Now, it is our feeling that up to this point there has been a highly informal, almost unconscious, and certainly fragmented process of goal development. What we would like to see is a more systemized approach to this.

I do not think that this necessarily implies compulsion. I know this has been the main criticism of national planning, but I do think that, in the intervening years between the time the National Resources Planning Board was abolished and the great thrust of postwar urban growth problems, the concept of planning has changed radically from one of static, master planning to one of what you might call process planning which seeks to improve the decisionmaking process. I believe goals have to be debated publicly, but in order to be debated publicly they must be explicit. They must be set forth in a systematic fashion.

In order to guide Government program officials we must have such explicit goal statements. These can and should be debatable. I believe we are at a point now where we can no longer consider the argument that planning is compulsion. If it is, why is the Federal Government funding such activity at our State and local government levels?

If planning is good enough for our States and local governments it is good enough for the Nation.

Senator JAVITS. May I, Mr. Chairman, ask one other question ? Senator NELSON. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. I don't want to interrupt the flow of your thinking, but it is a help to us to catch it just as you are thinking about it.

Have you analyzed Senator Nelson's bill as well as the so-called Morse-Scott bill?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. You have. Now, again I don't want to anticipate your testimony. Can you actually tell us what you think of each specifically?

Mr. MOORE. As a general comment, Senator, I would note that the Department of Housing and Urban Development has recently revised its guidelines for State planning to allow funding of systems applications in context with the State development planning process, so from the standpoint of funding activities to bring systems analysis effort into studying our Government problems, I think there is adequate statutory base at the moment for doing this.

Now, in terms of Senator Scott's bill creating a national commission for management and public administration, I think definitely we certainly need some type of institute nationally to be concerned with the updating of management practices. But I question whether this group should do all of the systems approach work. I really support the idea that the States and local governments participate by doing some of this, I think they are capable of doing it.

Senator Javits. Do you wish wish to have an opportunity to submit for the record a detailed statement on both bills!

Mr. MOORE. We would like to send something down later, Senator.

Senator JAVITs. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the reply to this question may be supplemented by a written statement.

Senator NELSOx. Certainly, it will be put in the record.

(The supplemental statement subsequently supplied for the record ollows:)

5tTPPLEMEHTAl STATEMENT OF VINCENT J. MOORE, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE

Of Planning Coordination, State Of New York, Albany, N.Y.

STATEMENT ON S. 430 AND S. 467

To review, S. 467 would create a federal commission to conduct a feasibility and applications development study of systems analysis and other management techniques to the problems of major functional areas of government. The commission would exist under this statute for some 32 months and its first year of operations would be supported by $500,000 appropriated by this bill.

Bill S. 430 appropriates $125,000,000 to be administered by the Secretary of Labor for grants to the states and direct contracting for developing and implementing systems analysis applications to national and local matters which are defined by the Secretary as "problems." No program duration is specified in the bill.

"We often hear it said that, "Ever since there have been men there have been Governments which make decisions. Why should systems analysis be called in to assist with such decisions 7 What reason is there for such a radical change in the habits of Governments?" One thoughtful reply given by researchers at Johns Hopkins is: "The necessary and sufficient cause is the exponent growth of the progress of humanity." They also emphasize the acceleration of the casual sequence of research, innovation, and economic growth and demonstrate the absolute necessity of preliminary scientific reflection before major decisions are taken whether at the national, state, or local level. The progress of humanity is marked by the necessity to accommodate to the technological changes that are occurring at an accelerating rate. This puts a severe strain on the decisionmaking process. The management sciences including systems analysis and the computer can bear part of the burden. Government must assimilate these new approaches because of its key role in society, and should provide the leadership and ingenuity in using modern technology positively to design the social institutions which the complex problems of today demand. Technological progress in the past has not produced catastrophe, but has instead resulted in a higher standard of living.

This country has shown a talent for social innovation and it is important that the powerful tool of computer-based automation for production, paperwork, research, decision-making, -planning an invention be utilized to adapt to the changing times. However, research is costly. Valid perceptions of efficient, effective systems analysis do not just happen. They are the product of planning, testing, experience, observation and imagination. Very little has been done in this area at the state or municipal level. Pioneering efforts include the New York State Planning-Programming-Budgeting System and the SOGAMM1S, (South Gate Municipal Management Information System) project being undertaken by a University of Southern California team. The approach in both of these cases is a combination of functional planning, systems theory, and decision theory as it relates to resource allocation (e.g. program budgeting) and a dynamic conception of data storage, (continuous input, and random access, not a static data "bank"). Systems analysis incorporates the concept of information feedback which reflects both the performance of the governmental organization and the effect of the programs on the community being served. The significance of recent theory on the decisional processes for allocating resources (program budgeting, etc.) is particularly relevant because most if not all such theory deals with how to improve the definition of organiaztional goals and the optimal allocation of resources to them.

The expression "systems analysis" has not a single denotative universal definition, but rather it possesses several different connotations. For example, the Authors McMillan and Gonzalez, in Systems Analysis (Irwin 1965) include such lalytic tec'TM* as linear programming and queuing theory in the subject

specifies the systems concerned are air traffic control and navigation. We infer, therefore, that both bills are using "systems analysis": in its most all-embracing sense. Because other organizations do not use the same definition of the term, it might be wise to spell out Senate meaning in the bill.

The Commission of S. 467 has a large bearing upon the aims, scope and finances of the program called for in S. 430. In fact, the S. 467-authorized study is a necessary prelude to effective program planning to implement S. 430. But a final report is not called for from the Commission on Public Management (S. 467) for some thirty months following their first meeting. In order for the output from the Commission study to be rational input to the program of systems analysis of governmental problems the Commission, Labor Departmentstates, and other interested groups will require more than the informal coordination we infer from the bills.

The program which would be authorized by S. 430 is only in part concerned with technical manpower. The implications of this program for inter and intra government planning, management and organization are undoubtedly of greater short range import.

Ideally, a study of systems analysis feasibility, such as that which would be authorized by S. 467 might become, should precede the program planning required to implement that proposed in S. 430. However, if both study and program are to proceed simultaneously there are clear needs to be satisfied by program funds. A moderate investment in regional inter-government O. R. technical meetings could offer an exchange of experience and methodolgy which is not provided by any organization at present.

Development of programmed learning materials for specific analytic methods and techniques would afford government-at-all-levels with a valuable and permanent training resource. Beyond these suggestions, the development of program requires better feasibility measures.

Clearly the need exists for the kind of encouragement on the part of the federal government which is evideneed in U.S. Senate Bills S. 430 and S. 467. The problems of employment, public welfare, education, mental health, water and air pollution, urbanization, crime, juvenile delinquency, housing, etc. can and must be solved. Just as the modern private organization can continue as a viable institution only if a substantial portion of its funds are systematically channeled into research and development activities related to its goal, public needs, and the mechanics essential to program achieving, so too must government respond to this need.

U.S. Senate Bills S. 430 and S. 467 are in essence two approaches to the same problem. It would seem to us that S. 430 would better accomplish the important goal of getting personnel at the state and local level involved in utilizing new techniques to solve problems. The result could very well be a system which would require basic changes in the way the state or local government has traditionally conducted its business. Systems planning might prove to be an important change agent in tooling government for the increasingly complicated governmental programs growing out of our urban society. Hence, state participation in the research efforts as provided in S. 430 would have considerable practical advantages. It is important that abstract theories be subjected to rigorous analysis and test. The New York State PPB System is an excellent example of the evolution of a concept which, once refined, can be the nucleus for a similar program in every state in the union. There is a substantial amount of literature about systems planning, program planning, etc. What is needed here is not a general study, but an attack on specific problems using the new analytic tools. For this reason, it would seem that the Department of Housing and Urban Development would be the logical agency to dispense these kinds of planning funds.

In essence we see this as a "demonstration" program quite analogous to the HUD model city program which seeks "to test whether we have the capacity to understand the causes of human and physical blight, and the skills and the commitment to restore quality to older neighborhoods, and hope and dignity to their people."

Senator Javits. I thank the Chair and thank the witness.
Senator NELSON. Thank you very much.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Chairman, may I say, while I still have the floor, that I am personally very grateful to Mr. Moore for coming down here to testify. I am very proud of our State's forward looking prog. ressivism in this and so many other fields and I respectfully state it

■ms to me that this very enlightened approach certainly buttresses »w York's claim to being the leader in this field. I might say, in deference to our chairman, Wisconsin too has been leader in many, many fields of social development, but I think in rms of administration and techniques of administration and planing New York has really done enormously well under Governor Lockef eller and I am very pleased, Mr. Moore, that you are here with s today. Mr. Moore. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Nelson. Thank you very much for your very fine statement, vlr. Moore. We appreciate your taking time to come before the committee.

Mr. Moore. Thank you.

Senator Nelson. Our next witness is Mr. Roger Schrantz, Director of Policy Planning and Program Development, Bureau of Management, State of Wisconsin. Mr. Schrantz.

STATEMENT OF ROGER SCHRANTZ, DIRECTOR, POLICY PLANNING AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, BUREAU OF MANAGEMENT, STATE OF WISCONSIN, MADISON, WIS.

Mr. Schrantz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a real pleasure to be here this morning.

Senator Nelson. Roger, we are very pleased to have you here this morning. Since the State of Wisconsin undertook, I think, the first comprehensive State planning in the United States and the first planning-programing-budgeting program in the United States we appreciate having your views on the proposals that are pending before this committee based upon the experience that you have had, and your predecessors have had, in the bureau of management of the department of administration.

Mr. Schrantz. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to express the regrets of Mr. McGowan who is unable to appear here today and it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to substitute for him. I have a prepared statement which I will read, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps abstract to some extent.

Senator Nelson. Any place that you can extemporize it might be helpful since we have one more witness following you in this morning's session. You present it whichever way is most effective. Mr. Schrantz. I will start reading, Mr. Chairman and then I may abstract as I go along.

We in State government, especially Wisconsin State government,

are watching with great interest and great concern the variety of

bills being considered by the 90th Congress that would stimulate

and assist State and local governments to improve their management

nd policy (Wisionmaking capabilities.

We Wp1" v^ concepts embodied in these bills, because we know

11} "at making State and local governments vital and

a4 Federal system.

id 467 are among the most important of these timulate the application of modern management ijor and critical governmental problems of the

Systems analysis techniques place these problems in such a framework of information and logic that policy decisionmakers will be able to chooose those solutions that will best serve society.

Systems analysis, as a sophisticated decisionmaking technique, will be effective only where the governmental jurisdictions have the capacity and the desire to employ systems analysis in the decision process. Effective use of systems analysis presupposes that a base of mature budgeting, planning, and management procedures have already been implemented. Equally important, systems analysis will be effective onlv where the policy decisionmakers are ready to embrace it, and where they understand its contributions and its limitations.

The capacity and the willingness of State and local governments to employ systems analysis techniques certainly must be a major concern of this subcommittee and the Congress itself, as S. 430 and S. 467 are being considered.

Only a thorough survey of all State and local governments, of course, will provide a comprehensive assessment to answer that concern. We believe, however, that Wisconsin along with New York Stale, has readied itself for the use of systems analysis, and in this regard, I would like to outline some of the major steps that the Wisconsin Slate government has taken in recent years to improve its management and policy decisionmaking process—in which systems una lysis will eventually be an integral part.

The birth of Wisconsin's current day management and policy decisionmaking procedures occurred in 1959 under the leadership of the then Governor of the State of Wisconsin, and now chairman of this subcommittee. At the recommendation of the Governor, a consolidated deportment of administration was created to improve the State's management process and its policy decision concepts.

In a very real sense, the creation of the department of administration anticipated the use of modern management techniques, such as systems analysis. The statutory purpose of the department pointed to t lie development of a management and decision process that would eventually embrace the use of systems analysis techniques and included such directives as:

I'rewnt clearly defined alternatives and objectives of state programs and policies No that the state's agencies, the governor and legislature may plan Cooperatively and finance the services which the state will provide for its citizens.

Help the state's agencies furnish the agreed upon services as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Assure the governor and the legislature that the services are being provided to the public at the agreed upon quantity, quality and cost.

Anticipate and resolve administrative and financial problems faced by the agencies, governor and legislature of the state.

Shortly after the department was < to modernize the State's budgeting techniques, toi rimary role of the budget—that of assessing the nee rovernmental services, focusing on the objectives i and allocating State resources so us Id sal i ^gMajtiVtAe. Si ale's long-range goals.