To complete our thoughts in regard to the position of Director of the Office of Administrative Management, let us consider the employment status, remuneration, and qualifications of the incumbent. The subcommittee is of the opinion that the remuneration for the position should be equal to that of a Cabinet officer. The selection of the Director should be by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The tenure of appointment should be at the pleasure of the President. Desirable qualifications requirements for the position should emphasize demonstrated ability to successfully conduct large scale administrative management programs such as might exist in a large industrial organization, a State government, a large city government, or a Federal department, bureau, or agency.

SECOND CORRECTIVE STEP

The second step to be taken should be the realinement of the agencies which are considered to comprise the administrative management family of the executive branch, namely, the Bureau of the Budget, the United States Civil Service Commission, and the General Services Administration.

Previous discussion in this report has pointed out that the Bureau of the Budget is currently responsible for the leadership in the management of the money and methods aspects of the administrative management program. It has been demonstrated that the Bureau's leadership in the methods aspect has never reached its full statute and, in fact, even the limited degree of influence it once reached has been diminishing in recent years. Consequently, much of the needed. foundation for the effective utilization of the men, money, and materials that should be furnished by active leadership in organizational and management methods techniques has not been provided. The principal reason for this failure is the Bureau's regard of this function as of secondary importance to its primary responsibility for processing the budget document. The wisdom of such an attitude will not be argued here. However, it is the view of the subcommittee that the needed leadership in administrative functions directed toward sound, modern organization and management methods techniques is of such importance that it should not continue its place in the shadow of another function whose successful operation is considered of greater importance. Organization and management methods techniques can and should be the most positive force in providing the needed leadership and techniques for intelligently effecting economies in Government operations.

Consequently, it is our opinion that an agency known as Government Organization and Management Methods Administration should be created. This agency should assume the responsibility for those functions now located in the following offices of the Bureau of the Budget: Office of Management and Organization; Office of Legislative Reference; and Office of Statistical Standards.47 It is our view that the staffing of this agency should be of sufficient strength quantitatively and qualitatively to permit it to assume an objective, positive role in the administrative management of the executive branch in those functional areas for which it is responsible, both vertically and horizontally. There is no question but that this agency is one that can easily repay many times over the cost of its maintenance.

47 See exhibit II of appendix.

The remaining functions of the Bureau of the Budget should then be redesignated the Government Fiscal and Budget Management Administration. It should include those functions now assigned to its Office of Budget Review and its five operating divisions, namely: International Division, Military Division, Resources and Civil Works Division, Commerce and Finance Division, and Labor and Welfare Division, 48

It is our opinion that this realinement will permit a more effective fiscal and budgetary function within the executive branch. Of particular importance, too, it will permit greater freedom and ability for the new Fiscal and Budget Management Agency to render badly needed service to the Congress as well as to the President.

The third agency supporting and reporting to the Office of Administrative Management should be the personnel management member of the administrative management family. Briefly, this component should embrace those functions now located in the United States Civil Service Commission. A redesignation of this component as the United States Civil Service and Personnel Management Administration is thought to be appropriate. Further exhaustive discussion of the contemplated expanded role of this component in the administrative management family will be contained in a subsequent report of this Subcommittee which will be based on the comprehensive study of the functions and operations of the United States Civil Service Commission.

The fourth component completing the realinement of management agencies is the General Services Administration substantially as currently constituted. As was pointed out earlier in this report, it is the opinion of this subcommittee that this agency has an important role in contributing to maximum utilization of manpower through offering leadership and guidance in the management of space, materials and records. Its leadership responsibility should not be deemphasized in its relationship to the leadership responsibilities of the other management agencies nor should it be considered of lesser importance than the operating responsibilities of the agency itself. Consequently, it is our opinion that this agency should assume the same relative position as those agencies primarily responsible for the management leadership in the men, money and methods phases of the entire administrative management program.

THIRD CORRECTIVE STEP

The final step needed is to realine and provide a closer organizational relationship among the field activities which directly represent the United States Civil Service and Personnel Management Administration, the General Services Administration, the Government Fiscal and Budget Management Administration and the Government Organization and Methods Management Administration.49 Each of the three agencies, in its present form, currently has field offices. Many of these offices, however, are not even in the same cities. 50 In addition, completely satisfactory liaison between field offices is lacking at the present time. Under the current organizational alinement with

48 See exhibit II of appendix.

49 See exhibit XV, a proposed organizational and functional chart of the Central and Regional Offices of Administrative Management.

50 See exhibit XVI for location and strength of field offices.

its attendant lack of close coordination at the top level there is little opportunity for improving field coordination.

The organizational realinement which we are proposing will, in itself, effect a closer liaison among the field offices. Thus, they will be better able to render "on site" guidance to the customer field activities because of their understanding of the parts played by the other members of the administrative management team.

Furthermore, by grouping field office functions of the four agencies at common geographic locations within designated regions of the United States and possibly overseas, the opportunity for closer coordination will be increased. Under this proposal then, the constituent field offices of the agencies comprising the Office of Administrative Management will be found at strategically located sites throughout the field service.

ment.

The organizational structure of the component parts of the regional offices of administrative management will not be a true counterpart of the central office inasmuch as there will be no central head in the field representing the Director of the Office of Administrative ManageThe head of each field office of the Government Fiscal and Budget Management Administration, United States Civil Service and Personnel Management Administration, General Services Administration, and Government Organization and Methods Management Administration will report direct to his counterpart in Washington.

The staffing of these field offices will not be relatively comparable with that found in the central office components. And the United States Civil Service and Personnel Management Administration and the General Services Administration field components will logically be substantially larger than the other field activities. In fact, we see no need for more than one or two persons in each of the Government Fiscal and Budget Management Administration field offices. However, in the Government Organization and Methods Management Administration field units, a slightly larger staff will be needed if it is to offer real assistance to all customer agency field activities. To complete the field office structure, representatives of the central office program evaluation group should be stationed in the same geographic locations as the field components of the four primary administrations comprising the Office of Administrative Management. These field representatives of the evaluation group will conduct surveys of all Federal activities located throughout the field service to determine the effectiveness of the total administration management program in terms of its reality of purpose and the competence of its administration in keeping with the desires of the President. As described more fully later these field representatives will report their survey findings direct to the head of the program evaluation group who, in turn, will use such findings in the interest of program improvement.

METHOD OF OPERATION

In all of the component parts of the Office of Administrative Management there will exist responsibilities in terms of staff and operational duties. To fully develop the concept presented herein, and to avoid the perpetuation of much of the present functional incompetence, great care should be exercised to follow a policy of careful

separation of staff and line functions in order that maximum service in each program area and at each echelon can be provided. Vigilance in this regard must be particularly exercised at the central office level. Therefore, with the exception of the Government Fiscal and Budget Administration we believe there should be a field office for each function to render day-to-day operating service to departments and agencies in the Washington, D. C., area. This will enable the top level staffs of the Central Office of Administrative Management to perform the leadership planning and research functions which are their major responsibility, and to develop overall policy for the successful execution of the programs of its four major functional component parts.

In performing this function the Director's planning team will consist of the heads of these four major functional components and the planning and evaluation group heads of his office.

Within the framework of the broad policies governing the entire administrative management program, the heads of the four agencies will develop their own program plans and policies for the successful operation of their respective activities.

However, the Government's Fiscal and Budget Administration's major function at the central office level will continue to be the preparation of the budget document but the operating functions of the other agencies will be decentralized to their field offices.

In the interest of obtaining maximum liaison of the field offices, the head of each office and the chief representative of the central office evaluation group should meet together frequently in each region to discuss problems of common interest and to insure that the head of each field component function has a knowledge of the other programs involved. When it is considered that approximately 90 percent of the Government's operations are located outside of Washington, it seems that little more need be said in justification of strengthening and improving the coordination among the field activities which go to make up the total Administrative Management Service.

In carrying out the program evaluation system we believe that the central office program evaluation group should design and develop a program for evaluating the whole Administrative Management program at all echelons in terms of its contribution to the total operations. The evaluation program should provide that each of the component parts of the Administrative Management Office will continue to be responsible for conducting the inspection of the technical and legal aspects of its own program. It is believed, however, that these inspections will be more valuable and perhaps less time consuming than in the past because each such inspection should be coordinated with inspections being made by other components of the Office of Administrative Management.

In addition to the inspection activities of the component parts, the program evaluation group will have field representatives, as mentioned previously, in each city where component parts of the Administrative Management Office are located. The evaluation group representatives will conduct periodic surveys of Federal activities located within their assigned geographical jurisdiction to determine the effectiveness of administrative management in customer agencies with particular reference to the program's contribution toward economy and efficiency.

In addition, the program evaluation group representatives will seek out problem areas and conditions requiring attention. Reports of findings of those field representatives will be submitted to the central office where they will be studied by the evaluation group at that level. A formal report of findings will then be issued by the Director of the Office of Administrative Management to the department or agency head so that the latter will be afforded the opportunity to take such action as may be indicated by the findings. The central office program evaluation staff, using a sufficient number of reports of their field representatives to afford a sound basis for judgment, will conduct surveys of top level staff administrative management activities in departments and agencies to complete the picture of the effectiveness and adequacy of the total administrative management program. Such a method of operation will serve: (1) to assist top department and agency management officials in strengthening their administrative management programs, (2) to assist the Office of Administrative Management and its principal components in keeping the overall program or parts thereof attuned to the needs of the serviced departments and agencies, and (3), most important of all, to provide the President an accurate appraisal of the status of administrative management in all departments and agencies.

In addition, the central office evaluation group should have the duty of conducting periodic surveys of the respective field components of the Office of Administrative Management to determine for the Director of conducting periodic surveys of the respective field components of the Office of Administrative Management to determine for the Director the effectiveness of those components in terms of internal administration.

ANTICIPATED RESULTS

The tightening up of the whole administrative management structure cannot help but result in a much more effective administrative management program. It will assist in effecting more competent management at all levels of administration. It will recognize that effective administrative management is a constant, not spasmodic requirement and, therefore, must be conducted on a continuing basis. This proposed organizational and functional realinement will afford the President a well informed management assistant who can represent and direct the total administrative management program. Through its integrated planning it will assure the President and his Cabinet that the administrative management program is consistent with their desires and needs. Through its coordinated service functions, it will render realistic and timely management services at all levels of department and agency administration in keeping with their needs. Through its integrated and coordinated evaluation systems it will offer objective appraisals as a basis for strengthening management at all levels of administration and will furnish the President current information as to the status of the program throughout the executive branch.

As in the case of the President, this realinement will expedite the furnishing of reliable and cohesive information to Congress in response to their inquiries regarding special or overall administrative management matters within the executive branch.

It is realized that it is extremely difficult and perhaps dangerous to attempt to estimate the manpower and monetary savings that will