An Introduction to the Automated Case Processing and Information Management Systems used in the Economic Stabilization Program On Sunday evening August 15, 1971, President Nixon announced a New Economic Policy designed to reduce unemployment, improve our competitive position in international markets, and reduce inflationary pressures in the economy. The new program began with a 90 day freeze on wages, prices and rents imposed under the authority of the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970. The period became known as Phase I. On November 14, 1971, Phase II, a more flexible program of economic restraints, was initiated by the Administration. The Cost of Living Council had the overall responsibility of coordinating the post-Freeze program, and two official bodies were created to develop standards and make decisions on changes in all compensation (wages, salaries and fringe benefits) and prices (including rents). These two bodies were, respectively, the Pay Board and the Price Commission. In addition, several other advisory committees were created to contribute their expertise on the treatment of various sectors of the economy and to encourage voluntary cooperation in meeting the goals of the Economic Stabilization Program. Differences in Information Needs The two operational elements of the Economic Stabilization. Program were the Pay Board and the Price Commission. During Phase II these two agencies had, at least implicitly, different philosophies for the utilization of information obtained in support of their respective portions of the Program. For both the Pay Board and the Price Commission, submissions of information by the general public for action and adjudication were known as "cases." Proper identification and adjudication of a case then became a prime requirement of each of these two agencies, so it is with "case processing"-or more precisely the information management for case processingthat this section is directed. However, before discussing how information relating to cases was managed by both the Pay Board and the Price Commission, it may serve the reader to present a brief overview of the operational differences between the Pay Board and the Price Commission during this time period known as Phase II. Speaking strictly from an operational standpoint, the Pay Board enjoyed an advantage that the Price Commission did not. This advantage was that the role of the Pay Board during Phase II was more that of a referee, or possibly a judge, frequently weighing the merits of two adversary positions. The two adversaries, of course, were management and labor. The Pay Board was not required to identify with either of the two sides, but merely had to accept or reject the information offered and make a final determination on the case. The Pay Board itself was originally established as a tripartite board of fifteen members-five each from labor, business and the public sectors. These members were appointed by the President and their names were made public on October 22, 1971. This membership gave balance to the two adversary sides bringing their cases before the Pay Board for adjudication. On the other hand, the Price Commission did not enjoy the same arbitration role as did the Pay Board. The role of the Price Commission was more that of a public counsel-to advocate the price interests of the general public, which more often than not ran counter to the price interests of the various manufacturing firms and industries. The Price Commission then had a much larger role in attempting to gain and gather information which might be used by it in its "public counsel role" in support of the public's interest vis-à-vis any proposed price increases. Because of these differences in the two agencies, there were consequently differences in the information requirements necessary to properly adjudicate a case. These information requirements actually fell in two distinct areas: one consisted of the information requirements necessary to properly and accurately adjudicate the case; the other included those information requirements necessary to follow or track the case through the system. In both areas, management of information was necessary for efficient case processing. As subsequent phases of the Economic Stabilization Program unfolded, these same information requirements continued to be necessary as the names and specific rules of the Program evolved. The discussion of case processing and information management presented in this section, provides background on many of the automated systems used by the Pay Board during the early stages of Phase II. The reader should be aware that the Price Commission's automated Case Processing and Information Management System is also discussed in the Data Analysis paper, another section of this compendium. Phase II Emphasis for Case Processing As we discuss case processing and the use of automated management systems within the Stabilization Program, we will give specific emphasis to the Phase II time period of the Stabilization Program. This emphasis is important because it was during this time period that the original management information systems and case processing procedures for the Pay Board and Price Commission were designed, built and initially operated. The next phases of the Stabilization Program, Phase III and Phase IV and the short freeze period called Freeze II, were generally extensions or variation of the practices developed during Phase II. While the system grew and changed during these subsequent phases, the unique and distinctive attributes of the management information systems were initially established at the beginning of Phase II. Although the system had many growing pains and severe limitations, it produced a significant amount of both case and management information for the use of the Economic Stabilization Program. It is to these information needs for case processing of the Pay Board, the Price Commission (and later on the Cost of Living Council, when it assumed all the responsibilities of both the Pay Board and the Price Commission) that this case processing and information management section of the historical analysis of the Economic Stabilization Program is directed. |