mated systems; and he supervises the installation of automated systems within the total interagency board structure. More specifically, he is responsible for the following:

1. Conducting detailed review of the interagency board program operations and documenting these operations to serve as a basis for determining the feasibility of automation.

2. Developing programs for applying automatic data processing systems to those parts of the board operation which would benefit in terms of reduced cost and improved responsiveness to the public and to hiring authorities.

3. Documenting these plans and presenting them to key officials of the Civil Service Commission, regional directors, and agency personnel officials, if needed. These presentations will serve as a basis for making decisions concerning automation of board activities.

4. Designing the automated systems and developing supporting procedures for all approved plans in sufficient detail so that the Commission's ADP programing staff and data processing technicians assigned to the interagency boards or to Civil Service regions can program the system for computers. This involves preparing input and output forms, preparing flow charts, and determining input documents and output reports and records.

5. Advising on the installation of the system within the total structure of the interagency board program. Conducting pilot studies as needed to insure that the data processing operation is capable of meeting all operating requirements. Although engaged primarily in systems analysis as it pertains to the interagency board program, the incumbent may also be called upon to analyze and design systems in other areas of Federal personnel management. Incumbent must have wide knowledge of all aspects of automation as it pertains to personnel management and the application of ADP to Commission and Federal agency programs. He must be able to translate approved plans into acceptable automatic data processing systems and procedures. He must be able to conduct staff studies with a minimum of supervision, to present results of his studies to senior officials, and to direct the installation of approved plans.

Mr. BROOKS. Has the Commission taken any recent action relative to classification of computer experts, so-called?

Mr. MACY. The Commission has, in recent times, reviewed its examining standards and its classification standards, its job evaluation standards for both the systems analyst and the programer.

The qualification standards have been published for both. The classification standards have been published for the programer. We expect next month to publish the classification standards for the system analyst. This makes available to the entire Federal community the standards that should be followed by the agencies in grading the jobs and in examining those who are candidates for those jobs.

Mr. BROOKS. Would effective standardization and compatability simplify the personnel problem confronting the Commission and Government as such?

Mr. MACY. It would indeed, Mr. Chairman. This would be particularly helpful in the training area because part of the training time, I am confident, is involved in instruction which is necessary because of the differences in the equipment. I feel that even more important than the equipment is greater standardization in the software so that there is more in the way of common computer language. We find that the lack of standardization means that an individual who moves from one agency to another and finds new equipment has to go through a retraining process, or we find that when there is a change in equipment due to a new generation of computers without standardization, this is a problem. So my answer is a strong affirmative to your point.

I believe we could save manpower and save training time if we had

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman, we had some discussion of the growing need for quota high-level computer experts and personnel at the National Bureau of Standards. I wondered if you could be of some help to them if they brought that to your attention.

Mr. MACY. I would be happy to explore the entire situation with them.

I am not familiar with the details of their particular

Mr. BROOKS. You are off the hook. They do not have an application pending right now.

Mr. MACY. It is a good day, isn't it?

Mr. BROOKS. However, I think an application will be on the way very shortly.

Mr. MACY. I would be happy to meet with them. They have their new center in this field in line with your bill. They have been adding some additional staff. Many of the positions that they are filling at the top level are positions that are of a technical and scientific nature and therefore are outside of the quota. I might add, and perhaps this is self-serving, that the Civil Service Commission is endeavoring now before another subcommittee of the House to secure authorization for additional quota positions in GS-16, GS-17, and GS-18, and I am sure that some of those positions will be available if authorized for ADP operations in the Government.

Mr. BROOKS. This would be helpful. Even if the National Bureau of Standards has six or seven people, it has to go through Secretary Trowbridge to get over to you with an official request. You might take cognizance of their basic need since you are aware of the standardization problem and just what it means to your agency alone; you might earmark some of those quota personnel so that when they do locate them, and they are difficult to locate

Mr. MACY. They are, indeed.

Mr. BROOKS. But when NBS does locate personnel, it would not have the unnecessarily long procedures of beating a request out of all levels of government it must go through: The Bureau of Standards, all its levels, then go to Commerce, then your shop, and you all have plenty to do. The long time lag in granting of a new quota position, for example, aside from the personnel review, would be cut down considerably if NBS had them set up, earmarked, and had some understanding with Civil Service.

I think your offer to look into it and cooperate with NBS would be particularly encouraging to them at this time because they are now just digging in and getting started. Until they get their standardization program going, we will be really overstaffed in your shop with training and the cost will be higher. We can save a lot of money by concentrating on this standardization effort, which, as I pointed out this morning, is really a joint matter between the industry, with the encouragement of the users around the country and the Government. Standardization affects a lot of Government activities as well as industrial and commercial.

Mr. MACY. Right. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to call Dr. Astin on this and work with him.

Mr. BROOKS. I told him to pound on the table and say he will die until he could get them, but he is so nice and gracious

Mr. BROOKS. I am sure he would just say we would be grateful. He has been very successful, though. Maybe this is the way to do it. It is a different technique.

Mr. MACY. It is a productive technique. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that a new program which the President has asked the Commission to undertake in improving our system of handling top-level appointments, should be very useful not only in this instance but in other agencies.

Mr. BROOKS. It is fascinating to know of some improvements in that area. I am not looking for a job, but as you know, I have an interest

in this.

Mr. MACY. This system will mean that we will have an inventory in the Civil Service Commission of all people at grade 15 and above with sufficient information about them so that it would be possible to refer their names for vacancies that develop in other agencies to permit them to gain new opportunities for growth and development in another program, and also to assist the agencies in gaining experienced people from within the Government. The other side of this will be a continuing search outside of Government at this top level in order to identify individuals who might be available to fill one of these jobs if we are unable to fill it from within the Government.

Mr. BROOKS. Have they made any progress in speeding up the consideration of individual applicants that are being considered, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. MACY. My view is that we have.

Mr. BROOKS. It's been a real tough problem.

Mr. MACY. I am sure you can cite horror cases that have notMr. BROOKS. Just awful ones, yes. I am not but I could if I wanted. Mr. MACY. I think there has been some time reduction but, at the same time, we recognize that we are running a competitive system where we need to make certain that the individuals available for selection are the best qualified that we can secure.

Mr. BROOKS. My fear is that the Government examines new personnel so long they decide to take another job. This is something that has happened in Government. Every way you can to increase the speed with which you reach an evaluation it will be helpful, both to them and to the Government.

Mr. MACY. We agree.

Mr. BROOKS. It gets a little tough if they are on the hook; if their present employer finds out they are shopping for a job, they are liable to fire them or not promote them. They run that danger or turn down another possible job they hear about. I think we build in a little hardship on the acquisition of new people, particularly if they have something to offer the Government.

We are not paying the highest prices so I figure we ought to try harder to make government work accessible.

Will increased efficiency and utilization in acquisition of data processing equipment have any significant effect on these problems of providing adequate personnel?

Mr. MACY. As I indicated in response to your earlier question, I think in this area too that this will aid us. I have been pleased to note in recent months that there is a substantial awareness throughout the country of the very significant work that the Government is doing in

The results are interesting and significant. I think this has helped us to attract personnel. So I feel if we continue to keep up with the technology and work on the equipment this is going to aid us in attracting able people to Government work.

Mr. BROOKS. I think it is a good point. Well taken.

Mr. Chairman, before we leave this subject of technical training for operating employees, are there any comments you might want to make relative to training of personnel by computer manufacturers? Mr. MACY. Yes.

Mr. BROOKS. Or by users.

Mr. MACY. I think that we need to recognize that in training people in this field that there probably have to be four levels of training. There is the interagency training that we are doing through the ADP center. This is primarily directed at the managers and at the systems administrators and analysts.

Then there is the training that has to be done by the agencies. This is the training that is necessary in order to provide the skills that relate directly to the program being administered in that agency.

Then there is the training that needs to be conducted by the manufacturer, because the manufacturer is the one who is most familiar with the equipment. My impression is that the manufacturers are doing a very good training job. We enjoy very constructive relations with them. They have been helpful in providing us with lectures for some of our courses and resource material. I would feel that theirs is a high quality professional product.

The fourth area is the colleges and universities that I mentioned earlier.

I think that we need all of these resources-I don't believe that the fact that there are these four levels indicates any overlapping at all. It indicates four necessary fields. With the quantum growth in the whole computer activity, it is very clear that we need to continue to expand the training establishment in order to meet our needs.

Mr. BROOKS. Apparently from your management training facility and efforts, you do agree with the emphasis the subcommittee has placed on the necessity of orientation or education or briefing of the decisionmaking personnel in the data processing techniques.

Mr. MACY. I feel very strongly about that. I think it is absolutely essential that the top people who are involved in decisionmaking understand the capacity of the computer to assist them in the decisionmaking process. That is why I underscored in my comments this course that we are conducting on mathematics for managers, because I think many of us who may have had an adequate mathematical training years ago at the university are just not sufficiently equipped to deal with the mathematical and quantitative understandings we have to have.

Mr. BROOKS. That new math really throws you.

Mr. MACY. It does indeed.

Mr. BROOKS. Has the Commission developed any estimate as to the numbers of people who are going to avail themselves of this training or that you feel should be exposed to it and might benefit from it?

Mr. MACY. I think in the top level group, I think that virtually everybody from grade 15 through the top-about 30,000 people-ought to have this kind of exposure, ought to take one or more of these

think that is the potential universe we are talking about as far as key personnel are concerned.

Mr. BROOKS. How many people would you say are involved in that? Mr. MACY. We are hitting about 2,000 a year at the present time. So you see, many of them have to have their training needs satisfied outside of the Government if we are ever going to come anywhere close to that total number.

Mr. BROOKS. About 30,000 in that category?

Mr. MACY. Yes.

Mr. BROOKS. We may have to step that up?

Mr. MACY. I think we will but I think we will find

Mr. BROOKS. They will graduate and retire before they ever take the

course.

Mr. MACY. A good many people in the future will have had this kind of preparation at an earlier stage of their career so as they move into this group they wouldn't require it to the same degree some of us oldtimers.

Mr. BROOKS. These requirements will be put in the job description in order to make grade 15's.

Mr. MACY. This would be a prerequisite for moving into a decisionmaking position.

Mr. BROOKS. Has the Commission established a working relationship with the Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, BEMA, as a means of obtaining the benefit of their experience in data processing training? I believe you mentioned training earlier, the industry has been cooperative with you and has been helpful furnishing lectures, materials, et cetera.

Mr. MACY. They have been helpful, particularly in providing material. We want to pursue with them other avenues of cooperation that will be helpful to the Federal Government. I think it is clearly of assistance to us to have an association, such as BEMA, to work with in meeting our needs.

Mr. BROOKS. Has the industry extended that cooperation to give you their training methods of training?

Mr. MACY. Their own training activities?

Mr. BROOKS. Yes.

Mr. MACY. Not to my knowledge. I think this is still in the area of future exploration.

Mr. BROOKS. I would buy them a little coffee and they might spring a little higher.

Mr. MACY. We will replenish the supply.

Mr. BROOKS. One final question. Do you have any other comments you would like to make on any of the subjects that we have discussed that you might want to add to?

Mr. MACY. I would like to stress two or three things.

One, I think that we need to keep working with the sources outside of Government with such groups as BEMA, and the technical institutes that are working in this field, in order to make known to them the really significant pioneering work being done in the Federal Government in computers.

Mr. BROOKS. You think we might even get a few of their graduates? Mr. MACY. That is right. I think in many ways the purpose of computer operations in the Government are more attractive than perhaps