? In either case, should an industrial prime systems contractor be hired on a turnkey basis? Or should the systems management responsibility reside within the Government, with major pieces of the job given to several associate contractors? These and many other questions need studying to determine the best of the multitude of systems management techniques for use in any given situation.

The geographic boundaries and historic charters that once created obvious administrative divisions are no longer of central importance. For example, the problem of pollution in the Merrimac River is one involving at least two States and several local communities. They must find new means for working together to solve this problem, irrespective of jurisdictional lines.

Functional interests have already been the foundation for hundreds of new governmental units: agencies and boards to run airports and ports, to administer reservoirs, to build highways and to educate children. The resident of Boston is governed not only by the city government, but by the Massachusetts Port Authority, the Metropolitan District Commission, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, and a plethora of other boards and commissions. An awareness of these revolutions in jurisdictional authority must be included in any thorough analysis of government's partnership in public programs.

We are all aware of the problems which can arise when two programs or two levels of government, in pursuit of separate but somewhat overlapping objectives, proceed with tunnel vision toward their respective goals. This situation arises on the national level as well as on the local leve. The need for intersystem management to coordinate such efforts is apparent, but the optimum methods for accomplishing it need to be determined.

One source which can be tapped to assist in this endeavor is the wealth of experience in the systems approach residing within those Federal research and development agencies involved in the Nation's defense and space effort. There is a need to determine how the other Federal administrative agencies and State and local governments can best expose their own personnel to this experience by cross-training programs with the Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. There are attempts now being made to accomplish some of this interagency transfer of system's experience. For example, the Institute for Defense Analysis and the Department of Defense have developed the defense systems analysis education program. Officer and civilian l>ersonnel from the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the CIA are receiving training by IDA and University of Maryland personnel in an effort to fill the need for decisionmarkers skilled in systems management technlques. The stimulus of a national commission investigating the opportunities and procedures for transfer would be most welcome in encouraging and advancing this treud for nondefense agencies.

GOVERNMENT-INDUSTRY RELATIONSHIPS

Auother area for Commission study would most certainly involve an appraisal of the proper relationships between the various levels of government and the private sector. The question of the proper balance between public and private investment must receive careful analysis. The level of governmental activity will vary with each class of problems and it is doubtful that the approach that satisfies one class will lie useful in another. The Commission would be expected to recommend the best means for stimulating private investment wherever possible. Conversely, where direct Government investment is necessary, the Commission would provide suggested guidelines for the proper balance between Federal and local funds.

As we proceed past the initial phases in the application of the systems approach to public problems, it will become more important to use the best possible techniques for supporting private industry. The possibilities include several typos of modern contracting methods, such as incentives and award fees; and various other ttminclal transactions to stimulate private effort, such as loans, tax Incentives, and cost allowances. Also needed is an analysis of which level of government Is best tpialitied to handle the end funding and with what control from other authorities. It is likely that different procedures will be suited to different situations. It is quite possible that the Commission's efforts can lead to better methods than have yet been devised for solving the procurement problem.

INDUSTRIAL SYSTEMS CAPABILITY

Along with study of the applicability of the systems approach and the Government relationship to systems, management, the Commission can investigate Hie requirements which will be placed on private industry—both in aerospace and nonaerospace companies. It is highly probable that even those aerospace companies with the most experience with the systems approach will find that the application of this approach to new kinds of public problems is different from their lmst experience. The California studies have shown that the systems approach Is feasible, but that its application requires a certain amount of ex|x>rlinenlatlon to determine the best way to proceed. In other words, the systems approach cannot be transferred directly from the aerospace environment to NoclniH'oiiomlc concerns without some modification and a learning process by all those Involved.

In fact, the review of these studies by the California Department of Finance points out many problems which require further study. Systems analysts from llu> aerospace Industry are used to working for large, rich, monolithic organizallotiH. State or local agencies, and even the Federal agencies concerned with Koeloewnomlc problems, must operate with limited budgets which cannot readily lie expanded beyond estimates. Changes in legal authority and in budgets and procurement regulations may be required.

In the aerospace context, the value of a system is usually well defined in terms of caimhlllty versus dollars. Hut in government these values may be less clear. The value of murder prevention or n 50-percent reduction in air pollution is dimcull to define quantitatively.

The California evaluations also noted weaknesses in certain broad areas common to each study. There was a feeling that conclusions were perhaps too positive for the brief nature of the studies and the size of the problems. There was a feeling that some of the ideas presented were imaginative and ap|K>allng and very probably workable, but not totally and adequately proven. In some cases, the'cost factors for implementing the presented recommendations wero considered inadequate. There was concern that many of the legal and IMilltlcnl problems in implementing the recommendations had been slighted. It was found that the establishment of criteria for the evaluation of any activity was extremely difficult and frequently highly arbitrary. Similarly, the analysis of methods of evaluation against these criteria was often inadequate. A potentially serious problem is that of communication between the systems oriented scientists and the specialists in the substantive areas. It was found that scientists and engineers whose background is in military culture and hard sciences often find it difficult to communicate with those steeped in social, economic, political, and behavioral sciences.

These points are mentioned not to degrade in any way the notable success of the California studies and the excellent jobs done by the aerospace companies involved. They do emphasize, however, the need to iron out some of the natural problems of transition from one frame of reference to another.

BOLE OF SMALL BUSINESS

An important area for investigation is the role of small business in the solution of public problems. It is clear that the industrial teams required for implementation of these socioeconomic systems will not be made up entirely from big industry. The unique talents of small business will be required as much here as they have been iu the development and deployment of weapon and space systems. Yet to be determined, however, are the specific contributions which small business can make, and even more importantly, how they can best be brought into the scheme of things.

An excellent example of one of the approaches which has already been taken in this area is a recent executive seminar entitled "The Management of Growth arid Technological Change," conducted by Northeastern University and Harbridge House and sponsored jointly by the Small Business Administration, the Department of Defense, and the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. This seminar provided a forum for 30 corporate executives, representing small technically based firms in the Boston area, to explore, by means of case studies, the experiences of firms which had responded successfully to drastic changes in their product markets. The seminar also highlighted the management techniques involved in analyzing corporate capabilities, market prospects, and the development and execution of a strategic plan for growth. Even more importantly, it served to stimulate the collection and analysis of data by the participating firms and the development of a plan for individual company growth. The program was so successful that Northeastern University is nowundertaking additional case studies for use in future seminars.

The Commission could undertake an expansion of this seminar concept in cooperation with universities throughout the country. Its findings can provide an important service to the small business segment of our economy as it strives to keep pace with rapidly moving technology'.

In addition, these findings can be expected to speed the adoption of modern systems analysis and management techniques by smaller companies in nonaerospace industries, so that they too will be capable of attacking public problems using the systems approach. We would expect the final Commission report to be a highly educational monograph which can be used by these companies and, in the field.

LABOB PARTICIPATION

We consider it most important that organized labor play a significant role in the activities of the Commission. There will be many questions to answer concerning the requirement for retraining and relocation of the labor force in response to the application of new technology and modern management in public programs. Other groups, such as the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress, have studied this area, but more effort is required. We must insure that the high productivity and capability of this Nation's labor force is utilized as efficiently as possible in any of our planning for the future. For in the end, no matter how good our scientific and management tools may be, it is the worker who digs the holes, lays the bricks, and connects the wires which give any project its final form.

USING UNIVERSITY RESOURCES

The university community can also participate in and contribute to this endeavor in several important ways. A number of colleges and universities are already offering courses and degree programs in operations research, and business and engineering administration programs reflect the emphasis on new management techniques. The number of data processing complexes in the universities has nearly doubled in the past 3 years. In fact, the requests of the 36 colleges and universities seeking assistance under the National Science

EXFC3SES Or THE COMMISSION

are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may *•* wcessary t«at cot exceeding $200,000 in the aggregate, to carry out the provisions of this Avt daring the initial year of Commission operation.

BCTIES OF THE COMMISSION

S*v. S. i' T!ie Commission shall concern itself with the management of the pnbi.o Nssi3«ss and shall give attention to the derelopment. dissemination, and ;.sipl*m*a,ca:>» «tf ajodera management technology and the analysis of the sysc*«i$ iEtecreiativcsaips iavolved in public business problems. The Commission, un the performance of its duties, shall:

: iv^v-p -.^fonaarioo on the methodology of the systems approach a~vi ,:s appiioarioes.

; ABH^rae :Se possible application to public programs of such recogrvwvl r.-jr.Ateciec.: piazzas and control techniques as operations analysis a-d ry.w^t. eoxsoawtric*. mathematical programing and modeling, simuU:.v«. prvvects aunageawut. and the ntilization of automatic data processing *tK«s aa>i prvvedures foe program control and information systems.

..'' IVceraia* and categorize the national and community problems to «i\<k jae ap<«ltcat!o* ,rf such techniques offers the greatest promise of

i 41 Assess ci* prefer relationship between governmental and private inrescr.-cc.; to obca.:; :a* atost effective application of the techniques involved.

v .» M*kv ^vmwwadauons to the executive and legislative branches of tto* Federal «i»»v*r&:aece re<cardm£ data requirements, management tech«v^w«s »«d systems tawrreU-ionships in the formulation of legislation.

<*> tVwdnct studies iat*» specific problem areas and make recommendfttKMv*.

iC ;Mted'Oe se«u;:«rs. symposia and prepare publications to expand r**N<v k*o*«1edse of and sriatnitate the ose of modern management technology.

»S» Kncewra** the Xatkm"s best talent in government, labor, university *f,v< ;vrtv^t«> ?«:«>rt>rvse to scady public management problems and to parti\-<p»te m the iatpr»"nf«w«t and extension of modern management teehnolo*x«s aoi t?w<r av^xtvwtto* to p»Nie problems.

i*.11 Ana'.y*e »;;v«ir.f* awthods and make recommendations of Federal, State, awd t\v«l *v»r*rtiKw*tat support and encooragement of the applicant of w\>>tcrw tt*«w$ettt««»t techr.ology to public problems through the ««? of van\x«s contract".;** procedures, grants, loans, cost allowances, and ta\ inxvtttsves.

» rears

Stv.t*. *** Wuhtw o«e year after the first meeting of the Commission it *h*U M»bmit t\> the President and the Congress a preliminary report oil its note it tax* with parttv.tUr eKip&asts on the plan for the study and investigation provided rW in wotvou S and any activities undertaken to carry out such plan, ittctu\litv£ an estt«»ated budget for to* remainder of the life of the Commission.

> M Within thirty month* after sttv-h first meetin£ the Commission shall submit to the Pwsivumii atui sV iVtisress a final retvet ou its study and investigation which shall include its recvAtuuendatictts and such proposals for legislation and administrative act tow a* mar be necessary to carry out its recommendations.

id In «d«iitton n» t(w> |\rWtuuu^ry report and final report required by this «*vtto«. the t\Mtttui!«a^\ may jH»U*sb s»K-h tnterint retvrts as it may determine, including but »*>< UmUioi t*> cotumltant^' reports, transcripts of testimony, seminar reports, and other t\»«ittussio« nn*Un«s.

r*>WHHS O* TMK *\»MMtSSKkS

Ssc. 10. iai The Cv»mdssi*xi\ or. v>*» th*» authorixatioa of the Commission, any soboommittee <vr ineud>er there»»f. utay. fvvr the purp*«e of carrying out the provisions of this Act. hold such h«<ariugs and sit and act at such times and places, administer soch oaths. an*l re»i«ire. by subpena or otherwise, the attendance and testimony of such witnesses and the production of such books, records, correspoadence. memoranvhimsi papers, and documents as the Commission or such subcommittee or member may deem advisable. Subpena may be issued under the signature of the Chairman of the Commission, of such subcommittee, or any duly designated member, and may be served by any person designated by such Chairman or member. The provisions of sections 102 to 104, inclusive, of the Revised Statutes (2 U.S.C. 192-194), shall apply in the case of any failure of any witness to comply with any subpena or to testify when summoned under authority of this section.

(b) The Commission is authorized to secure directly from any executive department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, independent establishment, or instrumentality information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics for the purpose of this Act; and each such department, bureau, agency, board, commission, office, establishment, or instrumentality is authorized and directed to furnish such information, suggestions, estimates, and statistics directly to the Commission, upon request made by the Chairman.

(c) The Commission is authorized to hold seminars or informal conferences as it deems appropriate to provide a forum for discussion of the application of modern systems analysis and management techniques to the solution of national community problems.

TERMINATION

Sec. 11. On the sixtieth day after the date of its submission of its final report to the President, the Commission shall terminate and all offices and employment therein shall expire.

[From the Congressional Record, Aug. 25, 1966]
Managing The Public Business

The Speakeb. Under previous order of the House the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Morse] is recognized for 30 minutes.

(Mr. Morse asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and to include extraneous matter.)

Mr. Morse. Mr. Speaker, today over 40 Members of the miniority of this House have introduced legislation which would create, if enacted by the Congress of the United States, a Commission on Public Management.

Mr. Speaker, among the Members who filed this legislation are the following:

F. Bradford Morse, of Massachusetts; John B. Anderson, of Illinois; Mark Andrews, of North Dakota; William H. Bates, of Massachusetts; Alphonzo Bell, of California; William S. Broomfield, of Michigan; Clarence Brown, Jr., of Ohio; Howard H. Callaway, of Georgia; Elford A. Cederberg. of Michigan; Don H. Clausen, of California; James C. Cleveland, of New Hampshire.

William C. Cramer, of Flomida; Glenn Cunningham, of Nebraska; Thomas B. Curtis, of Missiouri; Edward J. Derwinski, of Illinois; Robert Dole, of Kansas; John J. Duncan, of Tennessee; Florence P. Dwyer, of New Jersey; Robert F. Ellsworth, of Kansas; John Erlenborn, of Illinois; Paul Findley, of Illinois; Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey; Seymour Halpern, of New York.

Frank J. Horton, of New York; Craig Hosmer, of California: Theodore Kupferman, of New York; Odin Langen, of Minnesota; Robert McClory, of Illinois; Joseph M. McDade. of Pennsylvania; Charles McC. Mathias, Jr., of Maryland; Chester L. Mize, of Kansas; Charles A. Mosher, of Ohio; Albert H. Quie, of Minnesota; Charlotte T. Reid, of Illinois.

Ogden R. Reid, of New York ; Ed Reinecke, of California; Howard W. Robison, of New York; Donald Rumsfeld, of Illinois; Herman T. Schneebeli, of Pennsylvania; Richard S. Schweiker, of Pennsylvania; Garner E. Shriver, of Kansas; Henry P. Smith III, of New York; J. William Stanton, of Ohio; Bob Wilson, of California; and John W. Wydler, of New York.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has over the past decade enacted a host of creative programs designed to solve our public, social, and economic problems. We have made important strides forward in education, health care, pollution, control and urban development, but the dimensions of our remaining problems are staggering: 10,000 of our Nation's communities will face serious problems of air pollution; the demand for water consumption may exceed the available supply before the end of this century; there are 9 million substandard housing units in the United States, most of them in urban areas; traffic jams cost the Nation over $5 billion each year; and scientific and technical information is doubling every 15 years.

It is clear that problems of this magnitude are not susceptible to the traditional solutions. We must reach beyond our history for few ways to manage the public business effectively and economically.