URBAN INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND URBAN MANAGEMENT DECISIONS AND CONTROL. Nathan D. Grunctstein*

URBAN INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND URBAN MANAGEMENT DECISIONS AND CONTROL Nathan D. Grunctstein* A system d e fin itio n of general v a lid ity has no p a rtic u la r relevance fo r the content of th is paper. At th e o u tse t, th e re fo re, a l l concern w ith tn e generic concept of a system w ill be put to one sid e. Nor w ill th ere be any re s o rt to a form al d e fin itio n of a system. At th e same tim e, i t i s conceded th a t th e problem of a form al system d e fin itio n i s not w ithout i t s d if f ic u l t i e s. (Ref. 1) There i s no in te n tio n in t n is paper to proceed by examining what e x is ts e m p iric a lly in tn e way of automated inform ation in s ta lla tio n s f o r urban a u th o ritie s and then to appraise th e extent to wnich they, as in form ation s tru c tu re s, deviate from th e a ttrib u te s of a form ally defined system. (R ef. 2) I t i s th e t r i a d of urban management and urban planning and inform ation te c h nology th a t is my concern. A linkage between them i s necessary in order to move tow ards a kind of urban inform ation system, one f o r which th e designatio n Urban Management Inform ation System i s su ita b ly d e sc rip tiv e. 1 take i t th a t th e design of an inform ation system fo r urban management i s th e major te c h n ic a l ta sk p re s e n tly confronting inform ation technolo g ists and urban p lan n ers. At p resen t both urban planning ana inform ation technology are w ithout any focus f o r conceptually p attern in g urban management. I t is possible to have inform ation in s ta lla tio n s and stru c tu re s and an aly tic ro u tin es (aata banks, inform ation storage and r e tr ie v a l, and sim ulation) th a t are not lin k ed to em piric urban management decision and c o n tro l stru c tu re s, in tfiis stage ox' th in g s, sep arate and beyond tn e urban planner and h is models i s "ultim ate decision-m aking" (Rer. 3), There i s nothing to in d ic a te th a t th is not tne dominant s itu a tio n today. What urban planners and those diverse p ro iessio n als in urban renewal and tra n s p o rta tio n who have u tiliz e d im orm ation technology have so f a r done i s to b u ild th e in f r a -s tru c tu re fo r an Urban Management Inform ation System. I t Professor and D irecto r of th e Graduate Program in Public Management Science, Department of P o litic a l Science, western Reserve U niversity 1

i s p rim a rily an a n a ly tic in fra -s tru c tu re. Contemporary urban management (that, i s urban management sin c e 19^7) has long needed a way of d isag g reg a tin g th e urban community fo r purposes of management, decision and c o n tro l. This i s more than a m atter of data banks and inform ation storage and re tr ie v a l. What has now been worked out are a n a ly tic techniques fo r tim e- phased, m u lti-v a ria b le disaggregations (m icro -an aiy sis) of tu e urban communi t y in term s o f: (1 ) area {2) tra n s p o rta tio n (3) p ro je c t and 14-) population d iffe re n tia tio n th a t have d e sc rip tiv e and p re d ic tiv e u t i l i t y fo r uroan developm ent. (R ef. 4) The autom ation of d ata and processes fo r d ata an aly sis i s not to be equated w ith an Urban Management Inform ation System. And a t th is p o in t in th e s ta te of th e a r t i t i s prem ature to ta lk of a t o t a l systems approach to informatio n f o r urban management.. Viewed from a systems standpoin t, urban management d ecisio n s a re a composite of a n a ly tic and so c io -s tru c tu ra l decision processes. I t i s in f a c t e s s e n tia l to th in k in term s of an in te rfa c e of th ese a n a ly tic and s o c io -s tru c tu ra l d ecisio n p rocesses. The in te rla c e between them as rev ealed by types and p a tte rn s of urban management decisions can be viewed as em p irical in d ic a to rs of requirem ents fo r organizing urban management inform ation a t a systems le v e l. While a t t h is stage ta lk of a t o t a l systems approach i s prem ature ( i f not p re te n tio u s ), th e re i s need nonetheless f o r a stra te g y by waich to progress to a systems le v e l in b u ild in g urban management inform ation system s. The choice of systems b u ild in g stra te g y to be p re fe rre d i s th a t which s a tis f ie s c e rta in requirem ents. I t should poin t th e way to a u se fu l decom position or d isa g g re g a tio n or tn e urban community f o r purposes of urban management dec is io n and c o n tro l. I t should fav o r sp e c ific ra th e r than gross inform ation and c o n tro l system s. I t should search f o r c o m p a tib ility and complementarity between th e a n a ly tic (q u a n tita tiv e ) and the s o c io -s tru c tu ra l (b eh avio ral). I t should u t i l i z e concepts of c o n tro l and d ecision in re la tio n to urban management. To s e t out th e foregoing as c r i t e r i a fo r a stra te g y ox systems b u ilain g i s to a s s e rt th a t an Uroan Management Inform ation System as an inform ation system snould be s p e c ific to th e bases of community disaggregation and to d ecisio n and c o n tro l s tru c tu re s c h a ra c te riz in g urban management in a community. A way s t i l l has to be thought out oy which to feed th e c o n trib u tio n s of th e a n a ly tic techniques of m icro-analysis and models f o r th e so lu tio n of planning problems in to em piric management d ecisio n and c o n tro l s tru c tu re s. Inform ation f o r m icro -an aiy sis and model co n stru ctio n i s not th e equivalent of urban management inform ation. In sh o rte st supply a re concepts of c o n tro l and d e cisio n f o r urban management, w ithout which th ese processes cannot be given an o p e ra tio n a l lo g ic c o n siste n t w ith systems requirem ents. Some schem atic and diagrammatic re p re se n ta tiv e s may be u se fu l here as dev ices f o r rep e rceiv in g urban management d ecisio n and c o n tro l. We can look a t tn e urban management system as composed of a number of in te r - r e ia te d components. Two of th e se urban management components are co n tra sted in fig u re 1. 2

Planning Decision Management Component C ity Functional Management Component Most D ire c tio n a l Future d ecisio n o rien ted Comprehensive p o lic y o rien ted Plan choices o rien ted Legal c o n tro ls o rien ted Land use o rie n te d Least d ire c tio n a l Present decision o rien ted D iscrete a c tiv ity o rien ted Operations decisions o rien ted M anagerial co n tro ls o rien ted S e rv ices-^ facilities o rien ted Figure 1* There i s a tendency towards p o la rity in th e resp ectiv e o rg an izatio n al orienta tio n s of th ese two components* I t produces a s itu a tio n of p o te n tia l conf l i c t, which can be am eliorated by th e presence of a meeting ground, Uroan renewal has provided a meeting ground through i t s focus upon area and p ro je c t, and through i t s CRP requirem ent of a tim e-phased program of renewal a c tiv ity. On th e whole i t i s an interm ediate meeting ground. The CRP program, in management term s, l ie s between d is c re te a c tiv ity, on th e one hand, and comprehensive planning, on th e o th er. We may now s tru c tu re th e se t of components of th e urban management system as in F igure 2, Planning Decision Management Component Comprehens ive Plan Formulation of Area-Project Choices Urban Renewal Management Component Program Composition Program Management Program Implementation Requirements CRP Coordination of Urban Renewal and City Management Camponents Choice Renewal of Strategies Program Magnitude Priorities Time Phasing City Management System Urban Objectives Fiscal Master Plan Design of Renewal Operating Project Plans X Project r Services Operations Urban Renewal Capacity Capital Improvements Community Facilities' Qrogram Authorization Figure 2. 3

A form al stru c tu re oi tm s kina provides some in d ic a tio n or tn e complexity contained w ith in an urban management system. Complexity, in tu rn, p oints up tn e p o ssib le u t i l i t y ox d iffe re n tia tin g urban management on some basxs ana constru ctin g com patibly d iffe re n tia te d management inform ation systems fo r d ecision ana c o n tro l. The re le v a n t p a r a lle l i s th e d iffe re n tia tio n 01 corporate m anagerial functio n s to dem onstrate th a t complex automated management inform ation systems cannot be used fo r a n types of management problems. Deardon u iire re n tia te o corporate management functions in to (1 ; s tra te g ic planning (corporate p o n - cxes ana o b jectiv e s ana resources a llo c a tio n s ); (2)management c o n tro l (decom position of plans in to fu n ctio n al components w ith o rg an izatio n al d i s t r i bution of r e s p o n s ib ilitie s ) ; ana (3) o p e ra tio n a l c o n tro l (determ ination oi an operations budget composed of implementation requirem ents fo r each plan su b d iv isio n, ana performance co n tro ls to ensure consistency w ith p la n s). He notes th a t th is tr ia d ic d is tin c tio n " is not com pletely determined by tne h iera rch y w ithin a company. 1 (Kef. 5) Deardon a s s e rts th a t automated in fo rm atio n -contro l systems are "not a t a l l applicable to tn e ty p ic a l management c o n tro l system" oecause they are ra d ic a lly d iffe re n t from o p eratio n al c o n tro l system s. As fo r tne computer and s tra te g ic planning: About tn e only char a c t e r i s t i c of s tra te g ic planning tn a t f i t s in to tn e computer c a p a b ilitie s i s th a t s tr a te g ic decisions sometimes involve many in te ra c tin g v a ria b le s. Because of t n is, th e general business sim ulation may prove to be of considerable value in s tr a te g ic planning. The general business sim ulation, however, i s e n tir e ly d iffe re n t from th e ty p ic a l automated opera tio n a l c o n tro l system ana i s aimed a t solving a d iffe re n t s e t of problem s. The general business sim ulation i s designed to allow management to t e s t th e long-range e ffe c ts of d iffe re n t courses of a c tio n before making a d ecision as to w ix^. course to embark on. (Ref. 6) In tn e f i e l u of planning a tte n tio n a t tne p resent tim e is focused p rim a rily on p re o ic tiv e ana planning models as bases fo r an inform ation system fo r management a ecisio n s about urban renew al. The main concern of th ese models is w ith tu e p o litic o - s tr a te g ic area of urban management d ecisio n, i f we u t i l iz e th e d if f e r e n tia tio n of Deardon on th e supposition th a t w ith resp ect to inform ation systems urban management has some h e u r is tic a lly u se fu l p a ra lle ls w ith co rp o rate management. The th ru s t i s to use p re d ic tiv e and planning models to provide a te c h n ic a l p oint of e n try and a pathway by wnich planners can lin k up w ith to p m anagerial and p o litic a l urban decision makers. There i s r e la tiv e ly no in te r e s t on th e p a rt of planners in th e o p e ra tio n a l co n tro l area of renewal program management, where a p p lic a tio n s of PERI1 techniques to p ro je c t scheduling and a v a rie ty of engineering a d m in istratio n problems are th e concern ox urban management. (Ref. 7) What i s p re sen tly a l l but oypassed i s th e area of management c o n tro l, and here th e Government Sub-Model of The P ittsb u rg n Urban Renewal Sim ulation Model should be regarded as a pioneer p ro to ty p e. (Ref. 0) The in te r r e la tio n of a rea, population and w elfare goals dependent upon urban serv ices and f a c i l i t i e s p o in ts to th e need fo r a sp e c ia liz e d management inform ation sub-system fo r th e area of management c o n tro l.

For purposes of design, an Urban Management inf ormation System should (1) posit, some kind oi content d iffe re n tia tio n of urban managerial decision and c e n tra l a c tiv ity and (2) move to an e x p lic it mapping of the in te rfa c e oi' a n a ly tic and socio s tru c tu ra l processes in urban management decisions* For each d iffe re n tia te d area of urban management something lik e th e follow ing would e x ists 1* P o litic o -s tra te g ic c la ss of problems - se t of decision makers - so c ia l stru c tu re fo r d ecisio n - an aly tic tecnniques - inform ation content - informa tio n technology 2, M anagerial c la ss of problems - se t of decision makers - so c ia l stru c tu re f o r d ecision - a n aly tic techniques - inform ation content - informa tio n technology 3. O perational c la ss of problems - s e t of decision makers - so c ia l stru c tu re fo r d ecisio n - an aly tic techniques - inform ation content - informa tio n technology So f a r, c h a rts of inform ation loops and flows around a decision sequence get a t th e s e subcomponents of a management inform ation system in ad eq u ately. They ten d to be dominated by a t a c i t, a n a ly tic a lly Diased lo g ic of informatio n flow and u t iliz a tio n, along w ith which goes an im p lic it paradigm fo r d e cisio n. F igures 3 and 4 diagram a renewal decision sequence and informatio n flow. Both b u ild from th e a n a ly tic technique of a sim ulation model. While th e y d if f e r in th a t Figure takes com puterization as th e c rite rio n f o r a more e x p lic it ra tio n a liz a tio n of th e decision sequence, they are a lik e in th a t both recognize th e sig n ifican ce fo r th e decision makers of informatio n e x te rn a l to th e computer sim ulation. F ig u re 3. 5

Pre-Computer Stage Computer Stage Post-Computer Stage Data Compilations Data Bank Information Computer Storage (memory) Data Variables Data Inputs For Simulation Analysis Submission of Computer Results To Decision-Makers Analytic Refinements and Empirical Checks Evaluation of Simulation Analysis Screened Decision Alternatives / Computer Simulation of Screened Alternatives Renewal Decisions Re-examination of Decision Constraints Constraints Imposed by Decision- Makers Non-Computeri zed Decision Factors IImplementations Formulation of Renewal Alternatives For Decisions Data on Implementation Effects J1 Figure This i s a not y e t re a lly adequate way of in d ic a tin g th a t in r e a l ity a m u ltip le inform ation system c h a ra c te riz e s a p a rtic u la r c la ss of urban renewal d e cisio n s. What i t suggests i s th e p o s s ib ility of incongruence between the inform a.tion system of th e s o c ia l stru c tu re fo r urban decision and th a t of th e a jialy tic s tru c tu re (planning a n a ly s ts.) Inform ation technology is le s s s k i l l f u l in i t s approach to th e u tiliz a tio n of inform ation w ithin th e socios tr u c tu r a l re la tio n s h ip s fo r urban d ecisio n and more s k i l lf u l in i t s approach to th e u t iliz a tio n of inform ation in processes a sso c iated w ith d e te r m inate techniques o f a n a ly sis. I t i s no accident th a t in th e tr ia d ic r e la tio n o f planner - model b u ild e r - decision maker (politico-m anager) - the t i e is between planner and model b u ild e r. " I t is freq u e n tly th e ir [planner] methodology being implemented and made e x p lic it through th e use of th e modelsi F u rth e r, i t i s th e ir decision-m alting process which alleg e d ly is to be enh anced. In no case to date has th e re been, however, a tr u ly d a ily working re la tio n s h ip y e t e sta b lish e d where urban renewal planners and decision makers are te s tin g out new a lte rn a tiv e s through th e use of computer models b u i lt fo r them." (R ef.9) P a rtic u la rly fo r th e p o litic o - s tr a te g ic area, of urban decision and c o n tro l, progress towards an Urban Management Inform ation System w ill p lateau-o u t except as inform ation technology can breach th e s o c io -s tru c tu ra l processes o f urban d ecisio n. J u s t as th e model b u ild e rs moved to tr a n s la te planner methodology and d ecisio n process in to models u se fu l fo r renewal decision purposes, so should they now move in to close in te ra c tio n w ith th e p o litic o - m anagerial members of th e urban d ecision stru c tu re. Only through th is in te r a ctio n can they g et a t th e s o c ia l and behavioral mechanisms by which are made m anifest those fa c to rs m ethodologically exogenous to an impact (simu- 6

la tio n ) model; namely, decision ru le s, so c ia l preferences, goals, values and tra d e -o ffs. An urban renewal d ecisio n i s ex tracted from a s e t of choice p o s s ib ilitie s about urban renew al. There a re s o c ia l mechanisms f o r searcning out o r d i s covering urban renewal choice p o s s ib ilitie s. In a s itu a tio n of m ultiple search a c tiv ity, wnicn i s c h a r a c te r is tic, planners are not th e only persons engaged in th e search f o r urban renewal choice p o s s ib ilitie s. The search by planners may be: 1, In p o te n tia l com petition w ith otner searches by non-planners; 2, in d iffe re n t to choice p o s s ib ilitie s suggested by o tn er searcners; 3, Accommodated to urban renewal choices proposed by o th e r se arc h ers; &, D irected to b u ilding upon and enlarging a compatible reaewal choice p o s s ib ility suggested by o tn er non-public searcners, Tne choice p o s s ib ilitie s put fo rtn by planners can be taken to represent th e product of c o n tro lle d search techniques and of p ro fessio n ally held values w ith resp ect to th e urban community. They may also be the product of mandato ry c r i t e r i a imposed by renewal le g is la tio n and assigned to planners fo r im plem entation, such as th e elim ination of o lig n t. At one extrem e, urban renewal i s th e handmaiden of planning. At the otner extrem e, i t i s tn e handmaiden of public p o licy irre sp e c tiv e of planning values a sso c ia te d w ith physical land u se. By v irtu e of expanding th e range of recognized land use claim ants, to g eth er w itn an expanded v a rie ty of soci a l values and o b je c tiv e s fo r which urban land may be used on th e ir behalf; and by enlargement of tn e le g a l p o s s ib ilitie s fo r m anipulating space u t i l iz a tio n on behalf of th e se recognized claim ants, urban renewal le g is la tio n has transform ed tn e a llo c a tio n of urban space in to a problem of public policy p refe ren c es. That le g is la tio n, n ev erth eless, supports congruence between th e public p o lic y bases bf renewal decisions and th e planning values in co rp o rated in a comprehensive plan fo r a c ity. On th e one hand, th e CRP i s a v e h ic le f o r th e re a liz a tio n of tn e comprehensive plan; on the o th er, th a t plan can be adapted to the preferences in je c te d by public p o licy in to urban renew al, While a l l t n i s i s exogenous to any sim ulation model, i t is th e source of a number of questions th a t l i e a t th e thresnnold of any a p p licatio n of a model. I t i s su rp risin g th e number of f i r s t order questions tn a t can oe asked about th e a p p lic a tio n of a sim ulation nodei fo r urban renewal tn a t are p re s e n tly w ithout an answer. To i l l u s t r a t e : ^1) What renewal choice p o s s ib ilitie s should be sim ulated? (2) what computer outputs are s ig n if i cant fo r d ecisio n purposes (th a t i s, in what form should renewal choices be presented f o r sim ulation)? (3) Who are th e decision makers (th a t i s, who should submit renewal choices ±or computer sim ulation)? In terms of gross design a lte rn a tiv e s f o r an inform ation system, th e p o lar choices are between a sim ple a u th o r ita tiv e computer access system and a m u ltip le access comp u ter system. Choice a t a p o lic y le v e l by persons in m ulti-valued, c o lle g ia l, bargaining, interest-accom m ouating decision stru c tu re s i s now tn e object ol system atic em pirical th eo ry, (Ref, lu ) The way Inform ation i s used in tnese decision s tru c tu re s i s not sin g led out fo r any sp e c ia l a n a ly sis. That task i s in - 7

h e n te d by tnose whose work i t i s to design an Urban Management inform ation System u tiliz in g p re d ic tio n and planning models fo r management decision and c o n tro l. Urban planning and tn e p o litic o -s tra te g ic c o n tro l se c to r of urban management have always had some kind of working re la tio n s h ip. Not so, however, f o r th e re la tio n s h ip of urban planning to management c o n tro l. An iru. ox-mation system f o r urban management th a t lin k s planning to th e management c o n tro l se c to r in tro d u ces an innovation in th e re la tio n s h ip of planning to urban management, H is to ric a lly, urban planning nas never been tie d to m anagerial cont r o l of se rv ices ana f a c i l i t i e s as an in te g ra l p a rt of land use c o n tro l and lan a use p o lic y. What i s th e inform ation base tnrougn wnicn th e two can be tie d? avery re newal p ro je c t assumes th e provision of f a c i l i t i e s and serv ices fo r a sp e c ific population and a re a. Planners* questions have to do w itn (1) id e n tific a tio n ana in te rre la tio n s h ip s of th e s o c ia l, demographic, and p h y sical fa c to rs th a t generate demand f o r d iffe re n t serv ices and f a c i l i t i e s (c a u s a lity ;; (2) tn e probable impact of tn e p rev isio n s or w ithholaing of serv ices and f a c i l i t i e s on land uses anu population movement ^ p re d ic tio n ); and U ) c r i t e r i a to govern th e s p a tia l lo c a tio n of i a c i l i t i e s and se rv ic e s, both as between renewal p ro je c t areas and as between them and non-renewal areas o± th e c ity (maximiz atio n J, Tne inform ation needs ox a p re d ic tio n (im pact) model should be d istin g u ish ed from those of a management c o n tro l system. The base in i Ox-mat ion f o r planners* d ecisio n s cannot be used as tn e inform ation fo r management c o n tro l d e c isio n s, A d is tin c tio n siiouiv^ a lso be made between an a n a ly tic foundation fo r urpan management anu fu n c tio n a lly o p erativ e urban management. The d is tin c tio n i s compelled by pragmatic reaso n s. The a n a ly tic and th e p ra c titio n e r personnel are two d iffe re n t o rg an iz atio n al groups, Tne a n aly sts want to use renewal programming f o r planning purposes anu advance i t as a b a sis fo r urban management th a t i s c o n siste n t w itn planning. Planners* questions are form ulated in r e la tio n to program planning d ecisio n s; th e operativ e questions oi urban management c o n tro l are not n e c e ssa rily so form ulated, 1 am back to th e re c u rre n t issu e or th e c o n jo in t presence of th e a n a ly tic ana s o c io - s tr u c tu r a l, which reappears as a g en eralized problem in tn e design of an Urban management Inform ation System a t each d iffe re n tia te d le v e l of urban management. P la c in g d ecisio n s in tn e form of renewal program cnoices havo to be transform eu in to management d e cisio n s. To th e managers t h is i s more tn an a m atter of macnematicai c a lc u la tio n and projec cion of im pacts, Tne urban r e a l i t y perceptions and guiding lo g ic of managers are a t variance w itn th o se oi tn e a n a ly tic p lan n ers. Urban managers perceive and reason as fo llo w s: (1) There i s no piace or personas; wno knows wnat community goaib should b e. hence, every a llo c a tio n of re so u rc e s i s pragm atic an^ re p re se n ts a d is c re te d e cisio n. (2) Tne c e n tra l c ity i s cnaracte riz e d by too much cnange ana by changes tn a t are too disp ersed to enabxe urban management to w ait u n t il a concrete plan f o r th e whoie community i s e sta b lis h e d. (3) only a p ro je c t type o i CRP fe a s ib le, magnitude a t a program le v e l Ox. urban renew al i s immense ana unmanageable. Urban management can om y o eai w ith nibbling p ro je c ts tnao are manageable, rro je c ts are contained, s p e c in c, and snort run, (<+) Short term, oay-^o-day prooiems 6

are c r i t i c a l l o r urban management# (5 / The contents of plaus have an unscaoj.e q u a lity. In a c tu a lity th ere i s a lo t of sw itching of monies around to d eal w ith sp e c ific proposals. (6) There i s no se t body of decision matcers and d ecisio n procedures. There are influence sub-groups as w ell as d ecision makers. (7) The se le c tio n of areas fo r renewal actio n is not a cnoice b u t a response t o autonomously generated community p ressu re s in v o lv ing s o c ia l w elfare considerations as w e n as economic c r i t e r i a. (8) Uroan management does not neea a renewal program, but a program fo r management of th e c ity to meet what i t knows l ie s ahead, in th e way of problems fo r the c ity. (9) The c ity does not go in to renewal fo r purely planning consideratio n s, but uses renewal p ro jects as sp e c ific responses to sp e c ific f e l t d e fic ie n c ie s about th e c ity. We are now a t th e h e a rt of th e m atter; 'urban management cannot manage from a planning-renew al inform ation system. A management decision model cannot be a sub-part of an urban renewal sim ulation model. The p ra c titio n e r managers have need fo r a model geared to th e ir decision requirem ents. The p ra c titio n e r managers w ill subordinate a planning decision model to th e over-reaching requirem ents of urban management decision and co n tro l. At th e same tim e, th e p ra c titio n e r managers are not in d iffe re n t to the le v e l a t which urban management can tr y fo r consistency in i t s decisions with the r a tio n a lity of a planning-renew al model. The overriding in te r e s t of the urban management decision s tru c tu re is in the f is c a l and operating loads and changes in th e operating decision ru le s of th e c ity agencies. The problems of land use management have became c r i t i c a l in terms of th e ir cash flow im p licatio n s and t h e ir revenue-expenditure im p licatio n s. Urban management i s stru g g lin g a g ain st th e dim inishing f is c a l f le x ib ility of th e c ity. There i s a search fo r replacem ent equivalents fo r lo s t revenue sources and fo r in crem ental revenue sources. There i s a concern fo r re a liz in g th e promised f i s c a l b e n e fits from any investm ent in physical renewal and land use changes. The concern of urban management w ith agency operating loads and decision ru le s r e f le c ts a concern w ith th e m anageability of urban services a c tiv ity le v e ls. Urban management is expected to a lte r agency le v e ls of service a c tiv ity where th ese fu nction as undesirable c o n stra in ts on planning-renewal d ecisio n s. Demands fo r any s ig n ific a n t l i f t i n g of serv ice le v e l a c tiv ity, i f recognized, must lead to th e in tro d u ctio n of a form of management planning, which, in tu rn, w ill compel changes in th e s tru c tu ra l bases of management c o n tro l o f serv ice a c tiv itie s. Radical improvement in the e ffe c tiv e ness w ith which th ese serv ices are managed cannot otherw ise be obtained. At th e same tim e, an in crease in th e le v e l of serv ice expenditures w ill be accompanied by an in crease in operating c o sts. Every increase in operating c o sts fo rces urban management to search fo r an increm ental expansion of th e urban income base to cover these co sts. Grants from the ex tern al economy do not com pletely underw rite a l l c ity expenditures. In sh o rt, planning d ecisio n s w ill of n e cessity be transform ed in to m anagerial decisions and s tra te g ie s and judged accordingly. At th e le v e l of urban management control, a r e a l consequence o f planning decisions based upon model outputs is what they imply in th e way o f changes in both th e b a sis and system of urban management i t s e l f. A. system of urban management inform ation a t th e le v e l o f management c o n tro l re q u ire s a so c io -stru c tu ra l foundation. Without i t inform ation i s n e ith e r generated nor u tiliz e d fo r management decision. The r e q u is ite s o c io -s tru c tu ra l foundation should follow upon th e innovation of an a p p ro p riate form o f coordinated management planning a t th e le v e l of management co n tro l* What management p lanning can do a t t h i s le v e l i s provide 9

th e e s s e n tia l c e n tra liz a tio n of c o n tro l decisions to deal w ith th e interm ix of population, p ro je c t, f a c i l i t i e s, and serv ices on an a re a l b a sis w ithin th e c ity. REFERENCES: 1. E llis, David 0. and Ludwig, Fred J. "Basic Systems Concepts," Systems Philosophy, P ren tice H a ll, 1962. L evenstein, Harold and Feigenbaum, Donald E., "D efin itio n s o f Systems Engineering Terms," Conference Paper, I 96U Systems Science C onference, IEEE, P h ila d e lp h ia. Sengupta, S. Sankar and Ackoff, R ussell L., Systems Theory from an Operations Research P o in t o f View," Conference Paper, I 96U Systems Science Confe re n c e, IEEE, P h ilad elp h ia. 2. P ric e, Dennis G. and M u lv ih ill, Dennis E., "The P resent and Future Use of Computers in S ta te Government," Public A dm inistration Review, pp. 1U2-150, June, 1965* 3. S teg er, Wilbur A., "Review o f A nalytic Techniques fo r th e CRP," Jo u rn al o f th e American I n s titu te o f P lanners, p. 172, May, 1965* 1+. "Urban Development Models: New Tools fo r H an n in g," Special Issu e, Jo u rn al o f th e American I n s titu te o f P lanners, May, 1965. 5. Deardon, John, "Can Management Inform ation be Automated?" Harvard B u sin ess Review, M arch-a pril, 196k. 6. R eference 5> a t page 133. 7. Heintzlem an, W alter G., "Adm inistering th e Engineering Program o f the Urban Redevelopment A uthority o f P ittsb u rg h," U n iv ersity o f P ittsburgh, G.S.P.I.A., 1963. 8. "Governmental Study," CRP Progress Report No. 6, Department of C ity Planning, P ittsb u rg h, January I 96U. 9. R eference 3 a t page 170. 10. Lindblorn, C harles E., "The In te llig e n c e o f Democracy," Free P re ss,1965. NOTE: The flow diagrams are adapted from those prepared by th e author fo r th e P ittsb u rg h Department o f C ity Planning in conjunction w ith th e development o f th e P itts b u rg h Urban Renewal Sim ulation Model. 10