morning. I think the consequences in management terms and in Government policy terms of a management information system are: The Director of the Bureau of the Budget or the President or conceivably the local Congressman may be aware of the status of a housing loan application or a sewer and water loan application before perhaps the local manager knows it. These haven't been fully evaluated. Again, I just raise this question for general thought because it flows from the type of coordinated look that 89-306 encourages us to take. And conceivably, of course, the technology is all here. We need to do some better organizing, but the technology is all here for any of several individuals to know as soon as, or sooner, than the local program manager knows what he is doing. Mr. BROOKS. It will be helpful. I see that we have a quorum call going now and I think we can recess this until, say, 2 o'clock. That should give you time to get a bite to eat and come back. Without objection we will recess. (Whereupon, at 12:37 p.m., the committee was recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION Mr. BROOKS. Gentlemen, the subcommittee will reconvene, and we will continue with the testimony from the Bureau of the Budget. When we adjourned about 12:35, we were pursuing matters with Mr. Cunningham. The next question, Mr. Cunningham, I had for you is a major question, and we want you to take some time to answer it as best you can. The question is: What do you consider as the most serious problems confronting you and the Bureau of the Budget in your efforts to improve this situation now? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, there are, as you developed today in the testimony so far, almost an unlimited number of facets associated with the ADP management problem. I don't think I can identify all of them, or most of them even. If I could, I would be very happy. But I can identify some of the things that are of concern. I will try to do it, but not necessarily in the order of importance in any way. The first one which I hope is not a problem, but it may be, is to get the information system about which we talked earlier today operating, and operating efficiently within the kind of time periods that we think are necessary to get off the ground. Mr. BROOKS. The time period is yesterday. We should have had this information system from the day we started buying computers. But, of course, nobody thought about that. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. We did have an information system, but it wasn't a 1967 version, shall we say. In a way we might be like the shoemaker's children: you know, we are the last ones to have any shoes. And we can count anything with computers, except apparently the number of computers and some of their characteristics. So I don't look for it as an easy task. It seems like it should be, but I am sure inevitably we will run into all sorts of implementation problems. But I have confidence that the people in the agencies who have doing it, and what the requirements are, and if the inputs get there I am sure GSA will have us well underway while you are still here. Mr. BROOKS. How long do you plan on my staying? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. As you said earlier, you, the Congress, may be here in August and September. I think that a related problem that doesn't pertain directly to us, but certainly does in a broad way, is the information lack in this technology throughout the country. At any time you can get a variety of sets of figures on just how many computers there are, what they do, what their capabilities are, and so forth. I think there are some steps underway within the industry to find ways to develop a reasonable census against which we can then compare our inventories and progress and so forth. - Obviously another major problem is one of creating an environment in which we don't move to the future with the inability to use the two adjacent computers because of the compatibility and standardization problem. But, in achieving appropriate standards, we don't want to at the same time stifle development. Instead of stifling development, which we quite frequently are prone to concern ourselves with, I think it gives us a base from which we can determine what the next order of progress is, and not have to bring new things to the fore without some knowledge about the consequences of their implementation. One of our major problems is to find out how to develop performance indicators so that we can determine when we are getting the optimum or maximum capability of a system. We talk in terms of nanoseconds, and fantastic speeds internally; but we still have many facets of the total process that are rather slow. With reference to source data automation, I think GSA will talk about that later. But we are not really creating machine-processable data, except in isolated single-purpose areas, like checks in banks and some of the credit card activities much faster today than we did 30 years ago. I think we must find ways of enhancing the productivity of the rather scarce competent systems analysts and programers. If we can find ways to develop application packages so they are available to get on the air in a relatively short period of time, instead of the year and a half it now takes. I think the programers and systems analysts will be able to concentrate on the pioneering and the breakthrough applications which all too frequently get pushed aside because of the constant pressure to redo the known tasks. Another area which we have given some thought to but haven't found answer to as yet is to find ways of quanitifying values. We can do it in terms of money, we can do it in terms of operating hours, we can do it in some instances in terms of efficiency. But how we can relate the performance of a computer to a major function of government, statistics, research, things of this nature, and be able to evaluate the relative value of the products developed across the sizable inventory that we have, is a challenge that I know we have to face in the future. And we are trying to face it. But it is a very difficult one. I suspect that that is a reasonable summary of the more serious problems. I don't think I could get into the specifics on the problems it and jotted down a lot of notes. But there are some very-it is a new technology, a new concept that changes almost daily. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Cunningham, what observations do you have to make on the adequacy of training and recruitment of operating personnel and the collateral problem of orientation of the policymaking officials? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, I think training will be covered by the Civil Service Commission. I have an impression that while there are always shortages, the real acute quantitative shortages have been ameliorated to some extent. There is usually a shortage of competent personnel in any field, and probably particularly in this field. One of the ways that we can meet this shortage, of course, is through acquiring additional talent. Another is to solve some of the problems that I mentioned a few minutes ago in respect to standardized applications. There are some pretty good courses now in not only the Civil Service Commission, but available to us from industry, both the computer industry and the consultant world. There are also some pretty good ones in the Government. The Defense Department, about 3 years ago, established an organization they call the Department of Defense Computer Institute. I am not so sure I am accurate on this, but I believe it is a requirement that all general officers and all civilians of comparable grade attend the executive course at the Defense Computer Institute. Mr. BROOKS. At that point the Marine Corps, to my certain knowledge, has sent every general officer to an indoctrination course. It has been mandatory that they go. I don't know the extent of the course. Every general officer had to go, whether they contemplated using it or being directly involved or not. Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Well, they tell me they have turned out close to 500 since the inauguration of this program in the senior executive course; that is, the general officers course. Either Mr. Renninger or I appear at every one of the executive courses to discuss the Government-wide management problems, and I hope to continue doing that, if they will have us. I think it is a good opportunity to get to talk to people who are out at the decision level, where they have operating problems to solve. And that is what the computers are for. If we get the support of these men our job will be considerably easier. The Computer Institute has a lot of other training programs. They have an intermediate level program which has turned out over 1,100 people. And there are other programs of similar nature in other agencies. So between these and the Civil Service Commission programs and the other training available we are making some strides. One of my friends who left the Government not too long ago and has gone to a bank in New York. He finds that even the technical competence which enabled the bank to be a leader in data processing in the second generation is not up to the problems of the third generation. It is dynamic technology-the fact we took a course last year doesn't necessarily keep us current with the problems of today. And this emphasizes the need for not only going to a course but continuing and maintaining your knowledge. Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Cunningham, what about patenting and copyrighting of data processing equipment programs? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. I believe you have the Register of Copyrights and the Commissioner of Patents scheduled to testify. The President's message on patents stated that the computer program should not be patentable. The issues at the moment on copyrights don't seem to concern themselves so much with programing as with the storing of copyrightable material in electronic computers and the release of this material to people and its relationship to copyrights. I am not quite as conversant with that. Mr. BROOKS. Would you describe the working relationship between the Bureau of the Budget and the various State and local government units insofar as data processing matters are concerned? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Clark, do you want to talk to that one? Mr. RENNINGER. Mr. Chairman, our working relationships in this area are carried out primarily through our association with the Council of State Governments, and particularly with its committee on information systems. This committee has on it 18 representatives from various States representing various organizations within the States, and we find this to be a useful means for discussing common problems. As a result of discussions in recent months, we jointly agreed with the committee on information systems to establish an intergovernmental task force for the purpose of trying to identify more clearly, so everyone understands, just exactly what the problems are that confront us in an intergovernmental environment, and to recommend courses of action which can be taken at each level of government to try to meet some of these problems in the future. In order to make this task force truly intergovernmental in character, we also invited representatives from the National Association of Counties, the International City Managers Association, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, to join with us in this common effort. Mr. BROOKS. Who are the members of this committee? Can you furnish us their names? Mr. RENNINGER. I will be happy to furnish it for the record. There are about 18 members, I believe. (The information requested is as follows:) COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS Special Consultant to the Governor, for Intergovernmental Affairs, 5 Woodley Road, COMMITTEE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS OF THE COUNCIL OF STATE Carroll J. Lee,1 Director, Automated Data Processing, Post Office Box 569, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501. Annapolis, Maryland 21404. Trenton, New Jersey 08608. Dennis G. Price,1 Director, State Computer Systems Development, Division of the Budget, State Capitol, Albany, New York 12224. Marvin R. Selden, Jr.,1 1 Also ADP Coordinator. State Comptroller, Des Moines, Iowa 50319. Attorney General of New Jersey, Trenton, New Jersey 08608. Vice President for Academic Affairs, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104. Bureau of Systems and Data Processing, Madison, Wisconsin 53702. Charles Welch, Jr. (ex-officio), Member of Senate and Chairman of the 1940 Michigan Avenue, Senator H. McKinley Conway, Jr., Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Mr. BROOKS. Is your office participating in the President's program to extend data-processing capacities to colleges or universities? Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Office of Science and Technology has a major interest in this program, and that Office did consult with us when the report of the President's Science Advisory Council was in its final stages. We also participated in the recommendation to establish the research program referred to by the President in his February message on education and health in America when he said: I have directed the NSF, working with the U.S. Office of Education, to establish an experimental program for developing the potential of computers in education. There is another quote from the President' message which preceded that, which I think is worth calling to the committee's attention: One educational resource holds exciting promise for America's classrooms: the electronic computer. Computers are already at work in educational institutions, primarily to assist the most advanced research. The computer can serve other educational purposes if we find ways to employ it effectively and economically, and if we develop practical courses to teach students how to use it. The NSF research program is funded, or is in the process of consideration for funding this year. Mr. BROOKS. Would you care to comment on the impact of IBM's position in the data-processing industry on Federal Government acquisition and utilization of ADP? Mr. HUGHES. While Mr. Cunningham is thinking a little, let me add a little bit onto the comment regarding this. Among the problems of computer sharing is a set of problems that have evolved with the colleges and universities in working out the cost |