* BY THE U,S. GEN’ERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Report To The Director, U.S. Arms Control And 

Disarmament Agency 

Need To Improve Management Of ACDA’s 

Automatic Data Processing And Operations 

Analysis Functions 

ACDA has not comprehensively planned 

and evaluated its use of automatic data 

processing systemsand operations analysis, 

and is not complying with executive branch 

Quitdance on computer security and cost 

acoounting. 

In ctober 1982, as part of a series of cost 

sa 

9 

ing steps, ACDA abolished its Office of 

Op rations Analysis and transferred the 

an;/lysts elsewhere in the Agency. Disagreement exists within ACDA regarding the 

adequacy of this reduced level of operations 

analysis capability to meet future needs. 

GAO recommends that ACDA develop an 

audomatic data processing planning process 

and cost accounting system, comply with 

computer security guidance, and periodically assess and adjust its operations analysis:requirements if necessary. 

HI I llllllll 

122555 

GAO/NSIAD-83-66 

SEPTEMBER 30,1983 
Request for copies of GAO reports should be 

sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

Document Handling and Information 

Services Facility 

P.O. Box 6015 

Gaithersburg, Md. 20760 

Telephone (202) 2756241 

The first five copies of individual reports are 

free of charge. Additional copies of bound 

audit reports are $3.25 each. Additional 

copies of unbound report (Le., letter reports) 

and most other publications are $1.00 each. 

There will be a 25% discount on all orders for 

100 or more copies mailed to a single address. 

Sales orders must be prepaid on a cash, check, 

or money order basis. Check should be made 

out to the “Superintendent of Documents”. 
UNITED STATES GENERAL A~~~IJNTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, O.C. 20548 

NATIONAL SECURITY AND 

INTERNATIONAL AFCAIRS OIVISION 

B-212009 

The Honorable Kenneth L. Adelman 

Director, U.S. Arms Control and 

Disarmament Agency 

Dear Mr. Adelman: 

Following our testimony in March 1983 before the 

Subcommittee on International Security and Scientific Affairs, 

House Foreign Affairs Committee, the Chairman and Ranking 

Minority Member of the Subcommittee asked us to examine the (1) 

management of computer-based support functions, (2) adequacy of 

internal controls, and (3) management of arms control research 

programs, at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA). 

This report, which discusses weaknesses in ACDA's management of 

computer-based activities, is one in a series of three reports 

addressing issues raised by the Subcommittee. 

ACDA has used automatic data processing (ADP) and operations analysis for more than 15 years. In 1977, ACDA replaced 

its Operations Analysis Division with an Office of Operations 

Analysis (OA). OA was responsible for performing quantitative 

and interdisciplinary studies, and reported directly to the 

Office of the Director. In 1979, in an effort to reduce its 

reliance on commercial timesharing services, the Agency acquired 

a Digital Equipment Corporation DEC-20 computer. At the end of 

fiscal year 1982, however, ACDA abolished OA (then located in 

ACDA's Rosslyn, Virginia, offices); transferred its analysts to 

other parts of the Agency and gave them new titles; and cancelled its contract for the DEC-20 computer. ACDA kept its 

small Wang computer (purchased in 1976) and purchases timesharing services from other agencies. 

During hearings on ACDA's authorization for fiscal years 

1984 and 1985, the Congress expressed interest in ACDA's decision to abolish OA, and in whether any savings resulted. ACDA 

stated that OA was abolished, in part, to help cope with an 

estimated 7.9 percent fiscal year 1983 budget reduction imposed 

. 
B-21 2009 

by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).' ACDA has 

responded to a congressional inquiry regarding OA-related savings by claiming that over $1.3 million was saved in fiscal year 

1983 by relocating ACDA's Rosslyn facility. However, we estimate that only about $683,000 in savings can be properly attributed to ACDA's actions regarding OA and computer support. (ACDA 

disagrees with our analysis of its claimed savings: see appendices IV and VI.) 

Currently, ACDA does not adequately plan for or evaluate 

the use of ADP systems. Moreover, it is not complying with OMB 

guidance on computer security, although we are not aware of any 

loss of data. Considerable disagreement exists within the 

Agency concerning the adequacy of operations analysis capabilities to meet future needs, for which ACDA has not systematically 

planned. Further, ACDA has limited access to Department of 

Defense operations analysis resources. 

To address these issues, we recommend that the Director, 

ACDA 

--develop a comprehensive ADP planning process 

that requires top management involvement, 

well-supported justification of stated needs, 

and periodic feedback from users: 

--implement an ADP cost accounting system which 

complies with OMB guidance: 

--establish a computer security program which 

complies with OMB requirements; and 

--periodically assess ACDA's operations analysis 

needs and capabilities, and determine what 

adjustments in allocated resources, organizational structures, and access to other agencies’ resources are required to best meet 

identified needs. 

We requested comments on this report from ACDA, the Office 

of Management and Budget, and the Department of Defense. Subsequently, an OMB representative told us that, although OMB 

lInitially, OMB reduced ACDA's budget by 7.9 percent. (Because 

a subsequent supplemental request for $564,000 was approved by 

the Congress, however, ACDA's fiscal year 1983 budget authority 

will actually be 4.5 percent less than in fiscal year 1982.) 

For comparison, the four largest agencies with international 

responsibilities (all of which are considerably larger than 

ACDA) received operating budget increases from OMB ranging from 

1.5 to 42.1 percent. 

2 
B-212009 

would not provide separate comments, it had concurred with the 

comments submitted by ACDA. 

In his response to our draft report, ACDA's Director stated 

that parts of the report would be useful to ACDA as it continued 

to review its practices and procedures, and that he is initiating four reviews, covering (1) ADP planning procedures, (2) computer security, (3) ACDA's operations analysis needs, and (4) 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980. However, he did not comment on our recommendation that ACDA implement an ADP cost accounting system which complies with OMB guidance. We believe 

that ACDA should have such a system and the Director should 

include its requirements in the Agency's review of ADP management. 

The Director stated his belief that certain sections of our 

draft report required clarification or correction, and he 

enclosed detailed comments. The Director's comments and our 

analysis are in appendix VI. 

We received unofficial comments from a Department of 

Defense official indicating that the Department would have no 

substantive comment on our findings and recommendations. 

. 

A full discussion of our work is included in the 

appendices. 

As you know, 31 U.S.C. S720 requires the head of a Federal 

agency to submit a written statement on actions taken on our 

recommendations to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs 

and the House Committee on Government Operations not later than 

60 days after the date of this report and to the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations with the agency's first 

request for appropriations made more than 60 days after the date 

of the report. 

We are sending copies of this report to the requestors; the 

Director, Office of Management and Budget; 

Defense; 

the Secretary of 

the cognizant congressional appropriation and authorization committees; and others upon request. 

Sincerely yours, 

Frank C. Conahan 

Director 

3 

‘,, 
. 
Contents v--u -- 

APPENDIX 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

NEED TO IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF ACDA'S AUTOMATIC 

DATA PROCESSING AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 

FUNCTIONS 

ACDA does not have the comprehensive ADP 

management it needs 

ACDA officials disagree over operations 

analysis; a thorough review of needs 

could help 

Conclusions 

Recommendations 

Agency comments and our evaluation 

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

ACDA ADP ASSETS 

Management, organization, and personnel 

Equipment assets 

Software assets 

ADP costs 

Access to DOD operations analysis 

resources 

SUMMARY OF THE OFFICE OF OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 

ABOLISHMENT AND GAO's AllALYSIS OF ACDA'S 

CLAIMED SAVINGS 

Actions taken 

Rationale for abolishing OA 

Cost reductions will be less than stated 

CURRENT ACDA USE OF ADP FOR DATA RETRIEVAL 

AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS 

Data retrieval 

Operations analysis 

LETTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1983, FROM THE 

DIRECTOR, ACDA 

Page 

4 

5 

11 

17 

18 

18 

19 

20 

20 

20 

21 

23 

24 

26 

26 

28 

30 

34 

34 

35 

37 
ABBREVIATIONS 

ACDA 

ADP 

cs 

DEC 

DOD 

GAO 

IBM 

MA 

NWC 

OA 

OMB 

SP 

USRA 

VI 

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 

Automatic Data Processing 

Computer Services Group 

Digital Equipment Corporation 

Department of Defense 

General Accounting Office 

International Business Machines 

Bureau of Multilateral Affairs 

Bureau of Nuclear and Weapons Control 

Office of Operations Analysis 

6 

Office of Management and Budget 

Bureau of Stategic Programs 

U.S. Railway Association 

Bureau of Verification and Intelligence 
APPENDIX I 

contributed to the decision. We found that the only actual 

budget savings resulted from cancellation of the DEC computer 

contract, other reductions in computer support, and actions 

unrelated to OA or computer support. Although ACDA has 

responded to inquiries regarding OA-related savings by claiming 

that it saved over $1.3 million in fiscal year 1983 by 

"relocating ACDA's Rosslyn facility," we estimate that only 

about $683,000 in savings can be attributed to ACDA's actions 

regarding OA and computer support. (See app. IV and app. VI for 

further information regarding OA's abolishment and our evaluation of ACDA's savings estimate.) 

ACDA retains its small Wang computer and has reimbursable 

agreements for access to computers at the United States Railway 

Association (USRA) and the Department of State. It also has 

informal arrangements for some access to Department of Defense 

resources. The small Computer Services Group (CS) located within the Verification and Intelligence Bureau (VI) operates the 

Wang computer and is charged with providing computer support to 

ACDA. (See app. III for a description of ACDA'S ADP assets.) 

. 

ACDA DOES NOT HAVE THE COMPREHENSIVE 

ADP MANAGEMENT IT NEEDS 

ACDA does not adequately plan for or evaluate the use of 

ADP systems. Moreover, it is not complying with OMB guidance on 

computer security. As a result, ACDA management cannot be sure 

that (1) the level of resources employed is appropriate, (2) 

resources are directed to applications with the greatest potential for improving mission performance or productivity, or (3) 

computerized information is adequately protected. Greater 

attention to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1980 and other Federal guidance would help strengthen ACDA management of ADP resources. 

ADPmement systems needed 

;sb'- sup= decisionACDA does not systematically (1) establish requirements for 

computer support and plan how these will be met or (2) determine 

the cost and performance of ADP systems. ACDA's present informal means for accomplishing these functions are inadequate. 

ACDA's past decisions have been made without the benefit of 

comprehensive knowledge of ADP support needs or the costeffeCtiVeneSS Of its ADP systems. This situation does not 

necessarily mean that ACDA's decisions were wrong. However, the 

lack of adequate planning and reporting procedures does raise 

questions about the scope and focus of, and justification for, 

ACDA's current ADP support activities. 

I :’ 

5 
APPENDIX I 

NEED TO IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OF ACDA -- U--.------------.-P 

AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING AND 

OPERATIONS ANALFSIS FUNr?rOw -------- 

‘S 

ACDA'S use and management of ADP and operations analysis1 

resources falls within the general purview of public law and 

Ol4B guidance. The Arms Control and Disarmament Act of 1961 

(Public Law 87-2971, which establishes ACDA as the central organization in the U.S. Government for the formulation and implementation of arms control policy, specifies that ACDA "must have 

the capacity to provide the essential scientific, economic, political, military, psychological, and technological information 

upon which realistic arms control and disarmament policy must be 

based." The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-511) 

directs that each Federal agency shall carry out its information 

management activities "in an efficient, effective, and economical manner," and requires each agency to designate a senior 

official to oversee principal information management activities. 

Moreover, OMB has set standards for computer security, ADP cost 

accounting, and other ADP management functions. 

ACDA began utilizing ADP and operations analysis over 15 

years ago. By 1970 ACDA had established an Operations Analysis 

Division within one of its bureaus. Although initially dependent on contractor services for computer support, ACDA purchased 

#a small Wang computer in 1976. In 1977 the Division was 

replaced by the Office of Operations Analysis, which reported 

:directly to the Office of the Director. In 1979 ACDA, in an 

'effort to further decrease its use of contractor computer services, entered into a 7-year lease-purchase arrangement for a 

Digital Equipment Corporation DEC-20 computer. From 1970 to 

September 1982 OA's staff--ranging from 8 to 14 analysts-- 

prepared almost 1200 various products. 

In 1982 ACDA abolished OA (then located in ACDA's offices 

in Rosslyn, Virginia), transferred and retitled the OA analysts, 

and cancelled the DEC lease-purchase arrangement. ACDA has 

stated that it abolished OA as part of an "Agency reorganization 

taking into account the budget." ACDA officials have also indicated that concerns regarding OA's efficiency and responsiveness 

lioperations analysis (also known as operations research) has 

'been defined as "a scientific method of providing executive 

departments with a quantitative basis for decisions regarding 

operations under their control," and as "the application of 

scientific methods and techniques to decisionmaking problems." 

Qperations analysts use colnputers as tools to help solve difpicult problems. 

. 

4 
APPENDIX I 

ADP planning through the budget process, although they may 

informally state their needs to CS. In addition, the Chief of 

CS, who is responsible for providing ADP services to the entire 

Agency I told us that he is not involved in the budget process. 

The Budget and Accounting Officer told us that ongoing projects 

receive only a cursory review: essentially, they are funded at 

the previous year's level with an adjustment for inflation. 

While new proposals may be scrutinized more closely, he stated 

that cost/benefit studies are seldom, if ever, prepared. 

ACDA is currently performing a computer acquisition study 

and the Agency has carried out similar ad hoc studies in the 

past when it contemplated major equipmentpurchases. Although 

studies of proposed equipment purchases are a valuable planning 

tool, they cannot compensate for the absence of a comprehensive, 

continuous ADP planning process which would periodically compare 

existing and planned capabilities. 

Moreover, the current computer acquisition study may not 

include an accurate assessment of ACDA's data processing needs. 

The Chief of CS is charged with preparing a plan for acquiring a 

minicomputer to replace ACDA's Wang computer and its timesharing 

arrangement with the United States Railway Association, but he 

is concerned that a lack of resources and competing demands on 

his time may prevent him from preparing an adequate plan. The 

data processing needs he has identified have not yet been justified and the complete cost of meeting them has not been estimated. Also, since several bureau and division heads we interviewed were not familiar with this planning effort, it is possible that some valid ADP support needs have not been identified. 

Better information on cost and 

performance of ADP systems rneeded_ 

ACDA has not complied with OMB guidance on ADP cost 

accounting, and it does not require data processing users to 

periodically report how well existing ADP systems are meeting 

their requirements. 

ACDA does not have information on ADP costs needed to plan 

for and evaluate the use of ADP resources. OMB Circular A-121, 

which implements GAO's "Federal Government Accounting Pamphlet 

Number 4, Guidelines for Accounting for Automatic Data Processing," requires agencies to account for or estimate the total 

cost of each software program and the cost of providing computer 

services to each user. ACDA has not complied with these 

requirements. Compiling this information would help ACDA to 
APPENDIX I 

Improvements needed 

in ADP p-2 _- 

Over the years we have emphasized the need for Federal 

agencies to establish a comprehensive planning process which 

would ensure that ADP resources are used in the best way to support agency missions and programs. Such a planning process 

would 

--require involvement by top management of each 

major organizational unit in the agency; 

--cover a time period consistent with that of the r 

agency programs requiring data processing support; 

--identify opportunities 

ity or effectiveness, 

missions and programs 

technology; 

for improving productivbased on the agency's 

and on changes in ADP 

--validate and set 

R 

riorities fied needs throug for meeting identi- cost/benefit studies; 

--develop a strategy for meeting needs, establish criteria for measuring performance against 

the plan's objectives, establish decision 

points when performance would be assessed, and 

assign responsibility for implementing the 

plan; and 

--provide for review by the internal audit staff 

or by some other means, to ensure that the plan 

supports mission requirements and that estimates are reasonable and based on factual 

information. 

ACDA has not had a comprehensive ADP plan. ACDA maintains 

that it accomplishes ADP planning through ad hoc studies and the 

budget process. 

-- 

ACDA's budget process does not (1) establish milestones for 

implementing plans, performance criteria that will measure how 

well a plan has met its objectives, or decision points for 

assessing performance; (2) directly involve user and data 

processing management; or (3) provide well-supported justification of stated needs. Without management involvement and wellsupported justifications, the budget process lacks credibility 

as a vehicle for ADP planning. According to ACDA's Budget and 

Accounting Officer, data processing users do not participate in 

6 
APPENDIX I 

stopped maintaining these models. We believe that a procedure 

for soliciting feedback from ADP users on a regular basis likely 

would have disclosed this situation earlier. Because ACDA does 

not record the total cost of maintaining software programs, we 

could not estimate the expense associated with these models. 

Contract costs alone, however, totaled about $140,000 in fiscal 

year 1982. 

As another example, ACDA cancelled its lease-to-ownership 

plan for a Digital Equipment Corporation DEC-20 computer at the 

end of fiscal year 1982 because, we were told, the computer was 

underutilized. Some officials told us that the computer should 

never have been acquired. Others told us that it was heavily 

utilized during the first 2 years of the lease, and that use had 

fallen off in fiscal year 1982 when contractor use of the computer declined due to external research budget cuts. However, 

because ACDA did not retain utilization records, we were unable 

to evaluate the decisions to acquire and then to dispose of the 

computer. The absence of such records would also impede ACDA 

efforts to assess the Agency's ADP needs. 

Commitment is needed to 

strengthen ADP management 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, by emphasizing top 

management involvement, offers ACDA's Director an opportunity to 

$trengthen management of the computer support function. The Act 

requires each agency head to designate a senior official, 

reporting to the agency head, to oversee ADP and other information management activities. Specifically, the senior official 

is required to 

--systematically inventory ' the agency's major 

information systems; 

--periodically review its information management 

activities, including planning, budgeting, 

organizing, directing, training, promoting, 

controlling, and other managerial activities 

involving the collection, use, and dissemination of information; 

--ensure that its information systems do not 

overlap each other or duplicate other agencies' 

systems; 

--conduct and be accountable for ADP equipment 

acquisitions; and 

--carry out other information management activities. 

9 
APPENDIX I 

--assess the full costs Of user requests for 

computer services, 

--evaluate the relative worth of current and proposed systems on the basis of their total cost 

and their contribution to performance of agency 

missions and programs, 

--make informed decisions as to whether systems 

should be designed and operated in-house or by 

outside sources, 

--measure the efficiency and effectiveness of 

ADP services, and 

--foster cost consciousness among ADP users. 

In addition to inadequate cost information, ACDA has no 

system for periodically contacting data processing users regarding their satisfaction with current systems, changes they would 

like made, or systems that no longer meet their needs and should 

be terminated. ACDA's Administrative Director believes that 

such a system is not needed because users are free to raise concerns through the heirarchy to their bureau heads, who meet 

frequently with ACDA's Director and its Administrative Director. However, we believe that actively soliciting feedback 

from ADP users is necessary, because there is no incentive for 

them to ask that unneeded systems be terminated when they are 

not charged for establishing and maintaining these systems. 

ACDA management officials stress that ACDA is a small 

agency I and believe that informal management processes are adequate to ensure the best use of ADP resources. We recognize 

that ACDA should be able to manage its computer support activities without the complex mechanisms required by a very large 

department or agency. However, ACDA is not carrying out basic 

planning, reporting, and evaluating functions that are necessary 

in any agency, regardless of size. Recent situations suggest 

that ACDA's informal approach to ADP management is not adequate. 

When contemplating computer support reductions to meet a 

#fiscal year 1983 budget reduction, ACDA's Administrative Director asked bureau heads to provide comments on their computer 

support needs. He found that OA was maintaining several expensive computerized models which the line bureaus saw no need to 

retain. ACDA--on the premise that the Agency should not mainlain models for which the line bureaus saw no use--subsequently 

8 
APPENDIX I 

--conducted required audits or evaluations of 

computer security, or 

--submitted the required plan to OMB for implementing a computer security program. 

The Chief of CS believes that, although there are not written policies or procedures regarding computer security, personnel under his supervision take appropriate steps to safeguard 

data. Because he has not been assigned responsibility for 

implementing the OMB guidance, however, he believes he lacks 

authority to require all Agency users to take similar steps. He 

maintains that valuable data may be lost because backup copies 

of programs and files are not always maintained. 

ACDA OFFICIALS DISAGREE OVER 

OPERATIONS ANALYSIS; A THOROUGH 

REVIEW OF NEEDS COULD HELP --_Y 

Steps taken by ACDA over the past 2 years to reduce its 

operations analysis capabilities have led to disagreement within 

the Agency over the impact of those actions and the role operations analysis should play in the fulfillment of ACDA's mission 

in the future. A thorough examination of these issues by the 

new ACDA directorate is needed to determine the specific types 

of operations analysis capabilities ACDA requires. Because 

~operations analysis is a program support function--like ADP-- 

land because the need for such analysis apparently fluctuates 

Igreatly, periodic reexamination is needed to adjust ACDA's capa- 

'bilities to changing support requirements. In examining and 

resolving these issues, the directorate would benefit from 

implementing our recent recommendations which call for 

--comprehensive assessments of ACDA's legislative 

authority and determinations of ACDA's mandated 

scope and nature of activity; and 

--determination of ACDA's proper role in coordinating arms control research throughout the 

executive branch. 

PCDA has deemphasized 

Loperations analysis 

Within the past 2 years ACDA has deemphasized operations 

~analysis and reduced overall operations analysis capabilities by 

--adopting a new and stricter policy to discourage initiation of analytical projects by operations analysts; 

11 
APPENDIX I 

The senior official is expected to have substantial, personal 

involvement in all aspects of ADP management. 

However, ACDA's designated senior official believes that, 

in effect, the Act only requires him to assume responsibility 

for ADP acquisitions. He emphasized that (1) he takes his 

direction in this area from OMB, (2) OMB's Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs is aware of his interpretation of the 

Act, and (3) OMB has not required ACDA to submit the information 

management review plans required by OMB Bulletin 81-21, which 

implements the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs confirmed 

that it had not received any information on ACDA's ADP management. The Office has not performed, and as yet has no plans to 

perform, the reviews of ACDA's information activities required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act.2 

Regardless of OMB's priorities, we believe that vigorously 

implementing the Paperwork Reduction Act would help ACDA improve 

its management of ADP resources. The Act incorporates good management practices, such as involving top management and establishing a focal point for responsibility and accountability, 

that can help control ADP r,esource acquisition and use. 

PCDA_ has not complied with 

o__'- #MB guidg=e on computer security 

ACDA is not in compliance with OMB guidance on computer 

security. Although we are not aware of any loss, the Chief of 

C,S believes the potential exists for accidental loss of valuable 

data because backup copies of programs and files are not always 

maintained. 

Transmittal Memorandum Number 1 to OMB Circular A-71 

requires the head of each executive branch agency to establish a 

computer security program, 

these programs. 

and sets minimum requirements for 

ACDA has not complied with this guidance 

because it has not 

--assigned computer security responsibility to a 

management official, 

--performed required risk analyses, 

24e reported that OMB has made limited progress in implementing 

the Act's provisions related to the acquisition, maintenance, 

and management of ADP resources, in "Implementing the Paperdark Reduction Act: Some Progress, 

(\GAO/GGD-83-35, April 20, 1983). 

But Many Problems Remain" 

l 

I 10 
APPENDIX I 

been impaired to date. Some ACDA officials had found OA's work 

to be very helpful but others had made little use of OA and 

reported that its abolishment had no impact at all on the 

conduct of their work. 

auments in favor of 

current arrangements --I__ 

Some ACDA officials believe that the recent changes involving ACDA's operations analysis capabilities were appropriate. 

The arguments advanced to support the current arrangements 

included the following points. 

--Placing analysts within the bureaus should 

enhance efficiency by improving responsiveness 

to bureau needs, minimizing self-initiated 

work by analysts, and allowing bureau directors 

to use the retitled analysts for other work 

when needed. 

--The use of operations analysis has peaked and 

has now declined, and its applicability to current issues of concern to ACDA is uncertain. 

Some current issue areas are largely political 

and others involve technological shifts that 

have simplified needed analysis. A former 

official, who had played a key role in the 

'it ecision to abolish OA, indicated that recent nteragency policymaking activities have not 

depended heavily on operations analysis, while 

a high-level official downplayed the role of 

such analysis in the formulation of the U.S. 

START initiatives and the Scowcroft Commission 

findings. 

--Policymakers are becoming increasingly aware of 

the limits of large computer models, diminishing the influence of such models. In any 

event, ACDA has retained the possibility of 

access to large strategic exchange models if 

and when needed, and has developed a smaller 

and cheaper (if less capable) exchange model 

for routine use. 

--ACDA's current analytical capabilities are adequate. Prior to October 1982, ACDA had capabilities in excess of its needs. 

--ACDA cannot afford to maintain a large operations analysis office during periods of severe 

financial constraints. 

. 

13 
APPENDIX I 

. 

--abolishing OA, which had reported to the 

Director, and creating within VI a smaller, 

nonanalytical CS group and a single operations 

analyst position; 

--reassigning OA's analytical staff to POSitiOnS 

within the bureaus and giving them new titles 

and in some cases, duties not related to operations analysis; and 

--canceling its lease of the DEC computer used 

for analysis, shelving two models formerly run 

on the DEC, and giving up its continuous access 

to large strategic exchange models located at a 

contractor facility. 

ACDA management does not believe that these steps indicate 

a lack of ACDA interest in the appropriate use of operations 

analysis. Instead, we were told that these steps helped bring 

ACDA's operations analysis resources into closer alignment with 

its actual needs. (See app, IV for further information on the 

abolishment of OA.) 

ACDA's bureaus and its Office of the Director still employ 

operations analysis but to varying degrees. ACDA is also using 

its ADP resources to meet important requirements for data retrieval. An overview of ACDA's current utilization of opera- 

~tions analysis and of ADP for data retrieval can be found in 

iappendix V. 

~No consensus within ACDA 

ion operations analysis 

ACDA officials disagree over whether the current, reduced 

level of operations analysis capabilities and the existing 

organizational structure will reduce the Agency's ability to 

carry out its functions in the future. Some officials believe 

ACDA's ability to fulfill its mission may suffer if its operations analysis capabilities are not augmented or reorganized; 

others disagree. We could not determine the correctness of 

either point of view, due to (1) a lack of available documentation upon which to base an objective determination regarding the 

merits of the Office of Operations Analysis which existed before 

October 1982, current arrangements, or possible future arrangements; and (2) the subjective nature of many of the varying 

arguments. 

Involved ACDA officials generally agreed that their 

effectiveness in the various interagency policy groups had not 

12 
APPENDIX I 

--Although ACDA has not suffered any harm to 

date, the recent past may be a poor indicator 

of the future demand for operations analysis, 

given the recent turbulence in ACDA. Moreover, 

we were told by one official, ACDA has benefited from a store of knowledge built up by OA 

that will eventually be depleted. 

The first of these arguments--the negative impact of a 

decentralized operations analysis system--appeared to be a focus 

of concern for some ACDA officials. They indicated that a central staff of analysts could better serve ACDA's needs. According to these officials, assembling a "critical mass" of analysts 

(about 5 or more) in a central staff could have three potential 

benefits: (1) analysts would be used more efficiently by giving 

them easier access to a broader range of knowledge: (2) the 

availability of independent, in-house evaluations of bureau products would be ensured because a central staff's analysts would 

be more likely to criticize a bureau's positions than analysts 

reporting directly to that bureau's management; and (3) a central staff, given some degree of freedom to initiate projects, 

could help anticipate the bureaus' future needs and take a 

longer-range view of problems than the bureaus could. Regarding 

the last of these three potential benefits, one ACDA bureau 

director informed ACDA's Deputy Director-designate that allowing 

the bureaus to, in effect, dictate the nature of all operations 

analysis projects would eventually harm the bureaus' interests. 

He indicated that the bureaus would use the analysts exclusively 

for their own immediate needs and, as a result, subsequently 

find themselves dependent on other agencies for comprehensive 

analysis. 

The belief that ACDA may need a central operations analysis 

staff to effectively carry out needed projects is also shared by 

a consultant who advised ACDA in 1982 on the relocation and disposition of its computers. Although critical of OA, he believed 

that operations analysis cannot be effectively carried out under 

a decentralized system and that ACDA could lose considerable 

influence in the interagency policymaking process if it did not 

produce the computer simulations OA had been undertaking. 

ACDA has not thorou_ghly evaluated ? ? Its operations anal-needs 

ACDA has not done a thorough evaluation of the operations 

analysis capabilities required in the future to fulfill its 

mission, nor has it decided how such requirements would be best 

met. Periodic, agency-wide planning for operations analysis 

would help provide ACDA's officials with some assurance that 

demands for such analysis would be met. 

15 
APPENDIX I 

--Although ACDA needs some independent analytical 

capability, it should not try to compete with 

or duplicate the Department of Defense's operations analysis offices, given ACDA's resources. 

Arguments a_Stainst 

current arranqements 

A number of ACDA officials at various levels in the Agency 

disagree with all or some of the above points. Some believe 

that ACDA's current level of activity and 'organization may not 

be adequate to efficiently address future needs. Two officials 

who supported the abolishment of OA, given ACDA's short term 

budget situation, nonetheless indicated that the type of work 

formerly done by OA could be useful--if not essential--to ACDA 

over the long term. 

Arguments presented by concerned ACDA officials included 

the following key elements. 

--The availability of independent, in-house 

evaluations of bureau products, the ability to 

anticipate future bureau needs, and other benefits (described below) will be lost if ACDA 

does not re-establish some form of central 

operations analysis group. 

--ACDA no longer has an independent analytical 

capability. Officials told us they no longer 

could count on having the resources within ACDA 

to assess other agencies' positions as fully as 

in the past. One official went so far as to 

Say that ACDA was "at [the Department of 

Defense's] mercy." Another noted that his division did not have the time to perform needed 

operations analysis. 

--Some high-level ACDA officials underestimate 

the benefits of operations analysis, due to a 

lack of previous experience in Government agencies that use such analyses extensively. 

--Large computer models still carry considerable 

weight and are needed by ACDA. Moreover, 

reactivating the large strategic exchange 

models would require several months even if 

staff and funding were made available. 

14 
APPENDIX I 

both advantages and disadvantages for ACDA. Greater access 

conceivably could enable ACDA to maintain a lower level of 

in-house operations analysis capability and also allow ACDA to 

utilize large and complex models that are accepted as valid 

within DOD. However, increased use of DOD resources could raise 

questions regarding ACDA's independence in arriving at arms 

control policy recommendations. Moreover, DOD analysts doubt 

that the models themselves would provide ACDA with a great deal 

of benefit without the use of highly classified data bases that 

they believe DOD would be unlikely to share with ACDA. 

Once ACDA has assessed its operations analysis needs, it 

must resolve the question of organizing its own operations analysis capabilities. As evidenced by our work, ACDA officials and 

others familiar with operations analysis have strong opinions 

regarding the advantages of different organizational structures 

for the efficient execution of operations analysis. The 

Director's prerogative includes the right to choose among 

various organizational options. For example, ACDA could 

--continue the current decentralized system at 

existing or augmented levels of analytical personnel; 

--establish an operations analysis group or division within VI; G 

--establish a central operations analysis office 

separate from the operating bureaus and under 

adequate management controls to ensure that an 

appropriate portion of its efforts is directed 

to serving the bureaus' immediate needs; or 

--return to the pre-October 1982 structure, 

including allowing the operations analysis 

organization to do self-initiated work. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Improvement is needed in all aspects of ACDA's ADP management, so that the Agency can assure itself that ADP resources 

are adequate and that they are directed to their best use. ACDA 

also needs to comply with OMH directives on ADP security. More 

formal management mechanisms are needed, but these need not be 

expensive or overly burdensome, since a small agency like ACDA 

should not require the complex procedures a much larger department or agency would use. Attention to the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1980, which stresses the need to establish a focal point 

of responsibility for planning and other managerial activities, 

should help ACDA's Director implement needed improvements. 

17 
APPENDIX I 

Operations analysis-related planning efforts have been 

essentially limited exercises. The survey of ACDA's bureaus 

accomplished before OA was abolished was only intended to ensure 

that computer programs of immediate interest to the bureaus 

would not be lost. The current CS study of a possible minicomputer purchase is considering analytical programs, but only 

in the context of a one-time purchase of ADP hardware. 

Planning for operations analysis may be complex. The 

demand is said by some Government officials to be very uneven 

(fluctuating between "peaks and valleys") and difficult to predict. This difficulty argues for periodic efforts to foresee 

potential demands and to prepare needed capabilities. Relying 

on sporadic or ad hoc planning exercises would logically tend to 

increase the likelihood that demands will arise unforeseen or 

that unnecessary resources will be maintained indefinitely. 

Moreover, long lead times may be needed to develop programs once 

demands arise. 

In periodically determining the extent and nature of operations analysis capability needed by ACDA to fulfill all aspects 

of its mandate under the 1961 Arms Control and Disarmament Act, 

the Director should consider a number of key factors, including 

--the expected scope and type of ACDA activities, 

given its legislative authorities. (We have 

previously recommended that ACDA assess such 

authorities and determine its proper role for 

fulfilling its research mandate.); 

--the current and future needs of ACDA's bureaus 

and other users of operations analysis support; 

--the degree to which ACDA needs the capability 

to adequately and independently evaluate the 

arms control-related positions and analyses of 

other U.S. agencies; and 

--the need and opportunity to develop greater 

access to operations analysis capabilities of 

other agencies. 

The potential importance of the last two of these points is 

'illustrated by the fact that the Department of Defense (DOD) has 

iat least two important operations analysis offices that prepare 

arms control-related analyses for use in the interagency policymaking groups. Broadening ACDA's currently limited access to 

certain DOD analytical resources (see app. III) could involve 

16 
APPENDIX II 

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY --a 

The objectives of our review were to determine 

--how ACDA uses operations analysis and computer 

support, 

--how ACDA manages its computer support function, 

and 

--why and how ACDA abolished its Office of 

Operations Analysis. 

We conducted our examination at ACDA, the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the 

Department of Defense, and the Office of Management and Budget 

in Washington, D.C. We interviewed officials in each of these 

agencies, as well as Department of State and former ACDA officials. We also interviewed two consultants who evaluated the 

Office of Operations Analysis. We obtained ACDA reports, statistics, and records concerning computer support and operations 

analysis. We also reviewed legislation, OMB guidance, and 

General Services Administration regulations on ADP management. 

In our analysis of ACDA's stated cost savings attributable 

to reductions in computer support and other actions, we generally relied on ACDA officials' representations concerning how 

savings for particular cost elements were determined. We questioned some savings based on our disagreement with ACDA's 

rationale for counting various cost elements as savings, but we 

did not verify the accuracy of stated'costs or savings by examining source documents. 

Our review was performed in accordance with generally 

accepted government audit standards. 

19 
APPENDIX I 

ACDA officials disagree among themselves as to the 

potential impact of ACDA's current level of operations analysis 

resources and present organizational structure. Because, in 

part, of a lack of adequate ACDA records, we have not taken a 

position regarding the relative merits of these various points 

of view. Nonetheless, a number of officials indicated at least 

some degree of concern regarding ACDA's operations analysis capabilities. Because of this fact, as well as the potential difficulties in predicting demand for operations analysis support 

services, we believe that ACDA should periodically and systematically plan for operations analysis. Planning should help ACDA 

ensure that it will have the resources it will need to meet its 

responsibilities without maintaining unnecessary capabilities. 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

We recommend that the Director, ACDA 

--develop a comprehensive ADP planning process, 

which requires top management involvement, 

well-supported justification of stated needs, 

and periodic feedback from users; 

--implement an ADP cost accounting system which 

complies with OMB Circular A-121; 

--establish a computer security program which 

complies with Transmittal Memorandum Number 1 

to OMB Circular A-71; and 

--periodically assess ACDA's operations analysis 

needs and capabilities, and determine what 

adjustments in allocated resources, organizational structures, and access to other agencies' resources are required to best meet 

identified needs. 

AGENCY COMMENTS .-----1--P $ND OUR EVALUATION e-e---.------- 

In commenting on our draft report, ACDA's Director stated 

that parts of the report would be useful to ACDA as it continued 

to review its management systems, and that he is initiating 

previews covering (1) ADP planning procedures, (2) computer secuxity, (3) ACDA's operations analysis needs, and (4) the Paper- 

;work Reduction Act of 1980. Although he did not respond to our 

recommendation that ACDA implement an ADP cost accounting system 

which complies with OMB guidance, we believe that the requirements of such a system should be included in the Agency's review 

of ADP management. (The Director's comments and our evaluation 

are included as app. VI of this report.) 

18 

'..,. ', 
APPENDIX III 

SOFTWARE ASSETS -p-eThe following tables list ACDA's major application Software 

programs and their functions. 

APPLICATIOJN PROGRAMS RUN ON THE UNITED STATES RAILWAY -- ASSOCIATION'S DEC COMPUT -- 

ABATE 

ACALS 

ACB 

ADMINISTRATION 

.AIRS 

CHARTS 

CONCH 

EPFS 

'FALOUT 

'KIPPER 

MAIL 

MAP, RMAP, SMAP 

MILDAT 

~PDCALC 

PKOP 

information on the status and disposition of conventional arms transfer cases 

central appointment management system 

graphics utility programs used in 

CHARTS, MAP, and other programs 

maintains contract files 

keyword document retrieval system 

specialized graphics,program 

maintains contract files 

calculates effective fallout shelter 

protection 

computes the survival probability of an 

MX missile in different circumstances 

plots distribution of radiation from a 

nuclear exchange 

index for microfiche files 

terminal-to-terminal communication 

contour and range mapping utility programs 

data on U.S. and Soviet forces, and 

other topics 

computes kill probability for a specified target 

calculates kill probability for two 

unreliable warheads against hardened 

targets 

21 
APPENDIX III 

ACDA ADP ASSETS --- 

ACDA's ADP assets consist- of equipment, software, and 

personnel. Most, but not all, of these assets are managed by 

CS, which is located in the VI Bureau. 

MANAGEMEMT, ORGANIZATInN, -Y--P AND PERSOMNRL --a--- 

CS is charqed with providing ADP servides to the rest of 

the Agency. It operates ACDA's Wang computer unit, and maintains and operates programs run on the U.S. Railway Association's Digital Equipment Corporation DRC-2n computer. CR is 

staffed hv a Chief (formerlv the Deputv Chief of CIA) and two 

computer specialists. The Chief reports to the Assistant 

Director, VI. However, he also receives direction and guidance 

from VI's Senior Adviser for Operations Research and performs 

analyses for other offices. 

The Senior Adviser for Operations Research--formerly the 

Chief of CA--is charqed with performing analyses in support of 

all ACDA organizational units. Informally, he also provides 

guidance to CS, and has been acting as an unofficial deputy to 

the Assistant Director, VI. 

In addition to the central support provided by CS, some 

line bureaus operate computer systems independently. For 

example, the Rureau of Strategic Programs independently operates 

the ARENA full text retrieval system (see p. 34 for a fuller 

description of ARENA) and the Bureau of Nuclear and Weapons Control has experimented with a keyword retrieval system that operates on a word processor. 

CI----.- EQUIPMENT ASSETS - 

ACnA's major ADP hardware assets currently consist of 

--a Vanq computer unit capable of classified 

operations (consisting of two Wang 22nn-VP-16 

central processinq units and associated peripheral equipment), 

--specialized qraphics terminals, 

--terminals linked to the IJSRF I)EC computer, and 

--communications equipment. 

In addition, ACnA has access to a State Department IRN 370 

computer, and the (JSRA DEC computer. 

2n 
APPENDIX III 

HLCPKI 

JA PLOT 

JH BAR 

NIE 79, 

PROJECT, STATIC 

OA, MAP 

RADIA 

STATION KEEPER 

ADP COSTS 

computes kill probability for a specified target 

graphics utility program 

graphics utility program 

print summary tables of military forces 

(also used in FOREV) 

plots maps, points, contours, and range 

arcs 

computes thermal radiation radius 

data base on seismic stations 

The following table shows actual ADP costs for fiscal year 

1982 and estimated costs for fiscal years 1983 and 1984, provided by ACDA. ACDA did not include some cost elements we consider ADP costs: for example, the reimbursable agreement for 

operating the ARENA system on a Department of State computer 

(budgeted at $55,000 in fiscal year 19831, and the new secure 

enclosure for ACDA's Wang computer (which cost about $91,000 in 

fiscal year 1983). 

23 

,. 

,’ 
APPENDIX III 

SALT 

SALT 2 

SCHEDULES 

SNAP/D 

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL 

VULCAN 

WMEAT 

ARENA 

ABM 

ARMS LOD 1, 2, 3 

ATCAT 

~ BLAST 

~ CTB 

FOREV 

performs a keyword search of SALT I 

Treaty text 

performs a keyword search of SALT II 

Treaty text 

keeps track of milestones for ACDA contracts 

assesses the capability of a seismic 

network to detect and' locate seismic 

events 

keeps track of spent nuclear fuel for 

non-proliferation monitoring 

converts different measures of vulnerability to damage from nuclear explosions 

performs analyses for the annual World 

Military Expenditures and Arms Tranz 

report 

APPLICATION PROGRAM RUN ON 

STATE DEPARTMENT'S IBM COMPUTER 

performs full text search of negotiation 

documents 

APPLICATION PROGRAMS RUN ON 

&CDA'S WANG COMPUTER 

simulates one-on-one interception of an 

incoming re-entry vehicle 

utility programs for WMEAT 

data base on transfer of military equipment 

computes blast radius 

generates contour maps for seismic 

detection capabilities 

small strategic exchange model 

22 
APPENDIX III 

DYNEVAL and FORCE-COSTING have been based on personal contacts 

rather than on formal agreements. As a result, ACDA's access to 

FORCE-COSTING was recently jeopardized when a key DOD official 

was transferred to another post, leaving ACDA to deal with his 

colleagues, who knew nothing of ACDA's access arrangement. 

25 
APPENDIX III 

ADP COSTS 

($000 1 

Personnel 

Salaries 

Benefits 

Training 

Travel 

Hardware 

(including 

maintenance) 

Software and 

support services 

External research 

Reimbursable 

agreements 

Office space 

Construction 

~ Miscellaneous 

TOTAL ADP COSTS 

FY 1983 FY 1984 

(estimate) (estimate) 

$ 694 $ 186 $ 186 

44 21 21 

2 1 1 

4 2 2 

268 16 180 

253 

42 

116 60 

70 12 

79 

4 2 -- 

$1,576 $ 300 

- 

ACCESS TO DOD OPERATIONS 

ANALYSIS RESOURCE? .- -- 

ACDA has some access to DOD's operations analysis 

resources. According to ACDA's Senior Military Advisor, ACDA 

has been generally successful in obtaining copies of DOD analytical products it has requested. ACDA has also made arrangements 

with DOD to benefit from DOD use of two computer models (DYNEVAL 

and FORCE-COSTING) that ACDA no longer operates. 

However, ACDA's access arrangements are limited. DOD officials are unaware of any instances in which ACDA has actually 

used the computers or models of DOD's two leading operations 

analysis units for its own studies. DOD does not provide ACDA 

with certain detailed and classified data bases considered 

essential by DOD operations analysts, and occasionally sanitizes 

the reports given to ACDA. Moreover, arrangements to use 

I 24 

t 
APPENDIX IV 

--Cancelled contracts for a computer, peripheral 

equipment and maintenance, support for strategic exchange models, and other ADP resources. 

--Turned OA's Rosslyn office space over to the 

Department of State. 

In actions unrelated to OA or ADP support,.ACDA also reduced the 

size of its contracts staff and its Office of Congressional and 

Public Affairs at the Rosslyn facility. 

Six of OA's analysts were given new titles and assigned to 

line bureaus as follows: 

--the Bureau of Strategic Programs received one 

Foreign Affairs Officer and one Physical Science 

Officer, 

--the Bureau of Nuclear and Weapons 

received one International Economist 

Physical Science Officer, and 

--the Bureau of Multilateral Affairs 

two Foreign Affairs Officers. 

Control 

and one 

received 

Subsequently one former OA analyst left the Agency and one began 

a year-long sabbatical. Of the four remaining staff: 

--One is primarily responsible for preparing 

analyses of the economic aspects of arms control issues. This is the same work he did in 

OA ., 

--One is developing a computer model which 

assesses the ability of a network of detection 

stations to detect and analyze seismic events. 

This work was begun in OA. 

--One divides his time between management support 

activities and operations analysis. 

--One works entirely on matters which do not 

involve operations analysis. 

ACDA no longer operates four large computerized models. 

The large strategic exchange models cannot be run without additional funding and several months lead time because (1) ACDA no 

longer has immediate access to a large computer capable of classified operations and (2) it does not have contract support or 

I 27 
APPENDIX IV 

SUMMARY OF THE OFFICE OF 

OPERA-S ANALpS?iMyNT AND 

GAO'SANALYSIS OF ACDATCLAIMED SAV?GS ----_IThere has been strong congressional interest in ACDA's 

decision to abolish its Office of Operations Analysis. During 

hearings on ACDA's authorization for fiscal years 1984 and 1985, 

the Chairman of the Subcommittee on International Security and 

Scientific Affairs, House Foreign Affairs Committee, questioned 

ACDA concerning its reasons for abolishing OA and asked what 

savings resulted. 

The idea of abolishing the Office of Operations Analysis 

surfaced during fiscal year 1983 budget deliberations with OMB, 

although ACDA's transition team had previously considered incorporating OA into a line bureau. Before the abolishment took 

effect, the line bureaus were consulted regarding their analytical and computer support needs. The bureaus' requests to retain 

specific computer programs were fulfilled, but not all of their 

organizational recommendations were accepted. For example, the 

then-Acting Assistant Director of VI recommended retention of a 

smaller OA staffed with at least five experienced analysts, but 

this proposal was not adopted. 

Principal reasons given for the abolishment were (1) the 

cost savings involved and (2) perceptions that OA was an inefficient organization which was not responsive to bureaus’ needs. 

Concerning the first point, ACDA told the House Subcommittee on 

International Security and Scientific Affairs that it saved over 

$1.3 million in fiscal year 1983 by "relocating ACDA's Rosslyn 

facility.* We estimate that of this amount, only about $683,000 

in savings can be properly attributed to ACDA's reductions in 

computer support. Concerning the second point, some opponents 

of the abolishment believe that charges of inefficiency against 

OA were politically inspired. We could not evaluate whether OA 

was an inefficient organization due to the lack of available 

records to support an objective determination. 

ACTIONS TAKEN 

At the end of fiscal year 1982, ACDA 

--Abolished OA. 

--Transferred OA's analysts to line bureaus. 

--Cancelled four military detailee positions. 

26 

,. 

‘, 
APPENDIX IV 

The other key reason advanced for OA's abolishment is that 

it was unresponsive to the line bureaus' needs and performed too 

many self-initiated studies. We could not evaluate these assertions because of the lack of adequate records. Because not all 

requests to OA were in writing, and the available records do not 

distinguish between self-initiated and requested work, it is not 

possible to comprehensively determine how much of OA's work was 

self-initiated and how much was requested.. 

There is little agreement among current and past bureau 

officials concerning OA's usefulness to the line bureaus. Some 

found OA's many studies to have been very useful, particularly 

during past arms control negotiations. Others, however, stated 

that OA's work was not useful or that they were receiving better 

service from analysts now located in their bureaus. There was 

no preponderance of testimony from ACDA officials on either side 

of this issue. Two consultants who evaluated OA on behalf of 

ACDA's management during 1981 and 1982, told us that OA had been 

producing good, solid--if unimaginative--analysis. 

Some opponents of the abolishment believe other factors 

influenced the decision, including that 

--OA's work for the previous administration (for 

example, its civil defense studies) offended 

officials in other agencies and private individuals who now hold policymaking positions in 

the Government, 

--many of ACDA's current management have training 

and experience which lead them to underestimate 

the value of quantitative analysis, and 

--ACDA's current management is not interested in 

undertaking analysis which is needed to challenge positions taken by the other agencies 

involved in arms control policymaking. 

29 

.‘.,I ’ 

‘, ‘, 
APPENDIX IV 

analysts assigned to maintain the models or update the data 

base. A management decision was made to shelve two other 

models. One of these models (DYNEVAL) analyzes the effect of 

major disruptions on a nation's economy, and the other (FORCECOSTING) analyzes the budget impact of military force structure 

changes. (ACDA has made informal arrangements with DOD to 

obtain results of DOD's use of these models, as noted on 

p. 24). 

ACDA retained a small central ADP and analytical support 

capability in VI. The former Chief and 'Deputy Chief of OA, 

along with two computer specialists, are assigned to provide 

analytical and computer support to the entire Agency. Their 

responsibilities, and the assets they control, are discussed in 

enclosure III. 

RATIONALE FOR ABOLISHING OA 

Proponents of OA's abolishment and the associated reduction 

in operations analysis and computer support say that the actions 

were made necessary by budget cuts imposed on ACDA, and that the 

transfer of analysts to the bureaus should make them more 

responsive to the Agency's needs. Some opponents of the abolishment believe that the action was at least in part politically 

motivated, and that ACDA's management underestimated the value 

of quantitative analysis. 

Proponents stated that an estimated 7.9 percent budget 

reduction OMB imposed on the Agency was a principal reason for 

~ abolishing 0A.l The budget cut could not be absorbed in ACDA's 

line bureaus, they sayl and ACDA's Director instructed his 

staff to take every possible step to avoid reductions in force. 

Under these conditions, proponents argue, abolishing OA and substantially reducing the size of ACDA's Rosslyn facility were the 

only means left to achieve the substantial budget savings 

required. Some officials supported OA's abolishment on the 

basis that it prevented budget reductions in the line bureaus. 

lInitially, OMB reduced ACDA's budget by 7.9 percent. (Because 

a subsequent supplemental request for $564,000 was approved by 

the Congress, however, ACDA's fiscal year 1983 budget authority 

will actually be 4.5 percent less than in fiscal year 1982.) 

For comparison, the four largest agencies with international 

responsibilities (all of which are considerably larger than 

ACDA) received operating budget increases from OMB ranging from 

1.5 to 42.1 percent. 

28 
APPQNDIy IV 

IXSCRIPTION 

Equipment 

ACDA'S CLAIWRD SAVINGS 

AND GAO'S ANALYSIS i/ 

GAO ANALYSIS 

ACDA’S CLAIMED SAVINGS NOT RELATED TO OTPE R RQVISED 

SAVINGS OA OR COl@Wl!RR SUPPORT ADJUSTMEXTS SAVINGS 

Lease to purchase 

plan and maintenance 

for Digital Equipment 

corporation computer $2R1,000 

Miscellaneous 

equipment rental 

and maintanance 

agreements 

Timesharing 

20,000 

Timesharing for 1 arge 

strategic exchange 

mode I s 9C,COC 

Software 

Maintenance of I arge 

strategic exchange models 

and miscellaneous 

software maintenance 61,flOO 

Personnel 

Won-GA positions 

GA (7 Z/3 ACDA 

positions) 

(4 detailees) 

lD6,232 

423,281 

201,lfW 

Office Space Rental 

Reduction in Qosslyn 

office space 183,330 

$2Rl,OOO 

20, oon 

en,ono 

61,000 

9106,232 21 

$423,281 I/ 

23,4G7 41 160,923 

201,lRP 
APPENDIX IV 

COST REDUCTIOMS WILL 

BE LESS THAN STATED 

ACDA may achieve fiscal, year 1983 cost reductions of about 

$683,000 through cutbacks in computer support; this is about 

half of ACDA's claimed savings from the Rosslyn office relocation. When ACDA chose to decentralize its operations analysis 

staff (and assign some of them different duties) it also took 

actions to achieve budget savings. However, not all of the 

budget reduction actions were related to operations analysis or 

computer support. Furthermore, we question some aspects of 

ACDA's stated savings, principally because: 

--The Agency has no convincing rationale for 

counting the salaries of OA personnel transferred to other ACDA organizations as savings. 

--ACDA did not recognize some costs which offset 

stated savings. 

The following table details ACDA's claimed savings and the 

results of our analysis. ACDA did not agree with all aspects of 

our analysis. ACDA's comments and our response are included as 

appendix VI. 

30 
APPENDIX IV 

I/Savings shown are estimates for fiscal year 19113. 

- Some savings will recur in 

future vears, but the offsetting costs for moving AMA’s Wang computer and erecting 

a new secure enclosure are one-time costs, 

2/This amount repreeente two positions in the Contract Office and two positions in 

- the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs. 

3/The stated savings of S423,281 is the total salaries and benefits for OA pereonnel transferred to ACDA’s line bureaus. ACDA retained all of OA’e staff on its 

payroll and justified counting these personnel costs as savings because, “If these 

transfers had not occurred the line bureaus would either have been under staffed 

or additional personnel would have been hired at additional personnel expense.” 

We question the entire stated savings because ACDA could not provide any 

documentation showing that the line bureaus actually planned additional outside 

hires, There were no outstanding vacancy announcements at the time of the 

reorganization. 

4/OA occupied about 89 percent of the office space turned over to the Department of 

State. This S22,41)7 represents the cost of office space occupied by the ACDA 

I ibrary. 

s/This contract, funded at SlD,COO in fiscal year 19g2 and $40,000 in fiscal year 

- 1983, appears to have been erroneously included in ACDA’s stated savings. 

h/According to ACDA’a Rudget and Accounting Officer, the 4.3 percent escalation 

* factor is an estimate of inflation expected during fiscal year 19R3. We note that 

this $2(1,000 stated savings does not reflect actual cost escalation expected, or 

contractually agreed to, for the specific costs to which the escalation factor was 

appl ied. 

7/We estimate the fiscal year 1983 costs of U.S. Railway Association timesharing 

services at Sf;n,Oflo: S12,OOO more than AMA’s estimate. Our estimate is based on 

the assumption that ACDA’s level of use of timesharing services through June 1983 

will continue throughout fiscal year 19R3. The Chief of the Computer Services 

Group believes that S60,OOO is a conservative estimate of timesharing costs. 

g/ACDA did not recognize SqO,93Q in costs for moving the Wang computer and erecting a 

new aecure enc I osure , which offset claimed savings. 

9/ACDA’s statement of savings contained a mathematical error and stated the total 

i savings claimed as S1,34R,q12. The correct total savings claimed is S1,348,n31. 

33 
DRSCRIPTION 

Other 

ACDA’ 8 CLAIMm 

SAVINGS _ 

GAO ANALYSIS 

SAVINGS NOT RRI,ATRD TO OTHER RlrlV1SF.D 

OA OR COMPUTER SUPPORT ADJUSTMEBTS SAVINGS 

Contract for computer 

reading of records 10,000 

4.3X escalation factor 

applied to all coot8 

except personnel and 

0 ffice space 20,im 

Total saviqs $1,196,033 

Offretting coots 

10,000 r/ 

20.000 61 

SJnJ,639 $433,2Al 81134,111 

Agreement with the 11.8. 

Railway Aaaociation 

for time-rharing 

services (48,000) 

One-time cost, for 

moving Wanp: computer 

and erecting new 

decure encl oeure 

12,000 I/ (60,OOO) 

90,939 8/ (90,939) 

NET SAVINGS S1,348,031 z/ $128,639 $536,220 $683,172 

APPENDIX IV 

32 
APPENDIX V 

Other KIV! bureaus ana offices appear to nlace relativelv 

less emphasis than SP and NW on retrieval systems. For example, the bureau of Multilateral Affairs (MA) informeJ us that 

it had concluded that use of a retrieval system like ARENA 

would not he cost-effective in supporting MA's work on the 

Yutual and Salanced Force Reduction negotiations. (In commentinq on this report, ACnA informed us that WA has requested the 

use of RT?S.) The Office of Administration's contract officer 

uses two proqrams to locate data regarding ACTlA’s external 

research contracts, but otherwise the office appears to make 

limited use of data retrieval programs. VI emphasizes the use 

of AnP for analysis and qraphics, although it does use ARENA 

to some degree. 

OPERATIOI'JS ANALYSIS -.- 

We found that the bureaus and the Office of the Director 

are still employing operations analysis to a limited extent. 

Fach utilizes ACnA's analytical resources differently and to a 

varvinq deqree, according- to high-level officials. 

The Actinq Assistant Director for SP informed us that the 

nureau now relies on its own analytical resources and he 

believes that SP has all the analytical support it needs. SP 

has not turned to CS for assistance since CA's abolishment. Ye 

informed us that most of the problems SP addresses do not 

require a great deal of computer support, but instead demand 

qood human analytical capabilities. SP, which had one former 

OA analyst prior to October 1982, obtained two more following 

OA's abolishment. Of the three, two work at least to some 

degree on analytical matters while a third continued the data 

retrieval work that he beqan in OA. In lieu of the larqe strateqic exchange models that are no longer maintained, SP now 

depends on a smaller and cheaper exchange model (FOREV) which 

operated on ACnA's Wang computer. SP officials stated that 

they had not required the use of the large models for several 

months and rated their needs for strateqic exchange models 

below that of the data retrieval systems. 

Durinq our review MA officials told us that the Bureau's 

current needs for operations analysis were minimal and that 

they could envision no future cost-effective applications. Tn 

commentinq on this report, ACM stated that Rureau officials 

believe operations analysis support for their Rureau varies 

with changinq conditions and indicated that MA now envisions 

future needs for operations analysis. One of the two analysts 

MA received when OA was abolished is continuing to work on a 

computer model (S:JAP/D) for analysis of seismic events in connection with underqround nuclear test ban verification. 

nurinq our review, MA officials indicated that SNAP/n was still 
APPENJJIX V 

CURRENT ACnA TTSF: nF ADP FOR _-d-d--- - ------ DATA RETRIEVAL AND OPERATIONS ANALYSIS ---- -- .----- -.-- 

This description of current ACDA use of ADP for data 

retrieval and operations analysis is based primarily on Interviews with various ACDA officials. 

DATA RETRIEVAL -e-e--- 

ACDA is employinq its ADP resources to meet data retrieval 

needs, which ACDA officials in two key bureaus and in the 

Offi.ce of the Director identified as their most important 

requirement for ADP support. One highly-placed ACDA official 

noted that retrieval of neqotiatinq history data may be "the 

only serious use of computers in ACDA today." 

The Bureau of Strategic Programs (SD) utilizes two principal data retrieval systems--AIRS and AREhJA. AIRS operates on 

the USRA DEC and provides an agencywide document search capability by key word. ARENA, a relatively new system, supports 

current srms control neqotiations through full-text search and 

retrieval of material in arms control archives. ARENA a 1 lows 

SP to review past negotiation records for references to topics 

of interest without using previously programmed key words. SP 

officials use ARENA and AIRS frequently, and SP and other ACnA 

officials believe that both programs are very important to 

their work. Use of ARENA by ACDA and the Department of State 

may represent a unique application of ADP for arms control: 

neither the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff apparently have such a full-text retrieval 

system. 

The Rureau OF Xuclear and Weapons Control (NWC) relies on 

several data retrieval programs. NWC's Arms Transfer Division 

uses AnATE to identify and locate records of past arms transfer 

cases that are relevant to the nivision's consideration of 

pending cases. NrrJC's Defense Programs Analysis division Prepares ACDA's annual World Military Expenditures and Arms -.--. Transfers (WMPAT) pu~<~~~retr~l~arqe amounts of 

-stored in a WMAAT program. The International Nuclear 

Affairs Division of NW uses data stored in a spent fuel program in addressing foreign government positions on spent 

nuclear reactor fuel. Al I. three Droqrams, operated on the USRA 

DEC, are highlv valued by their users. In particular, Arms 

Transfer nivision officials consider ARATF to he an invaluable 

and integral part of their effort. 

34 
PEI4DIX VI v 

UNITED STATES ARMS CONTROL AND DISARMAMENT AGENCY 

Washin(l(on. DC. 20451 

September 12, 1983 

The Honorable Charles A. Bowsher 

Comptroller General 

of the United States 

Washington, D. C. 20548 

Attention: Mr. Frank C. Conahan 

Dear Mr. Bowsher: 

The Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) has reviewed 

the United States General Accounting Office draft report 

"Need to Improve Management of ACDA's Automatic Data Processing and Operations Analysis Functions (GAO/NSIAD-83- I", as 

forwarded with your August 26 letter. 

Parts of the report will be useful as we continue to review 

ACDA's operating practices and procedures. Certain sections, 

however, require clarification or correction. Our comments 

in this regard are enclosed. I would also like to point out 

that four reviews related to areas covered by the report will 

be undertaken. These will cover ADP planning procedures, 

computer security, operations analysis needs of the Agency, 

and the Paperwork Reduction Act as it applies to ACDA. 

Sincerely, 

Kenneth L:Adelman 

Enclosure 
APPENDIX r? 

in development and not in routine use. Althouqh some in ACnA 

believe SNAP/D will benefit ACDA, MA officials indicated that 

they saw relatively little-use for SNAP/D in MA's current or 

future operations-- particularlv qiven the absence of neqotiations on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Yowever, 

they had no other analytical work for the analyst to perform. 

In its comments on this report, ACDA stated that the Rureau is 

currently usinq the SNAP/D model. The other ex-OA staff member 

is now working entirely on matters that (10 not include operations analysis MA has not utilized CS for assistance. 

NWC officials informed us that some degree of analytical 

work regardinq weapons systems, arms sales, and non-proliferation is conducted within the Rureau. Of the OA staff'members 

WC acquired in 1982, one has left ACDA after havinq overseen 

the phasing-out of an ACDA nuclear safeguards project, and the 

other Is continuing his previous work. Althouqh NWC previously 

utilized OA, we were told that it has not turned to CS for 

assistance since OA'a demise. 

The Assistant Director for VI informed us that the Rureau 

often turns for help to CS or VI's Senior Adviser for 

Operations Research. The primarv use of such assistance is 

apparently for difficult statistical analysis, although CS has 

also been employed for graphics work. 

ACDA's Office of the Director apparently no lonqer uses 

ACDA's operations analysis capabilities as extensively as it 

once did. Accordins to one official in the Office of the 

Director, VI's Senior Adviser on Operations Research has been 

asked only once since DA's abolishment to assess data for the 

Office OS the Director. CS has, however, performed some 

graphics work for the Director. 

36 

,,,.’ 

, ‘L ,: 

. . 

.’ 
APPENDIX VI ,, 

Compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act 

ACDA management had previously discussed with OMB the Agency’s 

compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, and OMB indicated that the ACDA's actions under this Act are appropriate given 

its size and data sources. However, ACDA will again review the 

requirements of the Act with OMB and the ACDA's General Counsel 

to see if any corrective action would be in order. 

ADP Management Systems 

During 1981-1982 ACDA was in the process of adjusting computer 

analytical support capabilities to bring them in line with the 

Agency's financial and personnel resources and to ensure that 

available analytical support was of the type required for the 

activities of the Agency's line bureaus. At that time, computer 

capacity was in excess of the Agency's requirements with the principal equipment (DEC 2060) operating at considerably less than 

full capacity and incapable of handling any classified material. 

Prior to the reorganization all line bureaus were requested to 

identify the computer assistance they needed to accomplish their 

mission, and all such requests for support were approved. 

The Agency has in the past considered requests for computer 

and analytical support by line bureaus or other organizational 

units through the budget process. Both top and mid-level managers 

of the Agency are involved in support justifications for budget 

requests . ACDA's Budget and Accounting Officer has been incorrectly quoted as saying "Data processing users do not participate 

in ADP planning through the budget process." (SEE GAO NOTE 4.) 

After ACDA terminated the lease on the DEC 2060, a study was 

initiated to determine how new computer technology could be used 

to meet ACDA's present needs. This study has been done with consideration of the support requirements of the line bureaus, and 

ACDA is in the final selection process for additional ADP equipment. 

ACDA's Director is initiating a review of the Agency's ADP planning 

procedures including consideration of a more formal ADP user survey 

to assist in ADP decision making. 

. 

Computer Security 

Presently ACDA is obtaining computer support from two 

principal sources: (1) Computer Services Agreement with the 

U.S. Railway Association (USRA), and (2) support provided by the 

Agency's Computer Group which operates and maintains the ACDAowned WANG facility. USRA has assured ACDA that it has taken all 

reasonable precautions to ensure the security of service provided 
APPEND IX VI 

Arms Control and Disarmament Agency 

Comments on Draft Report "Need to Improve Management of 

ACDA's Automatic Data Processing and Operations Analysis 

Functions (GAO/NSIAD-83- )' 

ACDA Estimate of Savings Resultin 

from Closing of the Rosslyn FacilCfte 

The GAO draft report states that $684,000 savings were 

related to the reorganization and relocation actions that effected 

the former Office of Operations Analysis (OA) and computer support 

and implies that ACDA overstated these savings. ACDA's estimate of 

$1.3 million savings referred to in the draft report included total 

Rosslyn savings identified for contract, library and computer 

changes. 

ACDA does not agree with the conclusion that no salary savings 

resulted from the reassignment of OA personnel, because six of them 

were reassigned to existing vacancies in the line bureaus for which 

they were qualified. If these transfers had not occurred the line 

bureaus would have needed to recruit more staff at added salary 

expense for the Agency. In this respect, the abolishment of OA and 

the elimination of a secretarial position created a savings of 

$406,206. (SEE GAO NOTE 1.) 

ACDA also does not agree that recurring savings that are 

realized year after year should be reduced by $90,939 for a onetime moving and construction cost for the WANG computer. This 

is not a generally accepted financial analysis technique and 

understates actual annual savings. The one time charge should 

be amortized over the years of the recurring savings. (SEE GAO NOTE 2.) 

b 

Regardless of the personnel savings for the six OA analysts, 

recurring savings resulting from closing of portions of the 

Rosslyn facility are as follows: 

Description 

Recurring 

$ Savings 

Computer Support $784,740 

Library 69,248 (SEE GAO NOTE 3.) 

Contract Office 58,984 

Total Rosslyn Changes $912,972 
APPENDIX WI 

1. As our report states (see pp. 26 and 31-331, ACDA told the 

Subcommittee on International Security and Scientific Affairs, 

House Foreiqn Affairs Committee, that it saved S423,281 by 

retaininq OA personnel and transferring them to the line 

bureaus. ACDA could not provide us with any documentation to 

show that the bureaus had planned outside hires, or that there 

were any outstanding vacancv announcements when the transfers 

occurred. Moreover, information we obtained at ACDA indicates 

that the Aqency had full time permanent personnel in excess of 

its fiscal year 1983 personnel ceilinq at the time of the abolishment. Therefore, we can only conclude that the bureaus Aid 

not forego actual outside hires because of the T)A transfers and 

that no ACDA net budget savings resulted from the transfers. 

2. Aqency officials told us that a fiscal year 1983 budqet 

reduction was a principal reason for abolishinq CA. Our analysis was therefore intended to determine how ACDA's actions 

helped it reduce fiscal year 1983 outlays. Because the expenditures for a new secure enclosure occurred in fiscal year 1983, 

our treatment of the $90,939 expense is appropriate. The report 

states clearly that this expense is a one-time cost, and that 

some savings will recur in future years. 

3. For our analysis disputihq ACDA's claimed savings related to 

the librarv, see our reports, "Information on ACDA's Personnel 

and Eudqet Levels and Related Flatters," (GAO/NSIAD-83-61 or 

GAO/MSIAD-83-63, September 13, 1983). 

4. ACDA has taken the first part of a sentence from our draft 

report and presented it as a complete quotation. The report 

actually says, "Accordinq to ACDA's Rudqet and Accountinq 

Officer, data processinq users do not participate in ADP planninq throuqh the budget process, although they may informally 

state their needs to CS." Our sentence accurately characterizes 

the information provided to us durinq our review. More importantly, we believe that AMA's budget process is not a 

satisfactory means of ADP planninq. 

41 
APPENDIX VI 

3 

ACDA. The Agency's owned WANG computer is installed in a secure 

facility which meets existing classified data security requirements. While the Agency is not aware of any computer security 

problems, the Director will initiate a review to ensure that the 

intent of OMB Circular A-71 is being followed and, if necessary, 

to take corrective action. 

Review of Operations Analysis' Capabilities 

Operations Analysis techniques are a support function to 

assist the line bureaus in meeting their objectives. These 

and other support requirements vary with changing external and 

internal conditions. Line bureaus are authorized to request the 

type of support they require to accomplish their mission. ACDA's 

Director will review with the Agency's top management the need 

for instituting a more formal assessment of these requirements, 

to determine if management system changes are needed to help 

the Agency carry out its work effectively. 

Enclosure IV - Summary of Operations Analysis' 

Abolishment and GAO's Claimed Savings 

Enclosure IV states some ACDA officials believe that the 

abolishment of the Office of Operations Analysis was at least in 

part politically motivated. There is no basis for this claim. 

No Agency official took any action related to the abolishment of 

the Office of Operations Analysis during the current Administration which was based on political considerations. (SEE GAO NOTE 5.) 

Enclosure V - Current ACDA Use of ADP 

Enclosure V improperly states the views of ACDA's Multilateral 

Affairs Bureau (MA) concerning Operations Analysis and computer 

support. The MA Bureau senior officials believe that Operations 

Analysis support for their bureau varies with changing conditions 

and the statement that "they envision no future needs" is incorrect. The Bureau is currently using the SNAP/D model and has 

requested the use of AIRS. (SEE GAO NOTE 6.) 
. 
APPENDIX VT 

5. Our report accurately presents the views of officials who 

supported OA's abolishment and of those who opposed this action. 

Recause of the subjective basis for many of the opinions 

expressed, we did not endorse either view. 

6. Our draft report accurately reflected what we were told during our review by the MA officials. We have updated the report 

to include the new information provided in ACDA's comments. 

(465279 ) 

42 

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 

UNITED STATES 

GENERAL ACCOUNTlNCOFFICE 

WASHINGTON.D.C.20548 

WtitAGE AN0 YEES PAW 

U. B. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

THlRD CLASS