APPENDIX B: QUESTIONS ON DEFINITION OF MANAGEMENT INFORMATION NEEDS AND REASSESSMENT OF THE MIS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: NGA Records (Formerly NIMA)
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 30
• Document Creation Date: January 4, 2017
• Sequence Number: 32
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T
WORKING PAPER
Appendix B: Questions on Definition of APPENDIX B
Management Information Needs
and Reassessment of the MIS
1. At this time, the areas of most concern to you are: .defining your
management information needs and your reassessment of the need for
the MIS. The two areas are inextricably related. Although we can
certainly say something about the MIS after looking at its costs
and the uses to which it is now put, it is also necessary to
evaluate how well it does or could meet the real needs of manage-
ment.
2. In reassessing the MIS, certain questions must be answered by each
component:
a. Estimate personnel costs
(1) How much time do employees spend filling in time
sheets?
(2) Are they accurate? What problems frustrate accuracy?
(3) How many persons (organizational unit, grade) are
specifically assigned D9IS duties other than the
filling out of personal time sheets? How much time
per period (e.g., week) do they put on MIS activities?
What are these duties (input, output, etc.)?
b. Equipment costs
(1) How much computer time does MIS use per period?
Can this be translated into dollar costs (how much)?
(2) How much keypunch and other equipment time is tied
up in the MIS (i.e., not available for other uses)?
c. Output
(1) What periodic output does each component get?
(2) What output does each component actually use? For
what purposes? Is the information timely enough?
S-E-C-R-E-T
17
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix B: Questions on Definition of
Management Information Needs
an Reassessment of the MIS
(3) What non-routine output has been requested and how
or for what was it used?
(4) What additional periodic output would be desirable?
Purpose?
(5) What output, periodic and/or non-routine, not now
available in the MIS would be desired? For what?
3. With respect to management information needs, certain questions must
be answered by each component (the below is not restricted to MIS
information):
a. Who are management? List the positions, duties (if not
clear from position title).
b. What information does each now use? Break into routine
and ad hoc.
c. Where and/or how is this information now obtained?
d. How is it used (purpose)?
e. What information does each manager now get which is of
(1) little or (2) no use?
f. Assuming that the manager now gets no information, what
information, including timeliness, does he feel is essential
to have to perform his job. Why is it essential? In what
form would it be preferred?
g. In addition to that essential information, what information
would each manager like to have? Why, in what form, and when?
4. The answers to the above questions, and any other questions and comments
which may be relevant to the contributions by the components should be
submitted in writing according to the following schedule: (Partial
submissions can be made prior to these dates).
S-E-C-R-E-T
18
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix B: Questions on Definition of
Management Information Needs
an Reassessment of the MIS
a. MIS Costs and Current Uses to be completed by 7 May.
b. Definition of Needs to be completed by 16 May.
S. Meetings will be scheduled throu hout the course of the effort.
of the PPB Staff will 25X1
be available to provide guidance and lend any assistance they can
in the preparation of your contributions.
S-E-C-R-E-T
19
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING .PAPER
Appendix C: Brief Description of the APPENDIX C
Current MIS
To place the MIS in perspective historically, the original published
paper which came out in 1964 was entitled "Proposal for The Establishment
of An Automated Time and Work Reporting System." In the early stages
of development of the MIS, what was called the "total systems concept,"
at that time a very in-vogue buzz-phrase, was often invoked and unfortu-
nately misinterpreted, at least within NPIC, to mean that all that had
to be done was to file or computerize every bit of conceivably relevant
information which, in turn, could be combined in any way in the output
to satisfy all information needs. In certain cases, management was told
and believed this tale which, needless to say, proved to be untrue. And
when it proved to be untrue in practice, naturally there was a good deal
of justified resentment, disappointment, and disenchantment with the MIS
and computer-based information systems in general. These feelings have
persisted and today detract from the potential utility of the MIS in a
number of ways, running the gamut from affecting accuracy of input to
unfounded criticism of the system and reluctance to use it. It is perhaps
an understatement to say that there is a credibility gap with respect to
the current MIS. Actually, in its current configuration, the system is
very much in line with the title of the original paper--an automated time
and work reporting system, nothing more, nothing less. It is indeed
unfortunate that so much misunderstanding as to the system's purpose and
capabilities was created in the past and so much harmful oversell promul-
gated not only internally but also externally to the Center; for example,
at Headquarters, the Bureau of the Budget, and elsewhere.
The MIS records the time spent by personnel (and generates dollar
equivalents) in satisfying external and internal requests for products
or services or in performing the routine activities of their organiza-
tional unit. These distributions can be examined from various view-
points, such as allocation of effort among the Center's major tasks,
timeliness of project completion as compared with requested or "deadline"
date, the expenditure of time against discrete projects, and so forth.
In addition, since much information about a project is stored in the
basic project "account"; e.g., requester, products, country or area,
priority/weight, title, etc., the MIS also performs a project library
function along with the basic time recording task.
The project request, once it has been accepted by the Requirements
and Analysis Division and estimated and scheduled by the Production
Management Board, becomes the basis for the establishment of a project
S-E-C-R-E-T
20
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix C: Brief Description of the
Current MIS
"account" in the MIS. This unique account number, the project number,
designates the major type of work being done, and the other descriptors
(title, requester, etc.) indicate certain characteristics pertinent to
the request. The final requirement is translated into a format com-
patible with the MIS and is prepared for keypunching by the Systems
Integration Staff of AID. Each week the basic file is updated by add-
ing new data to current projects, changing data on current projects as
appropriate, adding new projects, and closing completed projects.
As the basic project account is being established in the computer
system, xeroxed copies of the original requirements are disseminated
to those components that will participate in the project; the project
number is then transmitted to the individuals who will do the actual
work. As employees work on the project, they record the specific
activities undertaken against the project and the time expended for
each activity. This recording mechanism is the weekly time sheet filled
out by each employee; in addition to employee name, badge number,
component, and grade, all projects worked on during the week are recorded,
along with the specific activities and manhours for each project and
certain other "overhead" activities, such as leave, training, etc.
On Monday mornings, the time sheets of all employees are collected
by designated persons and delivered to the Systems Integration Staff.
On the following Tuesday and Wednesday, the new data is edited, key-
punched, and verified and corrected; normally on Thursday the magnetic
tape containing the main file is updated. On Friday, when the updated
file is ready to be queried, the regular and ad-hoc MIS reports are
printed out. The PMB has an additional program that reads the updated
file, performs some scheduling computations, and prints out the results.
In addition to the time sheet data, two other forms containing
data elements are transmitted to AID as required, but usually daily.
These are added to the main file during the weekly updates. One, the
work phase notice, primarily signals the start and finish dates for a
project in each component; the other is used to report product information
against a specific project.
The major data elements comprising the current MIS are:
S-E-C-R-E-T
21
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T
Appendix C: Brief Description of the
Current MIS
WORKING PAPER
1. Organizational Element -- Group, Staff, Division, Branch,
Section.
2. Personnel -- Badge number, grade, name.
3. Project Time -- Regular time, overtime, and dollar equivalents.
4. Activity (Skill) Code
5. Project Title
6. Project Priority/bVeight
7. Project Number
8. Project Country/Geographic Area
9. Project Category Code -- Indicator of specific type of project.
10. Project Requester -- Organization levying request.
11. Security Classification of Project Requirement Form
12. Project Begin Date (by Component)
13. Project Deadline (or Estimated Completion) Date (by Component)
14. Actual Completion/Cancellation Date (by Component)
15. Project Product Code -- Numbers of discrete output items
produced under the project number.
S-E-C-R-E-T
22
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix D: Management Information and APPENDIX D
Plannirig~arid Control
To address the NPIC management information problem in detail, it is
essential to provide a practical framework comprising definitions of
certain terms and pertinent concepts concerning the management process,
management information systems, and planning and control or command and
control. This appendix, which deals with these topics, is divided into
four sections. The first, Definition of Planning, Control, and Manage-
ment Information, is essential to the Main Report since the terms defined
are used throughout. The second, third, and fourth sections, Strategic
Planning versus Management Control, Aanagement Control versus Operational
Control, and Systems Design Implications, respectively, are presented,
firstly, in amplification of the definitions and to show their inter-
relationships and, secondly, to present pertinent generalizations about
a management information system based upon the discussions in the first
three sections.
Definition of Planning, Control,
and Management Information
The central function of management, its raison d'etre, is decision-
making. Except for a relatively straightforwar class of decisions
readily amenable to operations research (OR) or purely mathematical
solution, where enough of the decision variables can be rather explicitly
quantified (e.g.; inventory control, resource allocation of the assign-
ment and distribution type, replacement, maintenance, and reliability
problems, sequencing and coordination problems--PERT and CPM, routing
problems, etc.), decision-making not only involves but depends upon
human judgment. Judgment can be enhanced by good information; this is
the sole purpose of a management information system--to inform management
of the facts available relevant to the decision at hand. Therefore, a
management information system is not a substitute for, but only an aid
to, management, as the name implies. As a corollary, the "perfect"
information system would be of little overall value to the organization,
if management were not competent.
These simple and what might appear to be quite obvious facts are
often overlooked, consciously or unconsciously, by those involved with
automated information systems, whether it be in their design, implemen-
tation, operation, or evaluation. That is, no matter how effective, an
information system does not automatically produce good decisions.
Unfortunately, automated information systems along with OR and systems
S-E-C-R-E-T
23
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix D: Management Information and
Planning and Control
analysis techniques, are often "sold," either openly or implicitly, as
universal remedies for any and all management problems. Nothing could
be further from the truth.
These facts are pointed out not in denigration of OR, systems
analysis, or information specialists, or the usefulness of their skills
and products. These disciplines are not only worthwhile, but are even
essential, in today's environment; the intent is to put them in proper
perspective, which often is not done. For example, an OR specialist
worth his salt will openly state that OR techniques are applicable only
to a certain class of problems and not necessarily to management problems
in general; the good ones will not attempt to apply techniques where they
do not belong--the "solution looking for a problem" approach with which
many of us are all too familiar. (OR techniques are most applicable to
that class of decisions which falls under the management function of
operational control, as is discussed below.) Likewise, a competent
systems analyst will stress emphatically that systems analysis is an aid
to decision-making (generally at the other end of the management spectrum
from OR-type problems); systems analysis does not make decisions. An
analogous statement could be made concerning automated information systems
and those specialists dealing with them.
Coupled with the pervasive lack of attention to the principal
purpose of a management information system--an aid to management--often
is the failure to provide a meaningful, practical framework for con-
sideration of the information problem, both of which auger against worth-
while automated systems and often insure their failure. That is, not
only is the basic purpose of the system not made explicit, but the very
process which the system is intended to facilitate, the management
process, is also neglected.
It is fine to talk of planning and control or command and control
systems because conceptually these classifications have validity; however,
under careful consideration and particularly when applied to real-world
problems, such broad classifications of management activity are of little
value. In fact, they often cloud rather than aid the issue. This is
because planning or command (roughly, determining what is to be done) and
control (roughly insuring that to be done is done) do not correspond to
distinct, separable management activities either with respect to time,
organizational position or authority, or various discrete issues or
problems.
S-E-C-R-E-T
24
CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T
Appendix D: Management Information and
Planning and Control
WORKING PAPER
For example, many persons in an organization engage in planning;
but its basic purposes and nature vary so significantly that any
generalizations valid to encompass all types of planning within an
organization are so vague and broad that they are of little help in
solutions of practical problems. A similar statement can be made for
the control activity which involves, among other things, decision-
making. The basic steps in the annual Congressional Budget, simplified
for this example, illustrate these facts. The cycle starts with prepara-
tion and approval at the appropriate time of the Congressional Budget,
which is clearly a planning activity. However, the budget is also used
as a basis for control (many say budget preparation is the principal
means of achieving control), and during the budget year, many activities
occur that clearly pertain to control while, simultaneously and as part
of the same process, there may be budget revision, which is a planning
activity. In short, planning and control activities are so closely
interwoven in the budgeting process that to describe each separately is
not only difficult but also pointless, because those involved with the
process are interested in both its planning aspect and its control
aspect.
As with the budgetary example, planning or command and control in
general are, in fact, so closely interwoven, especially outside the
military, and so often occur simultaneously that there is nothing to be
gained from such distinctions. Amore realistic and useful framework
for considering the NPIC management information problem, along with the
necessary definitions, is given below.
Strategic Planning: the process of deciding on objectives of the
organization, on changes in these objectives, on the gross
resources used to attain these objectives, and on the policies
that are to govern the acquisition and use of these resources.
(Systems analysis is most applicable here.)
Management Control: the process by which managers assure that
resources are obtained and used effectively and efficiently
in the accomplishment of the organization's objectives. It
combines both planning and control within the context of
objectives and policies determined in the strategic planning
process; effectiveness and efficiency are the criteria
relevant for judging actions. Decisions in this process can
S-E-C-R-E-T
25
CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix D: Management Information and
Planning arid~Coritrol
be categorized as non-programmed; management decides what is
to be done within the general constraints of the strategic
plans. (Long-range planning, conceptually quite distinct
from strategic planning, is applicable to this process.)
Operational Control: the process of assuring that specific tasks
are carrie~c out efficiently and effectively. Decisions in
this process often can be categorized as programmed or
structured, as opposed to management control decisions;
emphasis is upon execution of tasks. (Operations research
has its greatest utility in this process.)
Strategic Planning versus Management Control
Strategic planning highlights objectives, which are what the
organization wishes to accomplish or its mission, and policies, which are
guidelines to be used in the choice of the most appropriate courses of
action to achieve the objectives. This type of planning is concerned
with plans and policies which determine or change the character or
direction of the organization; such decisions affect the physical, financial,
and organizational framework within which operations are conducted.
Management control incorporates the concepts of effectiveness and
efficiency, effectiveness referring to the accomplishment of the
organization's objectives and efficiency referring to an optimum rela-
tionship between input and output. It should be noted that management
control embraces both planning and control, and the usual connotation
given control; that is, conformance to plan, is missing. This is
intentional, because to the extent that middle management can make deci-
sions better than those implied in a plan, it should do so. Therefore,
top management should not necessarily want operations to conform to plans,
and rigid conformance to plans is not the standard against which perform-
ance should be measured. However, plans should be followed in the absence
of evidence to the contrary.
The management control process is carried on within the guidelines
established by strategic planning; its intent is to make possible the
attainment of planned objectives as effectively and efficiently as possible
within given constraints. This process involves making decisions about
what to do in the future (the usual interpretation of planning), but the
S-E-C-R-E-T
26
CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T
Appendix D: Management Information and
Planning and Control
WORKING PAPER
planning decisions made in the management control process are of a some-
what different character from those made in the strategic planning proc-
ess, although the dividing line may at times be fuzzy and certainly there
are interactions between the two processes.
A main distinction lies in the fact that management control relates
to current operations while strategic planning relates to objectives,
policies, organizational structure, etc. Also, strategic planning
involves a preponderance of value judgments while management control
decisions involve a preponderance of facts. Management control is less
complex than strategic planning, since it does not set but only works
within precedents; that is, policies and plans already decided upon.
In addition, it tends to be rhythmic; e.g., the budgeting process, while
strategic planning is essentially irregular because problems, opportuni-
ties, good ideas, and technological breakthroughs do not occur according
`to a timetable and there is no essential condition to cumulate strategic
plans and present them in a nice, neat package on a specific date.
Management control systems, with rare exceptions, have an underlying
financial structure; that is, plans and results expressed in monetary
units; for example, as in the PPB system. This does not mean that money
is the only basis for measurement, however, or even that it is the most
important measure; it does mean that money is a common denominator to
relate various pieces to one another, although other measurements such
as manpower, product output, timeliness, etc., may be essential, as well
as certain non-qualitative attributes such as quality, ability, coopera-
tion, etc.
Management control systems should be integrated, coordinated systems
which means that, although data collected for one purpose may differ from
that collected for other purposes, these data should all be reconcilable
with one another, or equivalently that non-monetary information should be
reconcilable with monetary information. For example, information or the
number of personnel must be relatable to information or the cost of
personnel. While strategic planning data often is "one-shot" and can
rely heavily on external information, a good deal of which may be relatively
inprecise, management control data have the same definitions and are put
together in the same way time after time. These data are intended to
influence line managers to take actions that will lead to desired results;
management control decisions are made by the line, not the staff.
S-E-C-R-E-T
27
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix D: Management Information and
Planning and Control
In contrast, the data relevant for strategic planning purposes are
put together specifically for decision concerning a particular plan. The
estimates used in strategic planning are intended to show the expected
results of the plan. This usually predominately staff function, carried
on in consort with line management, can best be characterized as creative
as opposed to management control which is exercising leadership, even
though the organizational distinction may not be clear-cut. The only
control aspects of strategic planning, if they may be called that, have
to do with the top management need to check on the progress being made by
the staff toward arriving at a decision on a problem being analyzed, to
appraise the ability of those involved in the process, and to determine
whether general policies are being followed in the implementation of
procedures. And it should be pointed out that the PPB five-year plan,
the PFP, is actually an exercise in management control because the plan
itself is a projection of costs anticipated under policies and programs
already approved, rather than a device for consideration of and decision
on new policies and programs; this function is accomplished through the
Program Memoranda. The PFP reflects strategic decisions already taken;
it is not the essence of the process of making new decisions.
It is because of the varied and unpredictable nature of data
required for strategic planning that an attempt to design an all -
purpose, internal information system is probably hopeless. For the same
reason, the dream of some computer specialists of a gigantic data bank,
from which planners can obtain all the information they wish by flicking
a switch, is probably no more than a dream. However, conceptually at
least, a management control system should be a single system, or an
integrated set of subsystems. In practice, attainment of this goal of
"integrated data processing" is so fantastically complicated even for a
moderate size organization that few, if any, organizations would even
claim its achievement. Nevertheless, this is the goal, and those
interested in improving management control systems will work toward it.
The error arises in attempts to meet the needs for strategic planning
data from the same system; the data needed to plan and control ongoing
activities are quite different from those needed to analyze proposed
major changes in operations. To ask that data be collected routinely
in elemental building blocks that can be combined in various ways to
answer all conceivable questions is a completely unrealistic request
S-E-C-R-E-T
28
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix D: Management Information and
Planning and Control
since no one can foresee the possible ways in which data might be used,
and even if foreseen, some of the uses occur so infrequently that the
routine collection of data for them is not economically justified.
Management Control versus Operational Control
As with strategic planning and management control, the distinction
between management control and operational control is not always precise.
Operational control takes place within the context of decisions made and
rules formulated in the management control process and to some extent in
the strategic planning process, and overall performance in activities
where operational control is applicable is reviewed as part of the manage-
ment control process. As indicated, the focus of operational control is
upon specific tasks or transactions: scheduling and monitoring and not
measuring overall performance; obtaining certain equipment and not manag-
ing inventory; personnel actions and not determining personnel policy,
etc.
Outputs are the products, services, or other effects created by an
organization; inputs are the resources the organization consumes. Out-
puts, in every case, many not being clearly definable or readily meas-
urable. In addition to the overall organization's outputs, every unit
within an organization has outputs, either products or services or
combinations thereof, which again may be difficult to measure.
One of the important management tasks in an organization is to seek
the optimum relationship between inputs and outputs; that is, either the
best combination of outputs when inputs can be varied or the combination
of resources that will produce the desired outputs at the lowest costs
in an environment where the desired outputs are taken as given. Of
course, there may be gradations of the above, wherein there are varying
degrees of latitude between given outputs and variation of inputs; that
is, each may be varied to a certain extent, but there are real constraints.
When there is the option of varying inputs, it is rarely, if ever, possible
to determine the optimum relationship between outputs and inputs objec-
tively, in spite of many opinions to the contrary. This choice of a
relationship is a matter of subjective judgment, and this is true because,
generally, there is no scientific or objective way of determining how
final output will be affected by changes in inputs or necessarily what
is the "best" output mix, especially where it comprises services. However,
S-E-C-R-E-T
29
CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix D: Management Information and
Planning and Control
if output is taken as given, then there is at least the possibility that
an optimum relationship between outputs and inputs can be found, but
perhaps not absolutely since new ways of doing things are continually
being developed. Therefore, optimum in this case must mean that combi-
nation of resources, out of all known combinations, that will produce
the desired output at the lowest cost. For some activities, the
optimum relationship may be rather easy to determine; for others, there
exists no way of establishing the relationship, and again, decisions as
to what costs to incur depend upon human judgment. In the latter case,
the term overhead roughly corresponds to this class of inputs or costs.
It should be noted that the importance of the input-output relation-
ship can be overemphasized. Decisions in this area should be weighed
very carefully. For example, conflicts between input-output objectives
and organizational goals can arise; that is, large increases in economy,
efficiency, or productivity may be possible only at the costs of dis-
satisfactions to some employees and even external groups, curtailments
in output quality which may be very difficult to measure, dissipation of
organizational assets, etc. However, with this caveat in mind, if the
optimum input-output relationship can be determined for a given activity,
the inputs that should be employed in a given set of circumstances can be
described and reduced to rules; that is, they can be programmed. These
are the activities for which programmed operational control is applicable,
and as new techniques are developed, there is a tendency for more and more
activities to be susceptible to programmed control. But operational
control and programmed control are not synonomous, for there are many, in
fact a preponderance of, specific tasks that cannot be explicitly pro-
grammed; for example, certain research tasks as might be undertaken by the
PSG/R~RD, special studies performed by staff officers, analysis of new
types of targets or very significant "finds" or changes in known targets,
the entire class of activities often referred to as overhead, etc.
To make the distinction between management control and operational
control clear, management control focuses upon the whole stream of on-
going activities while operational control focuses upon individual tasks
or transactions. Just as management control occurs within a set of
policies derived from strategic planning, :operational control occurs within
a set of well-defined procedures and rules that are derived from both
strategic planning and management control.
S-E-C-R-E-T
30
CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix ll: hanagement Information and
Planning and Control
An operational control system is a rational system; that is, i.n
general, the action to be taken is decided by a set of logical rules,
which may or may not cover all aspects of a given problem. Situations
not covered by rules are exceptions and are handled by human judgment,
but other than these exceptions, the rules are applied automatically.
In management control psychological considerations are dominant. The
management control system at most assists those who take action; it
does not directly or by itself result in action without human inter-
vention. A management control system is ordinarily built around a
financial core; operational control data are often non-monetary. Data
in an operational control system are in real-time and relate to indi-
vidual events, whereas data in a management control system are either
prospective or retrospective and summarize many separate events.
Computer specialists and even managers who do not make a proper
distinction between management and operational control dream about a
system that will display to management the current status of every
project and activity within the organization. Although theoretically
this could be done, it should not be done, because management does
not want, or should not want, such detail. It does not need to know
when project 112076NA was transferred from the PI to the editor; rather,
it needs to know only that the process is, or is not, proceeding as
planned. That is, information shows up in the management control
system only when it is exceptional, when a situation arises that is not
covered by the rules included in the operational control system or when
there is a significant departure from those rules. Some means of call-
ing these exceptional situations to management's attention are essential,
and this is the interface between operational and management control.
Operational control uses exact data, whereas management control
needs only approximations. The formal management control system is
only one aspect of the management control process, actually a relatively
unimportant aspect. The system can help motivate a manager to make
decisions in the best interests of the organization and the system
provides information that aids the manager in making these decisions.
The success or failure of the management control process depends upon
the personal characteristics of the manager: his judgment, his knowl-
edge, his ability to influence others. The distinction between the
system and the process is apparent in such comments as "We are bogged
down in red tape" or "Paperwork keeps me from getting the job done."
Such comments are symptoms that the system is impeding the proper
S-E-C-R-E-T
31
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix D: Management Information and
Planning and Control
functioning of the management control process. While in operational
control, the system itself is a much more important aspect of the whole
process, it is not the entire process unless the system is automated,
but it ordinarily states what action should be taken. With a properly
designed system, operational control will require a minimum of manage-
ment intervention; the degree of management involvement in operational
control will be small, directed toward exceptions.
Systems Design Implications
Some generalizations for systems design of what is often called a
planning and control system, can be drawn from the preceding discussion.
First, it seems clear that the starting point is construction of the
overall system should be management control, as distinguished from
strategic planning and operational control. The management control
system deals with the ongoing operation of the entire organization.
It must encompass all parts of the enterprise so as to assist manage-
ment in determining that the parts are in balance with one another.
The central function of a management control system is motivation;
the system should be designed in such a way that it assists and guides
operating management to make decisions and to act in ways that are
consistent with the overall organizational objectives.
Strategic planning, management control, and operational control
tend to correspond to a hierarchy in any of several dimensions: as
to time-span of consequences (long range, medium range, day-to-day);
as to level in the organization (top management, top and operating
management, supervision); as to importance of a single action (major
importance, medium importance, little importance); as to amount of
judgment involved (great, some, none), and so on. Along each of these
continuums, management control is in the middle.
Second, although the management control system is the logical
starting point, its relationship to the other systems should be
recognized. The management control system can be designed so as to
take into account the more important needs of the strategic planners,
for current and historical operating information, but it cannot pos-
� sibly foresee all these needs, nor would it be worthwhile to supply
routinely information that is needed only occasionally, even if the
need could be foreseen.
S-E-C-R-E-T
32
CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix D: Management Information and
Planning and Control
Management control also takes information from areas where opera-
tional control devices are used, but the coupling between the two need
not be too tight. Operational control usually involves a tremendous
amount of detail, and all that should be needed for management control
purposes is a way of summarizing and translating this detail so as to
show that operations are proceeding satisfactorily, or, if they are not,
where the trouble spots are.
Third, if management control is the system around which others are
to be constructed, then it is clear that the central system must be a
financial system. A4oney is the only common denominator for bringing
together heterogeneous elements of outputs and inputs that are the con-
cern of management.
Finally, computers and models cannot be the essence of this central
system. In management control, the judgment and feelings of human beings
are dominant (to ignore this can be catastrophic); in computers, they
are necessarily absent. In strategic planning, an organization-wide model
can be a valuable tool for examining repercussions of proposed strategic
moves throughout the organization. In operational control, models for
specific areas being controlled may be essential, and computers can often
be used. These observations suggest that, because management control is
central, integrated data processing should be focused on needs of manage-
ment control. It should not be much concerned with problems of strategic
planning in view of the irregular, nonrecurring, and unpredictable char-
acter of these problems. It should be linked to operational control
procedures, as these are developed, but an integrated data processing
system need not await the installation of all possible operational control
procedures.
S-E-C-R-E-T
33
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
APPENDIX E
Appendix E
Responses to Questions on Definition
of Management Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
This appendix essentially summarizes the responses, as received,
to questions posed to the Groups and Staff and the results of discussions
carried out during the course of the study.
The Groups, Staff, and PMB were asked to respond to two distinct
sets of questions; the first dealt with the current MIS and the second
with management information needs.l Unfortunately, the responses were
in some cases not as specific as might have been desired, undoubtedly
due in great part to the short deadline for the project, but it was
felt that enough good information was provided and that a re-do for
purposes of this study was not required. In addition, a survey on usage
of the MIS, conducted by PSG~AID toward the end of the last calendar
year, provided some added insights into the problem, as did discussions
with IAS concerning its usage of, opinions about, and desires for the
MIS. Although the problem must be viewed in its entirety and there is
a certain amount~of overlap in that which follows, for convenience this
appendix is subdivided into four sections: Costs; MIS Input Accuracy;
MIS Output, and Management Information Needs.
Costs
With respect to current costs, it was felt that dollar values
provided the best, most comprehensive common denominator, although cer-
tainly man-hours and machine time are relevant statistics and have been
included where feasible. Replies to specific questions about costs were
received in most cases from the Groups and Staff; approximate costs were
inferred where necessary and translated into dollar equivalents. For
example, man-hour costs for time sheet preparation, input output acti-
vities, and MIS coordination were converted using the dollar values
found in the MIS Handbook; where specific grades were known the figures
in other cases, the average NPIC grade of
per hour was used. 25X1
For this study, overly detailed costs are not necessary, nor were
they feasible to obtain in the time period allotted. Such detailed
costs would be required only in the highly unlikely event that two or
more effective alternatives were so identical in all aspects that the
1. See Appendices A and B.
~S-E-C-R-E-T
3q
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER
S-E-C-R-E-T
WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Responses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
ultimate decision would be based solely upon incremental dollar values,
The premise is that management needs certain information, and there are
a number of ways in which it can be provided, Once legitimate needs
are established and prioritized or defined at a certain level, within
the constraints of available and justifiable expenditures, only what
amounts to an ordinal ranking of feasible alternatives, those which meet
the requirements within the constraints, is needed. That is, the system
objectives can be accomplished within the constraints with system alter-
natives A, B, and C and not D or E; therefore choose alternative B be-
cause it does the job and is less costly than A or C. It is not neces-
sary to say how much less, that is, to know the precise costs, but only
to say that the ranking according to costs from highest to lowest is A,
C, and B. (Of course, at least conceptually alternative B might be a
significantly or totally manual system.) Some other reasons, among
mar.~y, for not including precise costs are that MIS costs can vary from
period-to-period, that is, they are not standard so certain assumptions
must be made; hardware costs are to a great extent sunk costs making
the only relevant measures functions of available machine time and~or
work precluded by the MIS or other systems; estimates of man-hour costs
for a totally or significantly manual system would indeed be very rough
estimates since they must be predicated upon the system configuration
which, of course, does not now exist, and it is most difficult (again,
particularly in view of the time frame for the study) to impute a dollar
value to management information, particularly in this non-profit environ-
ment.
If purchased, computer time for the MIS would cost about0 25X1
per year at the current rate Keypunch tim is about 5X1
56 hours per week at an average salary of GS-05 or about~er year. 25X1
Th~functions of input~output~maintenance~dissemination cost about
annually, and the cost of filling out time sheets in AID is esti- 25X1
mated to be about The PSG~R&RD annual costs are about 25X1
for time sheets and for I~ annual costs are estimated 5X1
to be 0 for time sheets andfor I~0 activitie nnual 25X1
costs are abou or time sheets (includes DIA) and or 25X1
I~0 activities. 0 DIft and PPB Staff annual costs are abou for
both time sheets and I~0 activities. The total annual cost more or less
directly attributable to the MIS then is about it is felt that 25X1
this is probably a very conservative estimate. or o vious reasons,
IA,S input time has not been included in this figure. Or looking at it
in another way, less computer costs, the Center expends about 12 0 25X1
S-E-C-R-E-T
35
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T
WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Responses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
(NPIC average grade) man-years on the MIS. The original cost of
analysis and programming, both in-house and contractual, was not avail-
able; however, the contractual effort by amounted to at least 25X1
six man-years and the total NPIC contribu ion was at least double that.
MIS Input Accuracy
Concerning input accuracy, which is at least a function of the
structure or procedures of the system, the emphasis placed by manage-
ment upon the system, and the care with which input data is verified
for accuracy, TSSG commented that time sheet accuracy for the Group
ranged from "meticulous to meaningless." It further commented:
"The time of those employees primarily engaged in direct
project work is fairly well recorded. But much of the Group's
resources is expended against general overhead, and time is re-
corded rather casually. Probably the greatest detriments to
accurate time charging, where accuracy is aspired to, are the
practices of filling out time sheets weekly--so that many de-
tails are forgotten--and the complexities engendered by the
multiplicity of project numbers and activity codes. Overall,
the major factor behind poor reporting is lack of incentive.
This is the same problem widely recognized and often discussed
in terms of lack of understanding regarding the System's capabil-
ity and utility."
PSG comments with respect to input accuracy can be summarized
as follows: AID, estimates a 95�fo level of accuracy; R&RD, the physical
recording of project numbers, activity codes, hours, component, name,
etc., are entered with about 85�~o accuracy; RD, accuracy is as good as
a quick check permits. R&RD elaborated upon the accuracy subject, say-
ing essentially that, despite a conscientious effort, as a service
organization many of its activities do not fit easily into the MIS for-
mat; for example, project numbers furnished to the Division must be
verified for accuracy but project listings are usually out-of-date,
the Division often supports very current projects or "pre-requirements"
which are rejected by the computer, people often forget project num-
bers when requesting service and priority requests cannot be denied
for lack of a number, etc. RD added that most inaccuracies occur as a
S-E-C-R-E-T
36
CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WQRKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T
WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Responses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
result of transposed numbers; incorrect splits assigned by originating
components; inadvertent dropping of legitimate splits; flagrant misuse
of continuing project numbers, and a lack of understanding on the part
of the individual employees of both the functioning of the System and
its purposes.
The PPB Staff and the PMB expressed concern about the accuracy ark.,
in certain cases, lack of input data, reflecting at perhaps a more
aggregated level the concerns of the Groups as pointed out above. IEG
categorized MIS input as "not accurate".
MIS Output
Questions were asked the Groups and Staff concerning MIS output,
the uses to which it is put, its timeliness, and additional desired
reports.
TSSG receives the following listings: active projects; component
time allocation; cancelled projects; completed projects, and active
projects by component. It commented that these are "...low-level manage-
ment tools to keep track of active projects and employee activity."
During the previous year, TSSG also requested two special listings for
costing studies. It recommended that, if the MIS is retained, manage-
ment be given instructions in its usage.
With respect to output, PSG~AID components receive the following
listings: active projects (two copies); component time allocation (two
copies); active projects by component (two copies); completed projects
(two copies); cancelled projects (two copies); and incorrect input (one
copy). It commented that actual usage of these listings varies by com-
ponent; however, most components agreed that the information generally
is not timely enough and that there are too many project numbers and
activity codes. A certain amount of non-routine output has been reques-
ted by AID for special studies, and an additional regular report giving
computer utilization time for peripheral equipment would be useflzl.
PSG~R&RD Branch Chiefs routinely receive the component time alloca-
tion and active project listings; the Division office receives the above
plus Options 1, 3, 5, 7, and 10. Certain special requests for output
have been levied by the Division in the past. The active project listing
is used to monitor projects and check the validity of project numbers.
S-E-C-R-E-T
37
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T
WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Responses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
Component time allocation is used to assess the activities of Division
employees. The other options are used mainly to compile monthly running
totals of regular and overtime activities by project block. These totals
are portrayed graphically, hopeflzlly to reveal significant trends showing
production gaps, slippages, or deficient reporting methods. PSG~R&RD
commented that statistical information derived from MIS output is used
in the budget cycle and for special reports, but the inaccuracy of MIS
information "...may lead to false conclusions, particularly regarding
the various support activities of R&RD. This has occurred several times
in the past because of the inability to relate, in any meaningful way,
projects to activities to products and finally to man-hours consumed.
Our records have been kept manually and are accurate, but they are not
as acceptable to top management as an inaccurate machine run."
PSG~RD receives the following listings: active projects; component
time by project and activity; incorrect input; completed projects, and
PMB scheduling listings. Each RD component now uses these listings for
various purposes, but with the exception of the active project listing
and the PMB scheduling report, the information is mostly historical
and is used only for predictive purposes. RD added, "The information
never seems to be timely enough to answer questions regarding project
costs, overhead, or activity breakdowns. This is not necessarily a
fault of the MIS but rather the fact that the information seems always
to be needed by top management before it is actually available. Cost
data has been requested on an ad hoc basis in the past but could not be
interpreted correctly because of insufficient information in the MIS
record." RD feels that an additional, timely PMB listing for purposes
of project estimating and scheduling is needed and that the value of
the MIS could be enhanced if a "reorientation" of individual employees
toward the MIS were made available.
IEG "conducted a thorough review" of the MIS and found "its use
limited because of its very narrow reporting spectrum." The Group called
for "an expanded MIS system," saying that "Whenever staff papers, budget
reviews, yearly summations, etc., must be prepared, IEG must compile its
statistics through manual methods and finds these methods leave much to
be desired." The output desired by IEG is covered below under the dis-
cussion of management information needs.
S-E-C-R-E-T
38
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T
WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Responses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
The PPB Staff has certain routine output requirements in order to
accomplish its functions (e.g.; situation reporting, CC7NI1REx quarterly
report, budget cycle documentation, etc.), and it must answer a number
of ad hoc requests based, at least in part, upon MIS data, ranging from
in-depth analytic studies to brief responses to specific one-shot ques-
tions posed by the O~D1R. You are quite familiar with the scope and
content of this work, so the details have not been included. Specifi-
cally with respect to MIS output, the PPB Staff feels the inaccuracies
of input are also applicable to output, the levels of retrieval are
clumsy, skill activity codes are poor, weekly reports need revision,
timeliness is not adequate, product reporting is next to worthless, the
DIA~CIA time reporting problem needs resolution, the category c ales are
obsolete, there is useless information in the system while, on the other
hand, there are very significant information gaps; in short, the entire
system needs attention, including revision and~or eventual replace-
ment and the solid backing of all levels of NPIC management and supervision.
The PMB finds the MIS impractical for its uses. A special re ort ~
format incorporating the desires of the PMB was written by 25X1
Dof the PPBS; however, the PMB still finds its informa ion re- 25X1
quirements unsatisfied and now recommends one of two alternative report-
ing systems, one being a real-time reporting system and the other being
a graphic approach to forecasting showing estimated and scheduled man-
hours versus projected on-hand strengths.
IAS makes positive use of the MIS and can cite examples of decisions
based upon MIS data. Specifically, IAS uses MIS data in combination with
a manual system, where applicable, to generate the following standard
reports: Five-Year Plan of the Imagery Analysis Service; Summary of IAS
Workload (Monthly); New Projects in Work for Period---(Weekly); and
Charts (Quarterly and Yearly) showing IAS Division of Labor (PI time)
by consumers, geographic area, and subject. IAS obviously has a good
deal of confidence in the IAS portion of the MIS output, and it is used
by IAS top management. However, this was not accomplished without effort;
the Service spent considerable effort on tightening up the system, par-
ticularly the activity codes and project establishment, and conscientiously
validates input. In IAS, the top management requirement that data input
be accurate has been and is explicitly made known. (This is not univer-
sally true within the Center.)
S-E-C-R-E-T
39
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER
S-E-C-R-E-T
WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Responses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
It was mentioned that, at the close of the last calendar year,
PSG~AID ran a survey on the "Usefulness of Standard Management Infor-
mation System (MIS) Reports." At the time, 17 standardized reports
were available, 10 on a regular basis and seven on an ad hoc basis.
Respondents were asked to categorize reports according to "Presently
Useful, No Present Need, Would Like to Receive, and Did Not Know Report
Existed." Replies were received from all the Groups, the PPB Staff,
and IAS; specifically, of the 69 NPIC organizational elements listed
in the MIS Handbook, 39 replied, including a significant portion of
the substantive components. In this sample, of the 17 reports avail-
able to each of the ~+0 potential users, responses were received indi-
cating that the reports were of use in 30.10 of the cases. That is, of
the sample space of 680 (~+0 components X 17 reports = 680), only 30.1�0
of the replies indicated a report to be either "Presently Useful" or
"Would Like to Receive"; 69.9~fo of the answers indicated the report to
be of no use. Similarly, of those 10 reports regularly available, 35.8�0
of the responses indicated a use for the report, and 6~+.2~J indicated no
use, and of the seven ad hoc reports not regularly disseminated, 16.~fo
indicated a use for the report and 83.1~o indicated no use.
Management Information Needs
With respect to management information needs, IEG expressed a desire
that the following data elements be included in the MIS:
1. Target information -- Number by mission, collection
system, and geographic area, completed weekly, monthly, and
yearly; number added and deleted weekly; number by country,
reporting phase, mission; number in each basic report category
and completed quarterly and yearly; number of NAC and IDO by
mission and system, monthly and yearly; on a real-time basis,
number to be read out on each mission and IEG progress in com-
pleting readout.
2. Publications -- Number by type, monthly and yearly;
number of pages by report type, monthly and yearly; number of
graphics by type, monthly and yearly.
3. Briefing Boards -- Number by mission, system, and
geographic area monthly and yearly; special boards by type,
monthly and yearly.
S-E-C-R-E-T
40
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Responses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
~+. Monthly First- and Second-phase Statistical Report --
Number of targets by country and reporting phase, and target counts
by mission as the exploitation and reporting are completed.
5. Processing -- Weekly total of units received in PCS~IEG
categorized by processed, forwarded, and pending; weekly total
of briefings conducted with preparation and presentation time.
6. Visitors -- Number of visitors and time spent on tours,
briefings, etc., monthly and yearly.
7. Scheduling -- Plan for a real-time system to show progress
toward completion of estimated level-of-effort to complete a given
project with daily output showing, for example, First-, Second-,
and Third-phase project time, briefing time, leave, training,
etc., by section, branch, division; that is, daily information
available to managers and supervisors each morning to help them
direct or reassess the effectiveness of their operation. The
computer could provide machine runs to show, for example, a week
or month ahead, the time needed to accomplish First-, Second-,
and Third-phase reporting and other tasks, such as briefings.
8. Aircraft Missions -- Number by type of mission, footage,
and geographic area, received and completed daily, weekly, monthly
and yearly.
IEG added that, if current pn a daily basis, the MIS would be a
main production control tool and cited an existing example of such a
system (AC IC, St.Louis). Such a capability would allow management to
adjust schedules in time to avoid production problems. IEG concluded,
"Until the system goes on a more real-time basis, the information that
is entered is not accurate because the average NPIC employee only fills
out his time sheet once a week and this creates errors, thereby making
the system ineffective except for general studies to show trends or his-
torical information."
PSG~AID, in considering management informatiion needs, cited that
it now uses certain routine MIS outputs (active project list, component
time use, active projects by component, projects completed, cancelled
projects, and incorrect input notices) for the purpose of determining
S-E-C-R-E-T
41
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Responses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
if the MIS is current and to verify projects requests levied on the
component. Three AID Branches were mentioned as having requested
special runs for time studies on particular projects. The Division
commented that, with the exception of the active project listings and
certain ad hoc output, it feels the MIS information is not current
enough. It concluded, "In the case of AID, it is essential that manage-
ment knows at any given time its manpower and machine allocation. This
is important in the scheduling of tasks according to priority with the
capability of handling crisis-type projects upon demand."
PSG~RD regularly receives those reports listed previously, plus
time reports on specific projects on an ad hoc basis and the PMB esti-
mating and scheduling listings. There uses are chiefly as a historical
record for project costing, as a basis for future personnel strength
and~or overtime requests, and as a reference tool to maintain the accu-
racy of individual time sheets. The PMB runs are used to determine
project status, to improve estimating and scheduling methods, and to
provide a record of committed time by activity versus available time.
The Division stated, "With the exception of the active project listing
and ad hoc requests for total time to date for specific projects, the
available MIS information is of little use to RD personnel. All of the
MIS statistics can obviously be put to some use but, as far as the various
options are concerned, one system of reporting time charged by project,
component, and activity should be sufficient for all." RD expressed the
hope that, through the PMB vehicle, eventually all of those projects that
can be estimated and scheduled will be, so that "we can then deal with
the ad hoc, non-scheduled, almost daily crash projects, such as PSG~RD
support to the CIA budget and to NRO," the immediate goal being "...to
have the capability to manage our seemingly endless crises more purpose-
fully." RD closed by offering a concept of future operation of an MIS:
"The ultimate in availability of MIS-type information should be built
into the future IIS. A manager, sitting at a console, should be able
to determine the status of any project at any time merely by flicking
a switch. The idea, in any event, is to obtain essential information
regarding production planning and management on a near real-time basis."
PSG~R&RD uses both manual systems and the MIS to compile statistics
mainly relative to products and requests processed by month. The MIS
has no capability for clocking processed requests or backlogged material,
S-E-C-R-E-T
42
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T
WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Res onses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
and certain statistical information is maintained manually for compilation
of monthly reports. In view of the above and the MIS output utilized,
as mentioned previously, R&RD comments, "Because of the basic structure
of the MIS and the difficulty the Division has in participating in it,
most of the information derived from the system is of little value.
For our purposes, it is an inaccurate and inadequate picture of our
activities because the basic data put into it is distorted in ordex� to
conform to the pattern set. We use time sheet data to match with statis-
tical information kept manually in order to arrive at an average figure
for processing materials or answering research and reference questions.
But with the known inaccuracies of input, the resulting inaccuracies
cannot be considered as anything more than an estimate. Much of the
information contained in the various option runs reveals only that an
individual is performing the duties for which he was hired." The Divi-
sion stated that it needs basically the kind of data it now compiles
manually, and often on an immediate basis, specifically, numbers and
originators of requests for services; types and numbers of materials
processed, on hand, and disseminated; regular and overtime allocations
to these activities; a print format to relate time, product, activity,
and requester, and information on the inter-relationships of projects
among various responsible components. It would like to have the capabil-
ity for on-line display or printed graphical forms of this information.
R&RD summarized by saying thati management information is needed by the
Division to give an accurate picture of its overall services to the Center;
to identify the chief users of Division facilities; to develop service
time statistics; to develop trend information so appropriate actions
can be taken; to plan for the future; to provide standards for compari-
son with similar facilities in other organizations, and to provide
higher management with the information it needs for planning.
In responding to the questions on management information needs,
TSSG noted that the Group, aside from SSD, has only a few formal systems
for obtaining and maintaining information. This is a function perhaps
of the facts that the Group is small in size, is charged with activities
of a radically diverse nature, and has some strict compartmentalization
because of security, all of which encourages many person-to-person infor-
mation exchanges. Also, the Support Services is regulated by DDS proce-
dures and has what is tantamount to a separate information system. Aside
from records kept for DDS activities, the main TSSG information files
concern personnel and project status. These files may be largely overlapping
S-E-C-R-E-T
43
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T
WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Responses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
and redundant, but they are manual, rudimentary means of keeping managers
aware of where their employees are and what they are doing, what tasks
are pending, and whether deadlines and cost estimates are being met.
TSSG commented that, for all intents and purposes, "...the people in
this Group do not use the MIS. Furthermore, most managers have only
vague notions about the System's capabilities." The Group suggested
that a "NPIC Data Center," keeping both manual and machine records,
might answer some Center problems and obviate duplicate files to a cer-
tain extent. The stated TSSG managerial information needs are:
1. New Collection System Data -- For Planning R&D Programs
and Center operations.
2. Higher Management Policies and Objectives -- A self-
evident need, but one which some managers feel is often
overlooked.
3. Status of Projects -- In TSSG, emphasis is placed upon
ascertaining and documenting the status of R&D proj-
ects. Each manager must have available certain
project information; although some smaller components
tend to rely on memory for the information, the most
orderly and efficient keep some written records regard-
less of size.
4. Contractor Standards and Performance -- Currently, this
need is met by information recorded mainly in individual
project files; such a file should be part of the Agency-
wide systems being developed by DDS&T and O~L.
5. File of Technical Specifications -- A library of "boiler-
plate" papers giving routine passages in development
objectives and specifications.
6. NPIC Equipment Inventories -- An inventory with consistent
terminology giving items on hand, age, condition, main-
tenance requirements, and technical specifications such
as size, weight, and power needs.
7. Mission Schedules -- Size, type, and date of anticipated input.
S-E-C-R-E-T
44
CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Responses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
8. Personnel Locator and Attendance Records -- The need is
well established,and being met, but not efficiently
since many duplicative files exist.
The specific needs of the PMB were mentioned under the Output
section; essentially, this comprises near real-time reporting of avail-
ability and utilization of resources versus on-hand and estimated require-
ments and other valid tasks. Obviously, this is both an accounting and
forecasting function. PPB~RAD now accurately forecasts satellite mission
processing man-hour requirements, based upon numbers of targets, for the
PMB using MIS data. In addition, the PMB is moving toward better fore-
casting for the other NTP categories or whatever meaningftiil breakdown
of Center activities is devised in the future. The PMB needs data in
a timely fashion to greatly improve both the accounting and forecasting
capabilities.
The needs of the PPB Staff can be divided into routine and special
or non-routine. The routine needs are the data and properly formatted
output relevant to the budgeting cycle and the five-year planning and
programming effort and the data to keep the O~DIR and other legitimate
authority adequately informed concerning operations, current and future.
Although these may appear to be rather straightforward requirements,
they are complex endeavors which require accurate measurement and re-
porting of resources and their uses, classified at least three ways
(dollars, human resources, anu materiel resources) with a crosswalk
capability, meaningful assessments of the future environment and its
demands upon and resource implications for the Center, and policy and
plans to meet these future requirements, expressed in appropriate units
of resources required. The non-routine or special needs are more diffi-
cult to assess, which implies a significant degree of flexibility in the
data base and the system with respect to content and input and output.
However, certain data needs can be foreseen and incorporated in the sys-
tem with the assurance that the expense will be less than the benCfits
to be derived; other needs must be carefully weighed, cost versus benefit,
before they are routinely incorporated. And one other capability, not
now present in the MIS, is that the results of certain significant special
studies, including the data generated, must be incorporated in the system.
It is also worth mention that, to a greater or lesser extent, within
the Groups certain scheduling and production controlmechanisms exist.
S-E-C-R-E-T
45
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7
WORKING PAPER S-E-C-R-E-T
WORKING PAPER
Appendix E: Responses to Questions on Definition of Management
Information Needs and Reassessment of the MIS
If their existence is justified by efficient performance of essential
tasks, even given new or greatly improved system capabilities, then
the system should serve these activities where, from a system view-
point, it is efficient to do so.
As was pointed out, the IAS now uses the MIS and does not want to
see it discontinued. However, the Service is in favor of improved capa-
bilities, to be accomplished either through the current System or through
a new system. It can be stated with assurance, for example, that it
would be in favor of and willing to participate to a reasonable degree
in the design and implementation of a new system and~or redesign of the
current System were the benefits projected to be worthwhile to the
Service.
S-E-C-R-E-T
46
Approved For Release 2009/06/11 CIA-RDP73T00325R000100010032-7