(REPORTS MANAGEMENT - - - OBJECTIVE AND TYPES OF ANALYSIS) EVERETT O. ALLDREDGE ASSISTANT ARCHIVES FOR RECORDS MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS SERVICE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00399R000100190009-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 13
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 5, 2006
• Sequence Number: 9
• Publication Date: November 4, 1970
• Content Type: REPORT

"f c d i 5 A)Uivic or e ease 2006/11/13: CIA-RDF 003998000100190009-8
Everett 0. Alldredge
Eff
(VJ
e us all a/ service
reports i.rovemen
n us a motary g
of t} way en to us, meeti
ral ex6eriences
-
n our p6vviou
Reports management programs generally have four objectives. Today we
shall consider each of them briefly, for it is through implementing
these objectives that results are obtained.
? Elimination of reports, or data, of marginal value.
? Consolidation and simplification of reporting systems.
Use of most economical methods of reports preparation and pro-
cessing.
? Determination of information or data requirements.
The implementing of these objectives is usually done =" ""Ugi
--,*,~ i through the use of management analysis. Management
analysis is a generic term for a sizable number of specialized types of
analysis, of which reports improvements tends to utilize four of the
specialties, most often:
? Cost analysis.
? User requirements analysis.
. Procedural analysis.
. Presentation analysis.
The four objectives, plus the four types of analysis, gives me eight
things to discuss. Most successful speeches don't ask the listener to
remember so much, but I'll take the risk.
e? backg and froth
Irged. The Presasd nt
to indic to soirj
need
 The c, a cA d For :I is*a( w5008 r4/i8lnekA-VP 8RU0 0tp9C009-8
execut+_,. in effectiveness it produces. This may come about in either
of two ways (1) the executive, in revolt, reads very little and misses
some things he should have read, or (2) the executive slips into reports
addiction and those reports that then can't be finished in the office
become homework.
Many management information practitioners insist that the coming of the
electronic computer now makes it possible for managers to finally get
all the information they need. This approach results in executives
being urged to indicate what additional kinds of information they would
like to have and they using the computer to generate it if it is
statistical.
Unfortunately what is needed more often is not additionally computed
information but a better formulation of what factors impact on agency
effectiveness and to what extent.
Ralph Cordiner, as president of the General Electric Company, once
said in this connection:
"It is an immense problem to organize and communicate the information
required to operate a large, decentralized organization.... This deep
communication problem is not solved by providing more volume of data
for all concerned, by faster accumulation and transmittal of conventional
data, by wider distribution of previously existing data, or by holding
more conferences.. Indeed, the belief that such measures will meet the....
[management information] challenge is probably one of the great fallacies
in....managerial thinking.
"What is required, instead, is a far more penetrating and orderly study
of the [organization] in its entirety to discover what specific informa-
tion is needed at each particular position in view of the decisions to
be made there."
1. Elimination of Reports, or Data, of Marginal Value
The first goal of reports improvement programs has long been the elimina-
tion of reports, or data, or marginal value. Many of you saw the press
reports of how President Nixon, a few weeks ago in New Orleans, personally
asked the Secretary of HEW to climate a great deal of data from a report
required of school districts. This resulted from a school official showing
him a 26-page form to be filled in. This occured on a Friday, as I
recall it. By Monday noon a revised 6-page form was on the President's
 Apprj@d For Release 2006/11/13 : CIA-RDPW00399R000100190009-8
Valuable as these results are and the Navy SCRAP drive of 1964 exceeded
them, they do not produce the enduring benefits they should and the
scope of the benefits are not as basic as they should be. Three
reasons have been given for this:
The approach is too much tied to the framework of existing
reports and thereby becomes self-limiting.
The only criteria for eliminating whatever is. eliminated comes
down to personal preconception.
. The approach is negative only; it does not often provide the
time to make any studies on restructuring management information.
Many explanations have been advanced as to why reports clean-up compaigns
find so much clutter and duplication that can be challenged. We add
reports when programs change or program emphasis alter, but in the
process do not halt the total or partial flow of obsolete information.
Once reports take on a vested interest they get constant bureaucratic
support even though they may have a receding utility.
The most frequent complaint of State and local officials is that the
Federal grant machinery is hampered by too much work. It is not unusual
for applications for Federal assistance to be supported by hundreds and
even thousands of pages of documentation. Once an application is
approved, there often follows voluminous reporting covering every facet
of the project. A major goal of the FAR program being sponsored now by
CMB is to reduce this massive paperwork burden to more manageable
proportions.
The FAR effort is only the latest proof that reports and data elimination
can be accomplished if the groundwork is well layed. Consider these very
recent accomplishments.
. HEW has completed its review of requirements for State plans
for 22 of 39 formula grant programs. Generally they ranged
from 100 to 2,000 pages each. They were found to have such
limited usefulness that they have been replaced in the 22
programs by a brief preprinted contract-like document of
commitment of five to ten pages. This eliminates an average
of 7,000 pages of documentation annually for each State.
. HEW has reviewed initially 46 of its hundreds of required
 Appred For Release 2006/11/13 : CIA-RDPti00399R000100190009-8
information which eliminates nearly 800,000 pages of docu-
mentation annually. Submission of budget backup detail is
no longer required. This reduces the length of the local
budget submission by 50. to 60 percent.
In order to get the elimination decision. out of the hands solely of
the report requiring official, the present campaign requires a certifi-
cation of need by a higher placed executive. This has real merit,
if the mechanism is used as intended. Most requiring officials
admit their partiality to their own reports is so overwhelming as to
make it doubly difficult to reduce data.
2. Consolidation, including Simplification in the Processing,
of Reporting Systems
A few years back we took a look at the purchasing procedure of the Federal
Supply Service. To get a better visualization of the, documentation
involved we flow charted the procedure in its totality. The resulting
flow chart took up three walls of a sizable room. All reports on the
charts were colored blue and, as I recall, there were 37 of them. They
were clearly interconnected and related. It would not have meant much
to challenge these reports on a one-by-one basis. Incept as they were
handled as an interfacing cluster, or as a system if you please, any
substantial improvement would have been difficult indeed.
This tendency of systems to produce dovetailed and intertwined reports
is a characteristic of systems, one of the ways they integrate effort
and coordinate communications. This means that in any reports improve-
ment studies the inventories must peg the report to the appropriate
system when'applicable. Then the system must be comprehended and
challenged as a system.
Much of the frustration of applicants for Federal assistance is attri-
buted to the long, indefinite period while the request is "being pro-
cessed" within a system of the Federal agency involved. During this
period, silence is too often broken only by requests for more information.
Each Federal agency is under instrections to do detailed charting of
each step in its grant approval process, including the time required for
each step, and to eliminate all unnecessary steps. This focus on process
charting has already cut processing time for more than 50 programs and
promises much more.
 i`,;;ri&c tt d For 2ctions1 in 12 p ogr 0 that are expected
to reduce processing time by as much as 50 percent. For exam-
ple, processing of grants in the fiergency Conservation program
will be reduced on the average from 42 to 14 days; the Rural
Housing Individual Loan program from 35 to 21 days; and the
Resource Conservation and Development program from 28 to 7 days.
In sequential flow, those steps that are shown to be reports preparation
are often the steps producing the greatest delay. Much of the speed
up is/to slashing out reports.
3. Use of the Most Economical Methods of Reports Preparation
and Transmittal
One of the commonly experienced features in reports improvement is the
way the same sized offices performing the same kind of work (all
personnel offices, all disbursing offices, all loan office, etc.) differ
in their estimates as to how many manhours -s being devoted to a report,
or a reporting system.
Often, upon examination, these variant figures turn out to be unreliable
and they turn out to be similar in quantity. Often, however, they turn
out to be right, and one is confronted by the fact that different ways
of preparing the report(s) are the cause for their sometimes large
difference in costs.
We in MARS were recently interested in the costs reported to us on
a records holdings report we require annually from all agencies. Three
agencies, of about the same size, reported these figures: (a) $74,000;
(b) $66,000; (c) $532,000. Upon further investigation it may turn out
the first two figures were greatly undercomputed. It may, however, turn
out that if the third agency used the reports preparation methodology
of the other two it could drastically ;duce the cost of preparing the report.
Likewise, recently, we found ourselves viewing a cluster of reports
required from the public. Let the agency in this case be nameless. We
were at once impressed by the poor quality of the data gathering forms
which served as data input to a computer once keypunching had taken
place. Very little redesign work could have reduced keypunching costs.
Even more noticeable was the potential for source d to automation. The
possibility of designing the forms for computer i2i through a scanning
device should at once be explored, for it had the capability of a 40 man-
vear _
 1lIN r cc1 .sa i-tic6/n 1t/p3 ect aPp 0 9autno O~y90009-8
from headquarters to the field in 1.1 programs, five of
which are fully decentralized: Head Start;. Short Term
Training: Air Pollution Control Planning; Development of
Health Services; and, Migrant Health.
. 111hD canvassed the department and its grantees for ideas to
promote greater decentralization. Of over 240 specific
decentralization proposals considered, over half have been
implemented to date. Significant delegations have occurred
in the Open Space Land, Water and Sewer, and Rental Housing
Mortgage Assistance programs.
. Labor has increased decentralization in five programs:
Concentrated Pmployment; Apprecticeship Outreach; Immigra-
tion Registration; Wage-Hour Program; and, Labor-Management
Administration.
At a recent meeting with some Civil Service Commission officials Ken
Mulligan reminded us that decentralization is not thoroughgoing.
4. Determination of Information or Data Requirements
This is the last, and most difficult, of the goals of a reports improve-
ment program. Where most such programs fall down, if they fail, is that
they are not able to muster the talent or the time to plan an overall
management information structure for the various organizational segments
separately and the organization as a whole. This is certainly under-
standable for very few organizations ever get around making a full-
fledged determination of its data needs, if for no other reason than
their ever changing nature.
Students of MIS are having a difficult time in describing what MIS is.
The Society for Management Information Systems, of which Herb Schwartz
at AEC is the new president, is doing yeoman work in isolating the criteria
that should guide an organization in MIS development. The past president
of SMIS, Bob Head; in addressing a group of us earlier this year high-
lighted the following:
. MIS focuses on the key factors and elements of performance
that constitute the mission of the organization.
. It provides the manager with planning information as far into the
future as possible.
 ApproMptl For Release 2006/11/13 : CIA-RDP7rO0399R000100190009-8
In va`.,.ouis tmerican. Management Association seminars the point is often
made that MIS often neglects planning or tries to make control reports
somehow include planning. AMA publication insist:
. Control reports should cover short periods of time and be timely
so that if corrective action needs to be taken it can. be taken
promptly. Daily and weekly reports are common.
. Planning reports should cover long periods of time, often going
well back into the past and looking ahead at least several. years.
Planning reports may be as frequent as quarterly, but are apt
to be prepared less frequently.
If control reports are to cover what is "controllable," why is it that so
many control reports contain so much information on uncontrollable factors?
If control reports are to show variances from planned results, are the
planned results in writing so that there is no doubt about the targets
to be met? Until considerations of this kind dominate in the determina-
tions of information to be reported, most MIS studies will fall short of
their possible benefits to the organization.
Having talked so far about the goals of a reports improvement project,
may we next focus on four of the specialized kinds of management analysis
so often utilized in challenging the value of reports. I do not mean to
suggest these four are the only types of management analysis for reports
improvement covers the spectrum. I do suggest full competence is using
the four I shall enumerate today is crucial to best results.
,Y. Lc Use of Cost Analysis
Costing a report or reporting system is often the most valuable service
you can perform for management in reports evaluation. Once management
knows the cost of a report, or reporting system, management often imme-
diately knows (intuitively, no doubt) whether the information being
produced is worth it.
My first introduction to reports management was a costing project. A
Naval shipyard report being required by the Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations was being questioned as to value. When we found the cost of
the report was in excess of $800,000, the Navy Captain involved, after
ettic r hi c inr?rnr1iii i i-1, nrrrnnr t1,- ;.,-F.,,..,,.,+4,., .. s z 1_2
 Approued For Release 2006/11/13 : CIA-RDP7I 0399R000100190009-8
Time todesic n and recess t:he Needed forms. This involves the
analysis of what goes on the form and-low to best arrange it. The
design of the form is time consuming as a good design helps to
determine for example, whether it will take thirty minutes or twelve
minutes to fill in the required data.
Time to prepare the directive that establishes the ronort. A well
conceived direcive Cap npoints responsilality, 0) explains the
work procedure, (c) instructs supervisors and employees, thus
minimizing lost time when a new person is assigned the responsibility
for the report preparation. Directives that are not written clearly
and simply, are often difficult to interpret and apply and may result
in failure to meet goals. To find the cost of reading a directive,
determine the number of readers and their average grade level. Then
determine the average time to read the directive. Multiply the two
factors.
Time to set u rocedures and train personnel at each reportinj
active h sere possibledetemi.ne th.e time ant cost of installing
an existing similar system from available records. Project training
costs, include the time of personnel away from their work stations.
Validate the results by repeatedly observing actual time and costs.
Time to gather the information. Each report submission involves many
types of work and related costs . The prime source for determining
the time required in information gathering is from the various
organizations that perform the work. This determination may be
done on a sampling basis.
Time to maintain files s pJorting the report. Physical maintenance
o les inclucCe t time and costs ol-Ifeparing guides and
folder labels; average time to keep the files physically neat and
useable. Average time for audit of the files and for the disposition
of inactive records. The average time spent in searching and using the
files include the time spent in the "charge-out" system.
Time to compute the figures and compile the report. 'T'his operation
E uc es tTie time requi.rec o ttanscrT7bedata from other records ;
calculation of quantities, ratios, and averages. Consider time spent
in summarizing, refining, interpreting and restructuring information
to fill out the report.
Time to type the report. Typing time costs vary with complexities of
the report and the ability of the typist. Typing time and costs are
increased when a report has to be retyped.
Time to review the final can. Time and costs of reviewing a report
ore release varies greatly depending on the number of reviewers and
their thoroughness in evaluating the report. Costs and time usually
increase with the level of review.
Approved For Release 2006/11/13: CIA-RDP75-00399R000100190009-8
 Appd For Release 2006/11/13 : CIA-RD00399R000100190009-8
for readers to ext;rac,t Analyze, recast, use, and file the
'301110 reports require litt~.c attention .c tie receiving
ging
er~0, w~iai'.(.c others require a Fr oat deal of time. The more dig,
and analysis required, the }higher the using costs and time. Agencies
often print and distribute hundreds of copies of voluminous reports,
ranging up to one hundred pages. Each person reading these reports
spend some time.
Time used to process data tilras_gh the computer and related equipment.
1)epen&7ng 11 ' e metlloC input UseC in converging data to nlach7.ne
language, the time required varies. The coding operation, for
example, requires conversion of the source document by manually
transcribing selected data, one character at a time onto a spread
sheet. These datapxe then key punched and verified.
2. User Requirements Analysis
Richard Neuschel tells a to-the-point story of utilizing requirements
analysis.
"The following series of questions suggests a way of probing deeply to
get at the real worth of an existing report:
1. 'hat specific decisions can be made or action can be taken on the
basis of the information contained in/this report? That is, if the
results appearing in this report were significantly different from what
was expected, what specific decisions would be called for or what action
would be taken?
2. What is this report designed to protect against? That is, what
could happen that this information is aimed. at controlling? IIow likely
is this to happen, and what would be the real consequences if it did
happen?
"The ways in which this line of analysis can help to get rid of some
"Sacred cows" is illustrated in the experience of a procedures analyst
in a large indistrial organization who was engaged in a study of the
company's purchasing department. In the course of his work the analyst
raised a question about a weekly report which was sent to the director
of purchasing and which showed -- for each of the six geographically
dispersed purchasing departments reporting to him -- the value of purchase
orders placed during the preceding month, broken down by fiteen major
commodity classifications. In reply to the analyst's question., the
executive said., "Why, this is one of my most important reports. It
shows me the volume of activity in each of the purchasing units for which
I am responsible."
"One important point to be recognized in this response is that the pur-
chasing director did what is so commonly done in attempting to explain the
purpose of a report. He did not, in fact, explain its purpose or end
use at all. He simply redescribed the contents of the report. Or, stated
another way, he said what the report told him, not what he dial or could do
with it.
1 Approved For Release 2006?11113 : CIA-RDP75-00399R000100190009-8
 Aooi &ed For Release 2006/11/13 : CIA-RD 00399R00010019
0009-8
i
?'pe.isisterrt digging by the analyst showed that the only conceivable
purpose of the report was to dote nai.ne when the volume of activity in
each purchasing unit had changed sufficiently to suggest the need for
changing the manpower complement of that unit. But the existing
report could not even serve this purpose well for the following reasons:
1. The manpower complement of a service unit like a purchasing department
can ordinarily be adjusted only as longer-term changes take place in
its work load. But the report under consideration contained no meaningful
trend picture since it showed only the dollar value of purchases for the
preceding month and the year to date.
2. The dollar information in the report was built up from vendors'
invoices approved by these purchasing units for payment. Since, on
many purchase orders, vendors' deliveries were made and invoices pro-
cessed several weeks and often months after the purchase order was
placed, the dollar figures in the report were not a good indicator
of current work volume.
3. In addition, the dollar value of purchases is not the best measure
of purchasin activity, since little more time is ordinarily required
to purchase 500 worth of a given operating supply than to purchase
$250 worth of that same item. For this reason, the number of items
purchased -- by significant commodity class -- is a much better indi-
cator of activity.
"In light of this third conclusion, the analyst was able to point out
that the various purchasing units were already maintaining statistics
on number of purchase requisitions processed, broken down by commodity
class. As a result, he was finally able to secure discontinuance
of the report in question and to substitute for it a simple long-term
trend chart showing, to the director of purchasing, the fluctuations
in volume of purchase requisitions placed by each unit under him." 1/
3. Use of Procedural Analysis
Most reports are forms. In 1947 the Bureau of the Budget provided all
of us with a handbook on improving procedures through forms analysis.
Just as forms analysis ordinarily leads to forms design, reports analysis
lead to reports design. The type of analysis is procedural.
It is impossible to conceive of a procedure without paperwork, mostly
forms and reports. To portray how this paperwork functions, flow charts
of various types are deservedly popular. Many can be prepared rapidly.
As this flow chart is being developed it is customary for the basic
questions to be asked.
Nature. What is done? Ask about the process and the result.
Amount. Can a measure be found for each action? Beware of words like
"often" or "frequently" which often conceal the fact that nobody
knows.
/0 -
I/ RichardAVpa a or Release 2006/11/13: CIA-RDP75-00399R000100190009-8
 Apprd For Release 2006/11/13 : CIA-RDP00399R000100190009-8
Purpose. Why is the work done? What would happen if it were not done?
Loo or Compelling considerations.
Place. Where is the work done? Would a different location be an
ac'fvantage.
'Tiriie. When is the work done? What is the time cycle for the procedure?
Ts this optimal? What steps could be eliminated? Could steps at the
later stages of the cycle be simplified by altering, or extending an
earlier step?
Means. How is the work done. This includes a portrayal of the movement,
equipment, and kinds of review.
To be sure, these are the time honored procedural analysis questions.
The fact that they are not new does not invalidate their reports manage-
ment utility. Probably such thorough-going analysis would only he
expended on the costly reports. In DOD a costly report might be those
in excess of $200,000. In Commerce it might be those in excess of
$50,000. In the Security and Exchange Commission it might be $15,000.
4. Presentation Analysis
Many reports are not used by all the persons that could profit from them
because they are hard to use. Computer-prepared statistical reports,
for example, often have coded headings rather than English language
headings. The user who can not remember what code 211 is has to grub
it out of the code directive, if he can find the directive, or call the
preparing organization on the telephone.
"Bed sheet" reports, filled with figures from top to bottom, from
side to side, on oversized paper discourage the user. Do you have "mine"
your way through to see that all regional offices are on target, with
the necessary supporting data, except on office, which it is the one
office not on target you are interested in? If someone had simply
circled in red the one offending figure, that would have strengthened the
report.
Indeed, presentation analysis is concerned with reports strengthening.
It asks, questions such as:
Do we have too much detail?
Is the detail limited to that which can he controlled?
Are the reports expressed in the language of the user?
Are deviations from plan computed, or does the reader have to do his
own calculating?
Are figures footnoted or otherwise highlighted when they are unusual?
-,. /1
Approved For Release 2006/14/13 : CIA-RDP75-00399R000100190009-8
 Apprd For Release 2006/11/13 : CIA-RDF00399R 0010 19t9-8
Presentation analysis uses graphic methods whenever poss1.b.ie. in o's
way trends can be more easily seen, percentages more easily grasped.,
processes more easily understood, and matters that require further in.-
vestigation. spotlighted'. A good many years ago the Navy issued a
pamphlet on "flic Presentation of Ideas" that should have received wider
distribution. Indeed, it could be the theme for an entire reports
improvement seminar.
Conclusion. President Nixon and 6113 have given us a tremendouse challenge.
Actually all of us should be grateful. for it. We have long advocated
that too many reports have marginal value and too many reporting systems
need a drastic overhaul. This is a great opportunity to show we were
right and that any organization. can gain from having its information
gathering techniques put through the wringer.
In our discussion today on improving and strengthening our reporting
apparatus, we meant to leave no inference that any structure of infor-
mation or system of control can replace the need for judgement, vision,
resourcefulness, skill in motivating men, and the energy and drive that
we associate with true executives. There is testimony from these
executives, however, that a successful reports program helps to bring
their executive qualities into fuller play through their being better
informed and focusing their attention on the factors that have a major
bearing on getting results.
This report is distributed for the Interagency Records Administration
Conference by the National Archives and Records Service, Gen
Administration. For further information write Conference Secretary,
Office of Records Management, National Archives and Records Service,
Washington, D. C., 20408, or call 963-5180 (Code 13-35180).
Approved For Release 2006/113 : CIA-RDP75-00399R000100190009-8
 ro
c
UNCLASSIFIED
CONFIDENTIA
OFFICIAL ROUTING SLIP
TO
NAME AND ADDRESS
DATE
INITIALS
1
2
3
4
5
6
ACTION
DIRECT REPLY
PREPARE REPLY
APPROVAL
DISPATCH
RECOMMENDATION
COMMENT
FILE
RETURN
CONCURRENCE
INFORMATION
SIGNATURE
Remarks :
For Your Information.
Attached is a draft copy of the Reports
Management Speech by Mr. Alldredge with the
changes and corrections we made. The reprint
will be distributed after your talk.
You also have another handout titled "The
Pile-Up of Paper" with a paragraph about Pres.
Nixon's Reports Campaign on its back page. This
will be with the notes the Conferees receive in
the morning.
FOLD HERE TO RETURN TO SENDER
FROM: NAME. ADDRESS AND PHONE NO.
DATE
4
LA 0
-
11/4/70