Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1982

7

Organization and Management

John O. Marsh, Jr., was appointed Secretary of the Army on 30 January 1981. Secretary Marsh, a man with distinguished military and political credentials, and his principal deputies had initiated several actions which, by October 1981, had begun to improve the morale and organization of the Army staff. Authority was decentralized as far as practicable, and action officers were encouraged to come up with innovative concepts and to participate fully in the decision-making process. The Army's top leaders indicated clearly their own priorities and provided timely guidelines and directives. These actions facilitated progress. For many young action officers a Pentagon assignment became a rewarding, if exacting, experience; they knew they would have to live with the results of their projects when they were transferred to the field.

During fiscal year 1982 several organizational changes occurred within the Army secretariat. Effective 22 November 1981, a new Senior Executive Service (SES) position was established in the Office, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition). This new position was substantially an extention of the existing Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research and Development. However, the position now serves as a Principal Deputy (Research, Development and Acquisition). In essence, the incumbent Dr. Amoretta M. Hoeber wears two hats. Still pending is a legislative proposal by the Department of Defense to authorize another assistant secretary of the Army position.

The Army Broadcasting Service (ABS) was established 1 June 1980, under the office of the Chief of Public Affairs, in response to a DOD directive telling the secretaries of the military departments to consolidate management and control of their American Forces Radio and Television Service (AFRTS) outlets. Effective 1 October 1982 the ABS and all Army AFRTS outlets were combined under one table of distribution and allowances (TDA).

There were significant functional realignments within the Army staff. As reported last year, in October 1980 the Army established the Performance Management of the Army Staff

[119]

(PMAS) program under the Director of the Army Staff to assess the progress of the staff as a corporate body in accomplishing common objectives. Six common objectives were selected for the staff: manning the total force, training the total force, structuring the total force, mobilizing and sustaining the total force, managing modernization, and improving staff procedure. Also last year, a decision was announced in May 1981 to realign and integrate command, control, communications, and computer (C4) management within the Army staff. Accordingly, in October 1981 the Army created the Office of Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans for Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (OADCSOPS-C4) headed by the previous Assistant Chief of Staff for Automation and Communications (ACSAC). The Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Automation and Communications (OACSAC) merged with the Command and Control Division of the ODCSOPS Requirements Directorate.

A review of Army management duties in the Management Directorate of the Office of the Chief of Staff led to a realignment of functions between the Management Directorate and the Office of the Comptroller of the Army (OCA). The transferred functions highlight the role that OCA plays in improving efficiency-primarily in the areas of review and analysis, management analysis, installation management, and special resource management analyses, including commercial activities. The Management Directorate retained responsibility for overall management doctrine; base reduction, realignment, and closure actions; and field operating agency management. Realignment began in April 1982 and was completed in August 1982, resulting in dissolution of the Army Management Division and its replacement by the Resource Management Directorate, OCA.

During the current fiscal year thirteen base realignment studies or actions were at varying degrees of completion. These studies fell into three groups: studies in progress, studies complete with decisions pending, and realignments already implemented.

Five studies are almost done that determine whether routine support functions for two or more installations could be provided by a single facility. These studies are evaluating the feasibility of consolidating Anniston Army Depot and Fort McClellan, Alabama; Fort Bliss, Texas, and White Sands, New Mexico; Fort Monroe and Fort Eustis, Virginia; Fort Ritchie and Fort Detrick, Maryland; and installations in and around Washington, D.C.

Studies have been completed and decisions are pending regarding the retention of Fort Indiantown Gap, Pennsylvania, and Fort Sheridan, Illinois.

[120]

Three decisions were announced which resulted in realignments being completed during this period. The operation of the Navajo Army Depot was turned over to the Arizona National Guard, thus releasing federal assets to meet other requirements. Basic training was terminated at Fort Gordon, Georgia, and transferred to other Army training centers. Additionally, the 1st Battalion, 55th Air Defense. Artillery, was moved from Fort Bliss, Texas, to join its parent division at Fort Polk, Louisiana. The realignment previously announced at Fort MacArthur, California, was completed on 1 October 1982, and the installation was placed on inactive status.

The Army is reevaluating possible locations for consolidating Headquarters, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. The original decision to consolidate at Fort Meade, Maryland, was reversed. Subsequently, the Secretary of the Army announced his decision to consolidate the Intelligence Threat Analysis Center at the Washington Navy Yard.

Implementation of the previously announced action to move the aircraft maintenance activity from New Cumberland Army Depot to Corpus Christi Army Depot has been delayed while questions raised by the House Appropriations Committee's Security and Investigation Team are being studied.

No further action has been taken by the Army on the proposed closure of Fort Wadsworth, New York. Action has been deferred pending resolution of litigation in Federal District Court in Brooklyn over disposal of the property.

The Director of the Army Staff ordered that the Army Force Modernization Coordination Office (AFMCO) be placed temporarily under the operational control of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and Plans (DCSOPS), effective 16 October 1981. The chief, AFMCO, was designated special assistant to the DCSOPS for Modernization, although he was still assigned to OCSA.

No AFMCO spaces have been allocated to the new ODCSOPS directorate pending a review of recommendations made by a special inspector general task force on modernization, discussed elsewhere.

The Armored Combat Vehicle Technology (ACVT) System Management Office was dissolved as a part of Office of the Chief of Staff, Army (OCSA), on 30 March 1982. Headquarters, Materiel Development and Readiness Command (HQ DARCOM), and the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development, and Acquisition (ODCSRDA) assumed management and oversight of the program.

[121]

There were several significant changes and realignments of functions within ODCSPER. In order to reduce fragmentation of the training and development function and place it under the supervision of a member of the Senior Executive Service, to reduce overhead, and to accommodate reduced manpower authorizations, the Training and Development Office was closed. Its policy functions are being integrated with related duties in the Staffing and Career Management Office. Functions of a nonpolicy nature will be assigned to the U.S. Army Civilian Personnel Center to incorporate them with other operational training and development duties. In addition, the Staffing and Career Management Office was redesignated the Staffing, Career Management, and Training Office.

After six recommendations were proposed by the Family Action Committee to the Chief of Staff, the Family Liaison Office (FLO) was established in January 1982 as part of the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (ODCSPER). Its main tasks are to advise the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) on military family matters; to coordinate programs and develop policy for improving the quality of family life in the Army; to provide for communications with the Army in the field and a forum for conferences, symposia, and colloquia to stimulate new policy considerations; and to collect and maintain a central repository of information, data, research, and demographic projections related to Army family life. Under this charter, the FLO serves as a link between Army families in the field and Headquarters, Department of the Army. Further information can be found on page 106.

The Inspector General's agency and office underwent several significant structural changes during fiscal year 1982. These resulted from a mission analysis which led to a fundamental change in operating philosophy. During the period September to December 1981, a study was conducted on the effectiveness of the flow of information inside and outside the Inspector General (IG) system. Concurrently, an IG team studied Army systems and force modernization and their relationship to operations. The findings of both studies revealed a lack of coordination and synthesis as well as little analysis.

As reported last year The Inspector General determined that a new inspection philosophy was necessary to achieve meaningful improvement in Army and IG operations. The stress on inspections was moved more completely away from monitoring a unit's compliance with policies toward a total systems approach aimed at resolving problems which may be discovered first at the

[122]

unit level. Unit deficiencies may actually be manifestations of policy defects at far higher levels. Inspections should reveal such defects and follow through the entire Army system to find solutions (the systemic approach).

Team findings, combined with the change in operating concepts, caused The Inspector General to direct internal restructuring. Additionally, he called a moratorium on DA level inspections while DAIG members studied Army systems in order to conduct effective systemic inspections.

To make better use of information available in the DAIG system, the Information Management and Analysis Division was created. This division provides automation support to the agency. It is also the focal point for analyzing DAIG acquired information and developing DAIG's major issues concerning Army activities. In conjunction with the Audit and Inspection Follow-up Division, it monitors data for trends and recurring problems and makes recommendations for proper action to The Inspector General. A similar program was begun in the Assistance Division regarding the analysis of complaint data.

Another new element created as a result of the mission analysis was the Force Modernization Division. Based on the team which analyzed Army-wide systems, it is the primary point for training agency personnel in system relationships and their effects and for identifying and demonstrating their dependency. Beginning with FORSCOM in September 1981, at its commander's request, the division conducted systemic inspections worldwide to define the effect of diverse systems on each other and to demonstrate the need for their coordination. Additionally, it developed techniques of inspection to be used by all inspectors general. As fiscal year 1982 closed, the division was designing a training program for inspectors to be given before a series of test inspections.

The systemic concept was also expanded to the Training Management Inspection Division. Based on priorities established by the Chief of Staff, the division conducted inspections in the areas of mobilization and training standardization. Regarding mobilization, emphasis was placed on the expansion of the training base and the effect this would have on facilities and scheduling.

The Technical Inspections Division acquired more responsibilities with the addition of chemical security evaluations. In November 1981, the Vice Chief of Staff directed DCSOPS and The Inspector General to monitor more closely management of the chemical security programs of the major commands. To accomplish this, DAIG would monitor and evaluate inspections and

[123]

their results. The agency would also evaluate the management of all organizations with chemical security or support responsibilities. DCSOPS would have overall management responsibility for the Chemical Security Program and would establish standards.

In summary, during fiscal year 1982, The Inspector General's office and agency underwent a fundamental change in inspection philosophy, completing the move from a compliance to a systemic approach. This change resulted from studies of IG information flow and of the effect of Army systems on each other. Additionally, two new divisions were created to accommodate the change, and the systemic approach was adapted to the operations of all other DAIG divisions.

VIABLE (Vertical Installation Automation Baseline), is an Armywide effort to obtain modern and efficient automated data processing (ADP) equipment to replace existing 1960s technology based on obsolete IBM 360s. It will significantly reduce the time needed to process forty or more functional management information systems of common base support operations (BASOPs).

Col. Clinton H. Black, the U.S. Army Computer Systems Command Project Manager for VIABLE, announced on 19 April 1982 that the Electronics Data Systems Corporation (EDSc) had been awarded the contract for designing, developing, and operating Project VIABLE under the supervision of his office.

EDSc received $16.6 million for the first year of a projected ten-year, $600 million contract that will revolutionize the Army's automated data processing capabilities. Initially it will modernize information processing at forty-seven installations in CONUS, Alaska, Hawaii, and Panama with an option for twenty-three more during the ten-year life of the contract.

Colonel Black called the project "probably the largest, most complex automatic data processing program the government has taken on." It will give the Army the same kind of advanced computer technology found in private industry today and will carry the Army into the next decade technologically. "VIABLE," he said, "is desperately needed by the Army because data processing systems that now perform base support functions are overloaded and unreliable. We have technology that was old in the late 1960s. It gets balky and is hard to maintain. We have difficulty keeping up with data processing demands in peacetime, and lack the technology to support the Army adequately during mobilization."

[124]

"Project VIABLE will eliminate not only the problems we face today, but also those in the foreseeable future," he said. "It will give the Army an up-to-date, modern system to process supply, finance, and personnel information." This sophisticated network of computers talking to computers will replace the Army's antiquated stand-alone data processing methods. VIABLE will enable any computer in the network to access information in any other computer in the network, transferring vital data immediately wherever it may be needed.

The VIABLE contract represents five years of planning, developing, and testing begun under Col. James E. Love-Colonel Black's predecessor as project manager-who worked on the program for four and a half years. Over one hundred top military and computer experts from the U.S. Army Computer Systems Command-where the VIABLE project management office is located-the Army staff, and the major field commands teamed up to evaluate industry proposals.

In the first phase of the evaluation, the Army team reviewed each proposal to ensure that it met the Army's formally stated needs. This was phase I, which began in February 1981 and ended in June 1981 with the selection of two corporations to proceed to the next evaluation phase.

Phase II was a live test in which the two computer firms assembled their equipment and demonstrated their ability to meet or exceed the Army's needs.

Last December 1981, the competing firms made their last technical proposals to the Army. This was followed two months later by their best and final cost bids. The Army team used computers to select the best computer system: a life-cycle cost model helped to determine the initial cost to buy as well as the cost to operate each system over a ten-year period, before it selected EDSC.

Electronics Data Systems Corporation will establish and operate five government-owned, contractor-operated regional data centers (RDC). Two of these large-scale processing centers are already in operation, at Newington, Virginia, near Fort Belvoir and at Norcross, Georgia, near Fort McPherson. The other three will be located at Central State College, Killeen, Texas, near Fort Hood; Radcliff, Kentucky, near Fort Knox; and Monterey, California, near Fort Ord. The regional centers will support forty-four distributed processing centers operated by the Army. Each system user will have access to large-scale computer software packages and to data sets from the regional centers.

The hardware equipment that will be installed under this this contract will come from various manufacturers. Each regional

[125]

data center will have powerful computer capabilities-multiple Amdahl 470 central processing units, Storage Technology Corporation disk drives and printers, and NCR Comten front-end processors. This hardware will communicate with an IBM 4331 central processor at the local site. Each site will have hundreds of Raytheon terminals supported by the IBM 4331 computer.

The United States Army Computer Systems Command (USACSC), the Army's central design agency for management information systems, will receive the first new computers. The first IBM 4331 will be delivered to their computer center in Falls Church, Virginia, in August. The second one, scheduled for September, will go to their Support Group Lee at Fort Lee, Virginia. These computer centers will be supported by Regional Data Center No. 1 at Newington, Virginia. The next three IBM 4331 computers will be installed at the U.S. Army Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia; U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort Monroe, Virginia; and U.S. Army Health Services Command, Fort Sam Houston, Texas. They will be supported by Regional Data Center No. 2, at Norcross, Georgia. All five regional centers and local sites will be completed and functioning by mid-1985.

By the end of fiscal year 1982 the VIABLE project was on schedule, within budget, and running very well. EDSC was required by its contract to achieve a system reliability level of at least 98 percent for a thirty-day period, but the company proved it had a reliability level of over 99 percent.

The proliferation of Management Information Systems (MIS) throughout the Army in the continental United States and overseas has created a serious dilemma for action officers at DA Headquarters who are responsible for the balanced development of personnel and materiel resources required by the Army force modernization programs. This year the Force Management Impact Analysis System (FMIAS) was established, and a mission element needs statement (MENS) under the terms of OMB Circular A-109 and AR 18-1 was approved on 25 February.

The purpose of FMIAS is to provide HQDA action officers with rapid access to required resource management information to help them assess the impact of changes in the Army's personnel and equipment. The basic concept is to consolidate selected data elements from existing resource management systems into a single data base. A request for proposal (RFP) was released in August, and in September a software development contract was awarded to Presearch, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia; the contract calls for a functional description (FD) by December 1982 and delivery of a system design by February 1983.

[126]

Since October 1973, the Army has employed a system called ELIM-COMPLIP (Enlisted Loss Inventory Model-Computation of Manpower Programs Using Linear Programming) to reflect the current enlisted manpower status of the active Army and to project enlisted manpower variables seven years into the future. The results are used in budgeting, planning, using the training base, and setting recruitment objectives. Each year the Army makes refinements to ELIM-COMPLIP that improve enlisted loss projections and enlisted force management. Although a highly successful tool, ELIM-COMPLIP is limited because it actually computes only the enlisted force and cannot discriminate by grade or military occupational specialty (MOS). Officer computations are done externally and are manually entered into the ELIM-COMPLIP system so that they are available for the various reports the system produces. A five-year project is under way to develop a more comprehensive system called FORECAST-a multilevel, modular, integrated information system which will enable projection of active Army and civilian strength both in aggregate terms and by grade, skill, and unit. The system will provide an integrated approach for improved planning, programming, and budgeting and will improve the Army's ability to test the effects of alternative policies on the force. The system will be able to operate under conditions of peacetime, partial mobilization, full mobilization, and demobilization. During fiscal year 1983, the production version of the MOs-level subsystem should be completed and- placed in operation. Contracts will be let next year to continue the development of the mobilization (enlisted) subsystem and the officer subsystem and for the budget module and the civilian subsystem. These subsystems are scheduled to be operational between fiscal years 1983 and 1987. When combined with the existing capabilities of FORECAST, they will enable the Army both to project peacetime strengths and to plan for and project strengths under mobilization conditions.

Development of the Manpower Evaluation and Tracking System (METS) continued this year as a management initiative to improve information available to support Army resources management and allocation. METS is a three-phase program to monitor the use of manpower resources. It compares data from the Army manpower, personnel, and financial accounting systems. This procedure will allow the Army to verify that manpower and related dollars are being spent according to the purposes for which they were justified and authorized. During phase 1, which was completed in fiscal year 1980, the essential system structure

[127]

was established to demonstrate both the feasibility and the capability of the METS project. Part of phase II, completed in fiscal year 1982, furnishes data to manage the manpower-related resources of the total Army's manned units, including data for the active military at the grade and skill level. When phase II is completed in fiscal year 1983, METS will also provide civilian cost and work hour data at the management level. During phase III, METS will be expanded to give automated, remote access to the system by major commands and interested agencies. An upgraded programming system for the United States Army Reserve (USAR) became fully operational in fiscal year 1982. This system, entitled ARMPRO, supplies manpower planning, budgeting, and programming information for USAR troop program units similar to that provided by ELIM-COMPLIP for the active Army.

The Army's Force Development Integrated Management System (FORDIMS) is scheduled to be fully operational in December 1983, while its authorization subsystem and the budget system are already in operation.

Technical systems designing and programming of the Vertical Force Development Management Information System (VFDMIS), created to meet Army force and manpower management needs in both peacetime and wartime, continued throughout fiscal year 1982. A three-day walk through of the resources allocation increment was conducted in June 1982 to verify and correct functional requirements documents for this addition to the VFDMIS data base. One hundred personnel from Army staff agencies and all major commands (MACOMs) participated. As a result of the System Development Review, held in September 1981, the product manager was trying to solve two major problems. The first one was to find a way to provide user access from unclassified remote terminals to a classified data base with assistance from Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM). The second problem was to determine equipment requirements. USACSC and United States Army Communications Command (USACC) were both helping in this effort. In July 1982, an in-depth review of the VFDMIS concept began as well as an evaluation of the ability of the Vertical Installation Automatic Baseline (VIABLE) to support the VFDMIS requirement. By the close of the reporting period, conclusions had been reached confirming the VFDMIS concept but requiring further evaluation and cost analysis of the use of VIABLE by VFDMIS.

The Vertical-The Army Authorization Documents System (VTAADS) and Installation-The Army Authorization Docu-

[128]

ments System (ITAADS) have been developed and operated by USACSC for DCSOPS. VTAADS provides a management reporting capability in addition to its primary function of furnishing documentation of organizational structure and unit requirements as well as authorization for personnel and equipment. Approval and control of these authorizations are centralized at Headquarters, Department of the Army.

ITAADS was extended to the following locations during fiscal year 1982: Fort Irwin, California; U.S. Army Southern European Task Force, Vicenza, Italy; USA Depot, New Cumberland, Pennsylvania; USA Depot, Tobyhannah, Pennsylvania; USA Depot, Anniston, Alabama; USA Depot, Red River, Texas; USA Depot, Corpus Christi, Texas; and USA Depot, Sacramento, California.

TAADS is currently operational at 17 major commands (VTAADS) and 65 installations (ITAADS), totaling 82 data processing sites worldwide. In the logistics area the Standard Army Ammunition System Level 3 was successfully verified by MACOM representatives and was installed in Korea. The Standard Army Intermediate Level Supply System-Expanded (SAILS-ABX) completed its last extension and was fully operational at 54 sites Armywide. The Direct Support Level Standard Supply System continued its expansion at the divisional level and was successfully verified for use at nondivisional direct support units on new van-mounted mini computers. Development continued on such systems as the Standard Army Maintenance System and the Standard Property Book System, which are scheduled for extension in the mid-1980s. Major efforts were made by the logistics design centers to adapt existing systems to incorporate new source data automation afforded by bar-code scanning and to use the new data processing capabilities provided by the extension of the VIABLE computers. These computers will replace out-of-date hardware at the major Army installations.

Another important materiel information system is the Decentralized Automated Service Support System (DAS3). This is a tactical transportable computer system intended to automate manual operations or upgrade currently automated operations of active and reserve component units within the Combat Service Support (CSS) community. Each DAS3 will reflect the personality of its particular resident software. A large variety of software applications will address CSS functions of supply, maintenance, personnel, financial, ammunition, medical, transportation, and port operation management.

The first contract for the DAS3 was let on 28 April 1979 to the Management and Technical Services Company (MATSCO)

[129]

a subsidiary of General Electric Corporation. Initially fourteen prototypes were built, followed by the first production deliveries in December 1980. There are two DAS3 configurations currently planned: an A model and a B model. Both include Honeywell Level 6 Model 47 computers and peripherals mounted in a single 35-foot-long semitrailer van. The two configurations differ in the mix of peripherals, the amount of computer memory, and the inherent communications capability. The A model, currently in production at a rate of six per month, is intended for non divisional use by direct support and general support units as well as by ammunition and medical units. Current plans call for the production of 211 A models (including the 14 prototypes). The B model, scheduled to start deliveries in October 1983 at a rate of four per month, is intended for divisions, separate brigades, personnel units, and Military Traffic Management Command ports. Four test sets and 260 production sets are to be acquired.

There were also major developments in management information systems of Army medical activities and installations, which attracted the attention of some nonmedical property accountability activities.

During fiscal year 1981, efforts were made to extend the recently developed system change package (SCP) 05 to the Army Medical Department Property Accounting System (AMEDDPAS). This package represented a complete redesign of the AMEDDPAS in order to take advantage of state-of-the-art changes in software design, to correct major deficiencies in the previous AMEDDPAS programs, and to improve the capabilities of the system. SCP 05 offered a complete property management package to include property accounting, centralized visibility, equipment forecasting, automated inventory, and maintenance management modules.

A total of sixty-six medical activities, including both hospitals and research and development activities, were transferred to the AMEDDPAS system change package 05. On-site training was conducted by teams from the U.S. Army Health Services Command and the Medical Functional Requirements Group of The Surgeon General's Office. In addition, AMEDDPAS was extended to one nonmedical activity in fiscal year 1981. In May 1981 U.S. Army Western Command (WESTCOM), Fort Shafter, Hawaii, requested implementation of AMEDDPAS to automate its property management function. In July, WESTCOM became the first nonmedical organization to install AMEDDPAS.

SCP 05 was extended to the remaining ten medical activities that were scheduled to receive the system. In September 1982,

[130]

the U.S. Army Community Hospital in Seoul, Korea, changed from a manual property book to the AMEDDPAS. With this conversion, all Army fixed TDA medical treatment facilities worldwide were operating under AMEDDPAS programs except for the hospitals in SHAPE, Belgium, and Livorno, Italy. All activities of the Medical Research and Development Command had also incorporated the AMEDDPAS to automate property books.

Because of its successful use at WESTCOM in fiscal year 1981, the automated inventory capability using bar-code technology, and the lack of any other readily available automated property system, AMEDDPAS grew in popularity among other major Army commands. During the year, the system was implemented for the installation property books at Fort McClellan, Fort Stewart, and Fort Hood; for the facility engineer, bachelor housing, and family housing property books at Fort McClellan; and for the U.S. Army Japan (USARJ), the Southeast Commissary Region at Fort Lee, and the Army Communications Command, Hawaii. Based on the success of the system, the Troop Support Agency (TSA), Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), and USARJ have adopted the AMEDDPAS as a standard property management system and have made plans for full implementation at all subordinate TDA activity property books.

As mentioned above, the ability to perform equipment inventories using the kind of bar codes common in supermarkets was incorporated in AMEDDPAS. The use of bar coding to inventory property assets had been first investigated by OTSG in 1978, and a decision was made to integrate the technology in AMEDDPAS in the next major systems change package. Development of this concept was coordinated with the DOD's steering group for Logistics Applications of Automated Marking and Reading Symbols (LOGMARS), formed in 1976 to identify and standardize bar-code applications. The idea behind an automated inventory is that each item of equipment is assigned a unique control number in the AMEDDPAS data base and affixed with a label containing the number in bar-code configuration. A programmable bar-code reading device is used to scan and store the number on each piece of equipment within a given area. The collected data is then transferred to a computer over a telephone line where it is processed against the AMEDDPAS data base and a listing is generated to provide managers with a report of the results. This bar-code application is used not only in the government but in the commercial sector as well.

[131]

A test to determine the savings, if any, offered by the inventory of property using bar-code technology versus conventional methods was conducted at the Fort Stewart, Georgia, Medical Department Activity in March 1981. The results of the test showed an average time reduction of 67 percent using the bar-code concept. In addition, data collection was more accurate, and personnel with less experience in property management could be used to conduct inventories.

Action to extend bar-code inventory to three additional sites -the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), the Fort Campbell Medical Department Activity, and Brooke Army Medical Center-was begun in fiscal year 1982.

Close coordination continued with the LOGMARS steering group. Equipment and ancillary supplies and services for all Department of the Army bar-code applications were procured through the DOD Productivity Incentive Funds (PIF). As an adjunct to this, centralized procurement was recommended as the best way to obtain the economies of a large purchase. To support this action, AMEDDPAS requirements and equipment specifications were prepared and presented to the steering group so the procurement action could be started as close as possible to the release of fiscal year 1983 PIF money.

A prototype system for electronically transmitting supply orders from hospitals in Europe to commercial suppliers in the United States was developed with the cooperation of the Defense Logistics Agency and the U.S. Air Force. The system relies on electronic processing of purchase requests through the military worldwide communication network to a transfer site in the United States. At this site, the message is automatically switched to the commercial teletype network and sent direct to the supplier. The supplier ships the materiel directly to the requesting overseas unit, using either commercial transportation or the DOD system, as appropriate. At the same time, the supplier electronically advises the customer unit of the action taken on its supply order.

In the area of military operations the major emphasis was on the Military Computer Family (MCF), a project to develop standard embedded automated data processing equipment (ADPE). Development contracts were awarded to four contractors: General Electric-TRW, RCA, Raytheon, and IBM. The IBM Corporation experienced cost increases and project delays, which caused its contract to be terminated by the Army. The remaining contractors were on schedule and within budget allotments.

MCF was being developed in accordance with DOD, Instruction 5000.5X, Standard Set Architecture for Embedded Com-

[132]

puters. A congressional review raised issues about the impact of the concepts in the policy: (1) the policy could lock DOD into the use of inferior technology, (2) DOD might not be able to take advantage of industry's technological innovations, and (3) the policy would restrict competition. The Army decided the MCF could continue without DOD Instruction 5000.5X. However, Congress requested OSD to conduct a study during fiscal year 1983 to determine the following: applicability of commercial off-the-shelf technology to defense missions; available standardization alternatives and their cost and impact on software portability; potential for functional standardization across military services; and plans to reduce computer proliferation.

The responsibilities of the Army Automation Security Program (AASP) were expanded in September by the Defense Intelligence Agency to include reaccreditation of contractor sites operating highly classified systems. This process gives the Army a visibility at all of these sites, which the Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence (ACSI) did not have before. Accreditation of Telecommunications Centers (TCC) operated by the Army became a reality with the accreditation in April of the TCC in Vicenza, Italy. Both these activities reflect continued growth and acceptance of the AASP, thus increasing confidence that these systems are capable of processing classified information as designed.

OACSI participated in developing the charter for the DOD Computer Security Center. This involvement is important since the center will have long-range impact upon the Army's security programs, especially in the critical area of multilevel security and development of security standards.

OACSI continued as a member of the Quadripartite Working Group on Automation Interoperability of the American, British, Canadian, and Australian (ABCA) armies. Participation included writing a Category III concept paper entitled "Impact of Technology on Security Aspects of Automated Tactical Command and Control Systems" and a Quadripartite Standing Agreement entitled "Principles and Characteristics of Interoperability Security." These documents formed the foundation of security for ABCA tactical command and control systems.

AASP resource management improved with a decision in April by the Army Select Committee to establish a Program Development Increment Package (PDIP) for automation security functions. This action will provide visibility over all resource requirements for the AASP.

The replacement of obsolete automated data processing systems by Project VIABLE and FORECAST was followed by the

[133]

initiation of a similar program for revitalizing the Worldwide Military Command and Control System (WWMCCS). WWMCCS is the composite of command and control center facilities; selected warning systems; automated data processing facilities; interconnecting voice, record, and data communications; and procedures, displays, and people that provide the means for command of military forces-from the national command authorities to the military commanders. The WWMCCS automated data processing (ADP) program involves data collection and processing capabilities within the Army's WWMCCS facilities. These ADP systems have been in place, with some improvements, since the early 1970s. The first steps have been taken to develop a mission element needs statement, or the equivalent definition, of the overall requirements to replace this equipment with ADPE, based on today's more advanced and sophisticated data processing technology.

Although Congress is supposed to enact appropriations legislation before a fiscal year begins, it has a long history of not doing so. The Army's fiscal year 1982 appropriations were no exception. The fiscal year 1982 Defense Appropriation Act was not passed until 29 December 1981, almost three months after fiscal year 1982 officially began (1 October 1981). During this time a continuing resolution authority (CRA) served as an interim measure until fiscal year 1982 Defense appropriations were passed. The CRA delayed Army spending by keeping it at fiscal 1981 levels and by placing a hold on new starts. On 10 September 1982, the Military and Civilian Pay Supplemental was passed, completing the appropriation for fiscal year 1982.

Table 8 is expressed in terms of current authorized obligations, while the Army's actual expenditures include obligations incurred in previous fiscal years. Overall obligation performance was good. The obligation shortfall occurred because a portion of the planned program supplemental was not received. Outlays were within the acceptable range. The total variance was attributed to either not receiving the program supplemental or receiving it too late, to reprogramming actions which were not in the budget, to favorable foreign currency fluctuations, and to deobligations and obligation shortfalls during much of the year.

While simultaneously closing out fiscal year 1982, the Director of the Army Budget, Brig. Gen. Harold J. Davis, Jr., issued a statement on 30 September explaining the status of the Army's

[134]

TABLE 8 - OBLIGATION AND OUTLAY STATUS
30 September 1982
(in millions of dollars)

fiscal year 1983 appropriations bill. The Senate Appropriations Committee reduced the Army budget request by almost $4 billion- from $58.5 billion to $54.7 billion, or by 6.5 percent. Despite this large reduction, the Senate's approved funding level for fiscal year 1983 exceeds the current fiscal year 1982 budget by almost $3.5 billion, or 5.8 percent. Only the Ammunition Procurement Appropriation showed a decrease compared to fiscal year 1982 levels. The appropriations showing the greatest percent reduction from the requested amount included Aircraft Procurement (-11.0 percent); Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles (-11.5 percent); Procurement of Ammunition (-19.4 percent); and RDTE (-14.8 percent). The Authorization Joint Conference reductions of Cooperhead and chemical ammunition and the Senate Appropriations Committee decision not to fund the Viper were major factors in the severe 19.4 percent overall reduction in ammunition procurement.

In fiscal year 1982, three new accounts were established: an Army procurement appropriation for National Guard equipment; a revolving fund, the Army Conventional Ammunition Working Capital Fund, which was created to finance the manufacture and sale of conventional ammunition; and an allocation received from DOD for research into infectious disease in India. These three funds increased the number of accounts managed by the Army to forty-four.

Effective with fiscal year 1982 the Operations and Maintenance accounts were subject to review and approval by the re-

[135]

spective armed services committee (authorization process) in addition to the House and Senate appropriation committees.

Execution performance data was added to the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS). The amended process is retitled the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System (PPBES). The initiation of quarterly reviews, called the Program Performance and Budget Execution Review System (PPERS), enabled the Army staff to make better functional assessments of program and budget execution data.

A Special Defense Acquisition Fund (SDAF) was established by DOD. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) proceeds for one-time costs (for example, non-recurring costs and asset use charges), formerly turned over to the U.S. Treasury, are now being deposited into the SDAF and will be used to begin procurement action in anticipation of FMS customer requirements.

In support of the President's program to eliminate waste throughout the entire federal government, the Army established and implemented the Economies, Efficiencies, and Management Improvement (EEMI) program as well as the Debt Management Plan. The EEMI aim is to capture bona fide auditable savings from actions taken to streamline operations thereby reducing costs. Money saved can then be used to finance priority, unfunded requirements Armywide. The Debt Management Plan called for an aggressive attempt to identify all monies owed to the Army and to improve the rate of collections. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directed that the Army improve this rate by 12.5 million, which the Army has done.

The Army's major commands have been developing plans to carry out the EEMI program. For example, TRADOC has established Project SPIRIT (Systematic Productivity Improvements Review in TRADOC), which consolidates the management of many current activities in such areas as manpower and equipment surveys; waste, fraud, and abuse; energy conservation; and capital investment. DARCOM's Resource Self-Help and Affordability Planning Effort (RESHAPE) is aimed at increasing the productivity of the work force by using initiatives such as carefully monitored overtime and overhire, capital investment, and profit sharing. FORSCOM has been advancing the Army's Summary Level Standards Program and plans to complete standards for all functions of the Directorate of Industrial Operations by the end of calendar year 1982.

A new data base, Force Modernization Reporting System (FORMS), is in use at major Army commands accumulating and reporting operation and support costs by weapons systems for the Army's Force Modernization Program.

[136]

In fiscal year 1982, 25 percent of the profits from the sale of lumber and timber products on military installations was turned over to the states by the Army. Beginning in fiscal year 1983, the Army will be DOD's executive agent for the Lumber and Timber Products Program.

The Army Procurement Appropriation module of the Program Budgeting Accounting System (PBAS) became operational in fiscal year 1982. This first of fourteen PBAS modules was a major step toward increasing the ability of the Comptroller of the Army to respond to Army staff requests for financial data.

In response to Secretary of Defense Weinberger's call for substantial reductions, the Army in February 1981 identified the following as areas in which significant savings could be achieved: procurement; consolidation and realignment of functions; distribution and use of manpower training; statutory and regulatory reform to permit, for example, multiyear contracting; management in such areas as transportation and logistics; and capital investments that improve productivity.

A framework for the identification, integration, and improvement of cost savings activities was announced in an HQDA action plan issued in December 1981. In approving the plan, the Chief of Staff encouraged the entire Army community-active, National Guard, Army Reserve, civilian employees, and family members-to develop a positive cost-saving attitude. The plan makes the Comptroller of the Army responsible for managing the documentation and integration of savings data into Army planning, programming, budgeting, and execution processes.

The Army is expanding its proven Capital Investment and Value Engineering programs. Returns on investment of between ten to one and fifteen to one have been realized in these programs. Pursuant to DOD guidance, the Army is planning to conduct efficiency reviews of all in-house activities that are not studied under the Commercial Activities (CA) program. This will involve on-site evaluations of processes, procedures, organization structures, missions, functions, resources, facilities, and equipment to identify means to improve operations, performance, and efficiency.

During fiscal year 1982, the Capital Investment programs have continued to serve as major pillars in the Army's Economies, Efficiencies, and Management Improvement program. Investments of $33 million approved under the Quick Return on Investment Program (QRIP) and OSD Productivity Investment Funding (PIF) are expected to result in savings and benefits exceeding $330 million during the economic life of the equip-

[137]

ment. Many administrative accomplishments have also been made regarding new policies and procedures for decentralized funding and transferral of project approval authority to the command level, which will become effective in fiscal year 1983. Fiscal year 1982 also marked the first year in which total integration of the Capital Investment programs into the Planning, Programming, and Budgeting System (PPBS) was achieved through the Command Operating Budget (COB) and Program Analysis Resources Review (PARR).

Value Engineering (VE) savings increased from $391 million in fiscal year 1981 to $457 million in fiscal year 1982. Savings from the approval of 1,311 in-house VE proposals produced an estimated one-year net savings or cost avoidance of $396 million, and the approval of 426 contractor VE change proposals resulted in savings of $61.5 million. The overall return investment from VE actions in fiscal year 1982 was thirty dollars for each dollar invested. A proposal was developed and approved to implement VE Armywide.

The implementation of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-76 continued during the year. During the second quarter, OMB revised this circular to allow the use of simplified costing procedures. This alternative method helps reduce the time it takes to complete cost studies. OMB has started a total revision of Circular A-76, which is expected to be published during fiscal year 1983.

At the current rate of progress, the Army cannot complete all required cost studies by the end of fiscal year 1985, the deadline set by OMB. Several factors slowed the execution of this program. These included congressional concerns and legislative actions, overly protective policies with respect to commercial activities and small business program interfaces, not enough people trained in A-76 and Army acquisition procedures, rapid turnover of key personnel, and too many cost studies undertaken simultaneously. These issues and others are being addressed by the Commercial Activities Division as organizational objectives for fiscal year 1983.

The Deputy Secretary of Defense issued three directives on how to structure CA packages for cost study. On 15 October 1981, guidance indicated that these activities should be set up to take full advantage of the potential to contract them out under the A-76 program and to pursue aggressively strategies to improve contracting, consolidation, and productivity. The Army responded by consolidating commercial activities whenever logical and practical to meet the requirements of the installations concerned. Where consolidations were made, prospective con-

[138]

tractors were required to submit subcontracting plans along with their proposals to ensure that small business received a fair share of contract dollars spent. On 17 April 1982, the Deputy Secretary of Defense stated that his use of the word consolidation in his 15 October 1981 memorandum did not mean that he endorsed total base-services contracts to the extent that small and disadvantaged businesses were precluded from competition as prime contractors. This clarification allowed the Army to proceed with its strategy of using a balanced program. On 1 June 1982, the Deputy Secretary of Defense directed the armed services to package future solicitations so as not to preclude small and disadvantaged concerns as prime contractors. This major change in policy caused the Army to restructure its cost studies planned for fiscal year 1984 and to request that OSD restore the manpower spaces previously programmed as anticipated savings from commercial activities cost studies. An ad hoc committee has been established by the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and Financial Management (IL&FM) to develop a policy which will enable the Army to accomplish all CA effectively and efficiently and still accommodate the goals of both the commercial activities and small business programs.

The fiscal year 1983 Defense Authorization Act, PL 97-252, made certain changes to the commercial activities program. Section 305 placed a six-month limited moratorium on the initiation of new cost studies (those which had not been announced to the Congress before 1 October 1982). Section 1111 set a one-year prohibition against entering into new contracts for firefighters and security guards during fiscal year 1983. Section 1112 removed cost study notification requirements for commercial activities with ten or fewer DOD civilian employees and eliminated these requirements entirely during mobilization.

During fiscal year 1982, the Army completed 70 cost studies of in-house activities: 39 of these studies showed in-house performance to be the most advantageous method, and 31 studies found contracting to be most cost effective for the government. As a result of these decisions, 1,070 civilian spaces and 188 military spaces were released for other Army requirements. These actions will also result in estimated savings to the government of approximately $37.2 million over the next three years.

In April 1980 the Logistics Division, Office of The Surgeon General, began action to protect certain active duty enlisted medical specialists from being reviewed under the CITA program. Studies indicated that even if all such actions were protected, there would still be shortages in certain medical specialties. An-

[139]

other complication is that all medical TOES are being revised to increase the amount and sophistication of equipment assigned to field medical units. This will result in increasing the requirements for specialists trained to maintain the equipment. The Assistant Secretary of the Army (IL&FM) has already approved the exemption of medical logistics personnel from CITA cost-based reviews.

The Army Audit Agency issued several reports covering problems found at various installations. Actions on the audit report recommendations should result in improved management of resources at all levels of command. The agency made the following observations:

a. Maximum benefits were not being realized from operational tests of nonmajor materiel systems because of conflicting test and acquisition responsibilities.
b. New organizational clothing and individual equipment items were being introduced into the Army supply system that did not fully meet the user's requirements or were not tailored to actual needs.
c. Logistical planning for postmobilization repair parts support in Europe was outdated and did not reflect changes in troop strengths or equipment types and densities.
d. Army policy concerning female soldiers in combat did not fully recognize the geographic extent expected in modern warfare or the use of noncombat units in combat areas.
e. Army finance and accounting offices were not following cash management policies intended to produce significant savings in interest.
f. Improvements were needed in planning for personnel, training, product improvement, and logistics support for the Improved Hawk missile system.
g. Significant savings were possible by consolidating and eliminating mail transportation routes in Europe.
h. Acquisition of medical care support equipment for new facilities was not justified on the basis of historical workload and the population to be served.
i. Improvements in real property management were needed to reduce the backlog of maintenance and repair and to improve the soldiers' living, working, and training conditions.
j. Enlisted replacement personnel arriving in Europe were not assigned to the subordinate commands that needed them most.

The Army Audit Agency issued advisory reports to field commanders concerning civilian pay, medical management, reserve

[140]

component operations, club systems, and installation contracting. The common problems discussed in these advisory reports were within the means of installation commanders to correct or avoid through intensive management.

The Army Audit Agency also reviewed ninety-six commercial activity cost comparisons. The reviews identified the need for extensive adjustments to initial estimates of government costs used to decide whether to perform activities in house or by contracts. These reports helped ensure that decisions were based on realistic cost estimates.

The Army Audit Agency, together with other investigation, inspection, and audit groups, examined the potential for fraud in the Army and Air Force Exchange Service. Their reviews resulted in indictments and convictions of Exchange Service officials and vendors. Procurement prices were analyzed to gather audit evidence for fraud detection. When significant unexplained price fluctuations were found, audit results were passed to investigative agencies.

Closely related to Project VIABLE is another ADPS project under The Adjutant General, announced by the ASA (IL&FM) in September, called the Installation Integrated Administrative Support System (IIADSS). A product manager office will direct the development, standardization, and management of automated administrative systems at Army installations and will prepare standard documentation of several labor-saving software packages already in use, including post locator, separation and transfer paperwork, military personnel office support, and publications management.

The Adjutant General along with the Soldier Support Center has sponsored a project this year called Personnel and Administration Concept Evolution (PACE) to automate selected administrative functions at Fort Lewis, Washington, through use of microcomputers, telecommunications, and an administrative support computer. The purpose of PACE is to develop the use of automated support systems in Army divisions.

This year the Administrative Management Directorate of TAGO sponsored a project to upgrade the administrative support systems of Army Civilian Personnel Offices (CPOs). The survey included a detailed requirements analysis of Army CPOs in the Washington area, a comprehensive study of the U.S. Army Civilian Personnel Center, and the design of model offices in the

[141]

field. Requirements for data processing, micrographics, word processing, and communications equipment were established in a nine-volume report. By the end of the fiscal year, most of the equipment had been installed in the Washington offices, and a project team was designated for worldwide implementation. The Army requested $22.5 million in fiscal year 1984 funds for 7,000 items of equipment through Productivity Improvement Funds, discussed earlier. Savings and benefits will be almost $100 million in time, paper, and postage.

The Adjutant General in December 1981 briefed the Reserve Components Coordination Council on the status of the effort to reduce the administrative workload. At the 1981 Division Commanders Conference, attending division commanders requested that the Reduction of Administrative Workload Program be extended to the active Army. Their request was approved by The Adjutant General, and surveys were conducted in 1982 to determine the extent to which administrative publications, forms, and reports were interfering with the efforts of active Army and reserve component unit commanders to train personnel and maintain equipment. Based on the findings of these and other published surveys, a concept paper outlining The Adjutant General's plan to institute a program to control the proliferation of administrative requirements on company-, battery-, and troop-level commanders was presented first to the Personnel Program Review Committee (PPRC) and then to the Army staff agencies and major Army commands for review and concurrence.

In July and September 1982, briefings that elaborated on the concept were conducted at most stateside and overseas major Army commands. A baseline report study on the number of Department of the Army publications distributed to unit-level commanders was prepared, published, and furnished to the Army Reserve Forces Policy Committee. This baseline report will also be presented to the Reserve Components Coordination Council in December 1982. Proliferation of administrative publications will be monitored, and decreases will be determined annually by comparing future inventories with the baseline report. Evaluations of these findings will be furnished to the individuals concerned.

In June 1982 a student study at the Army War College evaluated the manpower impact, procurement cost, and practical (publishing) considerations of the Department of the Army's system for issuing printed regulatory guidance to small units. The study found that the publications system resulted in slow communications for Army policy makers and a heavy manpower

[142]

burden on small units. It included persuasive evidence that using alternative publishing techniques would speed up printed communications and would sharply cut red tape without exceeding existing cost levels.

In lieu of the Army's standard page replacement or pen-and-ink change processes, the study endorsed adoption of information service techniques used in industry. These techniques build on electronic typesetting to assimilate changes directly into an established body of text. Updated text is then furnished to subscribers periodically as throw-away publications. This method requires no processing by the user to make the new information understandable.

Having participated as adviser for the War College paper, the Director of Army Publications invited the study's author, Lt. Col. R. F. Milwee, Jr., an Army reservist, to work with the Publications Directorate in developing an information service publication demonstration using the strategy recommended in the paper. Actual work began on 28 June 1982.

Sixteen personnel regulations published by the Reserve Component Personnel and Administration Center were selected to make up a test volume. Arrangements were made to use an electronic text-editing demonstration for electronically creating updated copy. With the close cooperation and assistance of the Government Printing Office's Superintendent of Procurement, printing specifications were developed for a . product that will compare in every way to current sophisticated commercial information service publications-including their systemic efficiency and the economy which their production characteristics make possible, together with a production schedule guaranteed by a large bond not to exceed five days.

The cover date for the first volume has been set for 1 December 1982. Everything has been digitized, a dramatically more efficient copy layout has been developed, and every other milestone has been successfully reached. Estimates from the Government Printing Office indicate that the average page cost for the prototype Update publications will be less than 25 percent of the cost the Army now pays for standard format publications. Entered as second-class mail, projected postal rates will be about one-third of the usual mailing costs, though faster handling will be received. Composition tests indicate that two pages of standard format copy will fit on a single new-style page-without impairing readability, according to scientifically proven indicators. If this savings is verified when the text of all sixteen regulations has been composed, the potential for more savings in composition, printing, and postage cost will be demonstrated.

[143]

Considering the needs of Army policy makers, it is important to note that the complete publishing and production cycle of this prototype Udate publication is limited to a single month. Initial data base creation is not included. Such a turnaround would save about 80 percent of the time now consumed in the processing of standard printed communications. In this light, the ultimate promise offered by the demonstration is to reestablish a printing option for routine handling of urgent communications that originate at the Department of the Army level.

To provide low-cost written documents to the soldier in the field, TAGO is concentrating its efforts on making microfiche documents, which will replace bulky paper documents and provide additional space for storage of other publications.

The current DA Form 12-series that is used to project which publications the units in the field will need to receive is an area of major concern to TAGO. The many forms that need to be filled out by a unit are complex and require extraordinary effort to complete and maintain. The project to improve the 12-series was instituted to streamline operations, to make the process for obtaining new publications easier to understand, and to provide timely service. Once improvements have been made, they will be fully tested before being released to the field.

The Publications Center at Baltimore began a multimillion dollar warehouse modernization program which is expected to be completed in fiscal year 1986. The job of storing and issuing test materials and accountable blank forms was transferred to the St. Louis Publications Center, making it the sole source of supply for those items. In response to complaints from employees at the Baltimore Publications Center about poor working conditions in areas where packing equipment and storage pallets were involved, people and equipment were moved to a light industrial area within the center's warehouse where there was better lighting and air conditioning. At a cost of $250,000 the center's 1.7-mile conveyor system was modernized. This has improved the center's packaging system, eliminated equipment maintenance problems, reduced complaints, and provided additional storage space within the warehouse.

Personnel at the St. Louis Publications Center have developed a method of providing faster initial distribution of publications through the use of microcomputer technology. They are obtaining a robot-like machine controlled by a microcomputer which would determine the kind and amount of publications to be sent to a customer. The robot would pick up the customer's order, place it in an envelope, and send it through the postal

[144]

system. A robotlike Bell and Howell machine coupled with an Apple microprocessor has been selected, and the system should be fully operational within a year.

The Adjutant General Center's Publications Directorate has completed the first phase of its micropublishing program. During this phase, high standards and quality specifications were developed for Department of the Army microfiche publications and procedures, and means for producing them efficiently were generated. During the same period, 735 publications were produced and distributed in microfiche, including regulations, circulars, pamphlets, supply catalogs, and technical bulletins and manuals. They were distributed at a cost of $5.1 million. It would have cost $28.7 million to print and distribute them on paper. These publications are more quickly and easily produced, updated, revised, and mailed than their paper counterparts. On the average, distribution time is cut by two-thirds.

The Editorial Control Division continued its program to improve readability and limit the size of new Army administrative publications while reducing the number of existing publications. Efforts to improve readability resulted in reducing the overall reading grade levels of publications from an average of 18 to 11.4. Through editing, over 1,000 pages were deleted from new publications issued by HQDA; also, sixty-seven Armywide publications were either consolidated with other publications or were eliminated entirely.

Installation of an electronic printing system was completed in January 1982. Thirteen standard photocomposition formats were developed and tested for Army administrative publications. A standard locator code structure for these formats was created to minimize coding and data entry and to enable the data base to be moved easily from one vendor to another or to the Government Printing Office if required. In addition, documentation was developed to help new users understand the system. Formal operator training courses were conducted for the employees. Administrative procedures and records for processing manuscripts under the new system were also developed and documented. The development phase of the project was completed on 20 September 1982, and the production phase of the test, which will take two years to complete, was begun.

[145]

Return to Table of Contents

	Return to CMH Online
	Last updated 24 May 2004