HOURS 500 CHART VI. AVERAGE MONTHLY HOURS-IN-SERVICE PER COMPUTER TABLE 1.—Computers by cost category and departmental component Mr. Nix. May I interrupt a moment to say that one of my most valued colleagues and a great friend has come in and I would like to advise him that we have had the benefit of a statement from Mr. Bishop, General Landrum, and a statement from Captain Brogan. Mr. OLSEN. Thank you very much. I take it you are going to hear from the Air Force next? Mr. OLSEN. Thank you. STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM C. PRATT, DIRECTOR OF DATA AUTOMATION, OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER OF THE AIR FORCE Colonel PRATT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to review the Air Forces' data automation program. In June 1963, General Grossmith, a predecessor, identified to this subcommittee several actions the Air Force was taking at that time to improve data automation management practices. Among these were the establishment of a focal point for the coordination of all Air Force automatic data processing and data system design efforts, the development of a regulatory mechanism for controlling systems design, and the decision to centralize equipment selection. I will cover the progress we have made in these areas during the past 3 years, and describe briefly the major highlights of current and future plans for further improving the effectiveness of our data automation program. Efforts to control data systems design have produced favorable results. However, I would like to point out that despite the establishment of a central control mechanism, the system has been sufficiently flexible to permit introduction of unique requirements pertaining to local conditions and mission. We do not control just for the sake of control; rather, our regulatory structure is geared to insure that resources are not used for nice to have but not truly necessary products. Furthermore, the mechanism permits us to identify candidates for standardization and provides a vehicle for encouraging and harnessing ingenuity. It also avoids duplication. Within the framework of our control mechanism, major advances have been made in the standardization of data systems throughout the Air Force, particularly in the areas of supply, personnel, military pay, and maintenance. Selection of equipment by our central selection activity located at Hanscom Field, Mass., has become accepted as a way of life by Air Force activities, and the ADPE industry. Our professional and technical experts at Hanscom are contributing significantly toward the goal of standard equipment at minimum costs. One of the fundamental policies, rigidly followed in the selection of equipment by our Hanscom activity is to prove the validity of the vendor's proposal. In short, we insure that the equipment chosen is within the state of the art. This is accomplished through a live test demonstration. These tests consist of sample problems representative of the total data system and are evaluated as part of the selection process. Some of the major equipments that have been centrally and competitively selected include: Approximately 150 Univac 1050's for base supply. This hardware allows for our standard base level supply systems to operate supply inventory and associated financial accounting in an integrated, and essentially a real time mode. The Honeywell 800/200, which provided for the capacity replacement of management supporting computers at 10 of our major Air Command Headquarters. Approximately 150 Burroughs 263 computers, which replaced punched card accounting machines at base level for an interim period. Incidentally, I know you will be interested in one of our largest equipment selections upon which we have just embarked. Interim base level computers will be replaced by third generation equipment within the next 2 or 3 years, according to present plans. We feel that this replacement will take advantage of sophisticated computer capability to more effectively support managers at base level. In our quest for excellence in data automation, we realized at an early date that there are few shortcuts. Systems analysis, design and programing are painstaking, time consuming, enervating tasks which require full-time effort by highly trained, skilled personnel—skills which, incidentally, are a critical resource. The necessity for concentrating such limited resources on the most important management areas became apparent. The concept of actually developing standard management supporting systems, utilizing the joint skills of functional and data automation specialists at one location was a logical consideration. In this manner, the function levying the requirement and the data automation specialist complement each other in designing standard systems. As a logical consequence, a Data Systems Design Center has been established and is presently located at Suitland, Md. The initial assignment of the Data System Design Center involved the design and programing of the base supply and financial inventory accounting system which is supported by the Univac 1050's I mentioned earlier. The Center is now engaged in maintaining this particular program on a current basis. As other standard data systems are approved for implementation, the Data Systems Design Center will have the responsibility for the design, programing, testing, debugging, and maintaining the systems for the Air Force. Paradoxically, change and standardization are both hallmarks of today's data automation technology. As our program advances and the inventory of computers grows, more and more emphasis and new management techniques must be directed toward the administration and management of the operation of established ADP activities. Currently, we maintain central surveillance of equipment use and aggressively foster sharing and reutilization. About $61 million of Air Force ADPE equipment has been reutilized in the Government-wide reuse program, and approximately 17,500 computer hours were shared during calendar year 1965. An example of a new management technique introduced since 1963 is the establishment of evaluation and assistance offices to assist and review onsite performance of computer activities. In this manner, we have the opportunity to identify fundamental management inadequacies and to assist installations in complying with management directives, as well as improve the effective use of resources. As a valuable byproduct, day-to-day operational experience can be translated into improved policy and procedures. Managing the Air Force data automation resources has been a formidable challenge. Of necessity, guidance is continually being modified to meet the challenges arising in the field of data automation. For example, the Air Force "Manual on ADPE Management," AFM 171-9, has been rewritten recently. Also the "Data Systems Automation Program Document," which is used to identify and program ADPE and associated systems, is constantly refined to assist in our surveillance of Air Force ADP efforts. With regard to this program, we soon realized that the regulatory structure, including central control, standardization, and the program document, was in need of a much broader framework from which direction and objective could be crystallized. Consequently, we have under development an Air Force data automation plan to provide, for the first time an overview of the Air Force data automation effort. The plan will also act as a base from which the various functional areas of the Air Force can aline their efforts consistent with the Air Force long-range data automation objectives. I recognize that I have only described in capsule form some of the aspects of the Air Force approach to control centrally and standardize Air Force data automation. Much of our transition from 1963 is developed further in the written statement furnished your committee. At this point, I would like to emphasize that in spite of the progress that has been made, we have only scratched the surface in optimizing the use of sophisticated hardware and software. The past few years have seen significant gains in the industry in development of more sophisticated and more powerful hardware. However, full use of the potential of available hardware is still a major problem. Software still needs to be advanced to assure full exploitation of hardware capabilities. To the extent possible, we are furthering the cause by requiring a more specific software capability in our followon programs. Also, we are deeply involved with OSD, the National Bureau of Standards, other Government agencies, and the American Standards Association in the promotion of technical standards to facilitate interchange between equipment and/or different data processing installations. These areas of technical standardization and advancements in software technology demand, and will receive, major attention in the future. At the same time, our management practices must be kept as current as the state of the art and, therefore, must receive undiminished attention. In closing, I would like to say that we in the Air Force are not complacent with the progress and success we have attained in the adaptation of data automation to our needs. We recognize that qualitative growth presents both the greatest challenge, and the greatest potential, for even further improvement of our data automation posture. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Mr. Nix. Thank you, Colonel Pratt. Without objection, your written statement will be incorporated in the record. (The document referred to follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF COL. WILLIAM C. PRATT, DIRECTOR OF DATA AUTOMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, ON THE SUBJECT OF AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS ORGANIZATION Although the organizational structure of the Air Force data automation depicted in the 1963 prepared statement to this subcommittee remains essentially the same, changes have been made in this structure in the intervening years to make the data automation program more responsive to dynamics of technology and Air Force processes. Overall guidance in the ADP area continues to flow from DoD instructions and the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (SAFFM) who is the senior ADP policy official with responsibility for assuring that com petitive selection processes are followed in the acquisition of data processing equipment and for efficient and economic administration of this equipment. The Directorate of Data Automation acts as the Air Staff focal point in the same manner described during the last hearing. The Reports Management Group has altered functions and alinement and is now the Data Management Division with responsibilities for standardization of data elements and codes as well as the control of reports. The Policy and Advanced Technology Division continues to develop concepts, objectives, the regulations and directives, technical standards and technical studies. The Data Systems Coordination Division is concerned with all proposals for automated data systems including the establishment of criteria, approval, coordination, and assistance required to acquire equipment and implement approved systems. The Program Management Division monitors, plans for and exercises surveillance over USAF data automation installations to provide effective management for all aspects of their operation. The Data Services Center operates computer equipment to provide data processing, statistical, mathematical, computational, and reporting assistance to the Air Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The Data Automation Panel is an advisory and coordinating group composed of the Deputy Director of Data Automation as chairman and designated representatives of the principal Air Staff functions. It functions to provide collective |