tion records are maintained. We check to determine the frequency with which desk audits are actually made. We do a systems review as well as a review of percentage of cases. Mr. Moss. You check the number of personnel assigned in an agency to personnel management problems? Mr. MACY. We usually secure that information as a part of our review but we do not pass specific judgment on it. Mr. Moss. You would have the authority to do that? Mr. MACY. No, we would not. You see, our authority does not extend to making judgments with respect to the number of employees required for any particular function. AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING STANDARDIZATION Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, regarding the automatic data processing program personnel, you originally submitted a memorandum based on some information I thought was helpful. Would standardization of the mechanics by which information is fed into and emerges from these machines benefit Commission personnel operations? Mr. MACY. Yes; I believe standardization would be helpful because this would mean that training that was conducted for programers would be suitable for a number of different installations. It would mean that it would be possible to move personnel from one agency to another after they have been trained, and for them to be moved readily into dealing with the equipment. Along that line, Mr. Chairman, you might be interested in knowing that there is a promising experiment underway in the Philadelphia area at the present time to determine what can be done to jointly serve agency needs through the sharing of ADP equipment. I feel this has great promise because these installations are very expensive and if agencies through joint use of equipment can serve their program needs and achieve a more complete utilization of the equipment, this will mean that we can save not only on personnel but we can save rental or procurement dollars as well. Mr. BROOKS. This is a pilot program in Philadelphia now? Mr. BROOKS. What agencies are cooperating in that joint use on this project that you know, offhand? Mr. MACY. I believe there are about 10 agencies; Veterans' Administration, Internal Revenue Service, military departments. These are the principal ones. I can provide you with supplementary information and detail if that would be helpful. This is a program that is under the direction of the Bureau of the Budget and will be used as a possible prototype for similar projects in other metropolitan areas. This has proved successful. Mr. BROOKS. The subcommittee has been interested for some time in this other problem of standardization and I wonder if you do not feel that input and output standardization might also significantly increase joint use of such equipment, especially by smaller agencies, and between areas like Philadelphia and Chicago or San Francisco? Mr. MACY. To the extent of my knowledge of these operations, I believe your point is entirely correct. I included in my letter some comments from the Bureau of the Budget on this program. They have the staff responsibility in the executive branch for coordinating the use of this type of equipment. Mr. BROOKS. That was on page 14? "PRACTICAL PRODUCTIVITY STANDARDS" Mr. BROOKS. Getting down to the subject of manpower, Mr. Chairman, would you outline what work is being done by the Commission now toward establishing realistic manpower levels and practical productivity standards for work in the Federal agencies? I understand you have some authority and are now making a study in that field. Bring us up to date on this manpower effort. Mr. MACY. I would be very happy to, Mr. Chairman. The Civil Service Commission undertook, starting last November 1, an extension of its inspection program to review manpower utilization practices in the departments and agencies and installations that it inspected. I would be happy to provide the committee with a detailed statement of what is covered in that inspection, but let me just hit the high spots. This is a program that is primarily intended to be fact-finding with respect to processes in the departments and agencies used by management to determine the level of manpower requirements, but even more particularly to assure that personnel management practices are directed toward improved manpower utilization. The Commission inspectors have been given an inspection agenda which lists seven major categories of questions on which they are to secure facts. These facts are reported to the agency and they are reported to the Civil Service Commission. After a period of experience, I propose to send a report to the Presient with respect to the findings as a result of this inspection. The Bureau of the Budget is cooperating very closely with us on this project and the findings of the Commission will be utilized by the Bureau in making its annual financial review. I summarized in my statement some of the preliminary findings the Commission has had in the first few months of the operation of this program. We are still not at a point where we can give conclusive results, but we feel that we are making progress and here are the major points. First, we find that each agency does have a system whereby manpower levels are determined and that that system is generally known throughout the Department. Secondly, we find that most of the agencies have made known to their personnel in the field the strong interest of the President in seeing to it that these manpower utilization practices are applied. Third, agency headquarters maintain tight controls over spaces for civilian personnel in their organizations. Fourth, we find that there are systematic appraisals already in operation in a number of establishments, particularly those in the military agencies. Fifth, we find that documentation on manpower requirements is tied to availability of funds, that the manpower needs are related to the budget process. Sixth, we find there is very little evidence, very little evidence, of long-range forecasting of manpower needs at the present time. Because of our findings along this line and because of other considerations, the Commission is emphasizing, in collaboration with the Bureau of the Budget, long-range planning of manpower needs. This will mean that each agency will be required, at the time it develops its budget estimates, to estimate what its manpower requirements are going to be not only in terms of gross numbers but also in terms of the skills they will require, particularly those skills that are in short supply, highly competitive in the labor market at the present time. We are still in the formative stage on this program but we view it as a very important one. Our findings in the first sample of 125 installations have indicated to us that this is a very important part of the personnel management program. (Subsequently the agency furnished the following report, exhibit 5:) EXHIBIT 5-PRODUCTIVITY Standards UseD IN THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION The Commission is a small agency engaged primarily in administrative functions which offer relatively few opportunities for the establishment of productivity standards of the assembly line type. However, wherever feasible, the Commission has for many years used production standards to measure and improve the efficiency of individuals and groups of employees. Since 1943 the Commission has operated a work reporting and cost analysis system which provides a standardized system for obtaining workload, time and cost statistics for the use of management at all levels. It is used to measure and evaluate actual accomplishments of individuals and groups against approved program goals or established standards. Periodic reports are made to top management analyzing Commission accomplishments in relation to budget programs for the current fiscal year or other criteria. There follows a brief discussion of the use of production standards in three of the Commission's major programs, investigations, examining, and retirement. Investigations. The investigations activity is the Commission's largest single program. It is national in scope and uniform in character. Beginning a number of years ago, we established standardized procedures for practically all phases of this work. Since the work is measurable it has been possible to establish such standards in practically all phases of the work. Illustrative of this activity is our reimbursable full field investigations program. Each year we handle from 35,000 to 50,000 such investigations for other departments and agencies involving expenditures of $11 to $15 million per year. The time required for completion of each point of investigation naturally varies depending upon the size, complexity, and general character of the locality. We have, therefore, established production standards in each of the field offices where our investigators are stationed. We have established detailed work reporting requirements which are constantly studied and woven into the total job of supervision having to do with both quality and quantity controls. We have established one supervisory investigator position for each 20 investigators. Each month the supervisor is furnished statistical compilations of time required for each investigator under his supervision to complete a point of investigation. He compares this with the standard established for his area. In addition he reviews one out of each 10 reports of each person he supervises. He daily counsels the employee who is slipping on time requirements; he periodically accompanies each investigator on a supervised investigation; he periodically recontacts for their appraisal, the witnesses each investigator has contacted on a case. In every phase of this supervision attention is given to both quality and timeliness of work. A monthly analysis is made of all functions in the central office and regional offices in terms of workload, time, unit costs, and overall costs. Reports of all full field investigation are reviewed at the Washington level for timeliness, quality, and accuracy. Illustrative of the effectiveness of this operation is the fact that during the last fiscal year, we were able to reduce the cost of each point of investigation from $24.71 to $22.72 per point. We handled in excess of 200,000 points of investigation last year providing thereby a saving of close to a quarter of a million dollars. The end product of this considerable activity is a typed investigative report. Formerly this typing was done in each of our regional offices. We have established standards of production for each of our transcribers. This standard has fluctuated because of labor market conditions from a minimum of 20 pages per day per transcriber to a maximum of 28 pages per day per transcriber as a result of close attention to production standards. We have this year centralized all of our transcription work in four major area centers where the employment market and transportation furnished significant economies. Based on our experience for the last 3 months, we confidently expect that this action will result in a saving next year of at least $50,000. In addition to this $11 million a year program of full field investigations, we make national agency checks and inquiries for all persons entering nonsensitive positions in the Government service. Some 317,000 of these were required last year. We have established standardized procedures, rigid controls, and high production standards for each phase of this work, all of which is measurable. By constant attention to individual production standards, we have reduced the unit cost for handling NACI cases this year to the lowest since this program began in 1948. During fiscal year 1949 the average NACI case cost $4.79. Average salaries of personnel engaged on this work have since then increased by approximately 40 percent. During the last 6 months we have processed these cases for $4.30 each. Constant attention to time and production standards has made this record possible. In this program we have also in the past year centralized our major clerical functions in three area centers where the labor market and reduction of overhead costs have made possible a reduction of 50 cents each of the 300,000 cases handled each year. In this phase of our investigative program we began the fiscal year with significant backlogs. Receipts were 115 percent of our budget estimates. We ended the year with no significant backlogs and a substantial reduction in unit cost. Had our same unit cost experience prevailed in fiscal year 1962 as in the previous fiscal year, it would have required $300,000 more money than we actually had to expend in this work last year. Examining. Standards of accomplishment are widely used in the examining activity. There are standards for rating the different types of tests, and the qualifications of examinees. Pages of correspondence typed, number of tests shipped to examining points, and number of applicants scheduled for tests are all controlled on the basis of predetermined standards for individual employees. The standard for the scoring, scanning, and balancing of tests through the use of mechanical test scoring machines is 100 to 250 tests per hour depending on the number of parts in the tests. This work is done with not more than 1 error per 100 tests as evidenced by supervisory review and not more than 1 error per 100 tests developed from other sources. The minimum standard for hand scoring test papers by using a stencil key in those instances where use of the test scoring machine is not practicable is 95-100 per hour. One part tests requiring formula scoring are rated at 30-40 per hour. Typist plain copy tests are scored at 20-25 per hour. The standard for transmuting raw scores to numerical rating is 250-300 sheets per hour. Standards are set for typing letters, form letters, envelopes, dittoes, and stencils. For example, letters must be typed at the rate of 4-6 per hour where typing is done from handwritten copy. The minimum standard for typing certificates for issuance to Federal departments and agencies are: Up to 10 names.. 10 to 25 names.. 25 to 30 names.. Per hour 3 2 1 Standards also used for rating the qualifications of applicants. These standards vary as determined by the position applied for. For example: The standard for rating applications for professional positions (accounting, library science, etc.) at the GS-5 level is 10-12 per hour. The number of applications rated per hour generally decreases as the grade level of the positions for which applications are examined increases, so that the standard for rating applications for GS-15 is 2-3 per hour. Overall reviewing of ratings must average 4-15 per hour depending on the range of grades examined. These predetermined time standards in the examining program are used as a basis for assigning employees where their individual skills can be most effectively utilized and for making incentive awards to those employees achieving outstanding production records. Retirement. The Bureau of Retirement and Insurance uses production standards in all of its routine functions. In the Claims Division employee productivity standards are used as a basis for promotion, reassignment, dismissal, retraining, etc. These standards are published and each employee informed of his rating every 2 weeks as compared to the average production rate. Employees who do not meet the minimum are either dismissed, reassigned or in some cases retrained in specific areas. Trainee employees must exceed the minimum standard to become eligible for promotion (GS-5 to GS-7 to GS-9) and the standard is a criterion for selecting the best employees to serve in key positions involving complex cases and correspondence. Employees can become eligible for incentive awards by exceeding the average rate by at least 25 percent. It has been the experience of the Bureau that the competitive spirit induced by productivity standards definitely encourages efficiency. In all cases standards combine quantity, quality, and accuracy. For claim adjudicators, about 98 employees, they are as follows: (1) GS-5 trainee-72 units per day with a 98 percent accuracy tolerance, refund and deposit cases; (2) GS-7 trainee-16 units per day over 26 weeks with 98 percent accuracy tolerance, more difficult annuity and death claims; (3) GS-9 journeyman claims adjudicator-14 units per day with a 981⁄2 percent accuracy tolerance, annuity and death claims involving correspondence. In addition standards are established for most clerk searchers and clerk typists which differ depending upon the particular category or work but which all combine the elements of quantity, quality, and accuracy. In the Fiscal Division about 35 to 40 percent of the employees (40-45 people) are covered by numerical standards combining quality, quantity, and accuracy. These standards are currently being reviewed because of the conversion from manual to machine operation. Jobs covered are primarily clerk-typists and benefit payment roll clerks. In the Records Division more than one-half of a total of 82 employees are covered by numerical standards. These standards are used to establish minimum levels of performance and must be met by all participating employees. They are as follows: (1) File clerks-50 cases per hour with no more than 2 percent error. (3) Clerk typists-30 graphotype metal plates per hour with no more than 2 percent error. (4) Assembly clerk- Imprint 40 claims on addressograph machine and assemble 35 claims per hour with no more than 2 percent error. (5) Mail clerk-read 50 pieces of mail per hour and forward, plus additional duties of checking form 2806 and register of separation. In the Office of the Operations Manager, six add-punch operators must punch 610 items per day for computer input with an error tolerance of 2 to 2.5 percent depending upon the work mix. Failure to meet the standard is considered as grounds for dismissal or reduction in grade. U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF PRODUCTION STANDARDS 1. Transcribing investigators' reports-20-28 pages per day per transcriber. 2. Machine scoring of tests-100-250 tests per hour, depending upon the number of parts in the tests, with no more than 1 error per hundred tests. 3. Hand scoring of tests-95-100 tests per hour. 4. Rating typist tests (plain copy)-30-40 tests per hour. 5. Transmuting raw scores to numerical ratings-250-300 sheets per hour. 6. Typing letters from handwritten copy-4-6 per hour. 7. Typing certificates of eligibles to agencies-1-3 per hour, depending on the number of names per certificate. 8. Rating applications for professional positions-2-12 per hour, depending on grade level and type of application rated. 9. Adjudicating retirement claims-14-72 units per day, with 98 percent accuracy, depending on the type and complexity of the claims adjudicated and the grade level of the adjudicator. 10. Filing retirement records-50 cases per hour with no more than 2-percent error. 11. Searching retirement records--25 cases per hour with no 2-percent error. more than |