We know that we can put men in space and possibly on the moon; yet we have great difficulty in putting men on jobs, good jobs, which provide decent incomes and a good standard of living. And yesterday, at our industrial union department convention in Washington, Secretary of Labor Wirtz laid great emphasis on this whole problem of meeting human needs rather than just needs of the national

economy.

Although we do provide a systems approach to solve our transportation problems in California, we must also take into account the fact that the kids in the slums of Los Angeles do not have a way to get to the public beaches or to the snows that sit on our mountain tops at the present time in the Los Angeles area, and these problems likewise have to be looked upon and solved. I am not advocating a systems engineering approach to government, but I am sure with all of the new programs in education, the war on poverty, the housing, urban affairs, all of these things are going to have to be coordinated in some way, that systems engineering also can be applied to getting the kind of governmental procedures and programs worked out so that the needs of the people of the Nation are met in a much better way.

We have talked often about conversion in the industry. Back as far as December of 1940 President Roosevelt recognized the proposal made by Walter Reuther, president of our union, in converting the automobile industry to build airplanes, which were used extensively in World War II. This program was adopted by the Federal Government, and we likewise are interested in conversion of the present aerospace industry to new programs.

This is one of the important interests we have in your bill, Senator, and the proposals made by the Governor of our State for the use of the aerospace industry in solving social problems.

Now, we know that because the possibility of disarmament is upon us that there have been great changes in this industry. There have also been great changes in the kind of jobs and the number of jobs available to the people of the Nation in this industry.

We think systems engineering ought to be also applied to the use of manpower and womanpower in this industry and their needs and their problems.

I would like to point out that we are going to have some problems within the aerospace industry itself, as newly constituted, that have existed for many, many years in building our aircraft, missiles, and space systems sponsored by the Federal Government.

We face often in the aerospace industry sudden layoffs. This occurred, of course, after World War II in great numbers. Tens of thousands of engineers and scientists and production workers were laid off as a result of the cancellation of the Navaho contract, the big missile program at North American Aviation, and, of course, the same thing occurred when the Skybolt missile was canceled at Douglas. One top aerospace executive has said if we get a contract cancellation from the Defense Department, even on Christmas Eve, we will lay off tens of thousands of people because the money is cut off.

I think this problem has to be looked into as well; not only in terms of the development of jobs; but of more jobs for the people who are unemployed and looking for work, but also in the changes that occur,

so that the least economic shock takes place for the people who are subjected to quick decisions on the part of the Defense Department or the aerospace industry.

Recently this problem was illustrated in a different way. The Douglas Aircraft Co., in its commercial airline program, DC-8 and DC-9 programs, which are growing quite rapidly, was not able to find enough workers through the recruiting program here in California. Along with the U.S. Department of Labor, and the departments of employment of this State and of the State of New York, the Douglas Aircraft Co. worked out a massive relocation of workers from New York to California to do simple, semiskilled jobs of aircraft assembly. We immediately protested to the Governor, and to Secretary Wirtz and to Douglas Aircraft Co., because we thought a good enough job of recruiting and training had not been done here in California. This is where I think systems engineering can again meet a great need.

The Defense Department, for instance, in closing down bases in its operations uses a computer to develop information about the people available, the jobs available, and what is to be done when major cutbacks in its own operations take place. So it has information on people and their skills, what cities they would be willing to move to and under what conditions. They have been able to work this out in a way that the aerospace industry or the various governmental agencies have not been able to in this industry.

I am sure that the whole systems engineering approach, as it comes to the development and use of manpower and womanpower in the country can meet a significant need.

Now, I believe that there are some problems that are going to really take a great deal of Federal intervention; not only in setting up the programs, because I don't think private industry, based upon its record, based upon its own statements, is really going to do much about conversion.

I think the new programs that are being developed, mainly because the Governor of our State has proposed them with the cooperation of the industry and the proposals that you are making, Senator, really point to the whole question of who is to do the job; who is to provide the guidance and the financing for such programs. I believe the major effort has to come from the Federal Government, because the attitudes and the resources of industry, the resources of the States, are just not adequate to meet the tremendous problems that we have.

First of all, in solving the problems that we are talking about of pollution and transportation and crime control, but also in the area of manpower and womanpower development and its use.

I don't think that, for instance, in the area of smog control the automobile industry without major Federal steps is going to do anything about the design of fuel or an engine to solve the problem of smog production by automobiles.

This is going to be true in the case of safety in automobiles. The attitude of the industry, as expressed before a Senate committee this year, gives strong evidence that there has got to be Federal intervention, both in directing these programs and in financing them. And we feel that this is the way it ought to be.

I would like to propose, first of all, that the use of this industry and the people in it and the people who should find new jobs in it be handled by a conversion commission similar to the one that Senator McGovern has been talking about and submitting bills about.

I am sure that if these things are done, we can take a very close look, first of all, at the human equation and find a way to not only solve major social problems through systems engineering, but also at the problems of providing good jobs for those people who need them; providing decent incomes for people so that they can have the kind of good life that we are talking about in the Great Society.

I think it is all well and good to say the Federal Government ought to do the whole job, but I think it has become much more possible that the Federal Government can do it.

First of all, we now have behind us a backlog of legislation dealing with the problem of unemployment, poverty, of conservation and recreation, of beautifying America. All of these kinds of things should be organized in a much better way than they are at the present time. But, in addition, the financing is going to be easier, because science and technology, much of which has developed out of the aerospace industry, will provide us with the potential for creating abundance that will provide for the needs of all of the people.

We are the wealthiest nation in the world. We can create much more wealth through the use of our scientific and human resources. We have tools of cybernation to work with now we didn't have before.

We see this as a golden opportunity for the Senate of the United States and our Federal Government to step in and solve many of our social problems, as well as providing for the needs of human beings. Senator NELSON. Thank you very much.

Mr. SCHRADE. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Senator NELSON. Is Dr. Nash here from Lockheed? I understand you have to catch a plane. Would you like to come up here? Mr. NASH. I would appreciate it.

Senator NELSON. Is there anybody else who has a deadline to meet that is critical?

Dr. ZUCKERMAN. I can wait until Dr. Nash is through, if you can hear me then.

Senator NELSON. Go ahead, Dr. Nash. I have been informed you have a plane to catch.

STATEMENT OF DR. J. P. NASH, VICE PRESIDENT OF LOCKHEED MISSILES & SPACE CO.; ACCOMPANIED BY KENNETH T. LARKIN, DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROGRAMS, AND LOUIS J. LAULER, PROJECT LEADER, SPECIAL PROGRAMS

Dr. NASH. Senator Nelson, I am a vice president of Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. It has been our privilege to be one of the contractors selected to carry out one of the four studies that Governor Brown initiated earlier this year for the State of California.

Lockheed, of course, has carried out a great many large and complex programs for the Department of Defense, for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and for other organizations of the Govern

ment; in doing this we have, of course, conducted a great deal of systems engineering work ourselves.

One thing that has threaded all of these activities at Lockheed has been the need for a complex and complete information system in any work we do. In carrying out the Polaris ballistic missile program, for example, the Agena space vehicle program, and others, and also in concert with the work of the Air Force in developing international data systems, we have become convinced that information systems will take on a role of increasing importance. This is true not only for the massive programs in which we have been directly engaged, but also for the complex systems needed for governmental operations.

It was for this reason that we took a particular interest in the statewide information system study for California-the study we competed for and won.

With me today are Mr. Kenneth T. Larkin and Mr. Louis J. Lauler, the two men directly responsible for carrying out this study for the State.

Mr. Larkin is the director of special programs at Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., and Mr. Lauler is project leader for Government information systems. With your permission I would like to ask Mr. Larkin and Mr. Lauler to make a brief presentation to you about the California system.

Mr. LARKIN. I would like to describe first the way in which we went about this study, something of the methodology and techniques we used, and then later describe some of the findings of the study.

As Dr. Nash pointed out, I had the basic management responsibility for this work at Lockheed. Mr. Lauler, who will present the findings, was the project leader.

I think the logical place to start is to describe the problem to which the statewide information study was addressed. The problem was indeed a comprehensive one; namely, the information needs of the State as affected by its entire population-all 19 million people and by all real and personal property in the State.

It was a very challenging assignment. As a matter of fact, we at Lockheed feel that this is probably one of the most sophisticated, tangible systems studies that we have ever encountered.

Before we get into the description of what we did, I feel an information system study needs a little further definition. The words "information system" do not always portray and convey the same meaning to different people.

To us, an information system doesn't necessarily mean a large computer center. We will talk a lot about such a center, but an information system can be a very simple thing. On the simplest level it can be a single filing cabinet and a single filing clerk. When we talk about information systems we are talking about things which embrace simple matters as well as complex matters.

Now, as we began the basic study, our first problem was to determine what the informational process was in the State of California. To do this we put a team of people in Sacramento and throughout the State to interview all of the basic governmental organizations in the State. We conducted more than 800 interviews. We assembled volumes of documents. We talked to many, many people see figure 1.

71-392 0-67- -3

We also felt that it was important to consider the information process both in a quantitative sense as well as a qualitative one.

In addition to the State organizations, we selected five sample counties and five sample cities and extended our interviews into these areas. From all the data obtained we developed a comprehensive information flow map for the State of California which Mr. Lauler will describe to you later. It is an attempt to produce in a comprehensive, quantitative, and qualitative sense the picture of who is talking to whom and what is transmitted.

The next step in the study was to come up with a concept as to what an optimum State information system would look like. Should it be centralized? Should it be decentralized? Should it be a combination of the two? What should it be? Mr. Lauler will describe in detail the concept we selected.

The next step in the study process was to develop an implementation plan for the chosen concept. What would the program cost? How should it be phased? What steps should take place first? The implementation plan developed into what we believe to be an effective and concrete plan. The final step in the study was documentation of our findings and recommendations. This final report was delivered to the State in August.

This briefly describes what we plan to give you in our presentation today. However, before we proceed I would like to attempt further clarification of what we mean by the term "information."