NBSIR 76-1100

Appraisal of Federal

Government Cobol Standards

and Software Management:

Survey Results

Donald R. Deutsch

Systems and Software Division

Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

June 1 976

Final Report

Issued August 1976

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

NBSIR 76-1100

APPRAISAL OF FEDERAL

GOVERNMENT COBOL STANDARDS

AND SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT:

SURVEY RESULTS

Donald R. Deutsch

Systems and Software Division

Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

National Bureau of Standards

Washington, D. C. 20234

June 1 976

Final Report

Issued August 1 976

U S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, Elliot L. Richardson, Secretary

Edward O. Vetter, Under Secretary

Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS, Ernest Ambler, Acting Director

PREFACE

The author gratefully acknowledges the contributions of

the following staff members of the Systems and Software

Division, Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology. — DENNIS W. FIFE and MABEL V. VICKERS conceived and

directed the entire project. Their support and

encouragement were essential to the successful

completion of this document. — ERICA JEN encoded, recorded in machine readable form and

validated the response data. She also produced many of

the statistical results included in this document using

two generalized statistical packages, SPSS and OMITAB.

Finally, she assisted in preparing aggregate

presentations and reviewed textual and tabular entries

for correctness.

JOSEPH C. COLLICA established a data base using the

System 2000 generalized data base management software on

the Infonet time-sharing network. Many of the results

were derived using the query capability of this

generalized data management tool.

Of course, any errors or omissions are solely the

responsibility of the author.

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PREFACE iii

ABSTRACT 1

1 . INTRODUCTION 1

1 . 1 Background 1 1.2 Report Purpose and Organization 2

1.3 Availability of Detail Response Data 2

2. SURVEY DESCRIPTION 3

2.1 Methodology Overview 3

2.2 Response Rates 3

2.3 Applicability of Results 3

3. AGGREGATE RESPONSES 5

3.1 Guide to Tables 5

3.2 Characteristics of Responding 7

Installations

3.3 Software Management, Personnel 22

and Tools

3.4 COBOL Usage and Standardization 30

3.5 COBOL Evaluations 48

APPENDIX A: SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND 55

SURVEY MECHANICS

1 . Population 56

2. Sample Selection 57

3. Data Gathering 60

4. Data Analysis 61

APPENDIX B: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 63

(Including references to response tabulations)

v
LIST OF FIGURES

Page

3.1 Guide to Aggregate Response Tables 6

A. 1 Analysis of ADP Units by 57

Department /Agency

B. 1 Survey Instrument 61 - 67

vi
APPRAISAL OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COBOL STANDARDS

AND SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT: SURVEY RESULTS

Donald R. Deutsch

This report summarizes the results of a survey of

selected Federal Government Automatic Data

Processing (ADP) installations. Undertaken

primarily as an evaluation of National Bureau of

Standards (NBS) activities in support of the

standardization of the COBOL programming language,

the study also dealt with software management

tools and practices.

The survey sample was selected from a subset of

all known Federal Government ADP units;

specifically, only domestic installations with at

least one general purpose hardware system capable

of supporting a modern COBOL compiler were

included. Responses were received from over 70

percent of the 190 installations included in the

sample

.

The major portion of this document is made up of

tabular suraraarizations of all responses for each

survey question. Gross statistics and frequency

distributions are presented on a question by

question basis. No interquestion relationships

are analyzed. The appendices include a comprehensive discussion of the sampling

methodology and survey mechanics and a

reproduction of the survey instrument with cross

references to response tabulations appearing in

the report.

KEY WORDS: ADP; COBOL; Federal ADP installations;

Federal Standard COBOL; Impact evaluation; Sample;

Software management; Survey.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The National Bureau of Standards recently completed an

evaluation of impact of its activities in support of the

standardization of the COBOL programming language. As part

of this study, a survey of selected Federal Government ADP

installations was undertaken. The survey instrument,

Appraisal of Federal Government COBOL Standards and Software

Management, requested information about: installation and

computer usage characteristics, software management tools

and techniques, and COBOL usage and standardization. The

1
responses, in addition to being useful for COBOL impact

analysis purposes, are also of general interest; the

comprehensive nature of the questions and the broad coverage

of the sample provided results representative of a large

segment of the Federal ADP community.

1.2 Report Purpose and Organization

The purpose of this document is to present the results

obtained from the survey in a form which will facilitate

their use by most interested parties. To achieve this

objective, the remainder of the report is divided into two

sections and two appendices. The next section describes

the survey, its methodology, the response rates and the

applicability of results. Section 3, which comprises the

bulk of this document, includes tabulations of aggregate

responses for all survey questions. It is expected that

most information requirements will be satisfied by Sections

2 and 3« It is important that, as with any statistical

sample, the results of this study be viewed only within the

context of the sampling plan and those actually responding.

Appendix A includes a detailed description of the sampling

methodology and survey mechanics.

Finally, Appendix B contains a copy of the survey

instrument with cross-references to tabulations included in

the report superimposed over each question. Readers can

also go from the aggregates in Section 3 to specific

questions in Appendix B by using references in table

headings.

1.3 Availability of Detail Response Data

Details for all coded responses will be

hard copy form to those wanting to analyze the

Inquiries about the availability of the source

generating the aggregates appearing in section

directed to:

available in

data further,

data used for

3 should be

National Bureau of Standards

Institute for Computer Sciences

and Technology

TECH A367 640.02

Washington, D. C. 20234

Telephone (301) 921-3491

2
2. SURVEY DESCRIPTION 2.1

Methodology Overview

A subset of all known Federal Government

taken as the population for the survey,

included were domestic installations with

general purpose hardware system capable of

modern COBOL compiler. From this limited

sample of 190 ADP units was selected using

selection procedures.

ADP units was

Specifically

at least one

supporting a population, a strict random

Questionnaire packets were sent directly to installation

managers. Control and follow-up were based on questionnaire

receipt cards; the survey instrument, which promised

confidentiality, was not signed or coded to identify respondents . Responses were encoded and recorded in machine readable

form to facilitate processing. Generalized software

packages were utilized for validation, data analysis and

data retrieval.

Appendix A describes the survey methodology in detail.

Included are discussions of the population, sample

selection, data gathering and data analysis procedures.

2.2

Response Rates

Of the 190 ADP units surveyed, 142 responded. Five of

these respondents indicated that the questionnaire was not

pertinent to their operation. The remaining 137 answered

some or all of the questions.

Because respondents were promised anonymity, returned

questionnaires could not be identified as coming from

specific ADP units or department/agency categories.

Follow-up was done, therefore, using questionnaire receipt

cards. The 137 cards returned represented 72% of all

installations sampled. Because we have no mechanism for

matching questionnaire receipt cards to returned survey

instruments, no statement can be made about the degree of

overlap between those returning cards and those returning

questionnaires

.

2.3

Applicability of Results

The terms STATISTIC and PARAMETER refer to the results

of calculations using sample data and all data points in a population, respectively. Using these terms, the essence of

the sampling process is the use of statistics as estimators

of corresponding population parameters. The "goodness" of a statistical estimate is dependent on several factors. One

3
is the size and representativeness of the sample. Random

sampling techniques such as those employed in this study are

designed to assure that the sample truly represents the

population. Indeed, with 100% response, results from a random sample of sufficient size should closely approximate

those of the population. However, when response rates fall

much below 100%, there is reason to question the

characteristics of those not responding and thus the

representativeness of the responses received.

One rule of thumb often applied to survey results states

that at least 80% to 85% of all instruments must be returned

before results can be correctly extrapolated to the

population. According to this rule, the response numbers

reported in the previous section are not sufficient to

support the conclusion that the results are representative

of the entire population.

Even when the response rate is large enough to allow the

use of survey results for estimating population

characteristics, statistical extrapolations must be made in

light of the population sampled. The population for this

study included only those ADP units listed in the 1974 GSA

inventory having at least one hardware system classified as

general purpose located in this country that could support a modern COBOL compiler (see Appendix A).

These caveats do not prec

survey data, however. Que

response rates that exceed

results reflect the practices

Federal ADP installations

statistical significance, the

results are biased. Becau

relatively large compendium

software management, many ind

private sectors have expresse

survey results. This docuraen

requests

.

lude the enlightened use of the

stionnaire and receipt card

70% indicate that the survey

of a substantial portion of

. While we cannot claim

re is no evidence that the

se the responses comprise a of Federal COBOL usage and

ividuals in both the public and

d interest in obtaining the

t was written to satisfy those

4
3. AGGREGATE RESPONSES

3.1 Guide to Tables

This section of the report is made up of tabular

presentations of aggregate responses for all questions in

the Appraisal of Federal Government COBOL Standards and

Software Management questionnaire. The table of contents at

the front of this document includes the general subject

areas addressed. To make accessing the information easier,

figure 3»1 lists all tables by general and specific subject

area along with page numbers and questionnaire references.

Tables and corresponding explanatory narrative paragraphs

have matching numbers and titles. Another way to access the

tables that make up this section is to use the

cross-references superimposed on the survey instrument in

Appendix B.

Responses are displayed in a manner designed to impart a maximum amount of information while still allowing the

brevity of presentation associated with reporting

aggregates. In addition to gross statistics such as totals

and averages, wherever possible numbers of similar responses

are presented. Numbers and percentages for question

respondents and nonrespondents appear in the tables or their

supporting text; the number of installations that answered

all or part of the questionnaire, 137, was used as the

denominator when calculating these ratios. All results are

reported on a question-by-question basis; analyses of

interquestion relationships are not included.

5
GUIDE TO AGGREGATE RESPONSE TABLES

Section

3.2

3 . 2.1

3 . 2 . 1 . 1 3 . 2 . 1 .2

3 . 2.2

3 . 2 . 2.

1

3. 2. 2.

2

3.2.2.

3

3 . 2 . 2.

4

3. 2. 2.

5

3.2.3

3.2.3.

1

3.2. 3.2

3.2.4

3.3

3.3.1

3.3.2

3.3.3

3.3.4

3.3.5

3.

4

3.4.1

3.4. 1 .

1

3.4. 1.2

3.4. 1.3

3.4.2

3.4.2.

1

3 . 4 . 2.

2

3.4.2.

3

3 . 4 . 2.

4

3. 4. 2.

5

3.4.3

3.4.3.

1

3. 4. 3.2

3. 4. 3.

3

3.4.4

3.4.4. 1 3. 4. 4.

2

3.4.4.

3

3.5

3.5.1

3.5.2

Subject Areas

Characteristics of Responding Installations

Budget Data

Total Annual ADP Cost

ADP Budget Allocations

Hardware

Manufacturers

Acquisition

Value

Cross Tabulation of Acquisition Method

by Manufacturers

Cross-Tabulation of Value by Manufacturer

Job Mix

Job Categories

Emulation

Personnel

Software Management, Personnel and Tools

Programming Languages and Software

Development Tools

Personnel Software Development and

Maintenance Activities

Benefits from Technological Advancements

Methods for Acquiring Programming Aids

Management of Computer Programming

COBOL Usage and Standardization

COBOL Compilers

Compilers for Hardware Systems

Compiler Acquisition Method

Cross-Tabulation of Compiler Acquisition

Method by Hardware Manufacturer

Measures of COBOL Usage

Percentage of Programs

Number of Source Programs

Lines of Source Code

Source Program Size

Use of Standard COBOL

COBOL Portability

Number of Programs Transferred To or From

Other Installations

Cross Tabulation of Installations

Transferring COBOL Programs

Required Program Changes

Vendor Extensions to COBOL

Installation Policy

Means Used for Identifying

Tools Desired for Identifying

COBOL Evaluations

Reasons for Using COBOL

Narrative Evaluations of COBOL

Figure 3.1

Question

I-A

I-B

I-C

I-C

I-C

I-C

I-C

I-D

I-E

I-F

II-A

II-B

II-C

II-D

II-E

III-A

III-A

III-A

III-B

III-C

III-D

III-E

III-G

III-H

III-H

III-I

III-F

III-O

III-P

III-J

I II-K , L , M ,

N

6
3.2 Characteristics of Responding Installations

3.2.1 Budget Data. Two survey questions were concerned

with respondents - budgets for automatic data processing

hardware, software, personnel and services. The first asked

for a gross indication of total annual ADP cost. The second

requested estimates for the percentages of total annual ADP

expenditures allocated to various budget categories.

Summaries of responses to these questions follow.

3. 2. 1.1 Total Annual ADP Cost. The numbers and

percentages of respondents reporting total annual costs for

automatic data processing hardware, software, and personnel

in each of six budget categories are summarized in this

table. A conservative estimate of the average annual budget

for all question respondents, derived by using midpoints for

the lower five classes and $5.5 million to represent the

largest budget class, is $2.0 million.

ANNUAL ADP BUDGET AMOUNTS

Summary of Question I-A Responses

Annual Budget Amount Categories

Respondents

Number Percent

ADP Budget < $1 Million 62 46 .

6

$1 Million < ADP Budget < $2 Million 28 21.0

$2 Million < ADP Budget < $3 Million 9 6.8

$3 Million < ADP Budget < $4 Million 7 5.3

$4 Million < ADP Budget < $5 Million 5 3.8

$5 Million < ADP Budget 22 16.5

Respondents 133 97.1

Nonrespondents 4 2.9

Table 3. 2. 1.1

7
3.2. 1.2 ADP Budget Allocations. The numbers of

respondents reporting percentages of total ADP budgets

applied to budget allocation categories are presented for

five percentage point intervals. Average allocation

percents for all respondents also appear. The 129

installations answering this question represent 94.2% of all

respondents; eight installations (5.8%) did not answer.

8
PERCENTAGE

OF

TOTAL

ADP

COST

APPLIED

TO

BUDGET

CATEGORIES

<

nvtu

—

age Pet.

26.8 1.0 3.1 O

to

IT O

CO

8.2 4.7 2.2

Total Re- spondents 129 129 129 CD

CM

rH

129 CD

C>J^ rH

129 129

Homier

of

Respondents

Percent

of

ADP

Budget

Applied

1 o

to o

CT> rH

1

r—1 tO

cr> cn

rH

1 to o

CO 05

r—

1

rH

1 #H tO CD CO

1 to o

C' CO

rH rH

1 r—i to

r» r- O rH

1 to o to c-*-

rH tO

1 rH lO

to to

CM CO

to o tO to

CM 20

1 rH cO

to to

rH 12

1 to o

J- to

tO 22

l rH tO

zr oCO rH 16 rH

1 to o CO ZT

ZTrH 13 rH CM

1 rH tO

CO CO

CD rH rH

26- 30 18 rH CT5 CO

1 rH tO

CM CM 22 -3- ZT CO rH CM

1 to o

rH CM

18 rH CO CO TT> 13 to CM

1 rH tO H rH

10 rH CO 21 12 r- CO

1 o

to rH

17 ZT to rH CT> CO 45 ZTrH

zT

1-5 zt

.

O

CO

ZTCM rH rHtO 55 35 CM

CO

O

rH 93 86 zt CM

rH rH 60 87

Budget

Allocation

Categories

XJ 0) §

Proprietary

software

Contract

personnel

and

consultants

In-house

personnel

(except

management)

4-* c

I

Computing

supplies

(cards,

tapes,

etc.)

Overhead

(excluding

items

5

and

6

above)

Other

CM

9
3 .2.2 Hardware. Respondents were asked to list computer

systems by manufacturer and model number, to estimate

approximate system value based on CPU purchase price, and to

indicate how each system was acquired. A total of 520

computer systems were specified by the 137 installations

responding to this question. Thus, the average respondent

had 3.8 computer systems. Results are summarized in the

five tables in this section.

3.2.2. 1 Computer System Manufacturers. Numbers and

percentages for computer systems and respondents having

computer systems are tabulated by hardware manufacturer. For

example, the first line of the table indicates that 23

responding installations have 73 Burroughs computer systems;

these counts represent 16.8% of all respondents and 14.0% of

all computer systems respectively. Because many respondents

listed computer systems from more than one manufacturer, the

manufacturer categories are not mutually exclusive; response

tabulations and percentages therefore do not sum to 100%.

COMPUTER SYSTEM MANUFACTURERS

Partial Summary of Question I-C Responses

Computer

System

Manufacturer

Computer Systems Responses

Number Percent Number Percent

Burroughs 73 14.0 23 16.8

Control Data 39 7.5 22 16.1

Digital Equipment 17 3.3 8 5.8

Data General 5 1.0 4 2.9

Honeywell/GE 57 11.0 33 24.1

IBM 202 38.8 81 59.1

Univac/RCA 99 19.0 28 20.4

Other 27 5.2 12 8.7

Not Specified 1 .2 1 .7

Totals 520 100.0 212

Respondents 137 100.0

Ncnrespondents 0 0

Table 3. 2. 2.1

10
3. 2. 2. 2 Computer System Acquisition. Numbers and

percentages for computer systems and respondents having

computer systems are tabulated for three hardware

acquisition methods: leased, owned, and mixed (both leased

and owned). For example, the first line of the table

indicates that 57 responding installations lease 130

computer systems; these counts represent 41.6$ of all

respondents and 25.0$ of all computer systems, respectively.

Because many respondents acquired computer systems in more

than one way, acquisition method categories are not mutually

exclusive; response tabulations and percentages therefore do

not sum to 100$.

COMPUTER SYSTEM ACQUISITION METHODS

Partial Summary of Question I-C Responses

Computer System

Acquisition Method

Computer System Responses

Number Percent Number Percent

leased 130 25.0 57 41.6

Owned 350 67.3 98 71.5

Mixed (both leased

and owned)

36 6.9 15 10.9

Not specified 4 .8 3 2.2

Totals 520 100.0 173

Respondents 137 100.0

Ncnrespondents 0 0

Table 3. 2. 2.

2

11
3.2.2. 3 Computer System Value. Numbers and percentages

for computer systems and respondents having computer systems

are tabulated for estimated ranges of system value. For

example, the first line of the table indicates that 48

responding installations have 144 computer systems with

approximate value less than $50,000; these counts represent

35. 0$ of all respondents and 27 . 7 % of all computer systems,

respectively. Because many respondents listed computer

systems with different values, approximate system value

categories are not mutually exclusive; response tabulations

and percentages therefore do not sum to 100$.

12
COMPUTER SYSTEM VALUES

Partial Summary of Question I-C Responses

Approximate Computer

System Value Based on

CPU Purchase Price

Computer Systems Responses

Number Percent Number Percent

Less than $50,000 144 27.7 48 35.0

$50,001 to $200,000 132 25.4 53 38.7

$200,001 to $500,000 99 19.0 40 29.2

$500,001 to $1,500,000 69 13.3 45 32.8

More than $1,500,000 67 12.9 34 24„ 8

Not Specified 9 1.7 4 2.9

Totals 520 100.0 224

Respondents 137 100.0

Nonrespondents 0 0

Table 3.2.2.

3

13
3. 2. 2. 4 Cross-Tabulation of Acquisition Methods By

Manufacturer. Computer systems are tabulated according to

hardware manufacturer and acquisition method. Each non-zero

cell contains four entries pertaining to a specific

manufacturer (row) and acquisition method (column). From

top to bottom these entries are:

x.

13

X. . i]

the number of reported computer systems

that were produced by the row manufacturer

and acquired in the column manner.

the percentage of all reported computer

systems produced by the row manufacturers

that were acquired in the column manner.

x

ij

the percentage of all reported computer

systems acquired in the column manner that

were produced by the row manufacturer.

the percentage of all reported computer

systems (all manufacturers and all

acquisition methods) that were produced by

the row manufacturer and acquired in the

column manner.

where: i is a row index = 1, ...» 9

j is a column index = 1, ..., 4

= number of computer systems acquired from

x

ij the i/th manufacturer in the j/th manner.

14
CROSS-TABULATION OF COMPUTER SYSTEM ACQUISITION METHOD BY MANUFACTURER

Partial Summary of Question I-C Responses

Table Entries:

Number

Row Percent Computer System Acquisition Method

Column Percent Not

Total Percent Leased Owned Mixed Specified

36 21 15 1

Burroughs 49.3

27.7

28.8

6.0

20.5

41.7

1.4

25.0

6.0 4.0 2.9 .2

11 25 1 2 Control Data

28.2

8.5

64.1

7.1

2.6

2.8

5.1

50.0

2.1 4.8 .2 .4

17

Digital

0

100.0

0 0 Equipment 4.9

3.3

U

0) 5 § 100.0 +-> Data General 0 0 0 o

0

Ch2

1.4

1.0

24 30 3

Jj

-H

C/D 00

r

.

Honeywell/GE

42.1

18.5

52.6

8.6

5.3

8.3

0

4.6 5.8 .6

33 157 12

o

1i5 i

4 0

o

IBM

16.3 77.7 5.9

0

25.4 44.9 33.3

6.3 30.2 2.3

13 81 5 Univac/RCA 13.1

10.0

81.8

23.1

5.1

13.9

0

2.5 15.6 1.0

13 14

Other 48.1 51.9

0 0

10.0 4.0

2.5 2.7

1

Not Specified 0 0 0

100.0

25.0

.2

Table 3. 2. 2.

4

15
3. 2. 2. 5 Cross-Tabulation of Value by Manufacturer.

Computer systems are tabulated according to hardware

manufacturer and estimated system value. Each non-zero cell

contains four entries pertaining to a specific manufacturer

(row) and acquisition method (column). From top to bottom

these entries are:

• x the number of reported computer systems ^ that were acquired from the row

manufacturer and have the column value.

x.

.

13 Ex..

3 13

the percentage of all reported computer

systems produced by the row manufacturer

that have the column value.

x.

.

13 Ex,

13

X. . 13 EIX: i . 3 where :

j

the percentage of all reported computer

systems with the column value that were

produced by the row manufacturer.

the percentage of all reported computer

systems (all manufacturers and all values)

that were produced by the row manufacturer

and have the column value.

is a row index = 1, ...» 9

is a column index = 1, ..., 6

= number of computer systems acquired from

the i/th manufacturer with the j/th value.

16
CROSS-TABULATION OF COMPUTER SYSTEM VALUE BY MANUFACTURER

Partial Summary of Question I-C Responses

Table Entries

:

Approximate Computer System Value Based on CPU

Number Purchase Price

Row Percent Not

Column Percent >50K >200K >500K SpeciTotal Percent <50K <200K <500K <1500K >1500K fied

19 21 17 12 4

Burroughs

26.0 28.8 23.3 16.4 5.5

0 13.2 15.9 17.2 17.4 6.0

3.7 4.0 3.3 2.3 .8

5 3 9 10 11 1

Control Data

12.8

3.5

7.7

2.3

23.1

9.1

25.6

14.5

28.2

16.4

2.6

11.1

1.0 .6 1.7 1.9 2.1 .2

11 1 3 2 Digital 64.7 5.9 17.6 11.8

0 0 Equipment 7.6 .8 3.0 2.9

2.1 .2 .6 .4

g

2 3 40.0 60.0

•HO

Data General 1.4 2.3 0 0 0 0

.0

Mh .4 .6

5 14 9 8 21

6

CD Honeywell/GE

8.8

3.5

24.6

10.6

15.8

9.1

14.0

11.6

36.8

31.3

0

4->CO 1.0 2.7 1.7 1.5 4.0

CO 70 43 30 29 24 6

(U IBM

34.7 21.3 14.9 14.4 11.9 3.0

1=s 48.6 32.6 30.3 42.0 35.8 66.7

1

13.5 8.3 5.8 5.6 4.6 1.2

cS 25 39 25 3 7 Univac/ RCA

25.3 39.4 25.3 3.0 7.1

0 17.4 29.5 25.3 4.3 10.4

4.8 7.5 4.8 .6 1.3

7 8 6 5 1

Other 25.9 29.6 22.2 18.5

0

3.7

4.9 6.1 6.1 7.2 11.1

1.3 1.5 1.2 1.0 .2

1

Not

0 0 0 0 0

100.0

Specified 11.1

.2

Table 3. 2. 2.

5

17
3.2.3 Job Mix. Two survey questions were concerned with

the nature of respondents * computing job mixes. One

requested approximate percentages of all jobs processed that

fall in descriptive categories. The other asked for the

percentage of total job mix that requires emulation of other

hardware configurations. Responses to these questions are

summarized in this section.

3.2.3. 1 Job Categories. The numbers of respondents

reporting percentages of all jobs processed within job

categories appear for five percentage point intervals.

Average percents of job mix for all respondents are also

presented. The 133 installations answering this question

represent 97-1% of all survey respondents; four

installations ( 2 . 9 %) did not answer.

18
I I X£8Uo &QI 2

CO lt<

age Pet.

CO

CO

ST

13.3 7.2 2.3

12.8 11.6 9.7 l*U

CO

CO

rH

133 133 133 133 133 COCO

rH

Percent

of

All

Jobs

Proocssed 1 o

CD

O CD rH

GO CM CO 1 H lD CD 0>

CO CM rH rH rH 1 CD O CO CD

r- rH rH rH

O rH 1 rH cO

CO CO

r- rH

O

O rH

cD

O

r— co

CD

O rH CM

OO 1 rH cD

r- rCD rH

O rH rH rH l CD O

cd rCM CM CM rH

O

O

O 1 rH ID

CD CD

CO CM o rH o O 1 CD O tD CD

rH CO o rH o rH

51- 55

CM

O rH rH rH

O 1 CD O S3 cO

CO CO CO CM rH rH 1 rH cD

JT DcO rH

O CM rHO 1 CD O ro jCD CM O CO rH CM 1 rH CD

CO CO

CO rH rH rH CO CM

O 1 co o

OJ O)

cO CM S3 rH JJ- rO 1 rH CD CM CXI

rH ST CO rH CD cD CO 1 CO o rH CM

S3 CM CO

O r» 10 rH 1 rH CD rH rH

CO CD CO CM co 13 rH l o CO rH

CO 00 CD CM 19 27 ST

s-i 19 15 18 23 OO CO o

STrH 76 80

117 51 25 STo

rH

Job

Categories

Data

processing/

accounting

Scientific/engieering/research

1*§ %

x) §

13 8

•o

h 5 O+J L w q SKd

Laboratory

data

collection/

process

control

Information retrieval

Software

development

and

maintenance

Other 5|>f

19

Table

3.

2.

3.1
3.2. 3.2 Emulation. The numbers and percentages of

respondents reporting levels of emulation (simulation,

liberation, etc.) of other hardware configurations are

presented for ten percentage point intervals of the total

job mix. Average levels of emulation were 2.6% of job mix

for all respondents and 11.1% for those who do some

emulation

EMULATION OF OTHER HARDWARE CONFIGURATIONS

Summary of Question I-E Responses

Percentage of Job Mix Requiring

Emulation

Respondents

Number Percent

0 % 88 80.7

1-10 % 14 12.9

11-20 % 3 2.8

21-30 % 2 1.8

31-40 % 1 0.9

41-50 %

51-60 %

61-70 %

71-80 % 1 0.9

81-90 %

91-100%

Respondents 109 79.6

Nonrespondents 28 20.4

Table 3.2. 3.2

20
3.2.4 Personnel. Respondents were asked to indicate the

number of fulltime equivalent in-house and contract

personnel applied to specific functions. Reported personnel

counts varied widely, from 0 to 4124 for in-house personnel

and from 0 to 210 for contract personnel. Because aggregate

counts were severely biased by the few installations with

very large numbers of personnel, average percentages of

total installation personnel applied to various job

functions are presented. While 135 installations reported

non-zero in-house personnel counts, only 35 indicated that

contract personnel were used; these counts represent 98.556

and 25.5$ of all survey respondents, respectively. The

tabulations do not include installations not reporting or

those reporting zero personnel.

INSTALLATION PERSONNEL APPLIED TO JOB FUNCTIONS

Summary of Question I-F Responses

Job Function

Average Percent of FTE

Personnel Applied to

Job Functions

In-House Contract

Data Entry or Preparation 19.7 29.7

Clerical operations and

support

32.5 19.6

Software Development and

Maintenance

31.6 48.2

ADP Management 10.4 1.3

Other 5.8 1.2

Table 3.2.4

21
3.3 Software Management, Personnel and Tools

3.3*1 Programming Languages and Software Development

Tools. The numbers of respondents indicating whether

specified programming languages and software development

tools were available on their computer systems, whether the

tools were ever used, and usage levels in terms of both

percentages of all programs and percentages of total

software development and maintenance personnel time are

tabulated. Usage levels are presented for 25 percentage

point intervals. In addition, average usage levels appear

for both program percentages and percentages of total

software development and maintenance personnel time; class

midpoints were used for deriving these figures (e.g., 37.5

was used for 26-50%). The 51 responses in the "other"

category appeared on 35 questionnaires. Languages and tools

specified are not mutually exclusive; that is, use of one

does not preclude use of others.

Installations selectively answered this question.

Consequently, the numbers of respondents indicating

availability of the various programming languages and

software development tools do not agree with reported usage

levels. For example, from the first line of the table we

see that of the 117 (127-10) respondents indicating that

symbolic assembly language was available and was used at

their installation, only 114 (85+9+1+19) and 106 (82+9+1+14)

reported usage levels in terms of percentages of all

programs and software maintenance and development personnel

time respectively. response rates varied from a high of

97.8% of all survey respondents for the 134 installations

reporting the availability of symbolic assembly language to

a low of 37.2% for the 51 installations reporting the

availability of other tools; the numbers of nonrespondents

for these questions were 3 (2.2%) and 86 (62.8%),

respectively

.

22
ao

e

CitZS

ya

M

§

£

o

5

~

y o

-j •» < O w

p: e» 6 &

$M

iS2 H

t/> r-H TJ O

Hi 6 RO 4-» 4-* CO q q k

8 ^

i

Q) O 4-» I

C» C 4-> :• to o < fO U.

fL) T1

t*0 rH 5 H

M E -(J SSl Si H h "loo

fi (/) H

S-'-o ?’ £ Sfi

>> 1Q)to <2U C' •4 £ 5 ?o|

4-J (I

T3 1!

iii a.

:§

£, c' 8.Si <S~

K

o a;

E -H E

a. o o

c, ^ t:

I'ifc

to .5U

0 HJ

1 ii

•r-1 lO U

f. • CJ tJ,v 4-> D t_J to

23
3.3.2 Personnel Software Development and Maintenance

Activities. The numbers of respondents reporting

percentages of total available software development and

maintenance personnel time applied to specific activities

are presented for intervals of five percentage points.

Average percents for all respondents also appear. The 132

installations answering this question represent 96. UX of all

survey respondents; five installations ( 3 •

6

%

)

did not

answer

24
tn

in

Aver- age Pet.

11.9 13.7 18.7 r-

-3- rH

3.6

19.7 7.7 7.0 2.3

Total Respondents 132 132 -CM CD

rH

CMCOrH

132 132 132 CMrH

CM

CmrH

Percent

of

Total

Software

Development

Effort

1 O

CD

CD rH

1 rH lO CD CD

1 m o

GO CD

rH rH

l rH in

CO CO

CO o

r-~ co

i—rH rH

1 rH in

r- r1 CO o

co rrH i—1

i rH in

CD ID

ID O m co

1 rH in

in m

rH rH

1 CD O

.=r m

rH S3 -• rH f" CM

l rH m

sr -3-

CM rH

1 CD O CD ^

CM CM CD CM -3-

rH in

CD CD

CM in CM -3-

1 CD O CM CD

St ST CD CD zrrH

rH rH rH

1 rH CO

CM CM

CO CD 15 CD J-rH

rH

1 ID O

rH CM

16 23 26 25 . CM 20 01 CD

1 rH in

i—1 rH

19 25 CD

CM 23 17 10 STrH CM

1 O CD rH

STCD 23 26 rH

ST 18 27 CM 23 ST

1-5 O•CD 22 10 14 62 18 CM

ID 31 CD

O

16 17 CD r-~ 49 ST r-~ 51 till

Software

Development

and

Maintenance

Activities

Application

analysis

and

system

design

General

system

analysis

and

design

Detail

system

and

procedure

specification

Pt M

8 -5

(X xi C 8

•2 n

+-» qj 3 fe SI

£

$

IXJ

Q)

5 rf IB

Program

conversion

or

transfer Program

maintenance

and

modification

a

0

•H

•H

4-' c

1u£

System

programing

(compilers,

o.s.

and

support

sof

tv.'are

Other

25

Tabic

3.3.2
3.3*3 Benefits from Technological Advancements. The

numbers of respondents reporting rankings of relative

benefits that would be derived from technological advances

are presented for specified functional areas. Average ranks

for all respondents are also reported.

Installations selectively answered this question. Six

functional areas for technological advancement were ranked

by 133 respondents; two areas were ranked by 132

respondents; and two areas were ranked by only 131

respondents. Response rates are 97.1%, 96.4% and 95.6% of

all survey respondents, respectively; the corresponding

nonrespondents were: 4 (2.9%), 5 (3.6%) and 6 (4.4%).

26
RELATIVE

BENEFITS

THAT

WOULD

BE

DERIVED

FROM

TECHNOLOGICAL

ADVANCEMENTS

Summaryof

Question

II-C

Responses

27

Table

3.3.3
3.3»^ Methods for Acquiring Programming Aids. The

numbers and percentages of respondents indicating that

programming aids have been acquired in specified ways are

tabulated. The four acquisition methods tabulated are not

mutually exclusive; that is, use of one does not preclude

use of others. On the average, 2.2 acquisition methods

were reported by each respondent.

ACQUISITION OF PROGRAMMING AIDS

Summary of Question II-D Responses

How Have Programming Aids Been

Acquired?

Positive Responses

Number Percent

Delivered in integrated procurement

with hardware

103 76.9

Primarily developed in-house 76 56.7

Acquired as separate procurements 50 37.4

Acquired through non-commercial

sources such as user's groups and

software exchange libraries

57 50.0

Totals 296

Respondents 134 97.8

Nonrespondents 3 2.2

Table 3.3.4

28
3.3.5 Management of Computer Programming. The numbers

and percentages of respondents indicating that the

management of computer programming in their organizations

can be described in specified ways are tabulated. The five

descriptions of computer programming management are not

mutually exclusive. On the average, 2.3 of the five

descriptions were chosen by each respondent.

MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTER PROGRAMMING

Summary of Question II-E Responses

Descriptions of Management of

Computer Programming

Positive Responses

Number Percent

All programming is done by a

central development group

51 37.8

' A centralized programming group is

available for assistance

62 45.9

Programming is primarily done by

individuals or separate project

teams

90 66.6

Programming standards and tests are established by one authoritative

group

51 37.7

Programmer training and daily

assistance is primarily a duty of

computer installation management

50 37.0

Totals 304

Respondents 135 98.5

Nonrespcndents 2 1.5

Table 3.3.5

29
3.4 COBOL Usage and Standardization

3.4.1 COBOL Compilers. Respondents were asked to

idenfity all COBOL compilers used by hardware manufacturer

and CPU model, and to specify how each compiler was

acquired. A total of 164 compilers were enumerated by the

105 installations responding to this question. Of those

installations answering the question, 39 (37.1%) listed two

or more compilers; 66 (62.9%) listed only one compiler

Responses are summarized in the three tables in this

section

.

3.4. 1.1 COBOL Compilers for Hardware Systems. Numbers

and percentages for COBOL compilers and respondents having

COBOL compilers are tabulated by hardware system

manufacturer. For example, the first line of the table

indicates that 23 responding installations have 25 Burroughs

COBOL compilers; these counts represent 21.9% of all

respondents and 15.2% of all COBOL compilers, respectively.

Because a total of 20 installations (19.0% of all responding

installations and 51.3% of those listing two or more

compilers) listed compilers from more than one manufactuer,

manufacturer categories are not mutually exclusive; response

tabulations and percentages therefore do not sum to 100%.

COBOL COMPILER MANUFACTURERS

Partial Summary of Question III-A-2 Responses

Hardware

Manufacturer

COBOL Compilers Responses

Number Percent Number Percent

Burroughs 25 15.2 23 21.9

Control Data 15 9.1 14 13.3

Digital Equipment 1 .6 1 .9

Honeywell/GE 31 18.9 27 25.7

IBM 78 47.6 56 53.3

Univac/RCA 12 7.4 9 8.6

Other 2 1.2 2 1.9

Totals 164 100 132

Respondents 105 76.7

Nonrespondents 32 23.3

Table 3. 4. 1.1

30
3.4. 1.2 COBOL Compiler Acquisition. The numbers and

percentages for COBOL compilers and respondents having COBOL

compilers are tabulated by three compiler acquisition

methods: separately priced acquisitions from hardware

system vendors, bundled acquisitions from hardware system

vendors, and acquisitions from independent vendors. For

example, the first line of the table indicates that 23

responding installations have 26 COBOL compilers that were

separately priced acquisitions from hardware system vendors;

these counts represent 21.9% of all respondents and 15.9% of

all COBOL compilers, respectively. Because many respondents

acquired COBOL compilers in more than one way, acquisition

method categories are not mutually exclusive; response

tabulations and percentages therefore do not sum to 100%.

COBOL COMPILER ACQUISITION METHOD

Partial Summary of Question III-A-2 Responses

Compiler

Acquisition

Method

COBOL Compilers Responses

Number Percent Number Percent

Separately Priced 26 15.9 23 21.9

Bundled 119 72.6 80 76.2

Independent Vendor 2 1.2 1 .9

Not Specified 17 10.3 11 10.5

Totals 164 100 115

Respondents 105 76.7

Nonrespondents 32 23.3

Table 3. 4. 1.2

31
3.4. 1.3 Cross-Tabulation of Compiler Acquisition Method

by Hardware System Manufacturer. COBOL compilers are

tabulated according to hardware system manufacturer and

compiler acquisition method. Each non-zero cell contains

four entries pertaining to a specific hardware manufacturer

(row) and compiler acquistion method (column). From top to

bottom these entries are:

x.

i]

X. . i:

Ex.

i:

x.

i:

X. . 1 ] ££*13

i j

where : i

j

x

ij

the number of reported COBOL compilers that

are used on hardware from the row

manufacturer and were acquired in the

column manner.

the percentage of all reported COBOL

compilers used on hardware from the row

manufacturer that were acquired in the

column manner.

the percentage of all reported COBOL

compilers acquired in the column manner

that are used on hardware from the row

manufacturer

the percentage of all reported COBOL

compilers (all hardware manufacturers and

all acquisition methods) that are used on

hardware from the row manufacturer and were

acquired in the column manner.

is a row index = 1 , . . .

,

7

is a column index = 1, ...» 4

= number of COBOL compilers used on hardware

from the i/th manufacturer acquired in the

j/th manner.

32
CROSS-TABULATION OF COMPILER ACQUISITION' METHOD BY HARDWARE MANUFACTURER

Partial Summary of Question III-A-2 Responses

Table Entries:

Number Compiler Acquisition Method

Row Percent IndepenColumn Percent Separately dent Not

Total Percent Priced Bundled Vendor Specified

22 3 Burroughs 0

88.0

18.5

0

12.0

17.6

13.4 1.8

5 7 3 33 .

3

46.7 20.0 Control Data

19.2 5.9

0 17.6

3.0 4.3 1.8

d 1

O) Digital

0

100.0

0 0 Equipment .8 o

.6

4hO

1 28 2

g

Honeywell/GE 3.2

3.8

90.3

23.5

0

6.5

11.8

-H .6 17.1 1.2

CO

a) 20 48 2 8

§ IBM

25.6 61.5 2.6 10.3

76.9 40.3 100.0 47.1

M 12.2 29.3 1.2 4.9

11 1

Univac/RCA 0

91.7

9.2

0

8.3

5.9

6.7 .6

2 Other 0

100.0

0 0

1.7

1.2

Table 3. 4. 1.3

33
3.4.2 Measures of COBOL Usage. Five survey questions

were concerned with various measures of COBOL usage. Three

gross indicators of language usage were elicited: the

percentage of all installation programs written in COBOL,

the number of COBOL source programs, and the total number of

source lines in all installation COBOL programs. In

addition, respondents were asked to estimate the percentages

of all COBOL programs falling in specified ranges for number

of source lines. Finally, the percentage of installation

programs using only standard COBOL was requested. Responses

to these questions are summarized in this section.

3.4.2. 1 Percentage of Programs. The numbers of

respondents reporting percentages of all computer programs

written in COBOL are presented for ten percentage point

intervals. A substantial difference between mean and median

values indicates that the response distribution is skewed;

that is, the mean (average) is affected by a relatively few

extreme values. Consequently, while the average percentage

of all computer programs written in COBOL was 50 % for all

respondents and 7056 for responding installations using the

language, the median values of 7556 and 8556 respectively are

better indicators of central tendency.

Question II-A (see table 3 - 3 - 1 ) asked respondents to

indicate usage levels for various programming languages and

software development tools including COBOL. The average

usage level for COBOL was 65.4% of all installation

programs. The slight difference between this value and

question III-B responses summarized here are explained by:

• Question II-A had fewer respondents (105) than question

III-B (124).

• Question II-A elicited usage levels in 25 percentage

point classes; question III-B asked for a specific

percentage value.

• Average percentages for question II-A were calculated

using class midpoints (e.g, 37.5 was used for all

responses in the 26-5056 class); means and medians for

question III-B are more precise.

In general , because of the larger number of respondents and

the more precise recording and summarizing of responses,

results for question III-B appear to be more indicative of

COBOL usage at sampled installations.

34
PERCENT OF ALL COMPUTER PROGRAMS WRITTEN IN COBOL

Summary of Question III-B Responses

Percent of Computer Programs

Written in COBOL

Respondents

Number Percent

0 % 21 16.9

1-10 % 10 8.1

11-20 % 4 3.2

21-30 % 3 2.4

31-40 % 4 3.2

41-50 % 4 3.2

51-60 % 3 2.4

61-70 % 6 4.9

71-80 % 15 12.1

81-90 % 15 12.1

91-100% 39 31.5

Respondents 124 90.5

Nonrespondents 13 9.5

Table 3. 4.2.

35
3. 4. 2. 2 Number of Source Programs. The numbers of COBOL

source programs are reported in 500 program intervals for

each compiler by COBOL compiler manufacturer and for all

installation compilers together. The 106 installations

answering this question represent 7 7 . 4 % of all survey

respondents; 31 ( 22.6 %) did not respond. Responding

installations had an average of 468 source programs for each

COBOL compiler. The average number of total source programs

for all compilers for each respondent was 803. This value

was affected by a few extremely large responses; the median

value of 500 source programs for all compilers per

installation is, therefore, a better indicator of central

tendency

.

NUMBER OF SOURCE PROGRAMS

Summary of Question III-C Responses

COBOL

Compiler

Categories

Number of Source Programs Total

Re- sponses

(Compilers)

0 1-500

501-

1000

1001-

1500

1501-

2000

2001 g Above

Not Specified

U

o

0

1

&

1—

1

• rHP*

<3§

oC

'

Burroughs 15 6 4 25

Control Data 1 9 3 1 1 15

Digital Equipment 1 1

Honeywell/GE 19 6 1 2 i 2 31

IBM 5 44 12 9 2 i 5 78

Univac/RCA 1 5 4 1 i 12

Other 2 2

A

c11 Installation0B0L Compilers

4 49 20 17 3 8 5 106

Number of Respondents

Table 3. 4. 2.

2

V

36
3 . 4 . 2.

3

Lines of Source Code. The numbers and

percentages of respondents reporting the total number of

source lines in all installation COBOL programs are

presented for intervals of 250,000 lines. Because mean and

standard deviation values are biased by a few extremely

large values, the median value of 278,236 lines is the most

representative figure for the "average" respondent.

TOTAL LINES OF COBOL SOURCE CODE

Summary of Question III-D Responses

Total Lines of Source Code

in All Installation COBOL

Programs

Respondents

Number Percent

Up to 250,000 44 46.8

250,001 to 500,000 12 12.8

500,001 to 750,000 15 15.9

750,001 to 1,000,000 7 7.4

1,000,001 to 1,250,000 '2 2.1

1,250,001 to 1,500,000 4 4.3

1,500,001 to 1,750,000 3 3.2

1,750,001 to 2,000,000 4 4.3

2,000,001 and above 3 3.2

Respondents 94 68.6

Nonrespondents 43 31.4

Table 3. 4. 2.

3

37
3. 4. 2. 4 Source Program Size. The numbers of respondents

reporting percentages of all COBOL source programs falling

in specified size categories based on the number of source

lines per program are listed in intervals of five percentage

points. Average percentages are also presented for each

size class. The 97 installations answering this question

represent 70 , 8 % of all survey respondents; 40 (29.2%) did

not answer.

38
S3 % I g I

fc toI I B

oi 6o£

Aver- age Pet.

39.4 31.5 19.3 8.7

Total Re- spon- dents 97 97 97 97

W1c

8.

V) Si

U-.O

ii

Percent

of

All

CPPOL

Prograns 1 O to o CD r—\

ZT rH

O o 1 rH tO

cn o>

CO

O o o 1 to o co cn

CO rH o o 1 rH lO

CO CO

rH rH o o 1 to o r- co

r- CM o o 1 rH lO

r- rCM rH rH *H 1 to o

to rCO

O rH rH

rH lO

to to

CM r—iO rH 1 to o iO tO

CM CO rH 1 rH LO

tO tO

to CM rH

O 1 to o

ZT LO

e- tO CO CM 1 rH LO

Z3 ZT o to CM o 1 to o CO ZT

tO CO CO o

rH tO

CO CO

to jr tO rH 1 to o

CX CO

zT

a

CD rH 1 rH tO

CM CM

to li CD rH 1 to o rH CM

to 12 13 tO

11- 15

CM CD 12 CO 1 o

to iH

14 CO CD 15

1-5 cn to tOf—(

35 o

to r- 14 30

Nunfoer

of

Lines

of

Source

Code

Per

Program

Up

to

500

501-

1000

1001-

2000

2001-

above

39
3. 4. 2.

Use of Standard COBOL. The numbers and

percentages of respondents reporting portions of all COBOL

programs using only standard COBOL are presented for ten

percentage point intervals. The mean and median percentages

for COBOL programs using only standard COBOL were both

approximately 55%.

LEVEL OF USAGE FOR STANDARD COBOL

Summary of Question III-G Responses

Percent of COBOL Programs That

Use Only Standard COBOL

Respondents

Number Percent

0 % 25 25.3

1-10 % 11 11.1

11-20 % 2 2.0

21-30 % 3 3.0

31-40 % 1 1.0

41-50 % 2 2.0

51-60 % 3 3.0

61-70 % 1 1.0

71-80 % 5 5.1

81-90 % 4 4.1

91-100% 42 42.4

Respondents 99 72.3

Nonrespondents 38 27.7

Table 3. 4. 2.

40
3.4.3 COBOL Portability. Two survey questions were

concerned with the portability of COBOL programs. The first

asked respondents to indicate numbers of COBOL programs

transferred to and from other installations over the past

year. The other requested brief explanations of the major

types of program changes that were required to achieve

program transfers. Responses to these questions are

summarized in this section.

3.4.3. 1 COBOL Programs Transferred. The numbers and

percentages of installations reporting COBOL program

transfers to and from other installations are tabulated for

intervals of 50 programs. Installations that did transfer

COBOL programs during the previous year reported averages of

53.3 programs sent to and 259.6 programs received from other

installations

.

NUMBER OF COBOL PROGRAMS TRANSFERRED

Summary of Question III-H Responses

Number of COBOL

Programs Transferred

Respondents Renorting COBOL Program Transfers

To Other Installations From Other Installations

Number Percent Number Percent

0 60 59.4 43 42.2

1-50 29 28.7 28 27.4

51 - 100 6 5.9 6 5.9

101 - 150 2 2.0 6 5.9

151 - 200 3 3.0 1 1.0

201 - 250 1 1.0

251 - 300 3 2.9'

301 - 350

351 - 400 4 3.9

401 - 450 1 1.0

451 - 500 2 2.0

501 and above 8 7.8

Respondents 101 73.7 102 74.4

Nonrespondents 36 26.3 35 25.6

Table 3.4. 3.1

41
3. 4. 3. 2 Cross-Tabulation of Installations Transferring

COBOL Programs. Respondents transporting COBOL programs are

tabulated according to the numbers of programs transferred

to and from other installations. Each non-zero cell contains

four entries pertaining to the numbers of COBOL programs

sent to other installations (row) and the numbers of COBOL

programs received from other installations (columns). From

top to bottom these entries are:

• x.

.

ID

£X. . j 1 3

X. . ID £ X. . ID

X. . ID

i D

the number of responding installations that

sent the row number of COBOL programs to

other installations and received the column

number of COBOL programs from other

installations

.

the percentage of all responding

installations sending the row numbers of

COBOL programs to other installations that

received the column number of COBOL

programs from other installations.

the percentage of all responding

installations receiving the column number

of COBOL programs from other installations

that sent the row number of COBOL programs

to other installations.

the percentage of all responding

installations (all numbers of programs sent

and received) that sent the row number of

programs to other installations and

received the column of programs from other

installations

.

where: i is a row index = 1, . .., 7

j is a column index = 1, ...» 11

the number of responding installations that

A

ij sent the i/th number of COBOL programs to

other installations and received the j/th

number of COBOL programs from other

installations

.

For brevity of presentation, null columns were omitted from

the table; specifically, because no installations reported

receiving 201 to 250 or 301 to 350 COBOL programs from other

installations, no columns appear for these values.

42
CROSS

TABULATION

OF

INSTALITVTIONS

TRANSFERRING

COBOL

PROGRAMS

~ &

O OD S (U PH

lO CM O LO

00 • • • C- O LO

CD CD CN

OD £

00 O LO CM

LO O'- CM

OO

Zt LO C~- OO CM

CM OO O LO rH CD LO 0" i—| oo lo r-' 00 LO H OO CM

CD CM

lo i—

!

OO CM

00 i—

I

o

O

LO

CM CD O LO

• • • CO O i—

I

o

I—

I

COCM

L

(D rC

-P.

401

to

450 o

rH a- O 0-

• • • OO o

o1—

1

o CD o o o

O

0

e -P CM OO O LO CM CD O LO

CO o • • • • • • 0) p H o OO CD rH CO O rH CD O o CD o

CO pH LO O LO LO c oo zt o "O Ph g

CO > O

g •H P OO 00 o CN

pc; CU • • • o H CD o O O CM CO CO o CD o

PC g LO O rH O

i pc; CM oo 1 1 MH CO M p< o

-P rH a- o r- g kb rH O o

• • • OO o CD o o o o

•H o LO O o +-> L i—1 CsJ 1—1 CO CL, 0)p hO o

O' o p CM 0O 00 LO OO OO CO CN rl OO C C

OP • • • • • • • • • Ph o rH O ooooh CD CD CM O o oo co o CD O o O LO OO I—1 LO 00 rH

1—1

1—

1

Phu

CO o OO O O CM CM CD 00 LO i—1 r-~ r" c- L p

0) o LO O CM CO 00 rH CO CO CD O o O

00 rH O LO OO 11

1 1 LO 1—

1

rH 0O 00 O CM a- CD CD i—1 f' CO t i—1 O CD t H oo CO o- i—1 CD CO C ,—| CD CD O' 0 1

1 • * » p CO CD CO H CM CO CO 00 CD 00 oo oo CD OO CM 0O o rH 00 a- zt 1—

1

LO oo CD

1—1 LO 1

1

CD O LO

00 • • • LO O CO

CO CD CM

CM CD O- LO

CO zt i—

I

(N OO C LO

OO J H OO

CO

(U $

W L

(D

(U rQ

-P - C -P ,• (D 0-1-' o pl, a

L Oh

<u c

Ph i H

O o

+j LO

rH 0

LO -p o

0 LO

-P H

CD O o

-P CM

r—I CD O O LO

CM +-> CM

CUCOs

H CO o g S P^

suoTq.p-[I'E’TSUX asqxo °T 4-uaS suiejgoaj NQgQO jo saggnm^

43

Table

3.4.

3.2
3.^.3* 3« Required COBOL Program Changes. Installations

that had transferred COBOL programs during the previous year

were asked to enumerate the types of COBOL program changes

required. Narrative responses were received and

subjectively grouped into categories of similar answers.

Numbers and percentages of respondents indicating that

changes were required are tabulated for these 15 COBOL

program change classifications. The change classifications

are not mutually exclusive; that is, the selection of one

does not preclude the selection of others. On the average,

1.5 change types were selected by each respondent. It

should be noted that more respondents reported changes

required for COBOL program transfers than reported COBOL

program transfers.

CHANGES REQUIRED FOR COBOL PROGRAM TRANSFERS

Summary of Question II I -I Responses

Changes Required For

COBOL Program Transfers

Responses

Number Percent

Nonstandard Features 13 18.3

Environment Division Entries 11 15.5

Character Code 9 12.7

Data Division Entries 7 9.9

Compiler's Lacking Standard Features 3 4.2

Interface With System Software 3 4.2

Printer Carriage Control 2 2.8

Collating Sequence 2 2.8

IF Statements 2 2.8

Reserved Words 2 2.8

Identification Division Entries 1 1.4

Procedural Statements 1 1.4

Program Initialization 1 1.4

(Installation) Standard 1.4

Naming Conventions 1 1.4

Major Rewrite 1 1.4

Other Reasons 7 9.9

No Changes Required 42 59.2

Totals 108

Respondents 71 51.8

Nonrespondents 66 48.2

Table 3. 4. 3.

44
3.4.4 Vendor Extensions to COBOL. Three survey

questions were concerned with vendor extensions to standard

COBOL. The first asked respondents to select one best

description of their use of extensions to standard COBOL,

the others presented lists of tools and techniques for

identifying standard versus non-standard COBOL capabilities.

Respondents checked all means currently used in one

question, and tools that they would like to have available

in the second. Responses to these questions are summarized

in this section.

3.4.4. 1 Installation Policy. The numbers and

percentages of respondents selecting each of five mutually

exclusive alternative answers to the question "Do you have

an installation policy regarding the use of vendor extension

to standard COBOL? (check one)" are tabulated.

INSTALLATION POLICIES REGARDING VENDOR EXTENSIONS TO STANDARD COBOL

Summary of Question III-F Responses

Do You Have A Policy Regarding The

Use Of Vendor Extensions to Standard

COBOL?

Respondents

Number Percent

No 34 32.4

Yes , freely permit their use 16 15.2

Yes , permit their limited use 32 30.5

Yes , forbid their use 15 14.3

Other 8 7.6

Respondents 105 76.6

Nonrespondents 32 23.4

Table 3. 4. 4.1

45
3. 4. 4. 2 Means Used for Identifying. The numbers and

percentages of respondents indicating use of specified means

for identifying standard vs. non-standard COBOL features are

tabulated. The ten alternative methods are not mutually

exclusive; that is, the use of one does not preclude the use

of others. On the average, 2.2 methods were selected by

each respondent.

IDENTIFICATION OF STANDARD VS. NONSTANDARD COBOL

Summary of Question III-O Responses

How COBOL Programmers Identify

Standard Versus Nonstandard

COBOL Features

Positive Responses

Number Percent

Implementor provided annotated

manuals

50 49.0

Installation produced annotated

manuals

12 11.8

Use of ANSI standard publications 38 37.3

Automatic flagging of source program listings

12 11.8

Guidelines (supplement to manuals) 23 22.5

Validation summary report for the

compiler

3 2.9

Newsletters 21 20.6

Informal (verbal) communication 35 34.3

Not required 21 20.6

Other 14 13.7

Totals 229

Respondents 102 74.5

Nonrespondents 35 25.5

Table 3. 4. 4.

2

46
3.4.4. 3 Desired Tools for Identifying. The numbers and

percentages of respondents indicating that they would like

to have available specific tools for differentiating among

standard and non-standard COBOL compiler capabilities are

tabulated. The seven alternatives provided were not

mutually exclusive; that is, wanting one type of tool does

not preclude a desire to have other tools available.

On the average, 2.4 tools were selected by each question

respondent

.

TOOLS FOR DIFFERENTIATING STANDARD VS. NONSTANDARD COBOL

Summary of Question III-P Responses

Tools which would like to

have available for differentiating standard and non- standard COBOL compiler

capabilities

Positive Responses

Number Percent

Manuals 60 57.1

Guidelines 39 37.1

Automated tools (e.g.

syntax checkers)

38 36.2

Compiler flagging on

source listing

71 67.6

Compiler validation

results

27 25.7

None 14 13.3

Other 2 1.9

Totals 251

Respondents 105 76.6

Nonrespondents 32 23.4

Table 3.4.4.

3

47
3.5 COBOL Evaluations

Respondents were asked to indicate their evaluations of

the COBOL language in five separate but related questions.

One question requested rankings of specified reasons for

using the language. The others sought narrative responses.

The results of all five questions are summarized in this

section

3.5.1 Reasons for Using COBOL. The numbers of

respondents reporting rankings of the importance of nine

specified reasons for using COBOL are tabulated. Average

ranks are also reported. A total of 40 respondents ranked

the requirement that they conform with the Federal standard

as a reason for using the language; 39 ranked it first (most

important) and one ranked it sixth in importance. Because

"conformance with the Federal standard" was not specifically

identified as a reason on the survey instrument, these 40

answers appear in the "other" category along with 21

miscellaneous responses that could not be categorized

further

Installations selectively answered this question. The

eight specified reasons for using COBOL were ranked as

follows: two reasons were ranked by 93 respondents, three

reasons were ranked by 94 respondents, two reasons were

ranked by 95 respondents, and one reason was ranked by 96

respondents. The "other" category was ranked by 61

respondents. Response rates were 67.9/6, 68. 6$, 69.3$, 70.1$

and 44.5$, respectively; corresponding non-respondents were

44(32.1$), 43(31.4$), 42(30.7$), 41(29.9$) and 76 (55.5$).

48
IMPORTANCE

OF

REASONS

FOR

USING

COBOL co

CDWS

Ph

CD

<u PRP)I I—I H

Aver- age

Rank 4.4 3.2 3.9 4.9 COLO

5.4 5.6 LO

LO

LO

CN

Total

Respon- dents CO

cn

pcn

94 LO

cn 94 CDcn

COcnLO

cn 61

cn CO CD o LO CO CN CD oo cn 1 1 1—1

+-1 § CO 00 LO 1—1 cn zt

O I—1 o t 1 1 CN 1 1 1—1 0&

•H [>- cn CN CO CD Zt CO LO CO 1—1 1—1 1 1 1—1 1—1 cn p

41 Pq CDCD J 1 1 CD oo 00 o CN 1 1 o CO CO 1—1 d 1—1 1—1 1 1 1 1 1—1 1—1 o

cn Ph

cn

CD

4-> PR q

LO o cn o CD o CO CN 1—1 1—1 q 1—1 CN 1 1 1—1 1 1 1—1 P t O o u

p_4 CD =t CN cn C"- 00 CO c— CO CO o t Q

•H i—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 1—1 Is P s cn§ CO LO o a- cn CN LO 1—1 1 1 1 1 1—1 1—1 l—1 i—1 1—1

cnto CN LO CO LO LO CO CO CN -3~ o

•g 1—1 CSI O' rH l 1—1 00 CD 1—1 1—1

CN CD o CO oo 1 1 I—1 1 1 po q CQ m cn o o H p CD Ph o n3 cn P •H

Cl

O cnp

p

q <D Go

U

O to •H

O -H cn o o q rH

PQ 3 q bO P •r] •H O TJ Ph p d P to p O CD TO •H o n] to fu TJ bO q P H •H P 3 Ph to O q O • H P CD q P q p: o •H Hj fQ q CD a 1 P p k 0) Ph V)

cn cn £ P Go > 0)

O 3 g o3 nj • H P d P cn \

CD

m

q o q 0)

H

q

q 3 1 1 Oh o •H P o 6o o q CD Ph o o O o cn cn aj p 1 1 q P P p 0) a) P •H P cn pp o o • H rH •H

q

q P >, Pn 3 3 r~j •H

X CD

O 0) rH CD cn T3 T3 o a CD P co cn 0) q q CD <4 rri q rH P fl3 O 00 w w pr PR p Ph Ph o

CD P pr p

49

Table
3.5.2 Narrative Evaluations of COBOL. Four narrative

questions asked respondents to evaluate Federal Standard

COBOL. The first was concerned with deficiencies of the

COBOL language, or compilers that led to use of other

languages. Two others dealt with features: those that

should be incorporated in Federal Standard COBOL, and those

that are unnecessary. Finally, the fourth elicited

recommendations for change. It is evident from reviewing

their comments that many respondents did not perceive these

questions as being significantly different. Consequently,

responses for all four are summarized together in the table.

A total of 106 installations representing 77% of all survey

respondents answered one or more of these questions; 31

(23%) did not respond to any of the four.

Overall, 444 responses were received for all four

questions. This represents an average of 4.2 features

and/or recommendations for each respondent answering one or

more of the four questions. Individual questions were

answered as follows:

QUESTION RESPONDENTS NON-RESPONDENTS

QUESTION

NUMBER PERCENT* NUMBER PERCENT

III-K 96 70 41 30

III-L 68 50 69 50

III-M 57 42 80 58

III-N 66 48 71 52

^Percent of all 137 survey respondents.

Care must be taken when using these response counts,

however, because of the erratic manner in which the

questions were answered. For instance, while some

installations listed features they would like removed from

the standard solely in response to the question, "What

features of Federal Standard COBOL do you consider

unnecessary?," others also noted them in response to the

question "What changes in Federal Standard COBOL would you

recommend?." Thus, one idea could appear as a response in

only one or in as many as four different questions.

The narrative responses were reviewed and subjectively

grouped into 61 categories of similar answers. These

categories were then combined further to produce the nine

major and twelve subordinate response classes used in the

table. The numbers of respondents reporting feature

analyses and recommendations are summarized for these

response classes; tabulations appear for each question and

in total for all four questions. The types of comments

50
included in the nine major response classes are described

below:

Operating System Interface:

Includes responses concerned with COBOL capabilities for

accessing operating system information and interfacing with

system software. Typical comments in this category include

statements about the lack of a standard COBOL interface to

system clock information and the desire for a WAIT and

INTERROGATE capability.

Compiler Design:

Includes responses concerned with compiler (as opposed

to language) features and characteristics. Examples include

suggestions for improving debugging and compilation aids,

and requests for a time-sharing COBOL compiler.

Language

:

Includes responses concerned with features and capabilities

of the COBOL language. The four subordinate categories

include comments pertaining to:

• Environment Description -- various machine specific

declarations that appear in the ENVIRONMENT DIVISION of a COBOL program.

• I/O and Data Definition — DATA DIVISION entries and I/O

capabilities. Character code problems, and the desire

for enhanced immediate access I/O capabilities exemplify

comments included in this sub- category.

• Source Statement Preparation — programming conventions

and format. For example, requests for a free form

reference (coding) format and standard naming conventions

are included in this subcategory.

• Procedural Capabilities — Features and capabilities that

are or would be included in the PROCEDURE DIVISION of a COBOL program. Examples include comments pertaining to

specific COBOL verbs (e.g., ALTER, IF, EXAMINE), major

COBOL modules, (e.g., REPORT WRITER, table handling), and

generic capabilities (e.g., string, boolean manipulation,

structured programming)

.

51
Efficiency

Includes responses concerned with the efficiency of COBOL.

The four subordinate categories include comments pertaining

to

• Speed--Time required for the compilation and execution of

COBOL programs.

• Memory —The amount of main memory required by COBOL

compilers and programs.

• Coding--The time and effort required to produce COBOL

source code.

• General —The overall efficiency of the programming,

compilation and execution of COBOL programs.

Appl icability

Includes responses concerned with the applicability of COBOL

to specific types of tasks. The four subordinate categories

include comments pertaining to:

• Scientific/Math/Engineering--The use of COBOL for

scientific, mathematical and/or engineering problems.

• Data Management —The use of COBOL for storing and

retrieving data and for interfacing with generalized data

management software.

• Systems Programming--The use of COBOL for developing and

maintaining operating systems and support software.

• Communications--The use of COBOL for developing and

maintaining communications software.

Compiler Lacks Standard Features:

Includes responses indicating that features included in

Standard COBOL are not implemented on respondents'1 compilers

Standardize Non-Standard Features:

Includes responses indicating that respondents would like to

standardize features that were not included in the 1968

COBOL Standard.

Other Features and Characteristics:

Includes all comments that could not be grouped in any of

the other categories.

52
No Deficiencies or Unnecessary Features/

Recommend No Additions or Changes:

Includes all statements specifically indicating that COBOL

has no deficiencies, requires no additional features, has no

unnecessary features, and/or requires no changes.

NARRATIVE EVALUATIONS OF FEDERAL STANDARD COBOL

Summary of Responses for Questions III-K, III-L, III-M, and III-N

Feature Analysis 6 Recommendations

III-K III-L III-M III-N

Defi- Fea- Unnec- RecomFederal Standard COBOL cien- tures essary mended

cies to Fea- Changes Total

Features and Characteristics Add tures

Operating System Interface 6 8 12 26

Compiler Design 5 6 7 18

Language

' Environment Description 1 2 1 4 I/O and Data Definition 21 16 1 16 54

Source Statement Prep. 1 5 9 15

Procedural Capabilities 17 13 11 23 64

Efficiency

Speed 10 10

Memory 14 14

Coding 14 14

General 4 3 1 8

Applicability

Scientific/Math/Engr

.

29 29

Data Management 3 5 8 Systems Programming 5 5 Communications 3 3

Compiler Lacks Standard 4 4 5 13

Features

Standardize Nonstandard 2 10 7 19

Features

Other Features and 11 5 2 4 22

Characteristics

No Deficiencies or Unnec- 16 31 41 30 118

essary Features /Recommended No Additions or

Changes

Total 165 107 57 115 444

Table 3.5.2

53

APPENDIX A: SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND

SURVEY MECHANICS
APPENDIX A

SAMPLING METHODOLOGY AND SURVEY MECHANICS

This appendix includes a detailed discussion of all

aspects of the methodology employed with the Appraisal of

Federal Government COBOL Standards and Software Management

Survey. The population, the sample, data gathering and

analysis techniques are discussed in turn below.

1. POPULATION

The General Services Administration "s Inventory of

Automatic Data Processing Equipment in the United States

Government,* referred to throughout this document, as the

GSA Inventory, was used as the primary source for selecting

survey respondents. Because of imperfections in data

gathering and reporting mechanisms, this document is not a comprehensive listing of all ADP units within the Federal

Government. It is, nevertheless, the best available listing

and was used for defining the survey population.

The GSA inventory detail listing of computer systems in

departraent/agency sequence was taken as representing all

known ADP installations in the Federal Government. Three

classes of ADP units appearing in this gross population were

eliminated from consideration for the survey. Specifically,

the following types of installations were determined to be

beyond the scope of the study:

• ADP units that have only "special management

classification" systems. This includes systems in the

control, classified and mobile categories described as

follows

:

Control Systems: Computer hardware that is an

integral part of a total facility or larger complex of

equipment, and has the primary purpose of controlling,

monitoring, analyzing or measuring a process or other

equipment

.

Classified Systems: Computer hardware that has a classified physical location.

Mobile Systems: Computer hardware located on ships,

planes or vans.

•Inventory of Automatic Data Processing Equipment in the

United States Government for Fiscal Year 1974, GSA Automated

Data and Telecommunications Service, U. S. Government

Printing Office Stock No. 22 01-00062, September 197*1.

56
Units that are overseas

• Units that DO NOT have any systems capable of supporting

an available "modern" COBOL compiler.

Thus, the population used for the survey included only

those ADP units appearing in the 1974 GSA Inventory of

Automatic Data Processing Equipment that were domestic and

had at least one "general classification" system capable of

supporting a modern COBOL compiler. A total of 859 (47.5%)

of the 1807 ADP units listed in the GSA inventory met these

criteria

2. SAMPLE SELECTION

The determination of sample size is a complex,

multifaceted decision. A commonly applied rule-of-thumb

states that a sample must include at least 55& of the

population. This rule indicates that for the limited survey

population of 859 ADP units, a sample of only 43

installations would be required. Because it was desired to

complete the survey in a short period of time, there was

concern that the volume of response from such a small sample

would not be sufficient. Therefore, a larger sample was

proposed. A sample size of around 200 was seen as being

large enough to ensure a reasonable number of returned

questionnaires within a short period of time.

Using these two values as lower and upper bounds on a range from which the actual sample size could be chosen, an

analysis of the precision of various sample sizes was

undertaken. Mean value of system cost was chosen as the

population parameter for evaluating the precision

(confidence interval) of sample estimates because it was

both known and had a large variance. The resulting

confidence intervals were:

Ranges of Range of

Sample Sizes Confidence Intervals

50 - 200 ± $45,000 to ± $4,200

That is, the largest amount by which an estimate of mean

system value derived from a sample of size 50 would vary

from the actual mean is + $45,000 and the largest estimation

error indicated for a sample of size 200 is + $4,200.

Because of the generally large magnitude of the paramter

(the actual mean system value), all confidence intervals in

the range were deemed acceptable for the purposes of the

study. In order to assure a sufficient volume of response,

a sample of size 200 was used.

57
The random selection procedure involved three steps:

enumeration of the population, generation of a random number

sequence, and identification of sample installations. First,

all ADP units meeting the criteria for inclusion in the

survey population were identified and assigned a unique

number. Then a sequence of 200 integers ranging between one

and 859 was selected from a table of random numbers.* The

random numbers were generated "without replacement"; that

is, 200 unique numbers were selected. Finally, the selected

random numbers were used to identify the ADP units included

in the large and small samples.

While gathering names and addresses of installation

managers in the manner described below, we found that

sampling at the installation level was inadequate for one

agency because of the agency's centralization of software

development. In this apparently isolated instance, the

assumption that data could be gathered at the ADP unit level

was incorrect. A revised (smaller) set of software

development units was used to represent this agency and the

sample was adjusted accordingly.

Figure A.1 is an analysis of the number of ADP units by

department/agency included in the GSA Inventory, the survey

population and the sample group. The 190 ADP units included

in the sample represent 22.1% of the 859 installations in

the survey population.

*RAND Corporation Tables reprinted in Dixon, Wilfind J., and

Frank J. Massey, Jr., Introduction to Statistical Analysis,

McGraw-Hill Book Co., NJ, 1969.

58
ANALYSIS OF ADP UNITS BY -DEPARTMENT/AGENCY

Source: Inventory of Automatic Data Processing Equipment in

the United States Government for Fiscal Year 1974

Department/ Number of ADP Units

Agency*** GSA Population Sample

AGRI 33 19 5 COMM 50 30 9 CSC 2 2 1

DCG

DOD

8 7 4

AF 227 142 20*

Army 508 237 71

DCA 9 9 4

DCPA 1 1 1

ENA 6 3 2 DSA 28 27 5 Navy 311 161 28

DOT 134 24 6

EPA 7 7 1

EKDA/NRC 203 43 8

• FDIC 1 1 1

FRS 1 1 1

GAO 1 1 1

GSA 16 8 1

HEW 32 17 2 INT 26 14 2 JUS 6 6 2 LABOR 1 1 1

NASA 64 21 3 NSF 13 7 2 RRB 1 1 1

SBA 1 1 1

STATE 6 4 1

TREAS 34 32 5 TVA 7 4 1

33 Other

Dept/Agen. **

70 28 —

TOTALS 1807 859 190

Figure A.l

* Sample reduced to this level because of centralized

software development.

** Of these department /agencies , 9 had no ADP units listed

in the GSA inventory.

*** Department/Agency abbreviations taken from Appendix II

of GSA inventory.

59
3 DATA GATHERING

The GSA inventory did not include, nor did GSA maintain,

any information about the names of ADP unit managers or the

specific addresses required for mailing. We were able,

however, to obtain a list of ADP/MIS liaison officers--

individuals (one per agency) who provide GSA with the

inventory data. These liaison officers were contacted and

asked to provide us with the name of the installation

manager and the mailing address for each ADP unit to be

included in the sample. ADP/MIS liaison officers for

agencies having only a few ADP units in our sample were

contacted by telephone; others received a personalized

letter request.

From the names and addresses received from liaison

officers, mailing labels were produced and questionnaire

packets were sent directly to the installation managers of

the selected (sample) ADP units. The packets included:

• cover letter

• questionnaire

• questionnaire receipt card

• return envelope.

Appendix B includes a replica of the questionnaire along

with cross references to tabulations appearing in Section 3.

The questionnaire receipt card was included in order to

provide an early indication of response rate, to solicit a commitment from the individual receiving the packet, and to

offer a reward in the form of survey results. Because

confidentiality was promised on the questionnaires, the

questionnaire receipt card was the primary controlling

mechanism

.

Returned questionnaire receipt cards were noted on a control list of all sampled ADP units. Units not responding

within two to three weeks from the time the survey was

mailed were sent a follow-up letter. A second follow-up

letter was sent to those not responding in another three to

four weeks.

60
4 DATA ANALYSIS

Returned questionnaires were numbered and their

responses encoded, recorded in machine readable form, and

validated using an on-line text editor. The validated data

was used to populate a data base created using the System

2000 generalized data base management software package on

the Infonet timesharing network. Many of the tabulations

and statistics appearing in Section 3 were generated using

the data base system's query capability. Other results

reported in this document were derived from data analyses

performed using the Statistical Package for the Social

Sciences (SPSS) and OMNITAB.

61

APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENT
APPENDIX B

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

This appendix contains a replica of the survey

instrument. Questionnaire packets were addressed to the

installation managers of the ADP units included in the

sample. Cross references to the tabulations of Section 3

for each question or a portion thereof appear as overlays on

the survey questionnaire, figure B.l.

64
NBS-1010

( 12-741 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

APPRAISAL OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COBOL STANDARDS AND SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT

RETURN TO:

Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology

National Bureau of Standards Technology - A265

Washington, D. C. 20234

DIRECT INQUIRIES TO:

Computer Science Section Telephone (301) 921-3491

Instructions:

The purposes of this questionnaire are twofold: to determine

the impact of Federal government efforts to standardize the COBOL

language, and to identify aspects of software development, mainte- nance and management which would benefit from technological advancements. Because of the general nature and breadth of the questions, managers of Federal government ADP installations are asked to respond.

Responses should be entered in the spaces provided. Where

exact magnitudes are not known, best estimates are acceptable.

Clarifying entries and additional information may be entered at the end of each section or may be submitted on supplemental sheets. DO NOT write your name or the name of your agency on this questionnaire. Only aggregate results from all respondents will be used for publication. This report has been cleared in accordance

with FPMR 101-11.11 and assigned Interagency Report Control No.

0051 -DOC-OT. PART I GENERAL INFORMATION ON COMPUTER USAGE

A. What is your total annual budget (cost) for automatic

data processing (ADP) hardware, software, personnel and services7

(_j ADP Budget < SI million

["] SI million v, ADP Budget < $2 million

^

, $2 million ADP Budget < S3 million

! ' j S3 million i ADP Budget < $4 million

[‘ , S4 million < ADP Budget < S5 million

[ j S5 million < ADP Budget

B. Indicate the approximate percentage of your total annual ADP budget which is applied to each of the following categories.

Budget Allocation Categories

1. Hardware and Maintenance

2. Proprietary Software

3. Contract Personnel and Consultants

4. In-house Personnel (except management)

5. Management

6. Computing Supplies (cards, tapes, etc.)

7. Overhead (excluding items 5 and 6 above)

8. Other ( Specify

)

% of ADP Budget

Total Annual ADP Cost 100%

C. Enter all of your computer systems by manufacturer and model number. Also, indicate with checks in the appropriate columns the approximate value based on CPU purchase price and whether each system is leased or owned.

SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

ACQUIRED FROM

LEASED OWNED

3 . 2 . 2.

APPROXIMATE VALUES

(Check one for each system)

MANUFACTURER2!

CPU MODEL NO.

3 . 2 . 2.

3 . 2 . 2.

3 . 2 . 2.

501 >200K

v500K

>500K C1500K • 1 BOOK

3 . 2 . 2.

Figure B.l

65
D Indicate your computing joh mix by approximating tbe percentage of all |obs processed which fall in each of the categories

listed below

JOB CATEGORY % OF TOTAL JOB MIX

1. Data Processing Accounting

2- Scientific Engineering Research

3 Command and Control Resource Management

4 Laboratory Data Collection Process Control

5. Information Retrieval

6. Software Development and Maintenance

7. Other ( Specify

)

• TOTAL FOR ALL JOBS 100 %

%

%

3 . 2 . 3.1

%

%

E What percentage of your job mix requires emulation (simulation, liberation, etc.) of other hardware configurations?

°° 3 . 2 . 3.

2

F. Indicate the number of full-time equivalent (FTE)" in-house and contract personnel applied to each of the functions listed below:

JOB FUNCTION

FTE IN-HOUSE PERSONNa*

FTE CONTRACT

PERSONNEL*

1. Data entry or preparation

2. Cleiical, operations and Support

3 . 2.4

3. Software Development and Maintenance (include systems & application software)

4. ADP Management

5. Other (specify/

TOTALS

"e.g. — 2 employees who each spend 1 2 of their time on a particular function = 1 FTE employee for that function.

Comments Part I:

Figure B.l

66
PART li. SOFTWARE MANAGEMENT

A. Indicate whethei the progiamming languages and software development tools listed below are available on your computers and

also the usage levels in terms of troth the percentage of the total number of programs for all your computer systems and the per- centage of the total software development and maintenance personnel .time reported in l-F-3 above. (Include both m-house and

contract personnel, but exclude management.)

Programming Languages and

Software Development Tools

Availability USAGE LEVEL

Never Used % of All Programs % of Total Personnel Time Yes No 1-25 2G-50 51-75 76-100 1-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

t. Symbolic (Assemblyl

Language

2. FORTRAN

3. BASIC

4. COBOL

5. PL 1

6. Generalized Data Base Management Packages

7. RPG or Report Generators

8. Compi ler Pre-processors 3 , 3.1

(e.g. decision table translators)

9. Auto-f lowchart Generators

10. Debugging and Testing Packages

(e.g. tracing, test control!

11. Other (specify)

B. What percentage of the total available software development and maintenance personnel time reported (in l-F-3) above is applied

to each of the following activities? (Include both in-house and contract personnel, but exclude management.)

Software Development and Maintenance Activities % of Total Software Development Effort

1. Application analysis and system design

a. General system analysis and design

b. Detail system and procedures specification b %

2. Application programming

a. Program coding

b. Program debugging and testing

c. Program conversion or transfer

d. Program maintenance and modification

e. Documentation

a %

b %

r %

d %

e %

3. System programming

(Compilers. 0. S. & support software) %

4. Other ( specify

%

TOTAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT

PERSONNEL EFFORT 100 %

3 , 3.2

Figure B.l

67
C. Indicate by milking from 1 (highest) to 10 (lowest) yoor evaluation of the relative benefits which yorn operation would derive from

technological advancements in each ol the following functional areas:

Ranking of Relative Benefits (Number from 1 to 10. with 1 as

highest benefit: 10 as lowest)

a. General system analysis & design

b. Detail system specification

c. Program coding and |>roduction

d. Program testing and reliability

e. System conversion or upgrade

3 . 3.3

f. Program maintenance and modification

g. Documentation

h. Standards and transferabi lity

i. System programming

j. Software development tools, methods, and processes

D. How have programming aids been acquired by your installation? (Check all pertinent responses

)

( 1. Delivered in integrated procurement with hardware.

j j 2. Primarily developed in-house. _ _

- . J i 3 i H

| _ | 3. Acquired as separate procurements.

| ’| 4. Acquiied through non-commercial sources such as user's groups or software exchange libraries.

E. Check all statements below which accurately describe the management of computer programming in your organization.

| 1 1. All programming is done by a central development group.

| | 2. A centralized programming group is available for assistance,

l ] 3. Programming is primarily done by individuals or separate project teams.

[~~J 4. Programming standards and tests are established by one authoritative group.

5. Programmer training and daily assistance is a primary duty of the computer installation management. Comments Part II:

3 . 3,5

3 . 3.4

Figure B.l

68
Figure B.l

69
I. What types of COBOL program changes have been required to achieve the program transfers indicated in H above?

Provide a brief explanation of the major types of changes.

J. For those programs coded in COBOL, rank your reasons for using COBOL (Number from 1 to 9. 1 is most important, 9 least important .)

1. Self-documenting

2. Easy to learn and use

3. Easy to maintain programs

4. Reduces programming costs

5. Reduces conversion costs

6. Machine independent

7. Facilitates debugging

8. Flexible I/O capabilities

9. Add any other (specify) and rank

K. What are the deficiencies of the COBOL language or compilers which have led to your use of other languages?

L. What features should be incorporated in Federal Standard COBOL that are important to your continued use of COBOL?

Figure B.l

70
M. What featuies of Federal Standard COBOL do you consider unnecessary?

3 . 5.2

N. What changes in Federal Standard COBOL would you recommend?

3 . 5,2

0.

Flow do your COBOL programmers identify standard versus non-standard COBOL features? (Check all appropriate means below.) Q 6. Validation Summary Report for the compiler

|~1 7. Newsletters

I 1 8. Informal (verba!) communication

I | 9. Not required

(IJ 10. Other (specify)

3 . 4 . 4.

2

P. Which of the following tools for assisting users in differentiating standard and non-standard COBOL compiler capabilities would

you like to have available? (Check all appropriate.)

S | 1. Manuals Qj 5. Compi ler val idation results

i~

j

2. Guidelines U None

['"1 3. Automated tools (e.g. syntax checkers) QJ 7. Other (specify)

d"i 4. Compi ler flagging on source listing

3 . 4 . 4.

3

Additional Comments May Be Submitted on Reverse - . ^

[JJ 1. Implementor provided annotated manuals L | 2. Installation produced annotated manuals

[_j 3. Use of ANSI standard publication

, ~j 4. Automatic flagging of source program listings

,

; 5. Guidelines (supplement to manuals)

Figure B.l

71

USC OMM-NBS-DC
.
NBS-1 14A (REV. 7-73)

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM.

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

SHEET

1. PUBLICATION OR REPORT NO.

NBSI.R 76-1100

2. Gov’t Accession

No.

3. Recipient’s Accession No.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Appraisal of Federal Government COBOL Standards and

Software Management:- Survey Results

.

5. Publication Date August 1976

6. Performing Organization Code

640.02

7. AUTHOR(S)

Donald R. Deutsch

8. Performing Organ. Report No.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20234

10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. 640-1122

11. Contract/Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Complete Address (Street, City, State, ZIP)

Same

13. Type of Report & Period Covered

Final

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

16. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.)

This report summarizes the results of a survey of selected Federal Government

Automatic Data Processing (ADP) installations. Undertaken primarily as an evaluation

of National Bureau of Standards (NBS) activities in support of the standardization

of the COBOL programming language , the study also dealt with software management

tools and practices

.

The survey sample was selected from a subset of all known Federal Government ADP

units; specifically , only domestic installations with at least one general purpose

hardware system capable of supporting a modern COBOL compiler were included.

Responses were received from over 70 percent of the 190 installations included

in the sample.

The major portion of thrs document is made up of tabular summarizations of all

responses for each survey question. Gross statistics and frequency distributions

are presented on a question—by-question basis. No interquestion relationships

are analyzed. The appendices include a comprehensive discussion of the sampling

methodology and survey mechanics and a reproduction of the survey instrument .with cross references to response tabulations appearing in the report.

17. KEY WORDS (six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only the first letter of the first key word unless a proper name; separated by semicolons

)

ADP; COBOL; Federal ADP installations; Federal Standard COBOL; Impact evaluation;

Sample; Software management ; Survey.

18. AVAILABILITY [3T Unltmited 19. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS REPORT)

21. NO. OF PAGES

|

1 For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

UNCL ASSIFIED

73

Order From Sup. of Doc., U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402, SD Cat. No. CH

20. SECURITY CLASS

(THIS PAGE)

22. Price

[~X~! Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS)

Springfield, Virginia 22151 UNCLASSIFIED

$4.50

I

USCOMM-DC 29042-P74