and on other ADP resources which are important to achieving and improving management in this area. I referred to some of these matters in my prepared statement.

But, we feel that this effort is a very good one but should perhaps be expanded somewhat. In discussing this the other day we identified three areas which I believe are not new to the Bureau, but which we would feel probably could be developed further. These are systems design, standardized coding as envisaged under the Monroney-Madden bill, which you of course are very familiar with personally, and other Government efforts toward standardizing data elements and codes in the Government system.

Mr. BROOKS. If the gentleman will yield. At that point, General, the Monroney-Madden bill seems to have some problems and it may well be that these accounting and data processing segments of that recommended legislation will be considered separately. And as Mr. Madden said, we may have to hoedag some of that through, because the whole thing looks as if it is a big load at this point.

I just point this out because I know you are familiar with the pro-. visions in the overall legislation.

Mr. STAATS. Right.

Mr. BROOKS. It may be that some separate legislation can be introduced. We can thereby salvage those parts which are unquestionably of value to the Congress and will be accepted by the Congress, rather than tie them in with the controversial sections that they want to fight about and not get any yield out of them.

Mr. STAATS. I think we all recognize that the development of the standard data classification system as envisaged there is a tremendous job, and one which could not really be effectively carried out without the use of ADP equipment. I think that is the important thing here.

There has been some discussion also of the possibility of including the operation of the revolving fund in the management information system. I believe the revolving fund is likely to get funding for the first time this year, so I am sure this will come along.

Mr. BROOKS. I am glad you had those connections at the Bureau of the Budget. It is very helpful.

Mr. STAATS. We are all under the same act, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. General, how can we achieve increased sharing of ADP resources under Public Law 89-306?·

Mr. STAATS. I recall discussions, Mr. Chairman, that you and I had at the time this legislation was under consideration as to how far it was feasible to go on a mandatory system. The legislation that we have is, of course, a voluntary arrangement and the heavy reliance therefore is on cooperation and on leadership to be taken in the Budget Bureau and in the GSA in bringing these cooperative arrangements about. I am told that the Navy Department and other agencies have either taken or plan to take some very significant steps in this area of supporting sharing arrangements. By specifically organizing programs to assist in the efforts of the GSA and the Budget Bureau, we think progress is being made here.

We think the management information system will contribute to the sharing objectives, and perhaps some financial incentives, or other types of incentives can be developed. But, from where I sit, I believe

keep finding ways where this can be done, because this is terribly expensive equipment, and terribly valuable time that the Government is devoting to programs that depend on the use of this type of equip

ment.

Mr. BROOKS. And of course, our friends at the Bureau of the Budget can be very persuasive in encouraging agencies to take advantage of these available facilities?

Mr. STAATS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. General, you mentioned third-generation systems in relation to the use of communication facilities in real-time operations. We understand that these systems are coming into widespread use in the Government at the present time. What implications for the future do you see in these developments?

Mr. STAATS. This is a tremendously important aspect of this whole subject, Mr. Chairman. I and several of my colleagues attended a seminar conducted in New York only last week, put on by the Bell Communications System as a special presentation for people concerned with administration of governmental programs. And we were all, I think, tremendously impressed by the potential linkages of highspeed communications with the use of the computer, and the more effective use of the computer. The question is a very good one, and I think it has all kinds of implications.

One implication is the development of more timely and therefore more accurate data in those type of management systems which require very current information.

Another is that the effect on organization may be substantial, since organizations may elect to have centralized facilities with data being only recorded and transmitted from local offices, rather than being processed there, and then having the results fed back from the central point.

Any type of operation which has assembled a lot of data at the local level, which is needed for both local and central purposes, very frequently can collect and then feed back data more rapidly than the local office could process it itself.

Of course, other implications involve the use of time sharing, such as the use of multiple-access computer systems, where multiple users share the same facility through the use of communication devices. These were some of the things that the Bell Communications Seminar particularly pointed out, including the possibility of getting more effective interagency use by using the same computer system.

Mr. BROOKS. Would you elaborate on some of the ADP training programs of the Government and further needs in this area? You mentioned, of course, your cooperation with Civil Service in some of these programs. Are there any others?

Mr. STAATS. All I can really say here is to reiterate what I said before in that we think the Civil Service Commission has made some very good moves in the area of training. We have been working closely with them in the development of this training program. In addition, of course, the Government agencies use equipment supplier facilities in some cases. They have used colleges and universities and other nonGovernment training facilities very extensively.

I brought along today a list of all of the institutions where our people have received training in this type of work, and we are using

Mr. BROOKS. We will accept that for the appendix. We want to have a list of those available training facilities, because people either in Government or in private industry will be interested in the sources of such instruction.

Mr. STAATS. We will be glad to provide for the use of the subcommittee information on training programs that are available through the Civil Service Commission and private industry. Having said this, I think we still have to emphasize what we said in our statement, the need for continuing further training efforts, and expanding these training efforts because it is a very rapidly moving field. Unless a person has had recent training, he may be almost as bad off as if he had no training.

Mr. BROOKS. I think it is probably true that all of the management people in private industry; they steal the Government people who are particularly bright, if they can bait them with money and travel and stock options and titles, et cetera. As soon as industry gets them, I think they are plagued with the thought that they stole them, and now somebody might steal them from their company. I think they then rob each other of people, so it is probably a continuing fight.

Mr. STAATS. I would like to mention particularly, Mr. Chairman, the reference I made in my prepared statement to the training of Government auditors in the ADP field. We have worked with the Civil Service Commission and the Defense Department in establishing a special training program in ADP for people concerned with audit in not only GAO, but for all Government agencies. We had five participants out of a group of about 40 in the first class. And this runs for what, 2 weeks?

Mr. MAHONEY. Three weeks.

Mr. STAATS. And they have different people concerned in the field of audit present for instruction and for staff discussion. We think this is a good effort, and we think it can have very, very significant benefits for the field of auditing.

I think we are making good progress. We need to emphasize, in my opinion, a little more the interagency type of training in this field so that we can bring together a mixture of people with different backgrounds and different kinds of experience. You get a value out of this arrangement that you don't get simply in an in-house training for people all concerned in the same operation.

Mr. BROOKS. Do you think, Mr. Staats, that a study is needed to determine the relative merits of in-house training versus contractor training in this area?

Mr. STAATS. I think this would be a good idea. I think it could be very beneficial all the way around, but perhaps, even more importantly, we think we need to think of training to a greater extent in terms of what kind of training we need, what patterns of training should be provided. Where are we weakest in the know-how in this field? And particularly in some of these newer, more sophisticated techniques, we need to think through together what kind of training programs, what level of training programs, we are going to need, say, 5 years from now. We particularly need to get some of our younger people started in these programs.

Mr. BROOKS. You mentioned source data automation techniques

ing statement. Would you give us the benefit of your thinking on this point?

Mr. STAATS. This is a very important point. Our main point on this is that information to be useful has to be accurate, and produced on a timely basis, and, of course, also the cost of acquiring data needs to be considered here. The General Services Administration has taken a lot of leadership in this area. I have here a book on source data automation which was produced by National Archives and Records Service of GSA, 1965.

I personally appeared not long ago before a symposium on this subject which was sponsored by the NARS. This is a very important field. The use of source data automation techniques to capture data early in the data processing cycle can serve to eliminate a lot of repetition in the recording of the same data. And by effectively using source data automation, we can, of course, eliminate a lot of errors that inevitably occur when you have repetitive manual-type recording.

Also, the turnaround documents with prerecorded information should be used more extensively to eliminate these manual operations wherever possible. Many of the techniques for accomplishing source data recording are relatively inexpensive. On the other hand, some of the more sophisticated techniques, such as use of optical scanning, for example, have been employed productively to provide machine-sensible data at a very early stage in the process.

I think it is our view that automatic recording of data at the source can provide substantial benefits in the form of more economical and efficient handling of data. One area in particular that I have been interested in, Mr. Chairman, is the possible use of source data automation in the field of handling of Government transportation procurement, and billing activities. This is an area, as you know, we have a particular interest and responsibility for, and we are exploring this actively now

Mr. BROOKS. Congress has been particularly interested in that in the last day or two.

Mr. STAATS. Yes, that is what I read in the newspapers.

Mr. BROOKS. Painfully so.

Mr. STAATS. But we think SDA techniques, as it is called, source data automation techniques, offer every opportunity for improvement in logistics and management, financial management, and personnel areas through the early recording of data in a form which can be repetitively used in data processing operations, once it is recorded in a machine-readable form.

Private industry and the banking industry in particular, as you know, have used this type of source data automation very extensively, and we know that this is a very productive area for all of us concerned with this problem in Government to work with.

Mr. BROOKS. You mentioned the significant problem areas that you do encounter because of the lack of compatibility and standardization. Would you care to comment further on that, General?

Mr. STAATS. Yes, differences in both hardware and software design and in data recording methods that have come into use over the years have caused at least three serious problems areas to develop. One of these is related to the ability to interchange data and programs be

duplication of effort or extra effort that comes when a multiplicity of languages or coding systems is used in various systems.

A third problem arises when the equipment changes or updating of equipment is desirable, but is costly to attain because of differences in hardware or software between the old and new systems. Other problems that exist are related to the development of individual systems in segments of agencies where standard systems haven't yet been developed.

On this latter point, in recent years, most large agencies, particularly the Department of Defense, have actually inaugurated programs to develop standardized systems. It can be applied uniformly for that type of activity throughout the Department. However, the incompatibility problem is a serious one. It is going to require extensive coordination efforts throughout the Government, and, of course, as you know, the Bureau of Standards plays an important part here.

Mr. BROOKS. General, in the report of the present Advisory Science Committee on Computers in Higher Education, was consideration given, if you know, to holding costs down by using Government ADP facilities or sharing excess Government facilities. I ask this because of the high cost involved in acquiring them.

Mr. STAATS. I have read most of this report, Mr. Chairman, but in going through the parts of it I did read, I found no reference to this possibility. While there may be problems, for example of compatibility with equipment that the university may already have, it is an area that might be looked at harder.

This was a report of the President's Science and Advisory Committee. I understand that you plan to have Dr. Hornig as a witness later this week. Perhaps he can address himself to the question, but, recognizing that there may be difficulties in the actual utilization of Government-owned euipment, or equipment that is available to the Government, nevertheless, it seems to me a productive area for further. study.

Mr. BROOKS. I should hope so. We will talk to Dr. Hornig.

Mr. STAATS. There is a large price tag on the recommendation, and we ought to look at every possible savings we can find.

Mr. BROOKS. We very often pick up the tab for some of the educational institutions facilities and hardware. We may end up buying or leasing the equipment. If we already have hardware in some agency, I would rather try to solve the difficulties of having outside users, which though they may be difficult, may not be insurmountable.

On the question of standardization, General, has your staff evaluated activities at the Bureau of Standards?

Mr. STAATS. We have a review in process on this subject at the moment, Mr. Chairman. It hasn't been completed. We have developed some data, however, which bears on the capability of the Bureau of Standards to have an active program, and I believe that the information developed so far has been made available to the subcommittee. We will, of course, be glad to furnish the subcommittee with whatever further information we develop in this particular study we are making. Mr. BROOKS. What do you think of the priority that should be given to standardization and compatibility?

Mr. STAATS. As you know, Mr. Chairman, from our discussion of this subject at the time the law was under consideration, I personally